|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
|Archive 1||Archive 2||Archive 3|
- 1 Greenhouse gasses from Fischer-Tropsch process used by Sasol
- 2 Map of OPEC nations
- 3 Imports by US
- 4 Another global warming article
- 5 Consumption
- 6 Article restructuring
- 7 Measure od Development?
- 8 Imports
- 9 The Point of the Freeway Pic
- 10 History Section
- 11 negative effects of use of oil
- 12 Someone should see if there is any useable information in this
- 13 List of oil producers
- 14 Biogenic oil?
- 15 Please define the exact capacity of a barrel of crude oil
- 16 Composition of Petroleum
- 17 nice image
- 18 Empirical equations for the Thermal properties of petroleum products
- 19 Request to give article semi-protected status
- 20 Peak Oil
- 21 Pollution
- 22 Abiogenic origin
- 23 US and Canada
- 24 Very, very strange map!
- 25 Energy value
- 26 Minor change proposal to into
- 27 Crude oil and petroleum - whats the difference
- 28 Abiogenic oil?
- 29 Formation
- 30 Fact, not opinion
- 31 More on the theory of abiotic/abiogenic oil formation
- 32 Picture
- 33 Formula for thermal conductivity of crude oil
- 34 Copyright problem removed
- 35 Source 85 has been moved
- 36 Graphs need to be updated
- 37 Silliman
- 38 External links modified
- 39 "A fossil fuel, petroleum is formed when large quantities of dead organisms, usually zooplankton and algae, are buried underneath sedimentary rock and subjected to intense heat and pressure."
- 40 Shouldn't the article mention that at least some oil is abiogenic (formed by inorganic means)?
- 41 Choroplth map
- 42 removed invention of kerosene distillation by Walter
Greenhouse gasses from Fischer-Tropsch process used by Sasol
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))
- 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
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%
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)
- 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 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 (talk • contribs) 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)
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.
Hmm the section on imports by country seems a little deceiving since it isn't talking about net imports. That is even though Canada exports more oil than it imports, it appears like an importer in the article. Would a map of net imports/exports not make more sense? TastyCakes (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The Point of the Freeway Pic
I have removed a reference in the history section on oil being the cause of some more modern wars. While it was cited information, the source is a book printed by a self-publisher and thus not considered a reliable source according to wikipedia standards. If a reliable source is found for this information, please feel free to reintroduce this information with cited to the new source. Thank you. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
negative effects of use of oil
is there any study which has calculated the amount of air pollution(like emission of carbon and lead etc) on daily basis caused by the use of millions of brls thereby reducing the life of the atmosphere of earth ? To me this is the First concern, which i have as a member of earth family. Ali Hassan, Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone should see if there is any useable information in this
List of oil producers
Surely there's no proof that petroleum comes exclusively from biological detritus. Petroleum is primordial material that biology reworked after it arrive in crust from earth's mantle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Please define the exact capacity of a barrel of crude oil
Is there a definative source for the exact capacity of a barrel?
I see various capacities, from 42 to 55 US gallons.
The NYMEX apparently doesn't even define the exact capacity of a barrel, even though they define everything else regarding the trading of oil:
And how is oil measured? How accurate are the flow meters or scales that are used during the transport of oil from the seller to the buyer?
Given the lack of an authoritative definition for the capacity of a barrel of oil, and the potential for different players to use different metrics over time (and for the potential of technologically inaccurate measurements) do we really have confidence in the historical record of past oil extraction and usage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
An oil barrel is 42 US gallons or 35 imperial gallons. There are also many other types of "barrel measurements", as seen here, but these are never used in the oil industry. I believe the 55 gallon you're talking about is defined here. The oil barrel measurements go back to the relatively small barrels they used "back in the day" when oil was put in wooden casks and then trucked out by horses (driven by teamsters). The term is vestigial in that barrels haven't been used to store oil since the days of Spindletop if not before (they are very messy, inefficient and totally inadequate for anything but the smallest volumes if you think about it), but the oil industry has a lot of funny units and terms it has adopted based on its history rather than scientific rigour. TastyCakes (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
And it gets worse. In the article List of oil spills, the measurement is tonnes (or metric tons). So one has a reasonable expectation to have the writers define why the uses their chosen measurements. Is crude oil, or petroleum, a product measured by volume or by weight? As of this date, we are only hearing the use of 42 gallon barrels and gallons as a measurement of the Gulf of Mexico's current BP spill. - KitchM (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Composition of Petroleum
There seems to be some confusion in this article regarding the makeup of what is called crude oil, or petroleum. In one place they are seen as equal, although mentioned as usually containing natural gas as well. But it is mentioned that natural gas is one or more hydrocarbons, and crude oil is an accumulation of various hydrocarbons, so one may reasonable question why the petroleum is only partially hydrocarbon. So which is it; hydrocarbons or only part hydrocarbons? If only part, it should be clearly defined as to what makes up the rest. Is petroleum also called crude oil? Can't it be simply said that it contains hydrocarbons of various types in various states, and that is what makes up the quality of any deposit of petroleum? IMHO, the layout of this part of the subject needs to be clarified and condensed into one place early on. - KitchM (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Empirical equations for the Thermal properties of petroleum products
Heat of Combustion: At a constant volume the heat of combustion of a petroleum product can be approximated as: where is measured in cal/gram and d is the specific gravity at 60°F.
