Talk:Petroleum/Archive 1

CRUDE OIL IS NOT PETROLEUM

Crude oil is not the same as petroleum, indeed, petroleum is a hydrocarbon fraction of crude oil not the same thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.40.19.146 (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Might be true but who wants to write/read an article about the useless fraction of petroleum/crude oil? Also are we defining crude oil as only the useful fraction, while petroleum is the more general useful + useless? 69.216.18.174 07:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refinery bottlenecks

Do people realise that claiming the crude oil rise is due to refinery bottlenecks (which is only the case in USA anyway) is the same as saying "the price of wheat is up because of bakery problems/bottlenecks"? whereas in fact a refinery bottleneck would increase the price of refined products ONLY and actually create a glut of crude oil!

IMO the amount of misinformation spread by the media is staggering. See my other comments below please... Dhatz 20:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oil price run-up is just a financial bubble

Although I can sympathize with people "explaining" the oil runup using the common excuses in the media, please let me assure you that this entire phenomenon of the oil bubble is taking place in the financial sphere by speculative funds, i.e. the derivatives markets of NYMEX and IPE/ICE and has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the physical market.

Unfortunately, in the oil market there is no real arbitrage between spot and derivatives, which allows the funds to drive oil to these absurd prices increasing demand for "paper barrels", despite the fact that real, physical market for "wet barrels" remains very well supplied, almost an oil GLUT.

OPEC has been stating the role of derivatives (using the term "paper barrels") since 2000. I guess if Western nations insist in driving oil price to today's highs through speculation in their oil exchanges, OPEC is more than willing to accept $70+/bar rather than its own target of $25-28 until a year ago.

Along with the trading desks of big investment banks (look where their profits come from, commodity trading accounts for 1/3rd to 1/2 of them), there is a tremendous wealth redistribution taking place, to the tune of $600bn/year flowing from US and EU to oil producers.

I have written a layman's article (an angry one though) in http://dhatz.blogspot.com/2006/06/oil-to-38657-per-barrel.html Dhatz 01:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A reader of your comment and blog might be mislead into thinking that there is no actual crossover between what you (and OPEC) call "paper barrels" and so-called "wet barrels". This isn't the case. "Paper barrels" (the NYMEX's CL contract, for instance) meet "wet barrels" in the contract specification where it says Settlement Type: Physical; Delivery: F.O.B. seller's facility, Cushing, Oklahoma, at any pipeline or storage facility with pipeline access to TEPPCO, Cushing storage, or Equilon Pipeline Co., by in-tank transfer, in-line transfer, book-out, or inter-facility transfer (pumpover).

The "paper barrels" actually are "wet barrels". Of course, the more common contract end is to employ the Alternate Delivery Procedure in the specification, which just involves exchanging money to cover the underlying's cost difference. But if you have a whole pile of oil sitting in a reservoir, you can actually trade it on the NYMEX without handling money or worrying about margin.

The OPEC cartel is naturally upset that it has lost the control it once had over the oil pricing mechanism, so it has a vested interest in trying to obfuscate the simplicity of the derivative oil market (hence it's insistence on using the "paper barrels/wet barrels" terminology). Nevertheless, the fact is that oil trades on the derivative market at the prices it does because people are willing to buy the underlying commodity at the market prices. Naturally there is surplus capacity at higher prices - there is slightly less demand when oil is $75/bbl than when it is $20/bbl - which is why there is an apparent "oil glut" right now. But when oil goes back down to $20/bbl (as it was as recently as 2002), you can expect that capacity to be used again.

Geoff NoNick 15:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in THEORY (and in most markets like stock indices and other commodities) it'd work as you suggested, but not in PRACTICE in the oil market. Because there are so many types of physical oil, but just two types (of very low production) used in futures.

Here is last week's comment of Saudi oil minister at WSJ. They're awash in oil and have no buyers.: http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2006/06/05/the-wall-street-journal-saudis-cite-market-forces-for-lower-crude-output/

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

In an interview after a meeting here of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Ali Naimi said other cartel members are having trouble finding buyers for all the crude they are producing, at a time when global stores are near full and many refiners have closed facilities for routine maintenance. One Saudi official said an estimated three million barrels a day of refining capacity is out of action and unable to process crude, at a time when the world is using some 84 million barrels a day of oil products like gasoline and jet fuel.

"It's not just heavy oil. Even light oil is having problems" finding buyers, Mr. Naimi said, referring to premium grades of crude known as light crude that are highly prized by refiners because they have high gasoline yields.

Asked if the kingdom was easing up on supply because of concern about the buildup of inventories in the U.S. and other importing countries, Mr. Naimi rejected such a motive, replying: "At $70 a barrel?" Mr. Naimi suggested that producers will sell all the oil they can at such high prices.

The implication of Mr. Naimi's remarks is that Saudi Arabia would again open its oil spigots when buyers ask for more oil. For the past two years, the Saudis say, their policy has been to sell as much oil as buyers want, to the limit of the kingdom's production capacity.

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

Otherwise one would just buy those extra barrels from Saudis and bring the oil price down via arbitrage between spot and futures (as it happens for copper, or stocks or wheat etc)! Dhatz 17:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

I had originally tried to merge the black gold page with the general oil page, but 2 people objected and I see that this is the right thing. I propose to just make a section about how its another name, ya know. Linuxx 17:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan to me. -- ∞Dbroadwell 20:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold.—WAvegetarian•_{_{CONTRIBUTIONS}}^{^TALK}• ^{^EMAIL}• 14:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know I should've done it, but someone did it. Thanks to whoever did. Linuxx 03:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fraction table

Should the fraction list be made into a table? -Smack 01:12 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Word origin

I would just like to note that petroleum does not derive from latin but from the Greek words petra (meaning stone) and elaion (meaning oil). Although i am not an expert in linguistics i believe that those words existed in greek long before they were introduced in latin (and continue to exist today with the exact same spelling and meaning as 2000 years ago). Moreover the word in greek today is in fact petraileo. Until now origins of words have been very accurate in wikipedia so anyone knowing better than my self should be kind enough to correct me.

