Talk:Unconventional (oil and gas) reservoir

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MERGED TALK FROM FORMER ARTICLE ON UNCONVENTIONAL OIL[edit]

Cost[edit]

$18 per barrel from tar sands seems a little high. I worked at Syncrude and if I remember correctly it was about $12 to $15 Canadian per barrel. Does anyone have a source? TastyCakes 05:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Non-conventional oil[edit]

Is there any approved and accepted Definition of Non-conventional oil in literature? Who established this term first? thanks Holo

I believe "unconventional oil" would be a better name for this article; it gets more search engine hits by a factor of almost four to one. Thoughts? GreenReaper (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a plan to me. Any objections? NJGW (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "unconventional oil". Beagel (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The definition supplied in this article is based on commercial value, which is both ephemeral and geo-political and so is subject to constant change - that is not a definition - it is a condition of the definition, which is supplied here and is physical, based upon both fluid and reservoir qualities, which are unchanging. I suggest we agree on the more stable definition and either merge or link back to it (to include unconventional gas.Geneus01 (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

bad title on my RV[edit]

I just did a rv on a serial POV vandal from 70.134.*.* and inadvertently used a boilerplate edit summary. In fact, peak oil is very relevant to the topic, but it is already covered by the link to Hubbert peak and the page's categories.

This guy has been injecting a POV into many articles through subtle changes or addition of POV statements that, even if arguably true, have little bearing on the topic at hand.

Nova SS 01:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

400 year claim[edit]

If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of the current 20 million barrels per day (32,000 m³/d) demand, 800 billion barrels (130,000,000,000 m³) of recoverable resources would last for more than 400 years.[3]

Could this misinform someone who isn't willing to think about it for a second. I'm not saying the above is wrong, but it fails to point out that demand is likely to increase. Also, would the remaining 3/4 of conventional oil last for that long? Isn't this point quite pointless?! --Willplatts (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good point, here and elsewhere, it should read "if demand/production remained flat" or skip entirely Harel (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oil manufacture[edit]

Since there are several startups racing to be the first to manufacture petroleum products in industrially useful quantities (they've already managed it in small amounts), I think it's time to add bugs to the mix. Once oil can be manufactured as well as extracted, a great many things change, including the privileged position of OPEC and Peak Oil. TMLutas (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhouse gases and other impacts[edit]

.... Harel (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

School project edits[edit]

In the next few days this page will soon get a significant revision and subsequent editing from students participating in the Public Policy Initiative. This article was chosen because it is missing content or sourcing and has been relatively innactive. Their draft articles are being formed in their user space and will be transfered here. Links to the drafts can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Courses/Political Economy of Technology and Science fall 2010. I will not be allowing students to that first initial transfer unless their article has been significantly improved in references and content. Please provide comments on the significant revisions and help the students improve the Wikipedia formatting. However, I would greatly appreciate that any major content changes be suggested to the students on the talk page so that they get the experience editing collaboratively and through consensus and feedback. The final date for the project is Friday December 10, expect significant editing from now until then. Thank you.

If you have any questions feel free to raise them here or on my talk page, Myself and other WP:Online Ambassadors will be monitoring their edits, so we will also be able to help fix issues on the pages, Sadads (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References moved to talk page[edit]

These references were recently added by the school project (see above); they don't appear to be used at the moment so I am moving them here in case they are useful for future editors. Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mike for taking an interest in this article. There project was due last night so the students may or may not be back to help contribute to the article. I hope, however, that you found their contributions useful for this topic, and I am sure whoever next decides to improve the article finds these references useful, Sadads (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem -- I'm the mentor for at least one of them, so I'm glad to help. I think I'll leave things as they stand unless I hear from the students again. Hope the class went well. Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For a compressed period of time for them to work on the articles (like 4-6 weeks depending at how proactive the students were), I would call the class's content a success. Go ahead and take a look at the other articles listed at WP:USPP/C/PECTS, and thanks again! Sadads (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Way Off Topic[edit]

Section 3.1 Recent policy actions -- is totally unrelated to unconventional oil. Likewise, the section on unconventional drilling is focused on natural gas, and has nothing to do with unconventional oil. NiN (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Environmental justice and unconventional drilling" is also way off topic and should be removed. That section deals with some theory about what is Environmental justice and natural gas, neither of which is the topic of this article. Bonewah (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Unconventional oil. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge[edit]

There is no mistaking the confusion of language in the public domain when it comes to the extraction of oil or gas from unconventional reservoirs. Unfortunately, that confusion is currently amplified in Wikipedia, which is - well - understandable but avoidable. I have attempted (with a panel of academic and industry experts) to generate a new irreducible definition of unconventional reservoirs (also referred to in the sector as unconventional resources, resource plays or just unconventionals). The new article responds directly to User:Geneus01's comment about changing the basis of the definition from non-unique and ever changing commercial premises to immutable physical premises, albeit under variable pressure and temperature conditions. The proposal here is to combine unconventional oil with unconventional gas and merge them under Unconventional (oil & gas) reservoir, preserving the histories for both. Your comments would be welcomed.Guy WF Loftus (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


