Talk:Gas in Turkey

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Oil and gas in Turkey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 20:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Hello, @Chidgk1:! I'm Gug01, and I'll be reviewing this good article nomination. Gug01 (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Overall Conclusion

While this article shows great promise, it's nowhere near ready to be a good article at the moment.

• The prose is deeply confusing, both because of jargon and unideal sentence structure, and is not concise.
• The lead section needs a complete overhaul.
• Not everything is properly referenced.
• The article does not address all the main topics of oil and gas in Turkey, and it goes into too much detail on the specifics of pipelines - not enough forest, too much trees.
• I'm not convinced the article is neutral, from the underpaying/overpaying issue to occasional editorializing in the prose.

The article fails to be a GA on multiple criteria. However, I have left a wealth of specific line-by-line opportunities for improvement in the section below, and I hope these will be of use to boost this article's quality. Gug01 (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gug01: Thanks - I will go through the details and make improvements. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Line-by-Line

Lead

The lead is egregiously bad. It does not introduce the topic, it's far too short, it throws merely a few statistics at the reader, and does not introduce the context of oil and gas in Turkey. The lead of an article should be an abbreviated form of the article's components, yet critical sections in the "oil and gas in Turkey" article - like environmental impact, geopolitics, and economics - are not reflected at all in the lead. For an example of a really good (though very long, due to the subject matter) lead, see Roman people. Gug01 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Image 1 - what does "primary" mean in the "primary energy supply" in Turkey? How does it differ from energy supply, period? Gug01 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Graph made by author; draws on publicly available govt info; seems to be no copyright problems here. I will say, I do appreciate your commitment to Wikipedia that you'll go into govt spreadsheets and devise your own graphs to make the subject matter clearer to the reader. Gug01 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

In the Star Aegean refinery, it's a bit unclear how the SOCAR refinery connects with the idea that most oil is imported. Is the refinery meant for foreign oil exclusively? If so, add a sentence like: "which processes imported oil ... Most oil is imported." Gug01 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Production

Combine this section with "Imports," perhaps into something like: "Source of Oil Supply". Discuss imports and towards the end of the section discuss how production is planned. Also, more details on the production are needed - how concrete is this plan? Has Erdogan merely released a general statement of intent, or are preparations underway, and if so to what extent? Has construction began? Gug01 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Imports

Clarify the unit of bcm - spell what it stands for out the first time you use it for non-technical readers. Gug01 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"In 2021 imports totalled 60 bcm:" ... "consumed 48.1 bcm of gas," - Well, which is it? 60 or 48.1? Also, throughout the article there's a conflation of gas with oil. Gas and oil are related but different sources of hydrocarbon energy. So, 60 bcm of what - is all that natural gas, or does that figure include oil? Gug01 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"BOTAŞ imported 56 bcm in 2021" - Who is BOTAS and what role do they play in Turkish markets? Explain for the non-technical reader. Gug01 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"In 2021 Turkey consumed 48.1 bcm of gas, which included 33.6% from Russia, 11.1% from Iran," - The sentence is clunky, rephrase Gug01 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"KRG" - who is the KRG? Kurdistan? If so, spell it out. Gug01 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"ontracted supply from Iran are not faults but Iran keeping the gas for its own use" - unclear. What is a fault? Gug01 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"suspects winter cuts" -> reword to "forecasts"? Gug01 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"use, especially when the market price is high" - You'd think the Iranians would want to sell more gas when the market price is high. Do you mean the market price is low? If not, please explain why this would be the case. Gug01 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"However some gas in Iran is wasted by flaring so Iran would benefit by selling that.[17]" - source 17 is talking about flaring gas in Iraq, not Iran. Inaccurate statement; find proper sourcing. Gug01 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"some LPG was also imported from Russia" - what's LPG? Explain for non-technical reader. Gug01 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"contracts with Gazprom" - clarify that Gazprom = Russian energy company Gug01 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"According to a May 2022 report from thinktank Ember wind and solar saved 7 billion dollars on gas imports in the preceding 12 months.[24]" - unclear what this has to do with imports more generally. Perhaps create a section in the article describing how renewables are beginning (or not beginning) to phase out oil consumption in Turkey. Gug01 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The second-to-last paragraph is very confusing for a reader who knows little about Turkey's oil situation, so rework for the same kinds of rooms for improvement pointed out above. Gug01 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Graph of contracts for Turkish graph supply can be improved, as the years are too tightly packed together and it's unclear which contract block pertains to which year. Gug01 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Transmission and storage

