Talk:Petroleum/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Greenhouse gasses from Fischer-Tropsch process used by Sasol

from

"Alternative methods

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

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

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

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

Map of OPEC nations

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

Imports by US

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

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

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

Another global warming article

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

Well, the real answer is that it is the herd instinct. Much like sheep, people like to flock in the same direction. It avoids wasting a lot of energy thinking up new and original ideas, when you can have just one unoriginal idea and copy and paste it into every article.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please provide wp:RS source that petroleum is not related to global warming. NJGW (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That is an example of the technique of answering a question by posing a counter-question which is irrelevant to the original question. He didn't say that petroleum was not related to global warming, he asked why people had to include global warming in every article. And that is a good question, since it does get repetitive after a while, and editors could always just say: :

See also: global warming

.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I took the OP as requesting that any mention of global warming be removed from the article. I've seen plenty of vandals try to remove all the links from the various articles in the past. I agree though that there's no point in the repetition. I see no issue though in the current short and to the point paragraph in the environmental effects section. That's the only mention of GW in the very long article, so the OP's question is not really appropriate here. NJGW (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Consumption

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

Article restructuring

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

Measure od Development?

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

moved GDP table

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

Selected Nations	GDP-to-consumption ratio (US$1000/(barrel/year))
Switzerland	3.75
United Kingdom	3.34
Norway	3.31
Austria	2.96
France	2.65
Germany	2.89
Sweden	2.71
Italy	2.57
European Union	2.52
DRC	2.4
Japan	2.34
Australia	2.21
Spain	1.96
Bangladesh	1.93
Poland	1.87
United States	1.65
Belgium	1.59
World	1.47
Turkey	1.39
Canada	1.35
Mexico	1.07
Ethiopia	1.04
South Korea	1.00
Philippines	1.00
Brazil	0.99
Republic of China (Taiwan)	0.98
China	0.94
Nigeria	0.94
India	0.94
Pakistan	0.93
Myanmar	0.89
Russia	0.84
Indonesia	0.71
Vietnam	0.61
Thailand	0.53
Saudi Arabia	0.46
Egypt	0.41
Singapore	0.40
Iran	0.35

-84user (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Imports

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

What is the point of the freeway picture in this article? it adds nothing to the article.  Buffered Input Output 12:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

History Section

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. 65.121.141.34 (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 203.124.30.3 (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone should see if there is any useable information in this

http://www.kth.se/aktuellt/1.43372?l=en_UK 212.30.218.14 (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on 35 years of experience in the oil industry, I would say that this guy is an idiot and doesn't know what he is talking about. No, there is no useful information there.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

List of oil producers

This site: [list] has a list with all the about 100 oil producers of the world.Agre22 (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Biogenic oil?

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 201.17.61.110 (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There is abundant evidence, as indicated by the article, that most petroleum is of biologic origin. No one says all hydrocarbons are "exclusively" from that source, simply that abiogenic hydrocarbons are exceedingly small in volume in comparison. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There is only two possibilities that most part of oil is biogenic: if a miracle occur! or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are incorrect.Regards 201.17.61.110 (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The second law of thermodynamics (that the entropy of a closed system tends to increase) has nothing whatsoever to do with this subject. This is nonsense. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing whatsoever to do with this subject? Tell your opinion obout thermodynamics of Hydrogen-Carbon system because petroleum is hydrocarbon. 201.53.15.42 (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The "The second law of thermodynamics prohibit formation of petroleum from biological matter" statement is absurd crap spread by Jack F Kenney; a physicist running a self promoting website. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abiogenic_petroleum_origin PETRSCIENT (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Final comment, just keep it in mind: "The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.32.181.131 (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2010 (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:

http://www.nymex.com/CL_spec.aspx

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 69.159.219.48 (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

