User talk:RockyMtnGuy

Welcome!

Hello, RockyMtnGuy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Flower party☀ 07:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic AC power plugs and sockets

I see you've been active at Domestic AC power plugs and sockets, which is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. If you can help us address the issues raised on the FAR, perhaps the article's featured status can be retained. Regards, Sandy 13:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost status

Hi Rocky. The page lost status today and I thought I'd stop by and say that it wasn't for lack of trying on your part. The review had been up six weeks and there wasn't a whole lot happening on the page, so I felt it was time to close it one way or another. The last comments had tilted it toward remove. It still remains a damn comprehensive page on the topic—perhaps consider trying for Featured list as was suggested in the review. The nature of the topic may be more given to a list.

Hope all is well in the Rockies; wish I were home for the Canadian autumn. Marskell 10:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light Rail

To clarify a few points you made in the notes to your edits on the light rail in North America page:

(cur) (last) 02:09, 18 October 2006 RockyMtnGuy (Talk | contribs) (→Criticisms of light rail in the U.S. - You can design an LRV to go 160 km per hour. You can go 160 km/hr in your car, too, but some policeman will stop you (except in Germany).)

Light rail's being too slow to compete with the automobile is based on 1) time to get to and from nearest light rail stations at each end and 2) travel times owing to many stops made. I know driving is far faster than my commute to work on Boston's Green line, but then again it has to wait for lights. Additional point, most light rail systems have max speeds of around 50-60mph since the small distance between stops limits the system from getting up to higher speeds.

(cur) (last) 02:06, 18 October 2006 RockyMtnGuy (Talk | contribs) (→Criticisms of light rail in the U.S. - And why would the US, with 300 million people, 80% of whom are within 50 miles of the coast, be more spatially disadvantaged than Germany? Provide details.)

This argument refers to the sprawling low-density layout of America cities. Or more specifically, its suburbs. No matter where you run a rail in suburbia, you won't be walking distance from a large population.

(cur) (last) 01:34, 18 October 2006 RockyMtnGuy (Talk | contribs) (→Travel time - Three points. Is it the US second busiest LRT line, does it carry 70,000 passengers/day (sounds low), and in Hotel California you can check out but you can never leave?)

For information on this, see: List of United States Light Rail systems by ridership

(cur) (last) 01:20, 18 October 2006 RockyMtnGuy (Talk | contribs) (→Travel time - First sentence sounds dubuious. Cars in major U.S. cities average about 12 mph during rush hour. LRT running at half that rate sounds like a major design screwup.)

LRT makes many stops, and if it runs in the street, still must wait in traffic, though, if on its own right of way, I'd expect better speeds during congested highway jams.

--Loodog 04:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To conspiracy nuts or just those that avoid some possible facts: Please look at substance & stop bringing up ad hominem fallacies & source of bread. If there really is truth in the streetcar conspiracy, mention those points, not just GM. If you really want to look at ideology: http://www.aynrand.org/ http://www.petersoninstitute.org/ http://www.ti.org/ http://www.pacificresearch.org/

"This guy can't say anything valid because he... or some of his money comes from..." Get real. Get an open mind. And don't be a socialist. By the way, do you buy any of the types of products that are offered by the companies that are slandered? 68.180.38.31 (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time believing that you are educated. When you quote sourcewatch & exxonsecrets.