Thermal Conductivity The thermal conductivity of petroleum based liquids can be modeled as: where K is measured in BTU per hour per square foot and °F per in and d is the specific gravity at 60°F.
Specific Heat The specific heat of a petroleum oils can be modeled as: where c is measured in BTU/lbm-°F, t is the temperature in Fahrenheit and d is the specific gravity at 60°F. ~ Latent Heat of Vaporization The latent heat of vaporization can be modeled under atmospheric conditions as: where L is measured in BTU/lbm, t is measured in °F and d is the specific gravity at 60°F.
Formula of Latent Heat of Vaporization is correct in Brittish units and SHOULD BE DIVIDED BY 1.8 to get the indicated kcal/kg metric equivalent. Instead it has been multiplied (with mistakes) by 1.8. I do not know how to correct in the text. Correct formula anyhow is L=1/d*(66.1-t/20) if I am not mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp2orbital (talk • contribs) 20:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Formula of CP seems correct in British units and IT SHOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME in Kcal/kg/K. I will correct it when I get more familiar with it.
Request to give article semi-protected status
Over half a dozen of the most recent edits (actually I believe it's more than that) have been either vandalism or someone reverting the article to fix the vandalism. This vandalism has (almost, anyway) all been done by people who don't have accounts or aren't logged in (IP addresses). I imagine the BP oil spill is one reason people are choosing to vandalize this article. Regardless, my suggestion is that this article is placed under semi-protected status until this passes.
The year Hubbert predicted for world peak oil was 2006 by my reference. This article says 2000, which is trying to influence a POV against Peak oil methologies, which have proven to be fairly good. For example texas/lower48 US was predicted very well by Hubbert. Perhaps this section should be re-written by a semi-expert on the area of peak oil, since the anti-Peak oil POV seems more apparent in my reading of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
p. 38 of 1956 paper, hubbert states, "... On the basis of the present estimates of the ultimate reserves of petroleum and natural gas, it appears that the culmination of world production should occur within a half a century, whil the culmination of petroleum and natural gas in the both the United States and the State of Texas should occur within the next few decades. ..."
Both of these accounts are actually quite accurate for Texas and for world production of oil, where the former occurred in 1970 and that later occurred (in yearly production terms) in 2005.
I would like to see a revision in this article to reflect the scholarship of Hubbert, which is being maligned by skewing the numbers. Hubbert made graphs yes but the text describing these peaks is not as precise as reflected in the wikipedia article, making the predictions into straw men for the wiki author to shoot down.
The section about its environmental effects only describes the effects about drilling and storage, and makes no mention about its effects when burned. Pretty strange for a article this vast.220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I see a discussion tag on this section, but no discussion. I agree that the section lends undue weight to this idea for such an overview article as this. I suggest keeping the first paragraph of the subsection and adding a simplified version of the first sentence of the second to the end of it, viz, "The abiogenic origin hypothesis has little support among modern petroleum geologists." Are there any objections to this plan? --Nigelj (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
US and Canada
Hi. Any logical reason why the US and Canada should get preferential treatment and the rest of the world be lumped as "other"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_producing_countries#Production Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Very, very strange map!
I am a bit confused as to what this map is meant to illustrate, but it certainly is NOT oil exports. The CIA page from where it was supposedly taken no longer exists. Even Zimbabwe is listed as an exporter! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oil_exports.PNG Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Minor change proposal to into
The following sentence in the into needs to be deleted or moved else where as it goes into the details of oil drilling and such.
"This latter stage comes after the studies of structural geology (at the reservoir scale), sedimentary basin analysis, reservoir characterization (mainly in terms of porosity and permeable)."