At the very top of that page they say US barrels and give the quantity in both barrels and gallons showing clearly what conversion factor they use. I dunno how accurate the meters are but I would be very surprised if thier inaccuracy significantly affected the trends. Plugwash (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The exchanges don't and shouldn't get involved in measurement standards. In the US, trade is regulated by the Department of Commerce. They operate NIST who, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, are empowered to regulate the units of trade. Their definition for the barrel (petroleum) is 42 US gallons or exactly 158.9873 litres. See Barrel (volume). LeadSongDog (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "the exchanges don't and shouldn't get involved in measurement standards" ??? Of course it's not up to an exchange to DEFINE a standard, but since the NYMEX defines so many technical aspects of oil trade (when it's traded, where it's delivered, quality aspects (sulphur), etc) it's strange that they don't define the quantum or unit of trade in terms of STANDARD UNITS - such as by weight (lbs or kg), or by volume (cubic feet, yards or meters or gallons or liters). It's a CONTRACT, after all, and a good contract leaves NOTHING unexplained or uncertain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.240.201 (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As LeadSongDog said, it is the U.S. government that defines the size of the standard U.S. oil barrel. That that makes it an official STANDARD unit. NYMEX has no legal right to define measurement units, and doing so could result in it being fined. A contract only has to specify that it is using U.S. oil barrels, and that's good enough for any judge. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is a credible link to a US Gov't definition for the capacity of a tradable barrel of oil, then it should be referenced in the main article. As the article states, there are several definitions for the capacity for a barrel (42 or 55 gallons). I highly doubt that the US gov't is or was responsible for defining the capacity of a barrel of crude oil used for commerce (or that it is a world-wide legal requirement to use a US-gov't definition) but if there is any such legal requirement then again a reference should be stated in the main article. To say that NYMEX has "no legal right to define measurement units" is a bogus argument. What NYMEX has is the right to define or specify units that are pertinent to trade. If NYMEX states that oil is to be traded in terms of barrels, then it is not "illegal" for NYMEX to state the capacity of this thing called a "barrel" in terms of unambiguous STANDARD units, or to point to an authoritative source (authoritative as far as NYMEX is concerned) that defines the capacity of a barrel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.240.201 (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

See: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, NIST Handbook 44, 1994 Edition (Washington, DC, October 1993), pp. B-10, C-17 and C-21. Finding a copy of it is your problem. The oil market is not a kindergarten, everybody trading oil knows what a U.S. petroleum barrel is (42 US gallons). 21:04, 15 July 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)

At first in Oil Springs, Ontario, they would float wooden barrels down ditches or Black Creek to avoid the impassible roads.[1][2]LeadSongDog (talk) 18:55, 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)

nice image

much better than brown-ish something in a bottle clicky —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.82.149.19 (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia can only publish images that are not protected under copyright.  Andreas  ^(T) 13:24, 11 June 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: $Q_{v}=12,400-2,100d^{2}$ where $Q_{v}$ 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: $K={\frac {0.813}{d}}[1-0.0003(t-32)]$ 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: $c={\frac {1}{\sqrt {d}}}[0.388+0.00045t]$ 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: $L={\frac {1}{d}}[110.9-0.09t]$ where L is measured in BTU/lbm, t is measured in °F and d is the specific gravity at 60°F.

--BetheDecay (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)BetheDecay

Useful content. Can we get this expressed in SI units that the modern world can comprehend? LeadSongDog come howl 17:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I did this just now for specific heat and latent heat of vaporization. Should be right, but please double check my arithmetic anyway. I didn't touch thermal conductivity yet because I'd first like to see the British units clarified/straightened out. Shouldn't the "per square foot" be "per foot?" --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be per cubic foot, as opposed to "per square foot" or "per foot?" We are, after all, discussing a fluid. Or, since we are discussing thermal conductivity, would the square foot be appropriate as the area in contact with the medium to (or from) which heat is being conducted would (in most cases I can think of anyway) be two-dimensional? I've gone and truly puzzled myself :) !! Spiral5800 (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

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.

• Protect: This is obviously my vote, considering the above. Spiral5800 (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Protect: Some people (generally semi-literate ones) seem to have an uncontrollable urge to vandalize articles about the petroleum industry. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Peak Oil

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 128.32.166.162 (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.

My advise is to revise to reflect the scholarship, since this is an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.166.162 (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There were a lot of statements grouped together that had been tagged as uncited since Nov 09. That's not right. If no sources have been found since these were tagged 18 months ago, chances are, they are unsupportable. It's not as if there aren't enough people out there trying to prove that oil supplies will go on for ever. If no one who supports that idea here can find a single published source that supports our statements, they should not be here. So I removed them. --Nigelj (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Pollution

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.173.180.214.13 (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a biased information. We want to know about the combustion effects.--147.84.132.44 (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Abiogenic origin

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.[25]" 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)

Energy value

Odd that with all that discussion there's no simple statement of the energy value (about 6.1GJ/bbl). LeadSongDog come howl! 14:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

And surely the units of thermal conductivity are wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.92.173.4 (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the units are wrong and so is the equation. In the referenced report, the units are (BTU in.)/(ft^2 hr. DegF) and the equation is .813/d*(1-.0003(t-32)).12.2.142.13 (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2012 (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).[2][3]"

The links need to be moved. Zedshort (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

The strict definition of petroleum is synonymous with crude oil. The common usage of petroleum is broader, including natural gas, distilled products like gasoline, perhaps even shale oil. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Abiogenic oil?