I get paid by _________. Does that mean that anything I say is false & supported by that company. I really pity your thought process. 68.180.38.31 (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oil shale

Hi Rocky. You seems to knew a lot about non-conventional oil resources. Maybe you would like to check the article about oil shale, particularly the information related to Canada. Thank you in advance. Beagel 05:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I listed Oil shale for the new peer review and related spin-off articles (Oil shale extraction, Oil shale geology, Oil shale industry, History of the oil shale industry, Oil shale reserves, Oil shale economics, and Environmental effects of oil shale industry) for the peer review. Your comments and edits will be most welcome. The intention is to have these articles ready for the GA and FA nominations.Beagel 17:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removed some statistics that I added to the Tar Sands page yesterday. You're clearly much more qualified to write about Tar Sands oil extraction than most, but I saw your comment when you deleted the stats and I was wondering where you verified that the information was faulty, just out of general curiousity and for future reference. Thanks Jcrav2k6 (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked the article that was cited and found the journalist who wrote it had not a clue what he was talking about. Since was completely off-topic, I decided that deleting it was easier than fixing it. By the way, you used an anonymous ID to edit it rather than the one you're using now.

The author of the article seems to be based in London and apparently has never been to Canada, never mind the oil sands. In fact, I know a lot more about what is going on than he does. Unbeknownst to him, the project he was writing about is a new technique called steam assisted gravity drainage, which involves no mining and only about 0.2 m3 of water consumption per m3 of oil production rather than the 5 cited (which would be for a mining operation circa 1960).

I added some information to the article, including a citation of a government paper which is somewhat more relevant. The reality is quite different from what is in the popular media. It's not really "pristine wilderness" and there are reasons why there weren't many people living there. The forest has almost completely been destroyed by forest fires, it's unbelievably cold in winter, there's little soil fertility, the lakes are almost devoid of fish, and the rivers are contaminated by oil because the oil sands have been leaking into them for thousands of years.

In fact, the government doesn't really want companies to restore the natural environment, it wants them to improve on it, which is not hard. They turn it into grazing land, put some buffalo on it, set up a few picnic tables, and make it look lovely. Something like someone from London would consider pristine wilderness. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotford Upgrader

Hi and a Happy New Year. There is a new article about Scotford Upgrader. Maybe you would like to take a look and expand it. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year. I clarified the operation somewhat (the Upgrader takes bitumen from the Muskeg River Mine and sends syncrude to the Scotford Refinery), and added a bit more on the process. Of course, this means we need articles on the Muskeg River Mine and Scotford Refinery, as well... Cheers, RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Arthur Oliver Wheeler.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Arthur Oliver Wheeler.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to reuse on Wikipedia has been granted by the Alpine Club of Canada. However, under Canadian copyright law it is in the public domain because it was taken prior to 1949-01-01, and thus nobody requires permission to use it. American copyright law is very annoying, and an infringement on the rights of Canadians. We in Canada are lobbying to pass legislation of a completely different nature, which would benefit academic researchers, unlike American copyright law which benefits only giant multinational corporations. So far, we have shot down a couple of attempts by different governments to pass American-like legislation, and we have a fairly major on-line revolt in progress. For more information, see http://www.digital-copyright.ca/ RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JACOS

Hi, Rocky. There is a new article about Japan Canada Oil Sands Limited (JACOS). This article is quite messy and currently nominated for deletion. However, I think this article is worth to be improved. I hope you could help as you have more knowledge about the subject.Beagel (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petroleum

Hi, Rocky, I've just looked in on the Petroleum article and found out that the silly mis-statement on its composition has been changed, and a little research has led me to your edit on the 12 Jan. Congrats.
I've been in fact contemplating for some time to make this change, but I was going to add a few words on Caracterisation Factors and crude types as well.
Searching Google on Petroleum Classification gave me the reference of the notes of Weidong Gu on the lectures of Dr.Semih Eser, Associate professor of Energy and Geo-Environmental Engineering and Mr. A.J. Brandt, Teaching assistant,http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/enwiki/w/y/wyg100/fsc432/lecture%203.htmalteration (Notes last updated in 2001) but the hypertext contact http://www.eme.psu.edu/~eser/CHE432/ is unattainable. so I could not ask for permission to present his triangle diagram and data. I am not even certain if such permission is needed. If not, the diagram could be usefully included. If my memory serves me right The Science of Petroleum (bible) of several volumes also contains the info (I don't have access to it). User:H Padleckas has made an even nicer diagram, but it has not been uploaded onto the Commons for fear of licence probs. What do you think? LouisBB (talk) 07:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, people cannot copyright facts, nor can they copyright raw data as such. They can only copyright the representation of such data, and the representation must have some artistic merit to be copyrightable. This means, for instance, that the telephone company can copyright the telephone directory, but it cannot copyright the names and numbers in it since there is no artistic merit in simple tables. So, someone else can issue their own telephone directory using the telephone company's data, as long as they make it look somewhat different. So, IMHO, an "even nicer diagram" would be a completely different work and subject to its own copyright. It's all about art, not data. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, people like to use stuff from the US Government because the US Government is prevented - by Statute - from copyrighting any of its work product. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oil units

