Talk:Tiber Oil Field

Tiber Oil Field has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 18, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 5, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the giant Tiber oilfield was found 6 miles (10 km) down, in some of the oldest offshore rock layers ever drilled for oil?

Table issue

I'd like to include the following, but the data (especially reserves sizes) is very unclear from sources. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== Comparisons ==

Tiber is most commonly compared to two other Gulf wells, both also developed by BP: Thunder Horse (in production), and Kaskida (under appraisal):

Field	Location	Ownership	Reserves	Production	First drilled	Announced	First oil	Platform type	Water depth	Initial well depth	Formation
Thunder Horse	Mississippi canyon block 778 and later, block 822	75% BP, 25% ExxonMobil	1 billion barrels (recoverable)	300,000 barrels/day 200 million cu.ft gas	1999	July 15, 1999	June 14, 2008 (delayed from expected 2005)	Semi-submersible	6,300 ft (1,920 m)	-	-
Kaskida	Keathley Canyon block 292	70% BP, 30% Devon Energy	est. 3 billion barrels (total)	Under appraisal/ Not commenced	2006	-	Not commenced	-	-	-	-
Tiber	Keathley Canyon block 102	BP 62%, Petrobras 20%, ConocoPhillips 18%	est. 4 - 6 billion barrels (total)	Under appraisal/ Not commenced	2009	September 2 2009	Not commenced	Semi-submersible	4,132 ft (1,259 m)	-	Lower Tertiary

Update suggestion

There should probably be some mention on this page about the disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeigeRyan (talk • contribs) 06:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Beagel (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what disaster? --emerson7 13:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to read Deepwater_Horizon#Drilling_operations and get the idea that the rig explosion took place at Tiber. A brief look at the lat/long shows that the locations are a couple of hundred miles apart. Haus^Talk 15:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of Deepwater_Horizon#Drilling_operations is changed to avoid further confusions. Beagel (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination

Note no suitable free image of the well or the drilling rig exists at the moment. The only free image of the rig or well is the rig in flames, which is suitable for articles on the rig and the explosion but not really balanced as an image for its previous (and uneventful) wells. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tiber Oil Field/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Specify that it is the US sector of the Gulf. (fixed)
Use of dashes and hyphens isn't quite right. See WP:DASH. (fixed)
There is a single Wall Street Journal link which is dead. I've removed it. (fixed)
Bloomberg is a disambiguation page. (fixed)
I've removed a WSJ entry from the external links because it is a preview for a subscription page, and adds nothing as an "external link". ELs must (unlike references) be fully accessible to the general public. (fixed)
I am uncertain about the value of the external links. ELs should provide information sources which cannot be provided in the article, of copyright, space or other restrictions. If there is information in these articles that could supplement the article, instead add it too the article.
There is no information in the article about Petrobas and ConocoPhilips' partial ownership in the field.
- I jumped in and cited the Petrobras/ConocoPhilips co-ownership. Haus^Talk 00:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am accepting the reasons for there not being an image in the article, as it is very difficult thing to make a picture of.

Placing on hold. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A number of these are now marked as "fixed". Is the only issue left, the external links? Is everything else okay? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 external links are worth mention in the article. I've added a sentence or 2 using the new pages as references, and removed them as external links. (diff). Hopefully that also fixes the EL point and all is okay now. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tiber Oil Field. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]