Gerasimos Contoguris

The English word petroleum is derived from (and identical to) the medieval Latin petroleum. One could trace that through pre-medieval Latin, to Greek, perhaps even back to Proto-Indoeuropean if one were so inclined, but I am of the opinion that the etymology presented should refer to how the word entered the English language, rather than its oldest known ancestors. Since the word entered from Latin, an explanation of the Latin roots should be sufficient. For the curious, the OED has it like this: [a. med.L. petroleum, f. L. petra (Gr. <petra in Greek characters>) rock + oleum oil.]

--129.22.21.126 10:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the prefix meant "dark", "black", for I was taught that petroleum meant "black oil" and not "rock oil".LtDoc 17:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Greek and Latin word origins are presented by other sources. Because the word Petroleum could have originated from either or both languages, both etymologies should be presented until we have conclusive evidence that says otherwise Whatcanuexpect 19:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the article currently says Petra from Latin + oleum from Greek(Modern Greek if you look at the wiki-link); i'm confused, i would've thought exactly the other way around: Petra from Ancient Greek, Oleum from Latin (Olive oil, according to Wiktionary). Jerome Potts 08:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Webster's, for what it's worth: from Latin petr from Greek petra, rock; + oleum from Latin oleum, olive oil, from Greek elaia, olive. Geologyguy 14:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911: "Lat. petra, rock, and oleum, oil" (SEWilco 06:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Oil production costs

Looking for a link for oil production costs vs oil commedidy price over time (by region). Found everything from $1.70US to $9.00US per B for Light Sweet Crude 2000-2003 timeframe.

CHRISTOPHER

Generally, oil & gas production cost differs from one country to another…and even from one field to another. But in the Gulf Region, it is very low compared to the rest of the world. No published data is available (all confidential). In the US, its cost was $18-22 to reach refineries. -- Eagle^a^mⁿ 10:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Reference Barrels

West Texas Intermediate should be folded in here and the page made a redirect. Need some more Info, I'll do what I can, but not my field (pun intended).

Explanation of cuts

The description here reads like somthing out of a school text book and does not align with normal terminology. It is also at odds with a similar list in the oil refinery article. I'll try to work on a more sensible list, but one issue here is that the words used for the various cuts are very different in differnt parts of the world, and also differ between oil companies so I do not know how to handle this.--GPoss 12:03, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Types of Hydrocarbon

Article states that all crude oil is aliphatic. What is source of this statement, as most crude oil also have many aromatic molecules and none are purely aliphatic. --GPoss 12:06, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Should be both aliphatic and aromatic, AFAIK. --Iediteverything 14:21, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

applications of petroleum, its impact on our everday lives?

There seems to be a bit missing from the petroleum entry, and that is the applications of petroleum and petroleum derivatives. One application in particular that I am researching is plastics. I'd like to know how much petroleum goes into producing each of the seven classifications of plastics (codes 1 - 7, explained below in terms of applications and recyclability:

1 - PET (Polyethylene terephthalate)

PET is used in the production of soft drink bottles, peanut butter jars... PET can be recycled into fiberfill for sleeping bags, carpet fibers, rope, pillows...

2 - HDPE (High-density polyethylene) HDPE is found in milk jugs, butter tubs, detergent bottles, motor oil bottles... HDPE can be recycled into flower pots, trash cans, traffic barrier cones, detergent bottles...

3 - V (Polyvinyl chloride) PVC is used in shampoo bottles, cooking oil bottles, fast food service items... PVC can be recycled into drainage and irrigation pipes...

4 - LDPE (Low-density polyethylene) LDPE is found in grocery bags, bread bags, shrink wrap, margarine tub tops... LDPE can be recycled into new grocery bags...

5 - PP (Polypropylene) PP is used in most yogurt containers, straws, pancake syrup bottles, bottle caps.... PP can be recycled into plastic lumber, car battery cases, manhole steps...

6 - PS (Polystyrene) PS is found in disposable hot cups, packaging materials (peanuts), and meat trays... PS can be recycled into plastic lumber, cassette tape boxes, flower pots...

7 - Other

Any insights? [1]

I don't have any figures for you but most plastics are based on unsaturated hydrocarbons as the primary ingrediant and the current cheapest way to dervive those is by cracking petroleum distilates (the other part of the cracking then becomes a lighter saturated hydrocarbon). There is however no reason the same chemicals couldn't be synthisysed from other carbon sources. Plugwash 17:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petroleum in Romania

The petroleum industry began with Edwin Drake's discovery of oil in 1859, near Titusville, Pennsylvania.

No 129.2.175.110 08:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to several sources petrelrob.com, petrom.ro, radford.edu, lsu.edu, etc. Romania extracted 257 tones of petroleum in 1857 and thus began the modern oil industry. Bogdan | Talk 21:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, before drake, small amonts of oil were produced in Bakou (Azerbaijan), Romania, Germany, and even pennsylvannia itself, amon other places. But oil was either produced from oil seeps (where it naturally leaks to the surface) or from wells that were drilled for water and accidentaly found oil.