Hi, Rocky. There is going on a discussion about conversion of oil units. I think that your opinion would be valuable.Beagel (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMPLAINERS VERSUS COLLABORATORS

- I have to agree with your complaint about the quality of the net Nannies you find here. My experiences parallel your in that a lot of people here spend more time looking for things to complain about than to get their hands dirty helping to do some writing and research. I work in the transit industry, so I can help from time to time. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Howdy, just a note of appreciation for your recent work - barrel, Athabasca Oil Sands, & Oil reserves. Thanks! Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Bakken comment

Hello, someone asked a question here which I tried to answer, but you may know more about the topic (especially the Canadian side). Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

Your most recent changes in Oil Reserves helped to strengthen the article considerably. 198.151.13.8 (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you about current production ammounts

Hi, an anon IP brought up an interesting Ref at Talk:Peak oil. It seems last night some billionare oil man T. Boone Pickens claimed on the radio that production is at 85mb/d while demand is at 87mb/d (no word on whether or not he was just referring to sweet crude or what). If you have some insight, could you please comment on that talk page? Thanks, NJGW (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

engine balance

Hi, i read the aritcle you write in the discussion page about flat(boxer)-6 engine configuration. I'm really courius about the engine smoothness, can you give me an explanation about what configuration that has the best balance or at least can you give a refence (from a site in the internet) to my e-mail wretchead@yahoo.com. Sorry to bother you. Thanks WreTch (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Light Rail and Transit Statistics for Canada

In the light rail in North America article, you cite boarding figures and transit use figures for several cities and Canada and have only APTA listed as a cite, but I cannot seem to find any Canadian transit agency statistics (at least not current agency-specific statistics) for any Canadian cities in APTA's data. Can you clarify your sources? --Arturoramos (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

APTA changed its web site and broke the link to Canadian data. I think I've found it again so I'll change the reference to match. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In recognition of your great work

		The Original Barnstar
		In recognition of your hard work in improving the Energy policy of Canada. Well done. – 17:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Metrication of wilderness areas

Hi,

Thanks for your comments at MOSNUM. Since your username and your user page suggests that you are a hiker, I think you are a great person to respond to the issues raised by Marcia. Have you considered using my handy tabs for adding metric units in just one click? If you would like to use them, simply go to your User:RockyMtnGuy/monobook.js and paste in:

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');

Press 'Save'. Then clear your cache according to the instructions. Go to a page like Sacatar Trail Wilderness and press the 'edit this page' tab (as you usually do). Then you will see some new tabs appear beside the usual 'history' and other tabs. Press the one called 'units'. This will add metric units. Marcia previously reverted the addition of units in that article, so perhaps the three of us can negotiate the manual metrication or she might accept the template. Anyway, you might find that the tabs are very handy for all sorts of articles. Regards, Lightmouse (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gone walkabout

