Jump to content

User:Antshep/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suggested Reading

[edit]

Transocean's Macondo report blames BP for oil spill

This was an interesting article about the oil spill that recently happened in the gulf of mexico. One thing i found very interesting was that i thought BP was the only company that may have been involved in this spill that is far from true.I now know that there were about 5-7 companies involved in this incident. This article discusses some of the blaming that is going on for the spill and during the clean up after the spill. The article states" Transocean Ltd., owner of the Deepwater Horizon semisubmersible drilling rig that exploded and sank following the Macondo well blowout on Apr. 20, 2010, said BP PLC used a poor well design and failed to properly confirm critical cement tests." The article also states that there are some lawsuits pending in regards to money that needs to be paid in order to assist in the clean up of all the spilled oil.

Transocean LTD

The second article that i read was about the new state of the art training facility that is being built in downtown Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. This is a 32,000 square foot facility that will train 1,200 transocean employees. The article states that the reason for this facility is " With six newbuild Transocean rigs under construction in Korea and Singapore--two ultra-deepwater drillships, and four high-specification jack ups--the center will provide the most advanced training available for crews before the new rigs enter service."

Reference

[edit]

(November 7, 2011 ). TRANSOCEAN LTD.. Oil & Gas Journal, Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic

(June 27, 2011 ). Transocean's Macondo report blames BP for oil spill. Oil & Gas Journal, Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic

Articles of interest

[edit]

Transocean

RA4 Evaluate Wikipedia Article

[edit]

After reading the two articles I notices one major thing that differs between them. The Encyclopedia version only focuses on maritime usage of knot tying. The Encyclopedia also talks about the tradition of tying knots for decoration and how it showed off your experience to other sailors. The Knot article is a good article it has a broader view for the usage and history of knots. It is kind of not fair because the Encyclopedia is a maritime Encyclopedia so that why it focuses on maritime usage and history.

The sources on the Wikipedia article are pretty good the only thing that sucks about the sources is that the majority of them are books, which are good, but I would have to find every book in order to get some kind of knowledge on what the book is about. There are a few problems I found with the Internet sources I feel that Wikipedia should monitor them a little closer to keep them up to date. The source knot break strength vs. rope break strength is not working it is under review at the moment. It would be nice if Wikipedia removed or put a citation by the information that was added by the post. The Encyclopedia on the other hand does not have any Internet sources but it does have a bibliography that gives you a little sneak preview of what each source is about. This is not a huge deal but if I ever wanted to read any of these sources this would help me decide on what source to read/use.

I’m not really sure about the writing style that is being used on the Wikipedia article but I do like the way links are applied to this article. This article is laid out in a very useful and user friendly way In order to give you the reader as much knowledge on the history, usage and types of knots that are out there in the world.

The Encyclopedia of Maritime History article on knots is very good but doesn’t give any information on what types of knots are used for what types of situations or what the different knots look like which could be very useful especially if I was doing research or even just trying to learn some information on knots.

In conclusion the comparison between the Wikipedia article and the Encyclopedia of maritime article has shown me that Wikipedia has its flaws but all in all it is not that bad. If you keep in mind all the information that is given on the topic of knots it is remarkable that there is not that many mistakes or fallacies within the information.

ESSAY

[edit]

User: Antshep/Antshepdraft

Drillship

[edit]

The title of my paper might be Drillship.

Notes

[edit]

I have all my work cited but for some reason it will not show up it just repeats the first citation. Click edit and check it out and see what i did wrong thanks

[1]

  1. ^ Gaddy, Dean E. "Double-Hull Drillship, Automated Drilling, Improve Operability." Oil & Gas Journal May 25 1998: 61-4. ABI/INFORM Complete. Web. 3 Apr. 2012.

[1]

  1. ^ Dittrick, Paula. "EPA Issues Air Permits to Shell for Oil Drilling Offshore Alaska." Oil & Gas Journal Sep 26 2011: 25-. ABI/INFORM Complete. Web. 4 Apr. 2012.

[1]

  1. ^ "New Rig Designs: Shell and Frontier Joint Venture to Build the "Bully" Drillship." World Oil (2007): 1-R92. ABI/INFORM Complete. Web. 3 Apr. 2012.