What was new about drake's well is that is was the first well that produced oilafter being drilled specifically for that purpose. --Raminagrobis

Boiling points

The boiling points of the light alkanes were incorrect, the author had mixed up °F and °C. I replaced the values with the ones that were stated in the entries dealing with these compounds. -GalFisk

Volume of large oil storage tanks

I was wondering if anyone knew the volume of those large cylindrical oil storage tanks that are seen around refineries. It appears to me there are two standard sizes. I would like to put this information into the barrel article because it might help people visualize large volumes of oil mentioned in some articles. Google was not easy to navigate on this one. Cheers. --Csnewton 12:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With a quick look I didn't find specific info (and I have doubts about two sizes). Found a nice picture [2] and if "corpus" in the URL is Corpus Christi, some info might be at ([3]) but I don't know the name of the facility in the picture. Look along the ship channel on maps or photos for that facility and you might find the location, perhaps well enough to find the street address. If you can find the diameter of the tank and the height you can calculate the volume of that cylinder. That would be an estimate, as many tanks have floating lids or the outer shell encloses other structures which use up some of the volume. If you know of a nearby refinery or oil pipeline terminal, search for those names to find specific info for those. And telephone them and ask. (SEWilco 16:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Very large industrial tanks are generally customized to the size the customer needs. The cost of materials and construction for unneeded capacity exceeds the savings gained by mass production. For example, let's say there's a choice of a 1 million or a 2.5 million gallon tank. If a company needs a tank that can hold 1.4 million gallons, there's going to be a lot of wasted space. (unsigned comment by 66.214.73.44)

UK crude limit

In the UK, teachers aren't allowed to use Crude oil in front of pupils because it possibly causes cancer and infertility. Where might I say this? Celestianpower 15:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oil casues infertility? Well that's interesting. Saudi Arabia has one of the highest rates of fertility in the world. -- Eagle^a^mⁿ 16:19, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you can say it in a "Strange things about the UK" letter to a London newspaper. (SEWilco 22:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC))

So you're saying it's nonnotable and shouoldn't go on then? Celestianpower 14:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i think he was being a bit tounge in cheek but if this is true (which i suspect it is theres a lot of fairly nasty impurities in crude) and we are going to put it in the article. then we need a reputable source with more detail (prefereablly the original regulation if it exists). Plugwash 14:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I found out first fro,m my chemistry teacher and He would know because he's been banned from using it. I'll ask him.Celestianpower 17:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Energy value?

Anyone have the data on the energy value of petrol (to juxtapose this against, say, the energy value of Oil shale).

Sorry, didn't add my sig to this thread the last time. I was considering an edit to include the declining energy value of Petrol as noted in various articles related to Peak Oil. I read in an article on a PO website that the decline was something in the amount of originating at 60:1 the first time oil was extracted in the lower 48 to being currently at 3:1 or 4:1.

Main point: EROEI. Relevant, irrelevant, NNPOV? H2oaso 05:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EROEI is very relevant, and potentially a great tool for settling NPOV disputes over on the Hubbert Peak article. However, the figure is notoriously difficult to calculate accurately, and various groups are fudging the figures to support their argument (no big surprise there). I've done a bit of reading on the topic and the impression I came away with was that oil is running around 25-20:1, and that, while nothing else matches oil there are a number of good options in the teens, with the front runner being biodiesel made from wood digested by microbes. Hot dry geothermal is also interesting. For an indication of how NNPOV the EROEI calculation can get, the value for nuclear power ranges from the thousands (breeder reactors, ignores waste management) to the single digits (assumes regular disasters and no tech progress). --noösfractal 06:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement Drive

The article on Brunei is currently listed to be improved on Wikipedia: This week's improvement drive. You can support the nomination with your vote there. --Fenice 06:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correction for inflation

Could someone post a graph showing the inflation corrected price of petroleum versus time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ramoul (talk • contribs) 01:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

"correcting" for inflation requires lots of value judgements about the correct deflator, base year etc, probably best left uncorrected? derry

I would think that using the overall CPI would be a close enough deflator to correct oil prices for inflation. I've seen it used often in graphs like these. --Altailji 04:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And whose CPI would you use exactly? KenBest 17:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Petroleum vs. Naphtha

This article mentions that another term for petroleum is "naphtha", but there's a separate article on Naphtha which seems to indicate that this term is used for a specific type of petroleum. I don't know anything about petroleum, so I wasn't able to correct anything. It might be appropriate to remove the sentence on Naphtha from the first paragraph of this article, or to reword it, or to merge the two articles. Thanks! -- Creidieki 16:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed the sentence. Naphtha is mentioned and linked to later in the article, which is enough. --Heron 12:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

liquid or gas

"A widely belived myth is that the oil itself is flammable, however it is actually the gas that evaporates from the oil that is flammable."

Isn't that the same thing? — Omegatron 19:28, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Are there any liquids where that isn't the case? --LiamE 00:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but that's what I'm thinking. Don't all liquids have a small layer of vapor around them? Vapor pressure and all that. — Omegatron 00:57, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. All liquids have an associated vapour pressure. Going back to basic science fire requires fuel, heat and oxygen (or substitute) to occur. Quite how a fire could be sustained inside any liquid where there would be insufficient heat and oxygen is beyond me. --LiamE 01:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might be answering a different question than the original intent. Perhaps the original statement was referring to crude oil, some varieties of which can be quite heavy and harder to ignite than something like a puddle of gasoline. (SEWilco 02:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The point is if you light a puddle of crude oil, petrol or whatever you are always lighting the vapour not the liquid itself. Ergo its pretty pointless to point out the fact that the liquid doesn't burn as if this is in someway abnormal. --LiamE 02:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Flash point — Omegatron 02:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huge country list

Am I the only one who thinks that the huge list of countries added by Alinor on 19 Nov 2005 to the "Future of Oil" section detracts from the readability of this article? I intend to remove this soon unless someone can convingly argue that this list improves the article. - Jpo 05:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen no feedback on this, I have removed the country list. - Jpo 18:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that readability was hampered. But don't agree with deletion. I will move the list to another article (oil reserves maybe).212.36.8.100 19:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

picture

what on earth is wrong with the last picture? i tryed to fix it but it confounded me mastodon 22:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abiogenic theory