With the exception of the last sentence, all of this paragraph should go into the larger Imports/Production section, because it's about funneling gas into Turkey, rather than through Turkey. There is also nothing on gas storage in this section, which means an important part of the topic isn't covered. Less detail on the specifics of some of the pipelines would improve concision. Right now, there are too many trees in this article, and not enough forest. Gug01 (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Consumption

"About a quarter of gas is used by industry and a quarter by households." - where's the other half going? Gug01 (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"According to BOTAŞ the price of gas for Turkish households was the lowest in Europe in April 2022,[34] and they said residential customers were getting 70% price support from the government.[35] " - this would fall under Economics

Indeed, you should probably merge the section of "consumption" with "economics" as there's a lot of overlap Gug01 (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Economics

"Some imports from Russia are linked to the oil price, which is said to be a good deal for Turkey.[43] For example the BOTAŞ contract for import via Blue Stream, which expires at the end of 2025.[44]" - the second sentence is not complete, and more elaboration is needed. Gug01 (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The EU green transition is mentioned here. Is there a similar transition in Turkey? How are renewables interacting with oil + gas? The article needs to cover this. Gug01 (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"Some imports from Russia are linked to the oil price, which is said to be a good deal for Turkey.[43] " - yet reference 21 earlier alleges that Turkey overpays for Russian oil. Both perspectives on oil have to be discussed here, not just the underpaying one. Indeed, if anything, the perspective in reference 21 should dominate as reference 43 is citing Igor Yushkov, linked to the Russian government, who has a vested interest in claiming that Turkey is underpaying, not overpaying. Perhaps change to a more nuanced claim of Turkey used to overpay Russia and is now underpaying? Gug01 (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Geopolitics

"arbitrarily announced the country's" - "arbitrarily" feels too editorializing; remove it. Gug01 (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"In July 2019, the European Council adopted the following conclusions on the Turkish drilling activities in the eastern Mediterranean:[50]" - a full list of the EU's conclusions is not necessary to the scope of the article. Gug01 (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Add more context on the roots of disputes over gas exploration - you mention there are maritime zone disputes briefly, but you should dig into the context of that more - and update the section to discuss what has happened with oil and gas drilling after the 2019 tensions. Gug01 (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

History

The history of oil and gas in Turkey is, I'm sure, rich, as entire books have been written on it. The two sentences describing the first imports of oil does not begin to cover the historical topic here. Consider the effects of oil and gas imports on Turkish geopolitics, culture, and economic development in the past as you greatly expand this section. Gug01 (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Possible source

https://books.google.com.tr/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7CRXEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA225&dq=turkey+coal&ots=9ozfn4KKBA&sig=GEyzXwiuQt4urYkOybUrhgMB5ww&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=turkey%20coal&f=false

Flow of gas from Iran

Hello @103.246.36.121 - you recently added the following to Energy in Turkey

In 2022, it was announced that there is a shortage, which is bigger than any other previous shortages. This is because a lot of energy which comes from Iran cannot be supplied.

Could you possibly move it to this article as this article is more specific. Also it is time consuming for editors to check Youtube cites - but I am sure we can find a suitable written cite. Awaiting your thoughts

Chidgk1 (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok let this be in this article. But can it also stay in the other article, as it's talking about energy too?103.246.36.121 (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@103.246.36.121 Thanks for coming to the talk page. There is indeed some info which is in both articles and I think the best way to do that is to use excerpts as explained at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Style_guide#Using_excerpts

As you can see the lead section of this article is excerpted to Energy_in_Turkey#Oil_and_gas. So if you move it to the lead here it will automatically appear in the other article. The advantage of using excerpts is that it is easier for future editors to keep subjects up to date as they only have to edit in one place.

