Thread: Natives, please help to weed errors out of this text

Hi, help me please to make this text sound more English. Thanks in advance. I marked what I spotted, is there anything else?


The extreme Sakhalin environment presented several challenges for the heavy Sakhalin II topsides. At 21,000 tonnes each, they are the largest ever built, and will operate in conditions of extreme cold and heat, wave and ice pressure, and high seismicity.

The western Pacific has long, rolling waves rather than high ones, which built (that build?) up a lot of energy by the time they hit the platform. The Sakhalin cold is notorious – temperatures drop to - 40 degrees Celsius in winter. But less well known are the summer temperatures in the 30s. This large temperature differential can cause the topsides to move. The need to winterize the topsides so that they would be (are?) safe and warm for year-round use added up to a top-heavy structure set on top of a concrete base lashed by waves, pressured by ice and threatened by some of the world’s severest earthquakes.

(shouldn't there be something that relates to 'added up', I mean I add up something, not just add up to something).

The AMEC engineering team adapted a design developed in the US for buildings in earthquake zones that used specially developed pendulum bearings to help isolate seismic loads. Using leading-edge seismic design expertise from Russia and California, coupled with their own mathematical prowess, they generated a simulation of the platform’s response to an earthquake. Some of AMEC’s experts in this area started in the aerospace industry and enjoy the greater diversity of technical challenges that the offshore industry generates in both conventional structures and those of the frontier projects.

The result is a set of unique bearings used to isolate the seismic loads on the topsides. They are each two to three metres in diameter, the largest ever made. Another design innovation was the placement of the topsides much higher than usual on the gravity bases. A 15 metre gap is standard between platform and base; AMEC set a gap of 27 metres. This in turn created a problem for the floatover- the barge manoeuvre to mate the topsides with the bases. A purpose-built barge had to be designed and constructed for the operation. The floatover was accomplished in less than 24 hours in June 2006- an industry record.

"..., that build up energy..." would be OK, but I think "..., which have built up energy..." fits better.

I think "would be" is better here in context, but I can't articulate why. No-one will notice either way though.

I'd substitute "resulted in" for "added up to".

The rest of it looks just fine to me.

Thank you, scotcher!

How is the style? The text is written by a non-native speaker (not me).
Does it show?

The style is fine. It's good, standard, semi-technical English, and I would never have known it wasn't written by a native speaker.

I've no idea what a topside is though

I'd go with "which build" since it's something which happens all the time, not specifically in the past. Either is correct though. Also, "severest" should become "most severe".

Scotcher's suggestion for "resulted in" is good. To use "added up to" you need several elements which combine together and you only have one.

I would change "mathematical prowess" to "mathematical expertise". Prowess just sounds a little funny to me there, like you are bragging about them. Maybe you are, but you don't want to make that obvious in writing in English--we like to understate things in English.

In that same sentence--the very next word--I might change "they" to "the team". With the extra phrase in the sentence you go a ways without mentioning your subject directly, so it's good to put it back in.

Same paragraph, I would insert "now" before "enjoy".

Other than that, it's written better than a lot of technical articles I've seen. Engineers are often very bad writers.

Originally Posted by scotcher

The style is fine. It's good, standard, semi-technical English, and I would never have known it wasn't written by a native speaker.

I've no idea what a topside is though

А topside is the upper part of an oil platform (there are two of them - the basement (submerged) and the topside - the one that is raised above the sea level (as far as I understand this is a word from professional slang).

Another one. Please help to correct the mistakes and style:

Partnership
The problems that large oil and gas industry projects of recent years in C.I.S. face usually amount to a combination of diverse complexity factors, as the seismic activity of the region and severe weather conditions on Sakhalin, for example. The situations may also arise where several systems that regulate and govern oil operations are used rather than a single one, and such systems may have different standards and requirements applicable in specific cases. For example, the lack of consistency between the international design practices and the applicable regulatory acts of the Russian law may cause a negative impact on the design process and operational schedule.
Then how one can bring a large and significant project that had been developed basing on all applicable regulations and international standards to its realization and make it comply to frequently ambiguous requirements and regulations of the Russian laws?
The answers to such questions require participation of highly qualified and creative specialists able to produce effective and non-trivial solutions, and AMEC successfully provides such solutions throughout all of C.I.S. where the key to success often lies in the fruitful cooperation of mixed cross-cultured teams.