This section states, "It has been widely discredited by scientists and geologists alike." 1- That may very well be true, but why should anyone accept this without one or more citations? We should either provide citations citations or remove this claim. 2- Do geologists not count as scientists? What kind of scientists are meant here? Chemists? DKEdwards 23:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article over at abiogenic petroleum origin needs some expert attention. I thought perhaps some of the petroleum experts might be able to give it the TLC (or complete rewrite) it needs. Clearly, like evolution, it is edit war heaven for some people. The article needs some sane input, putting the subject back in perspective. ::Didactylos 02:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is abiogenesis given significantly more attention than biogensis? As a student of geology, I have never heard anyone reputable espouse the theory of abiogensis, and much of the evidence therefore seems highly questionable. Shouldn't biogenesis, a far more widely accepted theory -- be given at least equal space? le 19:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should. There's an interesting article called No Free Lunch that describes the abiotic theory as 'sloppy science', and I am inclined to agree. Unfortunately this is driven by politics more than by science, so objectivity is going to be hard to achieve. --Heron 20:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following sentence: This idea was verified in 1999, when an oil basin named "Eugene Island 330" off the coast of Louisiana went from being a relatively depleted reserve to suddenly refilling with pure oil, causing production to quickly raise back up to levels competing with when drilling began. I work for an oilfield chemical company and we often see wells that had previously gone into decline or even depletion show significant production increase after an artifical stimulation or frac job. We have some production treating in this area of the gulf and I have never heard of a stripper well spontanously turning into a high production well. --216.39.197.218 21:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I chased down some papers on the subject, and it turns out the Eugene Island 330 field offshore Louisiana has a massive thrust fault running through it that connects it to several deeper reservoirs, right down to the original source rock 14 kilometres below. And, interestingly, 4D seismic was able to image slugs of oil coming up the thrust fault from lower formations to replenish the oil in the field. It's all very interesting. However, I believe they were talking about a 10% increase in reserves as a result of this mechanism, not completely refilling the field. And they weren't talking about abiotic oil from deep caverns, they were talking about good old organic oil from the Jurassic. This appears to be a trend in the references cited for "abiotic oil" - when the geologists working on these anomalous fields identify the source of their oil, the people writing about it ignore their findings. RockyMtnGuy 04:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a biogenic theory now that says oil originates from thermophiles/extremophiles living in the earths crust? i.e. the oil deposits are hundreds of thousands of years of excretion built up from bacteria that feed on and live in rock layers.

Is this sentence in the third paragraph POV- Petroleum forms naturally within the earth too slowly to be sustainable for human use. given the alternate viewpoints - should it at least say, under the commonly accepted theory of petroleum formation it forms too slowly, ... ? 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 08:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consumption

How much oil do countries use or need ?211.30.96.135 02:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean in total? Viihde 20:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Petroleum Technology (JPT) has figures every month for total worldwide supply and demand for oil, under Performance Indices. Q4 2005 was 83.96 BOPD supply and 85.55 BOPD demand. --Altailji 15:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is description for image on consuption per capita correct? E.g. for US, 20e6 bbl/day is 0.07 bbl/day per capita, not 0.5-0.7 Cited source http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con_percap-energy-oil-consumption-per-capita states consumption per 10 population( very wise ), not per capita.

Looks to me like you are absolutely right; it calls into question all of the numbers on that image (although at a glance, the general order of countries looks right - might just be an issue with the scale). Good luck figuring it out! And thanks very much if you do. Cheers Geologyguy 19:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title says petroleum consuming contries, but CIA factbook (referenced) says oil consuming?

Petroleum and oil are the same thing; petrol is the same as gasoline. Geologyguy 21:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cut down abiogenic stuff

Removed:

However, th:eir role in the formation, alteration, or contamination of the various hydrocarbon deposits is not yet understood^[4]. Thermodynamic calculations^[5] and experimental studies confirm that n-alkanes (common petroleum components) do not spontaneously evolve from methane at pressures typically found in sedimentary basins, and so the theory of an abiogenic origin of hydrocarbons suggests deep generation (below 200 km) (see results [6]).

As with any petroleum, the idea goes, these hydrocarbons would migrate upwards with methane, sometimes bearing helium and nitrogen and heavy metals. Diamondoids are common in oil and gas and its nature probably is related to natural diamonds that come from earth's mantle. The proponents of abiogenic petroleum claim that reserves are never exhausted because they are filled from below. Further evidence, such as the existence of hydrocarbons on planetary bodies (e.g. methane on Titan [7]) where life has not been found, support this theory. Experiments in 2004, by Henry Scott of the University of Indiana of South Bend and associates, showed that methane could be created from carbon and water at high temperatures and pressures, but Scott states [8] that this not the source of commercial petroleum.

Also, the implications of this theory are what have been used to find most of the recent reserves world-wide. Traditional biotic theory only predicts oil in certain rock at a certain depth, but the abiotic theory allows for much more. Reserves in much of Canada, Iran, Kazakhstan, the coast of Vietnam, and virtually all the oil in Russia were found either at depths or in source rock that are incompatible with traditional techniques. In 1985, in Switzerland, Thomas Gold led an experimental drill for oil straight into pure granite, where 12 tonnes [9] (about 100 barrels) were extracted over five years.

Abiogenic origin is, as I understand it, very much a minority theory, and should be given far less attention than the mainstream scientific view. --Robert Merkel 09:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surfactants and Tertiary Recovery

The article states that surfactants are sometimes used to reduce the viscosity of crude to ease extraction of oil. This is incorrect, surfactants work by reducing the surface or interfacial tension of the crude and thus reducing capillary trapping of the oil, which would otherwise hinder recover (especially if water, rather than gas has been pumped into a secondary well to encourage production) I don't have an account so I haven't done any editing on this.