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)

Unless, someone says something regarding keeping abiogenic oil, I will remove it. Leor klier (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Just link the deletion diff to this discussion in case someone later comes along to reinsert it, we'll need that ref. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't know how to do that - HELP!Leor klier (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

See wp:DIFF. After you delete it, look at the page history: find the latest change (yours) and click on it. It will display what changed. Copy the url for that diff page. Come back to editing this discussion thread and paste it [inside single square brackets] and save your edit. This is a skill you'll use a lot on talkpages, it's worth learning. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - I propose making the change over the weekend, so as to give anyone who might object a little more time to decide whether to oppose the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leor klier (talk • contribs) 13:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the link to the previous version.Leor klier (talk) 12:57, 27 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)

I see you edited the page to add your theory. Unfortunately this is not a reliable source for this claim. I did read the source, but I stopped when I got to Berthelot first carried out experiments involving, among others, a series of what are now referred to as Kolbe reactions and demonstrated the generation of petroleum by dissolving steel in strong acid as it is clearly getting into crackpot territory. If you can find a better source which discusses this theory you may bring it back here for discussion, but this definitely isn't it. Sorry. --John (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Formation

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. --178.197.233.123 (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:

The use of fossil fuels such as petroleum can have a negative impact on Earth's biosphere, releasing pollutants and greenhouse gases into the air and damaging ecosystems through events such as oil spills.

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)

I second Dikteren's concerns. Said paragraph also lacks any citations. --Adam9389 (talk) 15:41, 01 August 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)

I just reverted this change. The WP:LEDE summarises the article, and this is the summary of a whole set of sections. Also, according to that guideline page, the summary in the lede does not need citations as the main statements are to be cited where they appear in the body of the article. Two people commenting a year apart do not a consensus make. --Nigelj (talk) 18:50, 8 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:

http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/Are%20Coal,%20Natural%20Gas,%20and%20Crude%20Oil%20Really%20Fossil%20Fuels%20and%20Is%20There%20Really%20Any%20Oil%20Shortage%20of%20Oil.htm

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)

Unless there's serious evidence that the scientific community sees abiotic oil as anything but wp:FRINGE, there's no reason to include it here. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Picture

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

Alternatively, a picture of unprocessed oil (like from a groundswell) would work as well for effect StarDolph (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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 216.74.233.146 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

152.78.130.202 (talk) 16:59, 2 January 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

Source 85 has been moved. Anyone know where to find it, or know of a replacement source to use? Gambee (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

Silliman

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)

The article on Benjamin Silliman says he was the first person to distill petroleum *in America*.94.175.244.252 (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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 {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131203033813/http://www.opec.org/library/World%20Oil%20Outlook/pdf/WOO2008.pdf to http://www.opec.org/library/World%20Oil%20Outlook/pdf/WOO2008.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbot II linked to an archived version that was still dead [3]; I changed it to an earlier archive with the correct document. Altamel (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"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."

What a crap. There was never so much plankton and algae combined and biomass overall on Earth compared to how much oil has been produced.--Reciprocist (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe there wasn't on Mars or whatever planet you have been living on, but here on Earth the amount of organisms which have died and been buried over the last several billion years has been truly astronomical. A lot of the organic material deposited on sea bottoms has been converted to petroleum by heat and pressure over that time period. When I worked for an oil company, we tried it in the lab and it only took about a week to turn plankton into oil, but nature operates more slowly. Although over the eons 99% of the oil has leaked to the surface and been destroyed by bacteria and weathering, there's still an awful lot of it left down there. Where I grew up we had about 5 vertical miles of organic rock deposits under our feet, and from an oil company perspective, it was pure heaven and very lucrative for my career. Of course, if you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old based on some dubious biblical interpretations, then this explanation will not convince you. If so, go away and move to some much younger planet. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article mention that at least some oil is abiogenic (formed by inorganic means)?