Re the cite your use of DW is good as they are a reliable source. But rather than their Youtube video I suggest it would be better to have something in writing. That way people who want to check the cite in future can easily search it rather than having to listen to the whole video. However please don't use Daily Sabah as it is not reliable according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources If you have any trouble finding a written source let me know. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

What unit to use for oil?

Please discuss at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Energy#What_unit_should_I_use_for_oil? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

need to standardize per answer Chidgk1 (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Should I make a Sankey diagram for the gas transit?

I have never made one before but it looks not too difficult - for example with https://matplotlib.org/stable/api/sankey_api.html Chidgk1 (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

new energy plan

https://enerji.gov.tr//Media/Dizin/EIGM/tr/Raporlar/TUEP/T%C3%BCrkiye_Ulusal_Enerji_Plan%C4%B1.pdf Chidgk1 (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Oil and gas in Turkey/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 16:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Great - if there are no unexpected events I should be able to deal promptly with the defects you detect - so please don’t quick fail it otherwise I will be waiting months again Chidgk1 (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a quickfail will be needed, but substantial improvements will be. Please also see my note at the bottom of the page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig 4.8%

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I will get to this review in the next week. If you have time, please consider reviewing an article at WP:GAN. I will be using this review in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments

I firstly have concerns about the scope of this article, Chidgk1. Why "Oil and gas in Turkey"? Why not merge with Coal in Turkey to form Fossil fuels in Turkey or some such article? If not, why not Oil in Turkey and Gas in Turkey as separate articles? Why are the two fuels bundled together?

This in turn causes great problems with MOS:LEAD and MOS:LAYOUT, as the article doesn't know what to focus on and consequently stutters. I am placing this on hold for the time being, while we have a discussion on this large issue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I think “Fossil fuels in Turkey” would be too big.

When I started this article it was just about gas. When I began to add oil I thought there would not be enough material for its own article as Turkey hardly produces any oil. If you think there is now enough material to split off oil I will be happy to do so. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I could also add other gases to “Gas in Turkey” in future if they become significant. For example if hydrogen is produced in quantity Chidgk1 (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it would be too big at all. Both Coal in Turkey and this article are around 3600 words each, and with duplication cutting you'd probably get a total of around 6500 words. If anything, per WP:SS, you could have the large Fossil fuels in Turkey article and then three more focused articles underneath. One thing is certain: oil and gas doesn't work as a compound article subject.

The layout currently is a mess, and I do think it would be best to redo the article titles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

OK yes you are right it is a mess - I will split oil and gas hopefully tomorrow. If we haven’t made much hydrogen in a couple of years time I will consider creating a fossil fuels article as an overview and with the commonalities - for example if the economics of the 3 become similar Chidgk1 (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 I have now split off oil but may add a bit more info before nominating it for GA. For this gas article I guess you can continue the review here - but if you need me to resubmit let me know. Hopefully it should be easier to spot the problems now the scope is clearer Chidgk1 (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

You will note that I have reorganised the layout of the article.

I am happy with most of your reorganisation but unfortunately geopolitics continues so I am going to make geopolitics and "impact and future" not be part of history. Having said that you are right that some of the content of those subsections is history - so I will move it to "history".

Also I would prefer demand to be before supply. Because, now that not much is transiting from Russia to Europe, technically Turkstream has enormous spare capacity. Of course it depends on geopolitics but you have already moved that near the beginning. So I think in future readers will be more interested to read about demand. Also a heading "Demand and supply" might wake up the bored reader expecting the normal "Supply and demand". What do you think?

Notes

• Look out for WP:WTW. There are multiple instances of "as of" (see MOS:RELTIME and WP:ASOF)

I removed one "as of" but left the others as they are things which might need changing when I hopefully look at the article again next year. But if there is any particular "word to watch" please let me know and I will consider changing it.