Cross-cultured ties and borders
World’s oil and gas industry maintains a universal approach to many spheres of business activities, including bidding procedures and contract awards, issues on personnel and environmental safety and cost management. Such a system model proved to be quite reliable and successful and one can expect that its universality and all-goal orientation works anytime, anyplace… But it’s not that simple.
AMEC has long since admitted that the methods of work and industry relations which are common and generally acknowledged in Europe and North America quite often face the lack of expected support and understanding in other regions. Other dogmas and barriers, such as “knowledge is power”, and likewise, the language difficulties present a serious problem in C.I.S. for companies and people used to work and conduct business in accordance with Western standards.

Partnership
The problems that large oil and gas industry projects in the C.I.S. have faced in recent years usually stem from a combination of diverse and complex factors, such as the seismic activity of the region, in addition to the severe weather conditions on Sakhalin. Situations may also arise whereby several systems that regulate and govern oil operations [this is too vague, what precisely do you mean by 'oil operations'?] are in use, rather than a single one, and such systems may have different standards and requirements applicable in specific cases. For example, the lack of consistency between international design practices and the applicable regulatory acts of Russian law can have a negative impact on the design process and operational schedule.

How then can one realise a large project that has been developed based on all applicable regulations and international standards, and at the same time make it comply to the frequently ambiguous requirements and regulations of Russian law?
The answers to such questions lie in the the know-how of highly qualified and creative specialists able to produce effective and non-trivial solutions, which is what AMEC provides throughout all of the C.I.S., where the key to success often lies in a mix of international expertise and local knowledge.

Cross-cultured ties
The world’s oil and gas industries maintain a universal approach to many spheres of business activities, including bidding procedures, contract awards, issues related to personnel, environmental safety, and cost management. This system model has proven to be quite reliable and successful, and one might expect that its universality and all-goal orientation (?) to work anytime, anyplace… but it’s not that simple.

AMEC has long since realised that working practices and industry relations that are generally accepted in Europe and North America quite often face a lack of support or understanding in other regions. Cultural differences, and, likewise, language difficulties present a serious problem in the C.I.S. for companies and individuals used to working and conducting business in accordance with Western standards.

-------------------------

Sorry, I couldn't be bothered to mark every correction, you'll have to look for them yourself. In some places it was easier to re-write paragraphs than to point out what was wrong with the existing one.

Originally Posted by scotcher

oil operations [this is too vague, what precisely do you mean by 'oil operations'?]

just this. нефтяные операции in the Russian original.

successful, and one might expect that its universality and all-goal orientation (?) .

всецелевая направленность (it means orientation to all goals at once).

Sorry, I couldn't be bothered to mark every correction, you'll have to look for them yourself. In some places it was easier to re-write paragraphs than to point out what was wrong with the existing one.

That bad? Here's the original (now, when I saw your corrections I understood that this text has already been translated at least once from some other language, probably English):

Партнерство
Проблемы крупных проектов нефтегазовой отрасли в странах СНГ последних лет, как правило, представляют собой сочетание разных факторов сложности – как, например на Сахалине : сейсмичность района и суровые погодные условия. Возможны также ситуации, где применяются не одна, а несколько систем, регламентирующих и регулирующих нефтяные операции, и которые могут иметь различные стандарты и требования по применению в конкретных случаях. Например, несогласованность международных норм проектирования и применяемых, предписывающих стандартов Российского законодательства с регулирующими Положениями, могут отрицательно повлиять на ход выполнения проектных работ, график выполнения операций. Каким же образом воплотить в жизнь крупный, значимый проект, разработанный на основании всех соответствующих норм и международных стандартов и привести его в соответствие с, часто неоднозначными, требованиями контролирующих и регулирующих положений законов России? Ответ на такие вопросы требует участия специалистов высокой квалификации, изобретательных, умеющих находить эффективные, нестандартные решения и компания АМЕС успешно решает подобные проблемы во всех странах СНГ, где залогом успеха часто является плодотворная, совместная работа смешанных, кросскультурных коллективов.

Кросскультурные связи и границы
Мировая индустрия нефти и газа сохраняет универсальный подход ко многим сферам деловой деятельности, включая процедура торгов и присуждение подряда, вопросы ТБ и ООС, управление затратами. И такая модель – система работает достаточно надежно и успешно, и можно предположить, что ее универсальность и всецелевая направленность срабатывает везде и всегда... Но, не все так просто.
АМЕС давно признала, что те методы работы, производственных отношений, которые являются обычными и общепризнанными в Европе и Северной Америке, очень часто не встречают ожидаемой поддержки и понимания в других регионах. Другие устоявшиеся догмы и барьеры, как то : «знание – сила», а равно и языковые трудности представляли серьезную трудность в СНГ для компаний и лиц, привыкших работать и вести бизнес по западным стандартам.