TALK FROM MERGED ARTICLE[edit]

Baseline definition[edit]

Unconventional resource definition was dispersed prior to this article, which supplies an irreducible starting point for resource characterisation. The article was reviewed by experts from academia and industry (R. Barrett, M. Bloemendaal, P. Burgess, J. Filbrandt, A. Mellin, J. Redfern, N. Shaw and R. Swarbrick) prior to publication. The headline graphic was created as a schematic whilst compiling public domain definitions. Guy WF Loftus (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from New Page Review process[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Great article.. 

scope_creepTalk 13:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

Over the next few days, a merger will be performed to provide clarity on a commercial definition that seems to have become accepted for lack of geological challenge. The previous definition has seeded a number of daughter articles and associated articles that go down a commercial rabbit hole. Commercial perspectives are important because they form the foundation of any enterprise-based venture. But they also need to be underpinned (in the oil & gas sector) by geological reality.

The proposal here is to combine unconventional oil with unconventional gas and merge them with this article, preserving the talk for all three (but excluding parallel histories). This will provide clarity for associated articles about unconventional versus conventional oil & gas and crucially, their respective impacts on the environment. Guy WF Loftus (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

REVIEW banner posted April 2023[edit]

Thanks @Lettherebedarklight: for bringing my attention to the weaknesses in this article - I had been advised in a discussion not to include the history but I agree with you - it gives more depth and context for those who contributed to pre-merge versions on an article, which is (mercifully) much briefer than its antecedents. The authors would like to understand and correct your observation about the issues you present - as you can read above, it was carefully complied from published sources over many months with Wikipedia consultation notices and discussion (e.g.Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology), with contributions outside of Wikipedia from an independent panel from academia and industry to avoid any cognitive bias. We would appreciate your guidance on improving the article to make it less essay-form. More detail on why it is wrong allows us to debate the points and improve the article.Guy WF Loftus (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Lettherebedarklight: - Two weeks on from your original assessment, we are really keen to have your perspective on what it is about this article that is flawed and that we can fix collaboratively. We would be happy to present a discussion on the merits of remediation to WikiProject Geology for arbitration if required but we need your perspective to drive forward a resolution. Grateful for your response when you have a moment.Guy WF Loftus (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@guy wf loftus: hold on a second. who is "we"? accounts can't be shared between more than one person.
Thanks @Lettherebedarklight: All good calls - as you can tell from the speed of this response, the "we" isn't shared - but I have asked experts to keep me honest, so there is an implied review process, although not shared as such. I Will study the material you offered and take appropriate measures.
On reviewing the rules concerning shared accounts, I think that asking individuals (who don’t have Wikipedia accounts, have no access to mine and who themselves have no Wikipedia editing experience) to proof read what I am writing is not sharing accounts as described, but is due diligence on content to assure quality. You have also helped me to edit the content to make it less essay-like, which makes you part of that of the same peer review process.Guy WF Loftus (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
on the article itself, section titles such as The rise of unconventional reservoirs, and sentences such as Two world wars, followed by huge economic growth, changed all of that or The gamble worked are pretty essay-like. perhaps write that section under a "history" section, in a simple and dry encyclopedic tone. also, a lot of statements made are aren't supported by any source.
really helpful - thanks (easy to get blind to your own style of rhetoric).
I have toned down the “history” section as you suggested and frankly winced a bit at the tone - thank you; you were spot on with that. I made a few of other tweaks to flatten the tone. You have already worked on this enough but would you @Lettherebedarklight: mind slipping in a couple of [citation needed] - I’m always careful not to over cite but have probably undershot in this article.Guy WF Loftus (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. i have no idea what the table of reservoirs is trying to tell me with ?buoyancy? (why the question marks?). lettherebedarklight晚安 06:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]
I'll need to find an alternative if this creates confusion - it is because no one has ever flowed gas from hydrates commercially, so the flow characteristics are just unknown. It is similarly difficult to characterise the flow characteristics from tar sands, depending on the condition of both oil and substrate. What would be a more elegant way to express uncertainty in a table? Greying out the lettering perhaps?Guy WF Loftus (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question marks remain because I don’t have the content knowledge to confirm the flow status in this particular instance - this is where I hope a Wikipedia editor with the appropriate content knowledge will clarify but that requires allowing the natural process of editorial openness in Wikipedia to do its business.Guy WF Loftus (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lettherebedarklight: - I have had a go at making corrections along the lines suggested by you. I wonder if you consider that the modifications qualify for an adjustment or removal of the banners you issued. Are we closer to resolution?Guy WF Loftus (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would sincerely value your giving the last word on this @Lettherebedarklight:, as I am too close to the article to form a judgment. Have I addressed your issues sufficiently? If you don't object in the next week, I will remove the banner.Guy WF Loftus (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Banners provisionally removed as advised above on the understanding that they could be re-instated at any time with reasonable and reasoned doubt.Guy WF Loftus (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unconventional_(oil_and_gas)_reservoir&oldid=1211243273"