http://www.livescience.com/9404-mysterious-origin-supply-oil.html

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 194.1.145.253 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The article does briefly mention the theory of abiogenic petroleum origin. But generally, abiogenic sources are believed to be inconsequential. The livescience.com webpage you link exaggerates the issue. ChemNerd (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The article leaves the impression that all oil is of organic origin. How is a claim that some oil is abiogenic, an exaggeration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.70.120 (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said the livescience.com article exaggerates the issue. To be more specific, it conveys the idea that there is more of controversy than there really is. ChemNerd (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The livescience.com article is all BS (Bad Science) - discredited 19th century Russian theories and popular myths (oil comes from dead dinosaurs, prehistoric comets, volcanoes, exists in vast pools, takes hundreds of millions of years to form, etc). Virtually none of the oil on Earth is of non-biological origins (unless you classify methane as "oil"). Since the 1950's petroleum geologists have rather accurately determined how and where oil was formed. Vast amounts have been created from dead organisms since life originated on Earth billions of years ago, but 99% of it has escaped from the earth and been biodegraded into new life, so geologists are looking for the 1% that is left underground. You can become rich if you can only find it. The real trick is finding out where it is now, since oil is very mobile and can move several kilometres vertically and hundreds of kilometres horizontally from where it originated. The shale oil revolution is somewhat different in that the oil is still in the marine shale formations where it originated, and the real challenge is producing it economically using horizontal drilling and multistage hydraulic fracturing, but that's too complicated for the popular press. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, people seem to be fond of citing "Larry Nation of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists", quoted out of context of a couple of decades ago, as being authoritative. Let me mention that Larry Nation is the former Communications Director of the AAPG, and has a degree in Journalism. Let me also mention that he said about the late Thomas Gold's abiogenic theory, "We're very familiar with Tommy Gold. Geologists in that field are more open-minded than you might think. They're a pretty independent bunch, or there wouldn't be so many dry holes." and also, "Most petroleum geologists don't agree with his theory, but it's fun to talk about." Gold, on the other hand, was not a petroleum geologist but an Austrian astrophysicist also known for proposing the Steady State theory of cosmic origins, now rejected by the vast majority of astrophysicists in favor of the Big Bang theory.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The question is not about quantities or percentage. The article, as it is today, works very hard to leave an impression that absolutely all naturally occurring oil is of biogenic origin. Which is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.1.145.253 (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I would say that the percentage of abiogenic versus biogenic oil in the world today could be rounded to approximately 0%. If you want to quote a higher number, you need to come up with an authoritative source for it, and not somebody's fringe theory. I would say Gold's abiogenic theory would fall into the fringe theory category given the most recent data on the subject. Just about all petroleum geologists reject it. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You continuously reference some fringe theories, and (successfully) explain why they should not be present in the article. Kudos for that. However, this is not what I am asking. There is no dispute in the scientific community that at least some naturally occurring oil is of abiogenic origin. And the article, as it is today, works very hard to leave an impression that absolutely all naturally occurring oil is of biogenic origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.1.145.253 (talk) 07:47, 19 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)

There is no dispute in the scientific community that at least some naturally occurring oil is of abiogenic origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.1.145.253 (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Choroplth map

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Petroleum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cactus.dixie.edu/smblack/chem1010/lecture_notes/2B.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130729191500/http://www.lclmg.org/lclmg/Museums/OilMuseumofCanada/BlackGold2/OilHeritage/OilSprings/tabid/208/Default.aspx to http://www.lclmg.org/lclmg/Museums/OilMuseumofCanada/BlackGold2/OilHeritage/OilSprings/tabid/208/Default.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/OilSands/1106.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227052412/http://www.norden.org/pub/ebook/2003-516.pdf to http://www.norden.org/pub/ebook/2003-516.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003093310/http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca.energy/files/pdf/eneene/sources/crubru/revrev/pdf/revrev-09-eng.pdf to http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca.energy/files/pdf/eneene/sources/crubru/revrev/pdf/revrev-09-eng.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nymex.com/lsco_fut_descri.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wspa.org/about/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516003736/http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9037130&contentId=7068669 to http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9037130&contentId=7068669
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100506022627/http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pecss_diagram.html to http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pecss_diagram.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120127201212/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2175rank.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2175rank.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Petroleum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070519031720/http://www.geo.uw.edu.pl/BOBRKA/DATY/daty.htm to http://www.geo.uw.edu.pl/BOBRKA/DATY/daty.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090603102058/http://www.rri.ro/arh-art.shtml?lang=1&sec=9&art=3596 to http://www.rri.ro/arh-art.shtml?lang=1&sec=9&art=3596
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090815114446/http://www.oil150.com/essays/2007/08/oil-strategy-in-world-war-ii to http://www.oil150.com/essays/2007/08/oil-strategy-in-world-war-ii
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rrcap.unep.org/md/malereport/2006/Proceeding/II_RCS3/Att5_Initiatives/RSC3_2-5_Power%20Sector%20.ppt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527233843/http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf to http://www.hubbertpeak.com/Hubbert/1956/1956.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120617184210/http://www.oildecline.com/ to http://www.oildecline.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Crude oil reservoirs

