Template talk:Infobox oil field

message: Since the majority of the data available seems to be in US units and not SI units, the data should be filled with US unit data.  I have provided the necessary conversions from metric to convert from tonnes to barrels and from cubic meters to cubic feet.  In a further modification, I will give the template the ability to display in either SI units (metric) or US units.  I have not worked out the details yet.Kgrr 16:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds good, they're not really known as US units though just as Oilfield Units, kinda of depends where in the world you're working but certainly in US,UK you use oilfield units, and in europe you use Metric. The Canadians seem to have their own version of metric. I've seen some people on wikipedia convert units into some ridiculous terms like km3 to describe reservoir size though. Philbentley 21:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think usually here in Canada we use bbls for oil and either scfs or cubic meters for gas.  Sometimes oil sands stuff confuses this since people use cubic meters of bitumen, I think because it's being mined and that's what the mining industry uses.  But I think having a choice between oil field and metric units will satisfy everyone.  Or perhaps they could show metric units in brackets?  TastyCakes (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Both should be displayed with conversions between US (call them "oil field units" if you like but they're based on feet and US gallons) and metric units.  Note also that the word "meters" appears with no way of switching to "metres".  This is causing strife on pages which use Commonwealth spelling but the solution is easy: if we have both metric and US units we don't need to put the unit in the header (in fact, of course, it makes no sense). JIMp talk·cont 09:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

text: You were using the wrong name, I've fixed it.  TastyCakes (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Units of Measure

message: I noticed for some reason on the Burgan Field the STOIIP numbers were not coming up, have i missed some bit.  thanks Philbentley 09:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You were using the wrong name, I've fixed it.  TastyCakes (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: STOIIP

message: Rather than having Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place (which does not make it entirely clear if it's recoverable or total) shouldn't the template have a "Recoverable Oil Initially in Place" and a "Total Oil Initially in Place"?  TastyCakes (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recoverable vs In place

message: I propose to merge (or maybe just redirect) the Template:Oilfield into this template as it is really about the same subject. Beagel (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya I nominated the other one for speedy deletion since it doesn't seem to be used by any article and seems to just duplicate this template.  Is there something in that one that is not in this one?  TastyCakes (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Oilfield has "type" and "grade" parameters, and in the example in its documentation, type is "Crude" and grade is "light." I'm not an expert on the subject, but I didn't know anything other than crude oil could be drilled. The grade sounds like it could be a bit more useful, so it should be merged into this template. Also, the documentation of this template should be moved to Template:Infobox Oil field/doc. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm I guess type could be gas field?  Or gas condensate field?  Not sure what other types there could be, maybe bitumen.  Grades might be useful to add to this... TastyCakes (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As this infobox for both–oilfields and gasfields–the type parameter should probably simply mean oil or gas. In any case, this should be specified in the documentation. Beagel (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Merger looks good, but think i'm a little late anyways. as mentioned could be interesting for soemthing saying if it was sour gas, sour oil, heavy oil etc etc. or even more broadly, conventional, unconventional oil, tight gas, shale gas, CBM. But not sure if thats just goign to clutter things up. Dexcel (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that'd be a good idea, and I don't think it would make it too cluttered.  What would you have, a "Type: such and such" as one of the lines?  TastyCakes (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: I'm wondering if this Template is appropriate for Sarah and Myra. Drilling hasn't started there yet, so whether or not they constitute a gas & oil field is still speculative.—Biosketch (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the template applies to Sarah and Myra. Beagel (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: Could a relief parameter be added to enable use of relief maps? --ELEKHHT 02:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Use |relief=1 (or any other non empty value) to load a relief version of the location map. Michael! (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Relief

message: It would be helpful if the infobox had some way of expressing the uncertainty of estimates of recoverable oil. These can have a very wide range, especially for newly discovered fields. For example, as of October 2010, estimates of potential of the Brazilian Libra field ranged from 3.7 to 15 billion barrels. As now implemented, the template will not accept two figures with the word "to" or a dash between them, e.g. "3700 to 15000" or "3700—15000." Adding such an enhancement to the template is outside of my skills set; can someone else help? Piperh (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncertainty of recoverable oil estimates 

message: I fixed the error with the template using , but noticed some inconsistency with conversion from million tonnes from million bbl and back.  I realize that a volume to mass conversion requires assumptions on density, but seems like the default should be consistent? Frietjes (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  rndsigfig 

message: Not sure what's going on but on the article Tamar gas field a value for production_year_gas is populated. However, the label which shows up in the display is the one associated with production_year_oil ("Year of current production of oil"), which is not even included in this particular infobox. Strange. Wikiliki (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: - Label is fixed. Beagel (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Year of current production of gas

message: Change a transcluded template that does not exist:  to . Thanks. —181.53.12.70 00:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it's transcluded in from somewhere, yeah. I'm not seeing where, though, and wherever it's coming from is probably template-protected. I've switched this over to the template-protected queue so someone with more expertise can look at this. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 01:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've created the missing redirects. I don't know why they were suppressed when moving the template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2019 

message: In the manual of style MOS:UNITSYMBOLS, under prefixes, Wikipedia recommend that the prefix MM for million should not be used. There are currently about 220 uses of the abbreviation MMBbl for million barrel at English Wikipedia. This infobox template produce many of them. Any comments to the suggested change below?
For label40 = Estimated oil in place
In the conversion part from tonne, suggestion to replace MM with million, add link instead of tooltip and remove conversion to cubic metre as the 'metric reader' already have the tonne value.
From:
(~ )
To:
(~ 
  
)
Suggested by: Ws1920 (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Today there are 204 articles with MMBbl from this template, and 15 other articles using MMBbl. Ws1920 (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to ask  to help with this request. Beagel (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed the MMbbl as requested. Frietjes (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

text:  Beagel and Ws1920, I put the suggested code in the sandbox for comparison in the testcases shown here.  it looks like there are some spacing issues, and I am not sure if you really want to remove the conversion to cubic meters. Frietjes (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Frietjes, thanks a lot for a quick fix with the million! I think it gets cleaner by removing the m3 in the infobox. As 'metric reader' already have tonne, I vote for the other change from the sandbox as well. Ws1920 (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to change MMbbl to million bbl