"New Recovery Technology"

Following the discovery of oil in the North Sea, the recovery of oil has changed dramatically. This because recovery was so expensive that it could only be economically feasible if you considered both secondary and tertiary technology applied right from the start. Here the reservoir is considered as a tank, where not only is it required to maintain pressure, but that additives are provided that improves the flow through the reservoir. This is achieved by extensive use of computerised system to control the recovery. The recovery is no longer waiting for the crude to come out of a hole, it is by "washing" the reservoir with water. The water content in recovered fluid can be above 90%, where new technology enables separation of the water even down in the well. Nitrogen is used for injection - to improve the viscosity(lessen "capilar trapping") of the oil. And finally, they can direct the drill-head along("horizontally")shallow reservoir, capturing hydrocarbons in fractured compartments. The application of these technologies - where the recovery rate is substantially increase, erradicates all previous assumptions related to "peaked" production. Technology from the North Sea can be applied on most old fields and be able to make these produce more than they ever produced. Khflottorp 19:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countries having passed peak production

I question the inclusion of Canada in this. With the increased amount of oil being produced in the Athabasca tar sands, I think it's quite possible to go above this number. It's mentioned in the Athabasca Oil Sands article that "Output at the oil sands is expected to quadruple between 2005 and 2015, reaching 4 million bbl/day, increasing their political and economic importance." As 4million barrels/day is higher in and of itself than the entire figure posted by Canada in this list, perhaps claims of passing peak production may not be easy to substantiate.

"Peaked production" and total amount of recoverable oil is a mere guess, as part of most when it comes to pricing crude. The problem is "New recovery technology" (see above) enables old reservoir to produce more than ever. This makes Canadian oil sand more expensive to recover from, so you will for a time see a decrease in recovery - until producing from the sand becomes more attractive. The decline is not related to "volume" - but to cost of recovery. As you see, "Peak Production" may be exceeded given the right economic circumstances. We see "dead fields" being turned around to produce as much as 10 times what they earlier produced - e.g.by Statoil in Lago Maracaibo/Venezuela. Khflottorp 19:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in time, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) is predicting that by 2020, Canadian oil production will be 4.8 million barrels per day, of which 0.5 million bpd will be conventional oil, and the rest will be weird stuff that is not quite oil but can easily be turned into oil for enough money. How much oil can Canada produce? How much can the US afford? The real constraint is a severe labor shortage which has driven unemployment levels in Alberta to record low levels. Want a job? Want to live in a Toyota? The oil sands are the place for you. RockyMtnGuy 15:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I question the value of this footnote (to the "Top petroleum-producing countries" section). It's a matter of opinion, controversial and probably wrong for at least three countries on the list: Canada and Venezuela both have very large tar-sand resources, and Mexico's oil endowment isn't known well enough to judge, as oil exploration has been a government monopoly there since the 1930's.

I'm therefore proposing to change this footnote to a neutral link to the oil reserves page -- and the chart there needs work, too. Pete Tillman 19:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC) , Consulting Geologist[reply]

The footnote already says conventional oil and i think its implied that virtually every statement in wikipedia on such matters is subject to the proviso that it relies on the availible sources of information to be at least somewhat truthfull. Nonconventional production is certanily an interesting development but it has major downsides of its own (primerally even more pollution than conventional oil) Plugwash 23:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top petroleum-producing countries (Incongruities)

This section uses EIA data, but OPEC data is different, however. On crude oil production OPEC reports them as follows for 2004 year (top 10):

1) Russia (10 580) 2) Saudi Arabia (8 897) 3) United States (5 430) 4) Iran (3 834) 5) Mexico (3 383) 6) China (3 484) 7) Venezuela (3 009) 8) UAE (2 343) 9) Kuwait (2 288) 10) Iraq (2 106)

On exports of crude oil OPEC has this data:

1) Russia (7 147) 2) Saudi Arabia (6 813) 3) Iran (2 684) 4) Nigeria (2 356) 5) Norway (2 653) 6) UAE (2 172) 7) Mexico (2 113) 8) Canada (1 583) 9) Venezuela (1 566) 10) Iraq (1 450)

Can someone add this list to the article and make a note that it come from OPEC. It seems that EIA and OPEC data differ in some of their estimates. (I don't know how to do it myself, so I hope somone out there can this...) Oh yeah here is the link to the source (pgs 62 and 94 respectively). http://www.opec.org/library/Annual%20Statistical%20Bulletin/pdf/ASB2004.pdf

Atlalt 13:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Price hitting new peaks

It seems worth noting that recently (2006 Apr 21) the near term commodity futures contract for crude oil, both WTI and Brent, have hit record levels. Does this belong in the Peak Oil section?

Formation Section is Very Bad

Oil is not made from ancient "vegetation," it comes from organic debris derived from single-celled marine organisms, which do not qualify as vegetation. The article then claims that oil comes from "prehistoric marine animals and terrestrial plants," which is not only different from its initial statement that oil comes from "ancient vegetation," but is even more wrong (terrestrial plants, if they manage to become a fossil fuel, become coal).

Furthermore, it is incorrect to describe the chemical generation of oil thus: "high levels of heat and pressure cause the remains to metamorphose." In the context of "metamorph[ism]," geologically speaking, "high levels of heat and pressure" are WAY higher than what organics are exposed to when they become oil. The sentence needs to either not attempt to add the idea of metamorphism, or specific T/P ranges for oil generation are needed to prevent miseducation, or some other clarification is needed.

The "window" section is incoherent. Is it 150 m or 4-5 km? There's quite a difference there. It should be explained WHAT the window even is. (When fixed, it should be clear that this window relates to the fact that oil generation does not involve "high" levels of metamorophic conditions.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.186.101.236 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 30 April 2006.

Thank you for your suggestion regarding Petroleum! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Futures Market

I can't find anything anywhere about the oil futures market, and google has failed me. Does anyone who's better at research than my humble self want to take a shot at coming up with a description and purpose or something? It's referenced on a few pages, but I can't find anything about it's role in allocating products and setting prices. 163.153.27.11 12:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two oil futures markets, in NY and London (NYMEX and ICE), trading contracts on WTI and Brent respectively. Dhatz 01:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is petroleum?