There are no citations that are present in this section, I think it would be great to include a source to read back to concerning crude oil reservoirs. Skyeyu (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Petroleum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219113841/http://oilsands.infomine.com/countries/ to http://oilsands.infomine.com/countries/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925100711/http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee2.xls to http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee2.xls
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820012319/http://seeps.wr.usgs.gov/ to http://seeps.wr.usgs.gov/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724175732/http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/historical-trends-in-carbon-dioxide-concentrations-and-temperature-on-a-geological-and-recent-time-scale to http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/historical-trends-in-carbon-dioxide-concentrations-and-temperature-on-a-geological-and-recent-time-scale

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Origin and Formation of Petroleum

Natural gas contains all the noble gasses (He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn). Some gas wells contain as much as 4% helium. The noble gasses are chemically inert and are not found at all in plankton nor any other biological life. The only source of the noble gasses is nuclear reaction. Natural gas and petroleum find their origin in the nuclear reactions happening in the center of the magma sphere. From this center the gasses make their way to the subsurface of the Earth's crust, and finally become trapped beneath shale and slate deposits as well as beneath the thick frozen ice of the arctic plain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My Flatley (talk • contribs) 02:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

1. You really should get into the habit of giving sources.
2. What do you mean by "center of the magmasphere"? "Magmasphere" is customarily defined as "a sphere of magma at the center of a rocky planet or moon of sufficiently large size." The center of Earth is largely solid iron and nickel. There is nothing "spherical" about magma, which is found in the crust at plate boundaries and at hot spots like Hawaii and Yellowstone. A magma chamber might be somewhat spherical but this is by no means necessary.
3. "Natural gas and petroleum find their origen in the nuclear reactions". Since petroleum consists primarily of various hydrocarbons and some oxygen, much more likely is that they find their origin in heat and pressure combining those elements. The heat itelf may originate from nuclear reactions as per Rutherford's explanation but the petroleum itself need not be formed anywhere near nuclear sources of heat since the geothermal gradient exists at other sites besides those bearing radioactive ores. It may however be reasonable to infer that those wells that are rich in noble gases are near such ores. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Why was it merged?

So there used to be separate articles , crude oil and petroleum .. Would it not have made sense to have kept both and skewed the content into either... 'where it occurs, subtypes (brent etc), drilling, discovery, formation' == crude oil. 'refinement, uses,...' == petroleum . Of course both articles would quickly mention the other. Do people really prefer these huge articles.. surely the beauty of a wiki is the ability to browse and zoom in on a specific piece of information

Fmadd (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, these should be separate articles. This article incorrectly defines petroleum as a liquid, when in fact the definition covers solid and gas forms of complex hydrocarbons. I was led here due to the peak oil article referring to 'petroleum deposits' which seemed strange to me, when oil deposits would make more sense. This article implies that petroleum is the correct term for crude oil, when it would be more accurate to say crude oil is a type of petroleum. https://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Terms/p/petroleum.aspx Bertcocaine (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The merge seems fine to me, given the overlap in scope. It doesn't currently suggest that petroleum is the correct term for crude oil; the distinction now seems to be clearly made. Klbrain (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Standard Oil?

How does this entire article not have a single mention of "Standard Oil" or "Rockefeller" (as of 09/17/20), not even in the "History" subsection?

JamesMadison (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Go ahead and edit them in either here or at History of the petroleum industry (which ought to have more detail than here) or both. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

History of the petroleum industry seems like the better place. It should be linked in this article as a mainpage. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

petroleum economy

Road transport, Air transport, Shipping and road works carried out in different countries, cooking gas, petroleum gelly, enghine oil, Grease Etc., Any country that dominate petroleum products' can only be a world power — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.236.236 (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2021

Please change

At the same time, parts of the petroleum industry actively suppressed science and policy that aimed to prevent the climate crisis.

to

Furthermore, parts of the petroleum industry actively suppressed science and policy that aimed to prevent the climate crisis.