• Curious to hear your opinions on WP:LEADCITE

I have asked a question at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#If_the_lead_is_excerpted_to_another_article_should_it_be_cited?

My opinion at the moment is that it ought to give guidance on whether leads which are excerpted should be cited. I think the guidance should say there ought to be cites but I don't think it should be mandatory. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• Sentences sometimes low on quality: e.g. "Thus Turkey can burn discounted Russian diesel: also it buys discounted Russian crude, refines it and sells legally (as of 2022 - in Feb 23 EU ban on direct import of products refined from Russian crude started - products of Russian crude refined in other countries are legal) as Turkish at the global price."

Ugh yes "low on quality" is a very polite way to describe that sentence - I wrote it in a hurry and forgot to fix it later. I have now fixed that and some other poor writing. By the way on copyediting generally I am happy for you to change something directly yourself if you have an immediate inspiration - if the meaning is accidentally changed I will easily spot and revert it as I know the subject fairly well by now (like whan a previous copyeditor changed "firm power" to "power firms"). Or tag any low quality sentences I miss with "clarify" or somesuch or mention here - whichever method or mix is easiest for you. Also please tag anything which is not clear meaning with "clarify" - these are hard for me to spot as I have been editing this article for so long.

• I'm not sure that the lead is being organised correctly. It jumps straight from general into specifics, then back to general again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

So you think the second and third paras should be swapped or you have another suggestion?

I have reorganized the lead - any remaining problems please let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: I think I have now covered all your points above - if not please let me know. Do you have any other suggestions - for example perhaps the supply section would be clearer if I subsectioned by country?

More notes

• There are many "a lot"s, which are unspecific and should be avoided.

This is one of the very few points I disagree with you on. I looked through the 5 "a lot"s and I think attempting to put a percentage or number on any of them would either be original research or would confuse the reader with false precision. There are a lot of numbers in the article already and also graphs for quantitative info. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Really? Let's take them one by one.

• "households using a lot of gas can switch suppliers" why just these households? can the households using very little not switch?

Yes that is right - households using little cannot switch - however the limit has been lowered from time to time over the years so you are right that 'a lot' may not be quite right now as it is subjective - I changed to 'a certain amount' as I don't know what the exact amount is now Chidgk1 (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Since the late 1980s gas has been used a lot to generate electricity. In the early 21st century gas consumption increased a lot." what do the "a lot"s add? absolutely nothing.

Replaced with a graph Chidgk1 (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Turkstream has a lot of spare capacity as of 2022" There is precise information in the cited source. Choosing not to use it is intentionally biasing the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Changed to use the percent from the article Chidgk1 (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• "In 2001 natural gas was legally separated from oil." what does this mean? If the first Russian imports were from 1986, was that oil and gas?

Deleted oil as it seems I was trying to summarize a source I did not properly understand Chidgk1 (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• "The first imports from Russia were in 1986, and from Azerbaijan in 2007.[15] LNG was first imported from Algeria in 1994 and from Nigeria in 1999." Why is this non-chronological and split between two sentences?

Clarified - non-chronological because I thought best to discuss pipeline and LNG separately Chidgk1 (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• The history section seems to be very recentism-biased—if something is recent, you have specifics and examples; if something is older, you have omissions and "a lot"s. The article later refers to the Aegean dispute. Why is that not in the history section?

Changed a bit and added links to more detail in the history sections of some pipeline articles. Unfortunately the Aegean dispute is not yet over - I hope it will become history after the election which is soon but who knows Chidgk1 (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Some analysts say that Turkey does not have enough gas storage or alternative supplies to resist pressure, and when Russia says it is closing a gas pipeline for maintenance this is sometimes intended to put on political pressure, for example a 10 day shutdown of Bluestream in 2022 at 2 days notice." Poor grammar

Copyedited Chidgk1 (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• No editing has been done, just copying and moving. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  I put the example in brackets - but if you think the sentence is still too convoluted do you think I should break it into 2 sentences (with the same cite after each) or maybe split with a colon or semi-colon? Or if you have a great idea go ahead and change it and I will check the meaning has not changed. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• "relations with Russia are such that Turkey continues to buy both." "as such"?