No, it wasn't that bad. There were a lot of minor mistakes, missing commas, articles in the wrong place, that sort of thing, but overall it was pretty good. I only rewrote the bits that were a bit strained in English, which had (presumably) been translated a bit too literally.

As a piece of marketing spiel, I've read much, much worse.

No good showing me the original though. I can read it, but I'm not qualified to judge how successful the translation is.

Originally Posted by Ramil

just this. нефтяные операции in the Russian original.

Change it to "oil production".

Originally Posted by Ramil

всецелевая направленность (it means orientation to all goals at once).

There's bound to be a buzzword or bit of corporate jargon in English that covers such a concept, but I can't think of it at the moment.

Originally Posted by scotcher

No, it wasn't that bad. There were a lot of minor mistakes, missing commas, articles in the wrong place, that sort of thing, but overall it was pretty good. I only rewrote the bits that were a bit strained in English, which had (presumably) been translated a bit too literally.

As a piece of marketing spiel, I've read much, much worse.

No good showing me the original though. I can read it, but I'm not qualified to judge how successful the translation is.

It was my test translation. I tried hard and kept following the awkward twists and turns of the original. This was my mistake, I think. The original by itself is probably a translation from English since no Russian would use so many participles and words like кросскультурный.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by scotcher

No, it wasn't that bad. There were a lot of minor mistakes, missing commas, articles in the wrong place, that sort of thing, but overall it was pretty good. I only rewrote the bits that were a bit strained in English, which had (presumably) been translated a bit too literally.

As a piece of marketing spiel, I've read much, much worse.

No good showing me the original though. I can read it, but I'm not qualified to judge how successful the translation is.

It was my test translation. I tried hard and kept following the awkward twists and turns of the original. This was my mistake, I think. The original by itself is probably a translation from English since no Russian would use so many participles and words like кросскультурный.

Ну вот, пошли-поехали... Re-translation... That's how the original meaning is being lost. Can you find the original?

Another one. Please help to correct the mistakes and style:

Partnership
The problems that large oil and gas industry projects of recent years in C.I.S. face usually amount to a combination of diverse complexity factors, as the seismic activity of the region and severe weather conditions on Sakhalin, for example.

(This sentence seems incorrect in terms of how the parts are connected. My assumption is that it is talking about what, generally, has caused the problems, but "amount to" refers to a result, not a cause. If you leave the beginning alone, you could write " . . . C.I.S. face stem from a combination of diverse complexity factors (I'll assume "complexity factors" is ok, but it might not be), e.g. the seismic activity of the region . . .")

Situations may also arise where several systems that regulate and govern oil operations are used rather than a single one, and such systems may have different standards and requirements applicable in specific cases. For example, the lack of consistency between the international design practices and the applicable regulatory acts of the Russian law may cause a negative impact on the design process and operational schedule.
Then how one can bring (better style would move "then" back a word or two--"How, then, can one . . .", or "How can one then bring . . .") a large and significant project that had been developed based on all applicable regulations and international standards to its realization ("completion" is normally better here, unless "realization" is a standard word in the industry)and make it comply to the frequently ambiguous requirements and regulations of the Russian laws?
The answers to such questions require the participation of highly qualified and creative specialists able to produce effective and non-trivial solutions, and AMEC successfully provides such solutions throughout all of C.I.S. where the key to success often lies in the fruitful cooperation of mixed cross-cultured (cross-cultural is probably better) teams (this sentence is a little bit long, but its well written--some editors would rewrite it, but I'd leave it alone).

Cross-cultural ties and borders
The world’s oil and gas industry maintains a standardized (or standard) approach to many spheres of business activities, including bidding procedures and contract awards, issues of personnel and environmental safety and cost management. Such a system model has proven to be quite reliable and successful and one would expect that its universality and all-goal orientation (I guess this means the system should be used for every different type of project--there's not a good short way to put that in English that I can think of. I would try "universal, non-goal specific orientation")would work anytime, anyplace… but it’s not that simple.
AMEC has long since admitted that the methods of work and industrial relations which are common and generally acknowledged (probably "expected" is more accurate) in Europe and North America quite often face the lack of expected support and understanding in other regions. Business slogans and mottos, such as “knowledge is power”, etc., as well as language difficulties present a serious problem in C.I.S. for companies and people used to working and conducting business in accordance with Western standards.

I think that should turn it into something acceptable.

Originally Posted by paulb

I think that should turn it into something acceptable.

THANK YOU! You were really A LOT OF help!

To scotcher and paulb: Hey guys! If you like to be used, go ahead and help Ramil. I would not.

I don't know if everyone is familiar with the term, but on a lot of internet forums there is a general policy: Don't feed the trolls.

If you don't understand it, I can explain it to you.