Talk:Efforts to stem the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

comprehensive list of efforts to stem the deepwater horizon oil spill
am I not looking in the right place here? I see no mention of tires or tennis balls, I'm gonna look for sources when I have the time 208.3.91.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC).

Who is vetting the entries? Most of the media has been incorrectly reporting on this event. There are no robots, those are autonomous. These are remotely operated vehicles. But the entry

"On July 15, 2010, BP announced that it had successfully plugged the oil leak using a tightly fitted cap. The cap, which weighs 75 tons, is a temporary solution, which is expected to last for 48 hours, though it was thought that BP may release some oil before then in order to relieve pressure on the well and avoid over-stressing the cap.[26]"

is just plain silly. This isn't a plug or a cap but a set of BOP rams, chokes and valves. Yes, it is "tightly fitting", using a remote latched AX gasket hub, unlike the "top hat" or Lower Marine Riser Package (part of the original BOP stack) Cap (the actual device). The Stacking Cap Blow Out Preventer is just an additional BOP, since the original suffered damage in the blow out and did not fully function even with ROV override.

Now, the above quoted CBS article implies the SCBOP will only hold pressure for 48 hours....wrong. It is made from Hydrill BOP rams which will hold pressure indefinitely. The AX gasket hub which mates with the adapter spool is rated for 15,000 PSI and will hold that pressure forever once latched. The chokes, the last items to be closed, will also keep pressure indefinitely. They also are rated for 15,000 PSI.

Now the item with duration of 48 hours is the Well Integrity Test. This is done to allay fears of damage to the casings (8), liners (2) or surrounding strata. This is likely to be extended because well pressure after shut-in (the process of stopping flow) has been 6745 PSI, somewhat less than the pressure predicted from the well log formation integrity test for the final drilling segment http://www.energy.gov/open/documents/3.1_Item_2_Macondo_Well_07_Jun_1900.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.134.125 (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

FRTG?
What is FRTG of which Ira Leifer is a member? &mdash;141.150.24.191 (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Relevance?
Is the statement in the Temporary Closure section referring to President Obama relevant to this article at all? Maybe if this was a newspaper or magazine editorial, but not an encyclopedia article. Jmac1962 (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Pointless article
I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia not rolling news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.19.42 (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't this in the main article about the spill itself?
I agree that it is certainly worthy of inclusion, but this particular article just screams to be included as a section on the main article about the oil spill itself, it does not need to be a separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.31.2 (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that this article has been translated into Thai Wikipedia, I don't see any reason why this should be relegated to a redirect. More steps should be taken to find more content for this article but it should remain an individual article. GVnayR (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The main argument in favour of keeping this where it is is simply that the man article is way too long. It can't be navigated comfortably as it is and adding this would make it even longer. If anything, we need to start splitting more stuff from the main article into sub-articles and trimming some of the stuff that remains, but it's difficult to do that while this is still an ongoing event and the article is attracting such a high edit rate. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have high speed internet access (broadband) and I couldn't comfortably read or edit the main article. At least in this article, people can comfortably look at the information and make edits where it's appropriate. GVnayR (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That may have as much to do with the pending changes protection as the sheer length of the article, but the main article is too long for WP style guidelines anyway. It's nice to have a quiet talk page, as well- without the nutters and conspiracy theorists that the main talk age attracts. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Efforts to stem the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100709024957/http://online.wsj.com:80/article/BT-CO-20100706-707010.html to http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100706-707010.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100729074641/http://www.newsobserver.com:80/2010/07/27/599545/bp-confirms-hayward-departure.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/07/27/599545/bp-confirms-hayward-departure.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)