Talk:Oil megaprojects

	Oil Megaprojects Task Force
	The article page to this talk page, is subject to revision by the Oil Megaprojects Task Force.

Iran Yadavaran and Koshk-Hosseineh - same project

Koshk Hosseineh has been deleted from year 2010 since it is the same as Yadavaran, year 2011

http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article8223.ece?service=print

Hydro eyes Yadavaran

Norway's Norsk Hydro said today that it is bidding to take part in the development of Iran's giant Yadavaran oilfield. "We have put in a bid for Yadavaran," Norsk Hydro senior vice president Jorgen Kristian Andersen told Reuters on the sidelines of its third-quarter earnings presentation in Oslo.

He said the company was also seeking a licence north of its Anaran block in Iran, where it has a 75% stake.

Yadavaran, formerly known as Kushk and Hosseinieh, lies close to the Anaran block in Iran's south-west.

In July, Iran said that it had made new discoveries in several crude layers at Yadavaran that amounted to more than 3 billion barrels of recoverable crude.

Fellow Norwegian outfit Statoil has also bid for participation in Yadavaran.

14:54 GMT, 18 October 2004 | last updated: 09:39 GMT, 28 April 2005

Tempa Rossa miss

see here : Tempa Rossa Done, Tony

"Wikipedia Megaprojects Database"

I have found this term at other articles and even other websites. It seems Wikipedia is being used to publish original research. This cannot be the case. Wikipedia is only for displaying existing research published elsewhere by reliable sources. We can also not reference Wikipedia as a reference in other articles. Any concepts discussed here must be established firmly elsewhere first.

I'm going to look around my self a bit, but if I or no one else can find good references for the prediction section in this article, it will have to go. NJGW (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, since nothing was offered by Freddy Hutter (apparently the author of this stuff) in the several times he edited this page since I left the above message and some OR tags, I have cleaned up the article. There's probably still more OR, but for now it's probably OK (afai can tell). NJGW (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I completely understand your point, I fully agree that Wikipedia is not a place for publishing original research (blogs are made for that) but why referring to "Wikipedia Megaprojects Database" shouldn't be allowed? does it mean that I can't refer to Wikipedia's List of castles in France on other websites for instance? Sfoucher (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If List of castles in France well sourced and innocuous, the link away. The links I'm talking about were by the people who inserted and maintained the OR here, which they could just have easily created and maintained at the other websites. They used the existence of their project here as a source of legitimacy. That's not kosher. NJGW (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

well this is basically a *huge* list, with proper sources for each item in the list. There are sums based on this list (to fill the main table), this should be OK too : if i take the population of the US, mexico and canada in 3 different sources and sum the figure to get the population of North America, is that original research? Only the section "Application to oil supply forecasting" seems borderline about OR. --Raminagrobis fr (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If you take figures of any kind from 3 different sources and sum them it is novel synthesis because you are assuming that the data is collected the same way, that margins for error are the same, that the data is from the same period, and probably other factors that I'm not thinking of right now. NJGW (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

8 months since last update

It would be nice to run the script to update the table plz:) --Raminagrobis fr (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

10 months since last update

Obviously this article has no value if not maintained regularly. I suggest to include a note in the beginning stating the tables are out of date.

I find it quite strange that a WP article can be maintained by a single person : this is totally contrary to WP principles, including open source.

If the person in charge of maintainance ever turns up again, please note that Indonesia is no longer OPEC, and make sure to correct the table accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Environnement2100 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've started to update the table and the files, it should be finished by tomorrow. --Sfoucher (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Irak

I miss all the develloppement of existing oilfields in IRAK by foreign companies like ESSO TOTAl and others with they say ten millions barrels of new production expected in the next 10 years. Why is this production not included in “Wikipedia oil megaproject”?

Rodolphe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.80.224.83 (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

new production 2009 & 2010

In an article published at http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52020 on March 17, 2010, Tom Whipple wrote "new oil fields coming into production which for 2009 and 2010 is expected to add about 6 million b/d of new productive capacity each year." That is a considerably higher estimate for total new oil production for those years than is listed in the Oil megaprojects database. How can those estimates be reconciled? Jkintree (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Missnamed

Is this a joke? How is 20,000 barrels called a megaproject? The world produces about 89 million barrels of oil a day. 20,000 is about 2% of that. Miniprojects would be a better title. Delphi234 (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)