No but if you have other suggestions I will be glad to hear them Chidgk1 (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• "good enough that"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Dunno if called relations “good enough that” is original research or a point of view but anyway I changed as you suggested Chidgk1 (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• TPAO is not defined at its first mention.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• "The Northern Iraq two parties Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) would have to agree for a new pipeline to take the shortest route, as it would come from wells in an area controlled by the PUK and pass through area controlled by the KDP. In 2022 the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps struck to stop a new pipeline." what does struck mean? a new pipeline from where precisely? Why is Iran involved? Assume that the reader knows nothing.

Clarified and linked to the main article about the missile strike Chidgk1 (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• "400 g CO2 eq/kWh" what does this mean? why is only one of the units linked? The accompanying source doesn't have a page number.

Rewrote - if still unclear please let me know - it is extremely unlikely anyone would dispute the numbers Chidgk1 (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• "solar and wind saved 7 billion dollars" what dollars

Clarified to US dollars (this was before the ruble agreement and I also mention elsewhere that pipeline gas from Iran is not sanctioned by the US) Chidgk1 (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• "In neighbouring Iran electrification, for example with heat pumps, away from gas has been suggested to improve earthquake resiliance.[38]" is this relevant? also spelling

Fixed spelling. Yes this is relevent because Iran is similar to Turkey in some ways - for exampe it also suffers enormous damage from earthquakes Chidgk1 (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• "In 2020 drilling ship Fatih" article needed

fixed

• "Before 2023, when production from this sweet gas field in the Black Sea, starts almost all natural gas consumed in Turkey was imported." Tenses and punctuation all over the place.

Fixed

More to come, along with the source spotcheck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - I accept almost all those points need improvement - hope to answer them in the next few days Chidgk1 (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: I think I have now covered all your points above - if not please let me know. Looking forward to more. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Any response? Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, Chidgk1. See above for responses, and below for a source spotcheck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah my Turkish is not great and I mistakenly added another number to the 10 GW - now the national energy plan is in English I have cited that instead and corrected to 10 GW - well spotted thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 I have replied to your new comments above and made some changes Chidgk1 (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Random source spotcheck

• 19 good
• 58 good enough
• 69 source says 10GW not 12GW in article
• 75 good
• 97 good
• 119 good

Source spotcheck passed.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

check p and i

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Turkey-Oil-Product-Tankers-Must-Have-Insurance-From-February-6.html Chidgk1 (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

btc only az export route

due war btc now Baku's only export route. according to https://eurasianet.org/azerbaijans-oil-exports-restart-amid-high-demand-in-europe also says 2 thirds to eu Chidgk1 (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

possible source

https://shura.org.tr/en/net-zero-2053-a-roadmap-for-the-turkish-electricity-sector/ Chidgk1 (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Official statistics

English report link https://www.epdk.gov.tr/Detay/Icerik/1-1275/reportsreports seems completely empty

https://www.epdk.gov.tr/Detay/Icerik/3-0-94/yillik-sektor-raporu does not have 2022 annual gas report yet

however there are a complete set of 2022 monthly reports at https://www.epdk.gov.tr/Detay/Icerik/3-0-95/aylik-sektor-raporu Chidgk1 (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Therefore probably best to use Dec 22 stats for now and replace them with whole year when annual report published. Otherwise will be tedious to add everything up over 12 reports.

Then the from country quantities (and perhaps other stuff) could be graphed by year to make easir to see

New report

https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/turkiye-electricity-review-2023/ Chidgk1 (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Türkiye left vulnerable to gas as an intermittent generation source Chidgk1 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

South Akcakoca Sub-Basin gas field

Probably deserves

https://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/south-akcakoca-sub-basin-gas-field-black-sea/

https://www.offshore-energy.biz/with-abundance-of-gas-pay-uncovered-two-more-black-sea-wells-coming-online-in-march/ Chidgk1 (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Possible turkmen source

https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/turkmenistan-europe-gas/ Chidgk1 (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)