Talk:Petroleum/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: CRUDE OIL IS NOT PETROLEUM

message: 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)
thread_title:  Refinery bottlenecks 

message: 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)
thread_title: Merging

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911: "Lat. petra, rock, and oleum, oil" (SEWilco 06:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word origin 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Types of Hydrocarbon  

message: 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?  
: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)
thread_title:  applications of petroleum, its impact on our everday lives? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Energy value? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: 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)
thread_title:  Correction for inflation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Q: Petroleum vs. Naphtha 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Huge country list 

message: 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)
thread_title:  picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Abiogenic theory 

message: How much oil do countries use or need ?211.30.96.135 02:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: Removed:
However, th:eir role in the formation, alteration, or contamination of the various hydrocarbon deposits is not yet understood. Thermodynamic calculations 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 ).
: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 ) 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  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  (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)
thread_title:  cut down abiogenic stuff 

message: 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)
thread_title: "New Recovery Technology"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Countries having passed peak production 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Top petroleum-producing countries (Incongruities) 

message: 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  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)
thread_title: Formation Section is Very Bad

message: 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)
thread_title: Oil Futures Market

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What is petroleum? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  how do we estimate the life expectancy of oil 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Offshore drilling 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Petrol? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Extraction 

message: 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, 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)
thread_title:  Removed excessive abiogenic material 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  human consumption 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 . Geologyguy 15:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Contradiction in the map? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Macroseepage? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Excess links in the See also section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Role in electricity generation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV in the 'future of oil' section? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New oil reserves 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  History 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page Hacked?? 

message: "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)
thread_title: Is Wikipedia in the deduction business now?