The previous sentence reports a timeless fact (that current petroleum practices contribute significantly to climate change), and this sentence talks about events that occurred at specific points in time, so "at the same time" doesn't really make sense here, especially since it's just used to connect the two sentences. 64.203.186.116 (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

What is the first compound formed from petroleum

I think it is oil Sriram bharathwaj (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it is oil

Sriram bharathwaj (talk) 04:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2021

Immediately after the heading "Formation" and just before the subheading "fossil petroleum", please insert the following introductory remark (quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakes_of_Titan#Chemical_composition_and_surface_roughness_of_the_lakes):

Elsewhere in the solar system, specifically on Saturn's largest moon Titan, lakes of liquid hydrocarbons comprising methane, ethane, propane and other constituents, occur naturally. Based on data from the space probe Cassini, scientists announced on February 13, 2008, that Titan hosts within its polar lakes "hundreds of times more natural gas and other liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth." The desert sand dunes along the equator, while devoid of open liquid, nonetheless hold more organic material than all of Earth's coal reserves. It has been estimated that the visible lakes and seas of Titan contain about 300 times the volume of Earth's proven oil reserves.

Thank you. 31.4.128.86 (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I don't think that prose really fits there, as there is no mention of the formation of those hydrocarbons in the suggested prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2021

Immediately after the heading "Formation" and just before the subheading "fossil petroleum", please insert the following introductory remark (quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakes_of_Titan#Chemical_composition_and_surface_roughness_of_the_lakes):

Elsewhere in the solar system, specifically on Saturn's largest moon Titan, lakes of liquid hydrocarbons comprising methane, ethane, propane and other constituents, occur naturally. Based on data from the space probe Cassini it has been estimated that the visible lakes and seas of Titan contain about 300 times the volume of Earth's proven oil reserves.

Hope the more concise prose now meets with the editor's approval. Best to put this modest section in the article and kick off the discussion (if any) that way, rather than enter a minefield (or oilfield?) of discussion on the Talk page with editors who are good on nitpicking formalities but inexperienced in astronomy. Thank you. 31.4.128.152 (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:ScottishFinnishRadish that this would be misplaced where you propose to place it, which is a section on how petroleum forms on Earth. It is a candidate to go in a new section on "Petroleum on other worlds" or some other suitable title, later in the article, assuming there is consensus that the hydrocarbons on Titan actually fit the definition of petroleum. What is present on Titan sounds more like liquified natural gas, if that.

Also, FWIW: As I mention on my user page, I hold a Ph.D. from Caltech in astronomy. I acknowledge this is nowadays somewhat separate from planetary science. Regardless, it is probably best not to assume that editors who disagree with your suggested edits do so out of obstinate ignorance. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with all you say, on oils, on ignorance etc. So please call the header "Hydrocarbons on other worlds". And then experts such as yourself can engage on Wikipedia over the next few weeks, months and years what relevance this has to hydrocarbons on Earth. Be bold. 31.4.128.152 (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I like "Hydrocarbons on other worlds" as a header. With that title, I agree with adding it to the article. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Great. Kindly consider a mention of Titanic lakes of hydrocarbon in the lead. Not immediately perhaps, but after reflection.31.4.158.55 (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 September 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aliciataing.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Large edits, March 2022

• I removed almost all of the history section. We have a separate article on that subject.
• I removed all of the section on various physical chemical analyses which can be applied to many compounds.
• I hypothesize that the majority of readers visit to learn about what it is (composition) and how it is converted to stuff we use (refining).

--Smokefoot (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @SmokefootSmokefoot -- did you make sure that the history section citations were forked into the history article -- it seems slim, and I am not comfortable with that bit being removed. Other edits look good.Sadads (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh.... Let me do some work, getting the removed content properly relocated. In the meantime I will reinstate. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Smokefoot Great! We can also use {{excerpt}} to bring over the lead of the history sub article as well -- so if the lead is good, we can remove all the content that needs to be maintained here. Sadads (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Why are there two sections both called "composition"

176.111.214.208 (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The second Composition section was titled Chemistry up until March 26. I've restored the previous section title. I'm guessing there may have been an intent to merge the two sections, but this was never finished. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

baby oil wersay

what is oil wersay

2001:5B0:44CA:CD18:5DE3:A50C:C490:E2C (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Worldwide production of petroleum

Make a report of it 47.15.7.224 (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Negative slant of lede

It is bizarre that the entire last paragraph of the lede is about the negative effects of petroleum but no where in the lede does it mention that, oh you know, petroleum is one of the largest drivers of modern civilization and human wealth, responsible for literally hundreds of millions of lives saved. Like by all means the article should discuss the downsides, but some perspective is seriously needed. 73.70.48.139 (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. There's a fair bit of duplicate statements couched in different wording as well, lending to its apparent length. I'll take a crack at it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Should Predicting the timing of peak oil be merged into peak oil?