Maybe it is covered in some other article, but this one doesn't seem to say much about what crude oil actually is (composition, properties, &c). It just introduces it as "a thick, dark brown or greenish liquid" which is rather vague. I'd imagine most people going to this article know it is a liquid, and want to know, for instance, if petroleum is actually an oil. I'm assuming it is (at least mostly), but maybe someone who knows more on this topic could expand in this area.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 00:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petroleum is a collection of different types of hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are mostly hydrogen and carbon. The first paragraph of the article states "It consists of a complex mixture of various hydrocarbons, largely of the alkane series, but may vary much in appearance and composition." ~ N. Harmon 23:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is highly appropriate, because the term is widely abused. In the industry we also speak about "Nafta" to make the confusion complete. Some of this is related to language: Farsi for Petroleum is Nafta which is known as "gasoline" in the US. Spanish is worse - PeMex, PDVSA - all use "Petroleum" as a generic term. Inside a refinery, the term "Petroleum" is the hydrocarbons refined to be used as fuel for cars - "93 octane with/out lead". We have "oils" of various categories that differ from fuels in that they are intended to lubricate (mostly). Fuels are then diesel and petrol. Lighter then regular fuel is then "Nafta" - and what you know as tar or asphalt is heavier. 80.203.31.27 20:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are adressing word usage: Crude comes out of the ground with content of sediments (sand) and water. Sediments are filtered, and crude containing water is known as "Wet crude". You can "knock out the water" by "dehydration" (fancy word!) - e.g. let the crude stand still for a while in a tank all by itself is one type of dehydration - known as "settling". When producing the stream will contain gas, condensate and crude. There is no clear "cut" between these - the crude will be an emulsification of them all, until left alone. We can help the settling by using sentrifugal force ("Hydrocyclones") - or run them through a electrostatic grid ("Coalescer"). The crude, gas and condensate are separated when reducing the pressure - and pumped on separate pipelines. So what is gas, condensate and crude is then determined by temperature and pressure and to some extent, the turbidity in the flow. 80.203.31.27 20:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I threw in the American Petroleum Institute definition of petroleum at the beginning of the article on the grounds that, if they don't know what petroleum is, nobody does. RockyMtnGuy 15:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petroleum Uses

I cannot find the uses for petroleum other than feedstocks and fuels for transportation. I'm probably missing something I will whack myself on the head for, but can somebody list some other uses?

how do we estimate the life expectancy of oil

although wikipedia provides us the infomations of oil,but i would very much like your to help me on this topic further, like how are we going to estimate the life expectancy of oil. thank you.

Well, that's the 64 trillion dollar question. After carefully reviewing all the sources, I suggest you definitely NOT look to the US Energy Information Administration for the answer because, in my highly opinionated view, they're dreaming in Technicolor (C). When US oil production has been declining for 35 years, why would they think it should suddenly start to rise Next Year? Because the price went up? It went up before, and production went down anyway. Bottom line: Sell that SUV. Buy a bicycle. Don't take any wooden nickels. RockyMtnGuy 15:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

how much is ita day Amount of oil produced per day:  Saudi Arabia* - 8.1 million barrels per day;

Including share of production from the Neutral Zone

 Former Soviet Union - 6.9 million barrels per day;  United States - 6.5 million barrels per day;  I.R. Iran - 3.6 million barrels per day;  China - 3.2 million barrels per day.

Which countries use the most oil and gas? The top oil user is the USA (17 million barrels per day) and top gas user is the former Soviet Union (23,000 billion cubic feet per year)

How much oil does the world consume each day? The total world consumption of crude oil in 1996 was 71.7 million barrels per day (there are 42 US gallons in a barrel, or 159 litres). OPEC estimates that total world oil consumption could reach around 100 million barrels per day by the year 2020. (From OPEC Annual Statistical Bulletin: 1996, OWEM Scenarios Report: 1998.)

How much oil enters the ocean? The amount of petroleum products ending up in the ocean is estimated at 0.25% of world oil production: about 6 million tons per year.

How much oil enters the oceans with oil spills? Oil spills account for only about five percent of the oil entering the oceans. The Coast Guard estimates that for United States waters sewage treatment plants discharge twice as much oil each year as tanker spills.

What is 'the number one' oil spill in terms of damage to the environment? The Exxon Valdez spill is widely considered the number one spill worldwide in terms of damage to the environment. It is also the largest ever spill in the United States, but ranks around 34th largest worldwide.

What are the world largest oil spills? The three world largest oil spills are: 1. 26 January 1991; terminals, tankers; 8 sources total Sea Island installations; Kuwait; off coast in Persian Gulf and in Saudi Arabia (240.0 millions of gallons); 2. 03 June 1979; exploratory well Ixtoc I well; Mexico; Gulf of Mexico, Bahia Del Campeche, 80 km NW of Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche (140.0 millions of gallons); 3. 02 March 1992; oil well; Uzbekistan; Fergana Valley (88.0 millions of gallons) (from International Oil Spill Statistics: 1997)

How much oil was spilled during the Exxon Valdez? The amount of spilled oil was 10.8 million gallons or 257,000 barrels or 38,800 metric tonnes. This amount of oil can fill up about 125 olympic-sized swimming pools.

What are the most polluted ocean areas detected from space? Widespread manmade pollution of the sea that can be detected by current spaceborne systems is concentrated in the Middle East, particularly in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

What are the largest world oil ultimate recovery estimates? The largest world oil ultimate recovery estimates are the newly released USGS estimates. The USGS 95 percent probable value is 2,248 billion barrels (meaning there is a 19 out of 20 chance that the value will be greater than 2,248 billion barrels). Similarly, the USGS says there is a 5 percent probability (1 chance out of 20) that the value will exceed 3,896 billion barrels. The USGS mean estimate (the expected value) is 3,003 billion barrels.

Which countries have the world's largest proven crude oil reserves? Countries that have the world's largest proven crude oil reserves are (1996):  Saudi Arabia (261,444 millions of barrels);  Iraq (112,000 millions of barrels);  United Arab Emirates (97,800 millions of barrels);  Kuwait (96,500 millions of barrels);  IR Iran (92,600 millions of barrels). (From OPEC Annual Statistical Bulletin: 1996).

