Talk:Shtokman field

Untitled
As both names--Stockman and Russian transcription Shtokman--are in use, the article probably has to refer to both. Beagel 22:41, 9 September 2006
 * I'm based in Moscow and work as a journalist in the Oil and Gas Industry, and I've never seen the transliteration 'Stockman' used. 'Shtokman' is the standard and I would argue it's the only one that should be used on this page. Proletarskaya 11.11 Moscow time 18 August 2007
 * C'mon, just try "Stockman field" by Google search. Quite commonly used. Beagel 08:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Any idea after whom the field was named? Name sounds bit like Russian version of German name (Stockmann) --Mikko Paananen 20:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Can'to say for sure, but Russians have a research vessel "Professor Shtokman". Also, there are seveal quite famous Russians by name Shtokman (or Stockman or Stockmann). Beagel 17:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There is presently no approved plan for development and operation of the Shtokman discovery. Hence, the proper term for the discovery is "technical resources", or simply "resources" and not "reserves", as is says now. 62.92.82.10 08:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ref
For soem reason this refernce won't work, its for the bit about Total becoming the new partner with 25%.

Nuclear controversy
What is the reason for the inclusion of this section - the rumour from Aftenposten has been denied. Bellona is well known campaigner regarding the nuclear submarine reactors standing in the Kola peninsula but this has nothing to do with the Shtokman project. Is this a bit of free advertising for Bellona or is there further proof regarding a nuclear installation in Shtokman besides the Aftenposten claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrustyJules (talk • contribs) 07:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as noone has come forward a month and a half later I have removed the Nuclear Controversey issue as being irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrustyJules (talk • contribs) 09:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)