Talk:Troll A platform

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Photo Added[edit]

Added a photo from Wikicommons and removed photo requestGmac101 (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

This article discusses the platform Troll A without even mentioning what platform in the Troll field it is discussing. I think that, instead of rewriting this and adding new links everywhere, it should be integrated into the already established Troll oil field article. The 'field article is a stub, but atleast it is linked to on oil production related pages, unlike this page.

Confusing[edit]

From Troll A platform:

The overall height of the platform is 472 meters and it weighs 656,000 tons.

From Troll oil field:

Total weight is 1.2 million tons, the total height is 472 meters

So is it 650,000 or 1.2 million tons?

--Grumpy444grumpy 08:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another confusing point[edit]

The picture of the construction of the gravity base: It this really the construction of Troll A? Some wikipedia article about Statfjord A claims that it is the construction of that plattform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.157.38.33 (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troll "A"[edit]

Why is it called Troll A when the first one imploded and sank during a submergence test? Shouldn't it be the Troll B? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.251.56 (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is called Troll A because it forms the hub for the Troll field collecting gas from Troll B & C and pumping it ashore. The platform you are thinking of that sank in the autumn of 1991 was intended for the Sleipner field Gmac101 (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supersonic export?[edit]

Gas rises from 40 wells, and is exported through a number of pipes at better than 2,000 miles per hour (890 m/s).

(emphasis added)

Since that must involve some novel physics, technology, or interpretation of the referenced source, I suggest more detail from a less transient reference is appropriate if this claim is to be supported. I remember viewing a NGC documentary about Troll A; I don't recall it making any such statement, but I think I'd have found it noteworthy if it did. --129.230.244.1 (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC) (Dave)[reply]

Relevance?[edit]

Royal Dutch Shell is currently developing the first floating liquefied natural gas facility, which will be situated 200 kilometres (120 mi) off the coast of Western Australia and is due for completion in around 2017.^[1] When it is finished, this will be the largest floating offshore facility. It will measure around 488-metre (1,601 ft) long and 74-metre (243 ft) wide, and when ballasted will weigh 600,000 tonnes.^[2]

How is this relevant to an article about Troll A? Bug (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/troll/troll1.html
Triggered by \boffshore-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 09:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Worker capacity[edit]

Has anyone found a reference to how many workers the platform can accommodate? --Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 00:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest? Heaviest?[edit]

"Built from reinforced concrete, as of 2014, it was the tallest structure that has ever been moved to another position, relative to the surface of the Earth"

"It is often incorrectly referenced as the heaviest object ever moved as well, but it is actually the second heaviest after another Condeep Oil platform the Gullfaks C"

"has the distinction of being the heaviest and second tallest (after the Petronius platform) structure ever moved by humankind"

I'm so confused. It's the tallest, but actually the second tallest, and it's incorrectly referred to as the heaviest but it's also the heaviest? Am I wordblind or is this all very contradictory? Mqrius (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9ccaed4a-82ba-11e0-b97c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1NADgzzOH

[2] ttp://gastoday.com.au/news/flng_gets_serious/042981/

[1]

[2]