Please comment at Talk:Peak oil#Merger proposal thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ERTH 4303 Resources of the Earth

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2023 and 15 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tnmanning (article contribs). Peer reviewers: EaglesEyes1, Konniehatz.

— Assignment last updated by ChloejWard (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Modern history section contradictions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Modern

This section is confusing because it contains at 3 conflicting claims for the world's first oil refinery, only one of which is sourced. If you search the section of text for 'refinery' they are the only results. Yoweigh (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thomas Gold

Shouldn't his ideas be mentioned? What if fossil fuel is a myth? Methane is found on other planets and can't be fossil 2A00:23C6:F680:2C01:1511:69E1:898B:F790 (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

See Abiogenic petroleum origin. Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Science

What is petrol 103.236.193.91 (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

To add to article

In order to help make this article more properly encyclopedic, shouldn't we add exactly when the earth's petroleum deposits were formed? To my knowledge, 70% of oil deposits existing today were formed in the Mesozoic period, 20% were formed in the Cenozoic period, and 10% were formed in the Paleozoic period. In the current version of this article, neither the names of these three periods nor how many millions of years ago they were are mentioned, but these seem like basic facts that anyone reading this article would expect to find here. How is it that this basic information was left out? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"derived from fossilized organic materials"? Petroleum is hydrocarbons, not minerals.

A fossil is usually understood to be mineralized or permineralized, turned to stone so to speak. Aren't fossils a result of organic material being preserved and thereby NOT becoming petroleum? Petroleum is mainly hydrocarbons so does that really count as fossilization as it's commonly understood? I think that phrasing is either inaccurate or at the very least misleading to the average reader. 95.91.250.144 (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

General evaluation of the article

The article was quite well researched, easy to read, neutral and large subjects such as History and Industry were linked properly (History of the petroleum industry and Petroleum industry) to larger and more complete articles on such subjects. However, certain subjects were found a bit lacking.

-Images are plentiful with proper annotations, sources comes from diverse authors and the article itself is high importance in climate change, environment and energy.

- The Introduction displayed not all of information content found in the article. There is a certain imbalance of subjects found in the introduction. The introduction content was putting forwards more into its exploitation and its usage. Subjects such as the formation of petroleum, history and others were to be serverely lacking in the introduction. Other subjects found later in the article such as alternatives, environmental effects, and classifications were rushed and only covered by 2 to 3 sentences around the introduction.

-The History of Petroleum should be more define in its timeframe. The subject is cut into two parts, early and modern, it can be quite confusing for people that needs a proper timeframe. The earliest timeframe in early is 4300 years and for modern is 1847. Both time estimates in this subject can be better classify such in a more precise but still in a generall timeframe. Such as:

4300 years

2000 years

347 CE (AD) years

7th century

12th - 13th century

1415 - 1450

18th century

. . .

Also, as discused in Talk, (Talk:Petroleum), an added section for prehistoric timeframe would be most beneficial for the history subject.

-Almost all sources were well placed and used efficiently. All were linked to proper sources such as wikipedia But, certain sources needs to be updated and changed.

At the introduction, geological formations linked to a wikiedia aticle that explained geological formation properly but it had no mention of petroleum within the article.

Certain information can be updated. Due to how the world and the market is constantly changing, the petroleum prices and trade doesn't stay the same. It is understanble and should be updated for further research and completion.

At the subject trade, there is a lack of sources representing Nymex exchange and its exchange rates. New York Mercantile Exchange and even Chicago Mercantile Exchange should be added as additional sources and beneficiary aid for others.

-At subject environmental effect, 'others say that fossil fuels increased whaling'. Such line has a lack of source, this sentence goes against the saying of the content within the subject, 'petroleum-refined kerosene saved some species of great whales from extinction'. Probably adding a bit more information or just comprosing this part of the article to later add within another part more focused on animals. A section only for whales is not too imperative to feature an only section,

-Certain subjects can more researched, subjects such as use by country, alternatives and fiction are to be severe lacking in sources and other information. Providing more diverse information (example for use by country; ) and spreading into other domains (example for alternatives; Biofuel)

In the subject fiction, Petrofiction can be more defined with added sources or images of renown novels or work from such genre. Novels such as Oil on Water and Rabbit Is Rich.