It's time for a temporary change of mountains. I'm leaving my beloved Rockies to trek in the Alps and the Himalayas for the next three months (September through November, 2008). While there are internet connections in Switzerland, Nepal and Bhutan, I doubt I'll be doing much editing from there. I'll be walking 10-20 km per day instead.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun! I'm extremely jealous... the tallest mountain around here is 1800 ft. NJGW (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer a little more altitude. My house is at about 1,400 m (4,600 ft) and the mountain just behind it is about 3,000 m (9,800 ft). However, later this week I'm going to be walking past Mont Blanc which is 4,810 m (15,780 ft), and next month, Mount Everest which is 8,848 m (29,029 ft). But I think I'll stick to the lower routes. Although, come to think of it, some of the Inca trails I trekked in Peru were higher than the top of Mount Blanc...RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back from the Alps, having hiked 150 kilometres horizontally, 10.5 kilometres vertically upward, and 8.9 kilometres vertically downward (we took some cable cars down a few of the mountains to save wear on the knees) from Chamonix, France to Zermatt, Switzerland. I've done my laundry, repacked my bags, and tomorrow I'm off to the Himalayas to get in some really BIG mountains.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I'm back in Kathmandu after completing the Jomolhari Trek in Bhutan. Next, the Annapurna Circuit in Nepal. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now, I'm in Pokhara Nepal, after walking the 300 kilometres (190 mi) of the Annapurna Circuit. Next, the Langtang Trek.It just goes on and on.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I'm back in Canada after having trekked about 500-600 km through some of the biggest mountains of the world over the last three months. Fortunately, I missed the global financial meltdown due to the poor media availability in the high Himalayas. You begin to envy the residents of Bhutan, many of whom didn't hear about the Great Depression or World War II until long after they were over because nobody came by to mention it to them. Even now, they were more excited about the coronation of their new king and trying to get used to the newfangled concept of democracy introduced by the previous king before he stepped down. However, for me it's back to to the realities of western politics and finance, such as they are. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peak gas

Hi, if you get a chance, could you have a look at Peak gas? There's a question over why US NG reserves and production jumped in 1976 and are now at record levels. I couldn't find a source which addressed this directly (in my quick search), so anything you can post on the talk page would be helpful to fleshing out the article. Thanks, NJGW (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats after autoformatting

With the recent deprecation of date autoformatting, "raw" dates are becoming increasingly visible on Wikipedia. Strong views are being expressed, and even some edit-warring here and there. A poll has been initiated to gauge community support to help us develop wording in the Manual of Style that reflects a workable consensus. As you have recently commented on date formats, your input would be helpful in getting this right. Four options have been put forward, summarised as:

Use whatever format matches the variety of English used in the article
For English-speaking countries, use the format used in the country, for non-English-speaking countries, use the format chosen by the first editor that added a date to the article
Use International format, except for U.S.-related articles
Use the format used in the country

The poll may be found here, as a table where you may indicate your level of support for each option above. --Pete (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for oil price reference

Where did you get the data for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Price_of_West_Texas_Intermediate_1999_to_June_2008.PNG ? Thanks!, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got it from the U.S. Energy Information Administration oil price site at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_wco_k_w.htm RockyMtnGuy (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tar sands

I think you may be interested that there is a discussion about renaming the Category:Tar sands. Beagel (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your efforts to quash the use of "Tar Sands" in publications that are to be of a neutral point of view. Television and print media here in Alberta are still using the disparaging term. Kelly Johnston[Kelly.Johnston@ctv.ca], Director of News and Public Affairs of CTV in Calgary asserts that both TAR and OIL are technically correct. I wish I had a more accredited proponent on my side. CBC is a lost cause as they use the Tar term most often. Again - Thank you and best wishes.Twhanna (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just back from a three-week tour of the coasts of Washington and Oregon. Nice beaches. However, since I have a degree in chemistry, I like to point out that tars are man-made substances, produced by the destructive distillation of organic matter. What the "oil" sands contain is bitumen, a semi-solid form of crude oil which has been there for millions of years. The two are not the same. However, media people tend to be scientific illiterates (it's part of the job description - cf. CP Snow's Two Cultures), so you can't expect them to appreciate the difference. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority

