Talk:Energy superpower

Power Statuses

If anyone can please get this article listed under power statuses, it would be much appreciated. I am at a loss as to how to find a way to edit this status onto that list.

Drakeguy 06:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly clear what you mean, listed where?

Xdamr^talk 04:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean could someone please list this status in the power statuses section, you know, the one with hyperpower, superpower, great power, middle power, and regional power in it? It seems apparent to me this should be right alongside those statuses considering the increasing importance of energy producing states to the world economy. Drakeguy 23:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, the International power template. I added it to the 'Other' section a couple of days ago - I think that that's the best place for it.

Regards, Xdamr^talk 23:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broadening of Countries Listed

While I may have started the article, I realize that no such article can ever be complete with just 6 countries. Clearly we need to find the ones we're missing in the emerging and potential energy superpower categories! Countries like Kazakhstan maybe, or others perhaps? Drakeguy 21:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Production & Reserves figures needed for all Countries!

We need to be listing where ALL of these countries rank in energy production & reserves if possible. This will greatly enhance this article's legitimacy. We're just beginning to do this, and I urge everyone to find those figures, as I have done for a few countries. Drakeguy 21:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this info not exist anywhere on WP? If not is should be a major priority! Kevlar67 04:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay if you go to Oil reserves you will see that there are so many competing numbers that we'll never truly know for sure. And that should be mentioned in this article as well. If you go to Petroleum#International_market you can also see stats for exports and production which are just as important. We should also be careful not to duplicate Petroleum politics. Kevlar67 04:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked over the article you talked about, and I think you need not fear, as this article is far more broad-based, and as it is relatively new you still have a chance to considerably influence the structure of what is presented here. Drakeguy 21:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Energy Policy

Does anyone have the time and knowledge to start an article on the energy policy of Russia, or on any of the other countries mentioned? See energy policy of the United States and energy policy of the United Kingdom for ideas... Gralo 19:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Iran and Iraq

This article doesn't mention about Iaran or Iraq. Former with energy equivalent nearly qual to saudi arabia and greater tahn russia and later with second largest oil reserve in the world.(Nubin_wiki 06:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

OPEC

Could OPEC be considered as an energy superpower, although its not a state? Beagel 15:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, as you'll noticed the status of energy superpower is defined as a state-based definition rather than being a consortium based status. That said, OPEC does indeed have one oil superpower, Saudi Arabia, within it and numerous potential energy superpowers. I'd suggest creating a special section on OPEC and saying that because it's a consortium of sometimes differing interests, (energy superpower entails a consistent leveraging of energy assets globally by a single actor (that's International relations talk for the state only))it cannot be considered itself an energy superpower, it does wield considerable influence through the decisions of its members. Also there's the issue of OPEC lacking as much creditability on production as we'd like to see here, as the market often doesn't pay attention to OPEC "production cuts" unless it sees Saudi Arabia or others actually reduce oil shipments. Drakeguy 21:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

potential/emerging -- OR problems

I've moved a large bloc of text from the main article to a temporary workpage. Due to the recent AFD vote which deleted the emerging superpowers articles due to OR and speculation, I'm moving the potential and emerging energy superpower sections to Talk:Energy superpower/temp so that OR issues can be worked out there, and the article will not suffer from OR problems during the process.—Perceval 03:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please describe, which OR problems there was and what potential OR issues you see in this block?Beagel 10:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. The main problem is that the sections need to be restructured so that it is not wikipedia that is making a case, but it is attributed experts who are making the case. So instead of having sections that simply cite primary source data on oil/energy production (this applies to all the "potential" energy superpower sections), the sections ought to begin

"Energy analyst Bob Sackamano, in his 2005 report on energy market patterns, says that Kazakhstan has the potential to be a "major energy supplier" whose production has "global influence". Blah Blah Blah, all the evidence that Sackamano cites as important, etc etc etc.

See the difference? In the current revision, the Wikipedia article uses raw data to support a case WP:OR. In the second example, Wikipedia reports the "state of the debate" by accurately summarizing the published verifiable opinions of reputable sources WP:NPOV & WP:V. The "emerging" superpowers is slightly less problematic, since Australia and Canada at least have a prime minister saying that they'll be an energy superpower. But we have to be careful not to make their argument for them: if they simply assert that they're going to be an energy superpower without giving reasons or evidence, then it's not really our place to cite evidence to make their case for them. I think this material can successfully be reworked to avoid OR, but we have to make sure that we're representing reputable people's attributed arguments, not our own.—Perceval 18:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I agree that it up to experts, not wikipedians, to say if and which countries are energy superpowers. However, I think that providing background information about production capacities and reserves could be natural part of improving article. If this information will be presented in neutral way and not for "making case for them", it can't be accounted as OR.

We have Canadian and Australian PMs claims that their countries will be energy superpowers. In this context, what about Kazakhstan's president describing Kazakhstan as "a factor of energy security in Asia and Europe"? Beagel 18:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any verifiable quotes from experts on one side or the other ought to be put in. I am not against certain raw data--e.g. Kazakhstan's percentage of worldwide gas exports--from being included. But any raw data put in by Wikipedians must be subordinate to the quotes and arguments advanced by published experts.—Perceval 18:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put my cents in here. I have already told Perceval what I think of such sudden and massive editing, and in the future I expect editors to create compensating edits or pages when important concepts are being edited off this page. Drakeguy 00:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK

The UK has vast off shore gas resources, and as far as i know the only country to lay claim to drilling rights in antartica - the last untapped oil reserve. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Antarctica 82.11.195.211 22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But despite that fact, no one has come forward to use any of it from the UK, not even BP. This page is about current production and potential, and Antarctica's current status is too vague for us to list the UK next to proven potential energy superpowers like Canada, Venezuela, and Iran. Drakeguy 21:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK

Everyone knows the North Sea is running out of oil. The UK is a net oil importer so they are in a no way an energy superpower. 69.242.205.212 09:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]