Alternatives are severely lacking, due to the impact of climate change and the accelerate progress of technology many articles can be found to further add information within the subject. Such as; Biofuel, Aviation fuel, Ethanol and ...

It is a well-done article, however more adding in informations and a regornisation in certain subjects would be most appreciated.

Ghostpants321 (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that analysis. 'others say that fossil fuels increased whaling' was already cited but I have added a quote within the cite to make it completely clear Chidgk1 (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Re updating Price of oil perhaps you already know that you can download any OWID graph and upload it to Wikimedia Commons for use here on Wikipedia - for example https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/crude-oil-prices Hope you all enjoy your course Chidgk1 (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion and advice. Ghostpants321 (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Samuel Kier

Why is it not mentioned Samuel Kier? "The world's first oil refinery was built in 1856 by Ignacy Łukasiewicz. " is completely wrong. Kier built the first industrial refinery in 1853. It may not be big but he had the first petroleum distillery at least 3 years before.

Is this something political that Wikipedia gets into? "Let's not give credit to US" kind of thing?

Stop this. It is not what Wikipedia was established to do. 73.223.0.150 (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

History about distillation of petrolium

Distillation has been known for centuries, it is correct. Rose water and alcohol were achieved by the distillation processes. However, there is no indication that crude "oil" was distilled before Samuel Kier in the industrial process. Boiling is not a separation by distillation. 73.223.0.150 (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Problematic editor

I'd like to draw attention to the editor ItsCheck, who is repeatedly reverting good-faith edits in an attempt to maintain the inclusion of two irrelevant and politically-motivated sentences at the end of the lead. Arkadios 200 (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I have removed this politically motivated content and am working on neutralizing the lead section of the article. There is nothing to worry about here. ItsCheck (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Arkadios 200 and ItsCheck: ItsCheck has a point but needs some references. The benefits of petroleum are overwhelming and should be recognized prominently. We wouldn't be sitting here typing away without it. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The effects of petroleum on society are less relevant than the properties of petroleum itself in an article about the properties of petroleum, and the lead should reflect that. There are other sections of this article, as well as entire other articles, for discussing petroleum's effects on society. Arkadios 200 (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Arkadios 200:. Quoting from the opening section "Petroleum exploitation can be damaging to the environment and human health...."--Smokefoot (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how that's either irrelevant or politically-motivated. Arkadios 200 (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not an article about the effects of petroleum, this is an article about petroleum, evident by the title. ItsCheck (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Then why are you reverting my edits? Arkadios 200 (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

In case it was not clear, the statements you have been removing from the article in the past two days are true. Previously they were not completely correct, but I removed the politically motivated part so there is nothing to worry about. I am sorry if this was not obvious. ItsCheck (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

If they're both true and relevant, feel free to find sources for them. Arkadios 200 (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Arkadios 200 I am working on adding sources to both of them. ItsCheck (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

revert

At this edit, Editor ItsCheck reverted my edit with the edit summary Citation url is indeed dead, not alive.

In cs1|2 templates ({{cite journal}} in this case), the presence of a url assigned to |archive-url= causes the template to assume that the url assigned to |url= is dead. See these simple examples; this is the default:

{{cite book |title=Title |url=https://www.example.com |archive-url=https://www.archive.org |archive-date=2024-04-02}}

Title. Archived from the original on 2024-04-02.

Adding |url-status=dead to the above example does absolutely nothing except to add extraneous clutter to an article's wikitext; the rendering of the citation is exactly the same as the default:

{{cite book |title=Title |url=https://www.example.com |archive-url=https://www.archive.org |archive-date=2024-04-02 |url-status=dead}}

Title. Archived from the original on 2024-04-02.

As I write this, the live version (permalink) of the article has 76 instances of |archive-url=. Fifty-six of those are marked with |url-status=live. Adding |url-status=live to the above example, does cause the citation to render differently from the default:

{{cite book |title=Title |url=https://www.example.com |archive-url=https://www.archive.org |archive-date=2024-04-02 |url-status=live}}

Title. Archived from the original on 2024-04-02.

My edit should be restored for the reasons just described but more importantly because the revert rebroke this citation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I will kindly self revert. ItsCheck (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)