Hi, RockyMtnGuy. I started an article about the Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority and you are most welcome to expand and improve it. Also, there is a need for the Alberta Energy Research Institute article. Beagel (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yards

Hi,

At wt:mosnum, you wrote: The United States is the only country which still recognizes the yard as an official unit of measurement.. That is not true. UK traffic signs must contain yards according to The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD). It mandates:

"distances of less than ½ mile being expressed in yards to the nearest 10 yards other than on the signs shown in diagrams 7012 and 7015,"

You can see an example of yards being used in the UK on a bridge ahead sign.

You will hear traffic nerds talking about the TSRGD in the UK and the MUTCD in the US as equivalents.

I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess the British have converted to metric, except where they haven't. It's just not British to be completely consistent. It's a bit peculiar, because the Americans don't use yards on their traffic signs. Here in the colonies we always use metres. However, from what I read, the British traffic authorities now measure the distances in metres, but put the number on the sign in yards, because it's close enough. It's like ordering a pint of beer in a Canadian pub. They might give you an American pint, they might give you a British pint, but most likely they'll give you half a litre.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, UK traffic engineering is done in metres. Yards are mandatory for the labels on road signs. Some signing errors are interesting. For example, values on signs should be rounded to the nearest 10 yds but some say '109 yds' indicating the metric origin. Short term road work signs are sometimes in metres and that is a legal error on the part of the contractor. Accident analysis is all done in metres. If you look at 'Signs giving orders' in The Highway Code (a reference for British drivers), you will see that height and width restriction signs include metric (these are taking time to roll out). For some strange reason, the length restriction sign doesn't include metric.

You are right that British drivers see yards and American drivers see feet. Many people aren't aware of just how incompatible Britain and America are when it comes to units. Lightmouse (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Megaprojects

I just came across Oil_megaprojects#Application_to_oil_supply_forecasting. Seems it's actually being used by off-wiki websites! I'm going to try to improve it's poor/total-lack-of sourcing but was wondering if you would have a look when you get a chance. NJGW (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Petro-Canada

I disagree with both your recent changes, but it's not too important to me.

All the Canadian companies (remember Dome?) were overpaying for assets, encouraged by the NEP but justifying their actions by saying oil prices would go up and up forever -- an assumption of the NEP.

I think the reference to vestiges is correct, also. SU is effectively getting around the remnants of PCA legislation (no one can own more than 20% of PCA)in a sneaky way -- and that is the last vestige.

Again, it's not too important to me, but I think you should reverse both changes. Pmbcomm (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Dome very well because I worked for the giant multinational that took them over after they ran out of cash. We paid almost nothing for them, and it was way too much. The company was worth less than nothing and we should have let them go bankrupt. Nobody else was paying that much for oil assets, and if they were, they're not around any more. Petrocan is only around because the taxpayers (a.k.a. gasoline buyers) covered their losses.

The NEP price assumptions were right out there in deep space. When it was announced we ran the economics on four of the biggest mainframes IBM sold - parallel multiprocessing using two floors of computers - and they puked all over it because it made no sense. "That does not compute" would be the bottom line.

Suncor is getting around the PCA legislation because the combined company meets all the requirements. It is a Canadian company because both companies were Canadian companies. No shareholder has more than 20% because it was structured as an all-stock deal - Suncor shareholders get 60% of the shares, Petrocan shareholders get 40% of the shares, and none of their shareholders have more than 20%. (If the government had objected, they could have structured it as a reverse takeover with Petrocan taking over Suncor). It is headquartered in Calgary, because both companies were headquartered in Calgary. The PCA legislation is still in effect, but now applies to the combined enterprise. Nothing has changed, it has just become bigger. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RockyMntGuy, from the Alps

