User:Khaschekluender/sandbox

Golar LNG
Golar LNG's financial future is looking promising. The company already has 8 LNG ships, with fifty percent ownership of a ninth, and is looking to add anther six carriers. Most of the worlds LNG carriers were laid due to an large increase in U.S. shale deposits flooded the gas market. The need for more ships arises from Japan's need to import gas after the earthquake the country suffered in early 2011. Supplying Japan with Gas is not the only investment sending Golar's stocks skyrocketing. The company has also received a contract to build a floating and regasification unit in Indonesia. The plan is to use an existing LNG carrier and convert it to a storage and regasification plant to meet Indonesia's growing LNG demand. It will have a receiving capacity of three million tons of LNG. Golar has provided this service for many countries, however this time they are on a tight time schedule, and will have to work with other construction companies to create an offshore jetty, which the ship will be connected to. Wardwell, A. (2011). Golar LNG: Fast-tracking innovation. Oil and Gas Journal, 109(14) 18-19. Wright, R. (2011, May 31). Bullish outlook for LNG tankers. The Financial Times limited, [online] Golar LNG

Maritime Boundary
The information on maritime boundary found on Wikipedia, and in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Maritime History, have completely different styles, a different flow, and even the completeness of the articles was different. After reading the two, I found the article in the encyclopedia to be more thorough, but the article from Wikipedia had more potential, and could be a better source on the subject if it had more details and went deeper into the subject. The article from the Maritime History Encyclopedia was just that, basically a very descriptive history of how maritime boundaries came to be. It includes descriptions of various historic legal rulings to help define certain elements of the maritime boundary. For example, the first modern international case to address maritime boundaries was between Sweden and Norway. Out of this case came the equidistance line for states with opposite coasts. The history encyclopedia goes into much depth to explain the significance of the equidistance line and then moves on to what states do when they are adjacent to each other, or islands, referencing a legal ruling for most if its sources. The encyclopedia was very comprehensive when it came to history, and also very accurate with few mistakes (I think I found a “that” that should have been a “than”.) However, The Wikipedia article not only had a history section, but also a terminology section, which covered features, boundary limits, and special zones, as well as a boundary disputes section. Wikipeida lacked a lot of information in any of the three sections, but gave more of an overall quick view of what maritime boundaries are all about. The history section was terrible and if this is one of Wikipedia’s featured articles it needs a lot of work, but the information provided was accurate, and considering it had more than just history, it could be much more comprehensive than the encyclopedia. Wikipedia’s article also had pictures, which were very helpful to visualize what the article was describing. The sources the encyclopedia used for its article are all scholarly sources, which include mostly books about maritime law and political process in regards to maritime boundaries. The Wikipedia article also has very good sources and shows that the site is true to its guidelines of identifying reliable sources. The site references mostly books with one scholarly journal. The list of references is also quite large with 10 books. The encyclopedia’s bibliography includes 5 books. However, as we found in class, anyone can easily add a book reference to a Wikipedia site, and add no other information to the article itself. The book may or may not be of any value to the topic, and it could be a while before someone else reads it and decides it isn’t a good reference. When it comes to flow and readability the encyclopedia wins hands down. It is obvious that one person wrote the article; everything is in very good order, the thought process makes sense and doesn’t jump around from idea to idea. The Wikipedia site on the other hand doesn’t flow nearly as well, and the ideas laid out in the article are a little hard to follow at times. Understandably, many people worked on the article, and there is no central editor smoothing out all the ideas into one cohesive piece. As I go through this class I’m realizing that Wikipeida is a very good tool to get a general understanding of a topic, but not a definite source on the subject, and some of that is due to the writing style. There is a lot of bulleting in the article instead of continuous paragraphs which makes the article seem informal compared to the encyclopedia. I’m also not the greatest in grammar, but I’m pretty sure there are a few run on sentences and missing commas in the piece as well; whereas, the encyclopedia article was nearly flawless. Both the encyclopedia article and Wikipedia’s article are lacking. I had a law professor my sophmore year (Keith Graham) who spent 3 hours lecturing on maritime boundaries and their importance. The two articles discussed may have taken eight minutes to read each, and neither dwelled into the significance of these boundaries, or what they really provide a country. The book, International Law by Valerie Epps, has much more information than these two sources combined, and I’m surprised it isn’t included in either reference list.

Draft Final Article
user: Khaschekluender/haschekluenderDraft