# Talk:Petroleum/Archive 3

## Greenhouse gasses from Fischer-Tropsch process used by Sasol

from

"Alternative methods

The process is today used in South Africa to produce most of the country's diesel fuel from coal by the company Sasol. The process was used in South Africa to meet its energy needs during its isolation under Apartheid. This process produces low sulfur diesel fuel but also produces large amounts of greenhouse gases."

This statement seem to be general and without a reference. Maybe it is worthwhile to explain and show the reader why gasification of goal will cause more greenhouse gasses than burning fuel oil. (In terms of the international effort to curb the release of greenhouse gases, this fact plays an important role in establishing the cost and benefits of alternative fuels (like biofuel))

--Jhdk (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that, according to my sources, 1) Sasol produces only 28% of South Africa's fuels, and that 2) it also has a process to convert natural gas to fuels, the claim that it produces most of the country's diesel fuel from coal is dubious. However, it is true that the process produces large amounts of GHGs. I know of a coal-to-gas plant in North Dakota that pipelines the CO2 to a nearby oil field in Saskatchewan, where it is injected into the oil formation to improve oil recovery. Does Sasol do this? Probably not. Under the Kyoto agreement, South Africa is exempt from any GHG controls. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

## Map of OPEC nations

Update map to reflect current membership in OPEC. -74.163.132.150 (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

## Imports by US

Clearly the following info doesn't go here. Nor have I verified it so it could go anywhere!

• US supplied 41% of its own oil.
• Canada 12% (20% of all the oil the US imports)
• Saudi Arabia 7%/ 13%
• Venezuela 6%/11%
• Nigeria 6%/10%
• Mexico 5%/8%

But where would it go, if I can verify it? Student7 (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

## Another global warming article

Why does every energy article have to end up being about global warming? Are the GW zealots so desperate that they have to include global warming in everything? Don't we have enough dedicated articles on global warming yet? It's outrageous! --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 01:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the real answer is that it is the herd instinct. Much like sheep, people like to flock in the same direction. It avoids wasting a lot of energy thinking up new and original ideas, when you can have just one unoriginal idea and copy and paste it into every article.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Please provide wp:RS source that petroleum is not related to global warming. NJGW (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
That is an example of the technique of answering a question by posing a counter-question which is irrelevant to the original question. He didn't say that petroleum was not related to global warming, he asked why people had to include global warming in every article. And that is a good question, since it does get repetitive after a while, and editors could always just say: : .RockyMtnGuy (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I took the OP as requesting that any mention of global warming be removed from the article. I've seen plenty of vandals try to remove all the links from the various articles in the past. I agree though that there's no point in the repetition. I see no issue though in the current short and to the point paragraph in the environmental effects section. That's the only mention of GW in the very long article, so the OP's question is not really appropriate here. NJGW (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

## Consumption

I was looking for the United States consumption rates of oil, and using the barrels/person/year, one gets a different number from using the barrels10^3/day. Anyone know what is up? PierceD —Preceding unsigned comment added by PierceD (talkcontribs) 21:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That chart has issues. Don't quote it in your essays. Also, you should realise that consumption is defined differently in different places. We use about 20.6Mb/day of petroleum products (including oil and every thing else, we produce about 8.4, and net import 12.2) from EIA. NJGW (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

## Article restructuring

Please note that (a) in this edit I have removed one long and unsourced consumption per capita table (with my badly spelt comment "removed tabe of energy consumption because it does not measure petroleum consumption, useful somewhere else maybe but bot here") and (b) with this edit I expanded the shorter consumption table, adding a per capita column, and (c) in this edit I merged the second consumption section up to the first, and (d) with this edit I did "move petroleum by country and consumption sections up above the sections on environmental effects and theories and alternatives". I am now removing the other large unsourced table, the one that lists countries by GDP divided by consumption. That idea could be added to the existing table as a new column, but I'm too lazy to do that now, so I have just moved it below here, in case anyone wants to try it themselves. -84user (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

## Measure od Development?

Maybe the Barrel per year per cappita is a measure of development? I'm starting to think it's an excellent measure of development. The most industrialised countries obviously use more oil per cappita than a country that has no industry. This makes me think it should be a measure of development. If it is it should be added to the list of countries with ranking box, if its not; cool.

### moved GDP table

There are two main ways to measure the oil consumption rates of countries: by population or by gross domestic product (GDP). This metric is important in the global debate over oil consumption/energy consumption/climate change because it takes social and economic considerations into account when scoring countries on their oil consumption/energy consumption/climate change goals. Nations such as China and India with large populations tend to promote the use of population based metrics, while nations with large economies such as the United States would tend to promote the GDP based metric.[citation needed]

1. ^ United States Bureau of Standards, "Thermal Properties of Petroleum Products". Miscellaneous Publication No. 97, November 9th, 1929.