What is the role of oil and natural gas in the economy of different countries? Oil supplies the US with 30% of its energy, 50% for the UK, 10% for Japan, 22% for India and 90% for Nigeria Natural gas supplies the US with 26% of its energy, 18% for the UK, 4% for India and 3% for Japan

Will oil remain the most important source of energy? Yes, OPEC forecasts that oil demand will continue to grow strongly and oil will remain the world's single most important source of energy for the foreseeable future. OPEC forecasts that oil's share of the worldwide energy market will fall from almost 40 per cent in 1995 to less than 37 per cent in 2020. But oil will still be the world's single largest source of energy. The reduction in oil's market share is largely due to the stronger growth enjoyed by other forms of energy, particularly gas. The amount of oil demanded worldwide is actually expected to rise, from around 70 million barrels per day in 1995 to about 100 million barrels per day in 2020.

What is the role of coastal areas for the US and world economy? Although coastal areas comprise one-fifth of the land area of the contiguous 48 states, they account for more than a half of the nation's population and housing supply. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that America's coastal waters support 28.3 million jobs and generate $54 billion in goods and services every year. Over 180 million Americans visit US coasts every year. The commercial fish and shellfish industry contributes $45 billion to the economy every year, and recreational fishing contributes $30 billion. Within thirty years a billion more people will be living along the coasts than are alive today.

What are the US States with the longest coastline? US States with the longest coastline are:  Alaska (33,904 miles);  Florida (8,436 miles); and  Louisiana (7,721 miles).

What are the US States with the largest population? Coastal states with the largest population are:  California (21,859,530);  New York (15,026,340); and  Florida (12,356,550). (Statistics compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

Where is the Exxon Valdez now? The Exxon Valdez was repaired and renamed the Sea River Mediterranean. It is used now to haul oil across the Atlantic. The ship is prohibited by law from returning to Prince William Sound.

Offshore drilling

I'm having a hard time finding anything about OFFSHORE drilling for oil and natural gas. I raise this because I read in a newspaper article that there is a 25 year U.S. ban on offshore drilling. Is this true? Can someone tell me where I can find more about this ban? -Amit, June 15, '06

It applies to most of the Outer Continental Shelf on the east and west coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico (Florida). It does not apply to the Arctic coast of Alaska, nor to most of the rest of the Gulf of Mexico (especially TX-LA) where exploration and production are very active. --Geologyguy 21:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petrol?

The introduction was recently changed so "petro" became "petrol". I was under the impression from that petrol was gasoline, however. Should this change be reverted?--GregRM 22:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had the feeling that in the original version, what was really meant was that petroleum in combining forms is "petro-" as in the example they gave of petrodiesel. Then someone came along thinking they meant petrol. Petrol is not really short for "petroleum," but rather is British usage for gasoline. Needs clarification. --Geologyguy 22:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're both right. I deleted the irrelevant bit about "petrol" and tried to make the rest clearer. --Heron 20:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Petrol is not really short for Petroleum. It's just the way British and commonwealth countries refer to what people in the United States call "gasoline".--Pavithran 19:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extraction

The article states that multiple wells are usually drilled into the same reservoir for extraction rate to be economically viable. It says in parens that it's referred to as "multilateral wells", which isn't correct. Multilateral wells are wells where multiple wellbores are branched off from a main wellbore using directional drilling. This does improve extraction in certain cases, but the act of drilling multiple wells in a reservoir is part of normal field development. A particular well spacing is usually chosen ahead of time (usually regulated by the government) and the number of wells to achieve that spacing is drilled. If in the future it's decided to go to a smaller spacing, the extra wells drilled are called "infill" wells. I propose to remove the incorrect reference to multilateral wells in this context. --Altailji 15:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed excessive abiogenic material

Removed

According to the following authors; V. A. Krayushkin, T. I. Tchebanenko, V. P. Klochko, Ye. S. Dvoryanin from the Institute of Geological Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine, the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is by no means simply an academic proposition. After its first enunciation by N. A. Kudryavtsev in 1951, the modern theory was extensively debated and exhaustively tested. Significantly, the theory not only withstood all tests put to it,‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} but it also settled many previously unresolved problems in petroleum science, such as that of the intrinsic component of optical activity observed in natural petroleum. It also demonstrated new patterns in petroleum, previously unrecognized, such as the paleonological and trace-element characteristics of reservoirs at different depths. Most importantly, the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins has played a central role in the transformation of Russia (then the U.S.S.R.) from being a “petroleum poor” entity in 1951 to the largest petroleum producing and exporting nation on Earth, principally with the drilling and development of the oil and gas fields in the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin. (http://gasresources.net/DDBflds2.htm). The four authors noted above, who were principally responsible for the discovery of these fields, were awarded the State Prize of Ukraine in the field of Science and Technology in 1993.

See User:Robert Merkels comment under a similar heading above for justification. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

human consumption

I'm wondering if petroleum is toxic? If i wanted, could I deep-fry with it? The idea of such conspicuous consumption really tickles me. I know it wouldn't be very tasty, but it still makes me wonder.

Considering only the alkanes present in petroleum (therefore ignoring any other compound including atoms different than carbon and hydrogen), I think that being lipophilic, those compounds would not be eliminated by your urine so toxicity might be accumulative. Plus... from the very Wikipedia article about Alkanes: "Pentane, hexane, heptane and octane are classed as dangerous for the environment and harmful. The straight chain isomer of hexane is a neurotoxin, and therefore rarely used commercially." And of course, take for sure you will find all of those in a petroleum mix. Conclusion: YES, toxic, don't cook with it (there's a reason why you don't see it being sold as cheap cooking oil). Pentalis 11:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petroleum is toxic. It's thick and disgusting. I doubt the petroleum will get hot enought to cook your food. Even if it did get hot, I suppose it'll breakdown and will start splitting into the various fuel's that can be derived from petroleum (provided there's enough heat).--Pavithran 19:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

need a image of Petroleum (in a bottle)

I would like to see a image of it, similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oils (where you can see how the olive oil looks,for example).