Crude oil and petroleum - whats the difference
"The lead says petroleum or crude oil is a naturally occurring," but later it says (section composition) it says "In its strictest sense, petroleum includes only crude oil, but in common usage it includes all liquid, gaseous,". Is crude oil: petroleum together with impurities from the underground? and petroleum the destilate or something like that? Christian75 (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Given that this is a notion which has practically no support in the scientific community, and that the only cited source in support states that this theory is invalid, why is it still included in the article? I propose removal - your thoughts?Leor klier (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The whole page is based on the FALSE assumption that oil is a fossil fuel and should be corrected to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertlakesflying (talk • contribs) 06:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Petroleum is a fossil fuel derived from ancient fossilized organic materials, such as zooplankton and algae. - Where's the proof of this hypothesis? Because as Adam said: fact, no opinion! Whoever produced oil out of plankton, I wanna know. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Fact, not opinion
Regardless of one's opinion of anything related to petroleum or humans, Wikipedia articles shall be written objectively and without ulterior motives. This article currently is written with anthropomorphic and left-leaning bias. For example:
If global warming and increased CO2 concentrations occur, this could be perceived as having a positive impact on the lives of most plant life, species adapted to desert climates, and even humans living in high latitude geographies. The article should instead be written to describe what specific actions have been proven to occur as a result of petroleum combustion.--Dikteren (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The third (and completely un-cited, but I digress) paragraph on negative environmental effects just seems so remarkably out of place, considering that the intro should be an overview as to what petroleum is. Seeing as how nobody's contributing any further to this discussion, I'm taking the initiative and moving it down to its real home in the intro to the 'Environmental effects' section. If anyone sees a problem with that edit, bring it up here like civilized editors (I have no stomach for edit wars). --Adam9389 (talk) 10:49, 08 April 2013 (UTC)
More on the theory of abiotic/abiogenic oil formation
I read the "canadafreepress" article talked about and rejected in the discussion on abiogenic oil below, and I agreed that it didn't provide sufficient support for the abiotic idea.
It would seem, though, that this might: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Energy.html
It's a scholarly article that cites its sources thoroughly.
I originally accessed that article through this one:
It's from a less reputable source, but it does do a good job of compiling evidence that amounts to grounds for a debate about the true origins of oil. It seems that if nothing else, the wiki article on petroleum should include some notice of this debate and a link to the abiotic oil Wiki page. Djminkus (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the article would benefit from a picture of unprocessed oil, since the first three pictures in the article are about production, not the substance itself. (something like the Coal page). This page has an example of what kind of picture I am referring to, but obviously we need one with the right permissions on it: https://courseware.e-education.psu.edu/courses/egee101/L05_petroleum/L05_quality.html
Formula for thermal conductivity of crude oil
There is no citation - does anyone know where this comes from?
The formula has 0.547 at the end looking like an exponent, but this would not work for modest temperatures, as the term 1 - 0.0203(t-32) soon goes negative. How is the 0.547 to be used?
It would be good to have this and the following formulae in SI units.
I found a more accurate Cragoe Equation on the link I referenced and I updated the equation. Though it spits out an answer in a really weird unit BTU*in/hr/ft^2/F, it matches other sources for oil thermal conductivity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Source 85 has been moved
Graphs need to be updated
Oil producing countries: the "Canadian provinces producing oil" needs to add British Columbia since it produces 1.2% of Canada's oil - nearly as much as Manitoba - and to drop Ontario because it now only produces a miniscule 0.04% of Canada's oil (100 years ago it produced most of it, but production has declined a long, long way since then). Alternatively it could add Nova Scotia (0.6%) and Northwest Territories (0.3%).
Oil imports to US 2010: needs to be upgraded to more recent data. In 2013, only Saudi Arabia (485 million bbl) and Mexico (335) would still be red. Venezuela (294) would be downgraded to orange, while Iraq (124), Kuwait (120), and Nigeria (102) would be downgraded to yellow. Canada should be upgraded to bright purple or some such color since it exported a massive 1,147 million bbl to the US, or about a quarter of US imports.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The article states that James Young was the first to distill petroleum, though the article on Benjamin Silliman, professor at Yale, indicates that he was the first. What is more accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefrankguy (talk • contribs) 13:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Petroleum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
"A fossil fuel, petroleum is formed when large quantities of dead organisms, usually zooplankton and algae, are buried underneath sedimentary rock and subjected to intense heat and pressure."
Shouldn't the article mention that at least some oil is abiogenic (formed by inorganic means)?
Abiogenic sources of oil have been found, but never in commercially profitable amounts. The controversy isn't over whether naturally forming oil reserves exist, said Larry Nation of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. It's over how much they contribute to Earth's overall reserves and how much time and effort geologists should devote to seeking them out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The article on the topic says in its summary (lead section) "Scientific opinion on the origin of oil and gas is that all natural oil and gas deposits on Earth are fossil fuels, and are therefore not abiogenic in origin". I would suggest discussing it there. Here we want only a summary of the summary, and the conclusion of our resident experts seems to be that it is a fringe theory, and so not worthy of undue general coverage. --Nigelj (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The map uses the choropleth mapping technique incorrectly. Raw data values should not be depicted because of misinterpretation due to country areas. How can we change it? Hayttom (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
removed invention of kerosene distillation by Walter
I removed this unsourced line: "The process to distill kerosene from petroleum was invented by a Polish chemist, Filip Neriusz Walter." The kerosene article describes a long history of distillation. A web search reveals nothing about this in English except recycling of [edit: his biography article, which is also unsourced on this point]. His entry in the Polish Biographical Dictionary of 1982 does not mention it. "alyosha" (talk) 06:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- United States Bureau of Standards, "Thermal Properties of Petroleum Products". Miscellaneous Publication No. 97, November 9th, 1929.