Contradiction in the map?

I noticed that in the map of Oil Producing Countries, Japan is in Grey. So I guess that means Japan dosen't produce any oil. However, in the map of Oil Exports by Country, Japan is apparently exporting 20000 - 100000 bbl/d of oil. That dosen't seem right now does it? --Pavithran 19:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't know for sure, I'd bet that the exports - trivial compared to their imports and consumption (5.3 million b/d) - are of refined products that they most likely send to South Korea, which is the #4 importer of oil in the world (after the US, Japan, and Germany). Compare the US - we don't produce near enough oil to satisfy our needs, yet we export 20,000 barrels of crude per day (all of it to Canada, and most of it probably comes back to us as gasoline) as well as more than 1 million barrels per day of refined products (mostly things like petroleum coke and heavy distillates, used for fuel in Mexico and elsewhere). Japan actually does produce a trivial amount of oil itself, and has an estimated 59 million barrels of reserves [10]. Geologyguy 15:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also heard that much of Alaska's production goes to Asia (it's worth more there and it's cheaper to buy from elsewhere for the continental U.S.), which probably is tallied as U.S. exports. (SEWilco 03:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

This is not true. From 1996 to 2000, up to 7% of Alaska's crude was exported to the Far East, mostly to Japan and South Korea. Since 2000, not one drop of crude oil from Alaska has been exported (some liquified natural gas is exported), it all goes to US refineries. The US does not export any crude at all except for the 20,000-21,000 b/d to canada. Check the EIA web site under exports. Geologyguy 03:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the map you get more information. Notice also that Japan is not in List of oil-producing states. (SEWilco 03:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Macroseepage?

Oil extraction is costly and sometimes environmentally damaging, although Dr. John Hunt of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution pointed out in a 1981 paper that over 70% of the reserves in the world are associated with visible macroseepages, and many oil fields are found due to natural leaks. This paper is 25 years old. Does anyone know how true this finding still is? Luke stebbing 14:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excess links in the See also section

I do not see the point why to repeat so many internal links that were already incuded in text of the article (sometimes even twice) again in the See also section. I suggest to delete them. (see Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also) JanSuchy 21:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Role in electricity generation

It says 84% of production is used to make fuels but how much of these are burned for electricity production? I cant find list of world's electricity sources anywhere on wikipedia. 88.192.2.220 18:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This varies a lot by country. In the US, about 3% of electricity generation comes from burning oil. 51% is from coal, 20% from natural gas, 20% from nuclear, and the rest from everything else. In France, very little electricity comes from burning oil - something like 79% of their electricity is generated by nuclear power. Geologyguy 19:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV in the 'future of oil' section?

The last time I checked, the hubbert peak theory was a 'theory'. Despite widespread acceptance from various experts, it has a) garnered criticism, and b) not advanced beyond 'theory'. Neither of these are significantly addressed in this summary section. In fact, in may places, the section does not make much of distinction between fact and theory. --Trevdna 18:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New oil reserves

There are a few articles that I have read and concluded that there are deposits of hydrocarbons in north somalia. I would like someone to tell me the chances of oil being found in the horn of africa and the impact on the world economy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.104.227.247 (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Northeastern Somalia has much the same geologic and tectonic setting as Yemen, which has several quite significant oil fields. Offshore the east coast of Somalia also has some potential, but to date only quite small oil and/or gas fields have been discovered anywhere along the entire east coast of Africa. The political situation in Somalia limits potential for oil exploration and development, even if huge fields might exist there. Cheers Geologyguy 20:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

A note to picture says: "Oil field in California, 1938. The first modern oil well was drilled in 1848 by Russian engineer F.N. Semyonov, on the Apsheron Peninsula north-east of Baku."

Apsheron is not in California and Semenov did not drill wells there.

Second error. It was indicated (no references, though) that "In the 8th century, the streets of the newly constructed Baghdad were paved with tar, derived from easily accessible petroleum from natural fields in the region. In the 9th century, oil fields were exploited in Baku, Azerbaijan, to produce naphtha."

Baku and Azerbaijan simply did not exist in 9th century. Azerbaijan was created in 1918 only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.37.244.52 (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I made some changes to address your observations. I don't know of the source for the 8th Century statements either, however. Cheers --Geologyguy 21:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of these statements come from the 1918 Encyclopedia Brittanica. It's just more trouble than it's worth, especially considering that the Birttanica was pretty unreliable on matters like this back in 1918. Would anyone mind just deleting most of that? It's really not too helpful to the article.--71.113.85.49 01:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Drake usually gets credit for drilling the first modern oil well in 1859 at Titusville, Pennsylvania, but people had been using oil from natural seeps for thousands of years, and occasionally had dug wells into the seeps to improve production. Marco Polo saw oil being collected at Baku in 1264, and by 1830 there were 116 hand dug oil wells in production there. Semyonov apparently didn't attract much interest in the well he drilled at Baku, and the second well wasn't drilled until 1871. By contrast, within a day after Drake struck oil, other people started drilling oil wells in the U.S. and within a year there were new oil towns springing up. RockyMtnGuy 19:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page Hacked??

The begining of the page starts with what can only be a hack. Kazakhstan exporter of oil.....

Unable to remove this, could someone please help?

196.209.38.27 13:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)kamahasanyi[reply]

Ahh, someone has already done it. That was quick, good on you.

196.209.38.27 13:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)kamahasanyi[reply]

Is Wikipedia in the deduction business now?

"Source : Deduction from CIA World Factbook"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Top_petroleum_non-producing_and_consuming_countries

IB original editor meant, he/she selected countries from the CIA list. I tried to edit this line, but kept geting 'busy' msg. You might chg it. Cheers, Pete Tillman 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]