I'm dropping this short message from my little village in the Alps to congratulate you on your contributions to the Passive Smoking article. Good job! --Dessources (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's a wonderful part of the world you live in. I walked the Haute Route from Chamonix, France to Zermatt, Switzerland last autumn, and it was absolutely lovely.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Canadian Oil Production 1960 to 2020.png

File:Canadian Oil Production 1960 to 2020.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Canadian Oil Production 1960 to 2020.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Canadian Oil Production 1960 to 2020.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Template:Convert/calibre

Talk-page: Template_talk:Convert#Smart_conversion_templates_for_special_subjects

31-Oct-09: As you suggested, I created new Template:Convert/calibre, which simply displays (from a manually-created list) whatever you think are the appropriate results for each calibre. Feel free to edit that subtemplate, and if you decide that multiple results should be listed, in some cases, that's fine. All you guys have really good ideas, so things are happening much faster now. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oil reserves

I've added the following tag to the oil reserves talk page: Template:Maintained Hope that's ok with you. Of course, if it is not feel free to take your name off the list or fix as you see appropriate.--Work permit (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Peak oil

Please chime in here when you get a chance. Thanks 69.127.18.249 (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice...that this was the producer? "Parabola" and "Loaded"? At least they're honest about something! LeadSongDog come howl! 17:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Yes, Loaded Pictures, full of loaded words, indeed! However, ParabolaFilms should have been named HyperbolaFilms because the exaggeration was past the parabolic stage and well into an Earth escape trajectory. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]NEP pageHi Rocky. Quick question: I was reading the NEP page to kick-start some research I'm doing. You mentioned on the talk page (in 2008) that you added a reference to a study of economic losses to Alberta due to NEP, but I don't see it on the page. Has it been removed? It should be at citation #24. I skimmed all of the cited sources, but didn't find it. Suradasa (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]The citation leads directly to a web page [1] in the Alberta Online Encyclopedia (http://www.albertasource.ca/aoe/ui/index.aspx) published by the Alberta Community Foundation (http://www.heritagecommunityfdn.org/). The Alberta Community Foundation is now defunct, but the University of Alberta (http://www.ualberta.ca/) is still maintaining the encyclopedia. However, the original link is still live and still works for me, although maybe it should be updated. The original data was from a study done by the Alberta government some decades ago, which has been updated several times since then. The Alberta government still does these kinds of studies from time to time, mostly to annoy the federal government.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Yeah, I saw that, but even that page doesn't actually cite any studies; it just says the same thing you wrote, which is not very helpful. Do you know of any specific studies? For future reference, you shouldn't write "It is estimated by various scholars..." without a citation to studies to that effect (or a review with citations, etc.). I'm sure that studies exist, but the reader needs to be able to look them up. Especially on policy issues, where there's lot of non-peer-reviewed stuff out there. Thanks! (P.S. Sorry for the late reply; I didn't click "Watch this page" last time; I'm pretty new to this) Suradasa (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]I'm sorry, but since the available references don't explicitly cite any of the original studies, you might have to go to the University of Alberta and University of Calgary libraries, and/or the Government of Alberta archives and look them up. That could be quite a lot of work, much like has to be done for any serious academic paper. Personally, I can remember the interviews with the authors of the studies that the media did at the time, but I don't remember any of their names, just the general results of the studies. I didn't add the text, "It is estimated by various scholars...". That dates back to 2007 and was inserted by other authors who didn't provide citations. Some mentioned the University of Calgary - from where came the $100 billion estimates. Other authors, who also did not provide citations, found other sources that estimated it at $50 billion. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Actually, I found a citation (Mansell) and added it to the article. I'm sure there are other scholars out there that disagree with him about the exact amount.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thanks! I'll take a look. Suradasa (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Oil BarrelsHello Rocky, I wanted to avoid to-ing and fro-ing by opening a discussion first. On the Oil Barrels page you changed a paragraph to read as follows:However, a "standard" oil barrel and a "standard" cubic metre are simply measures of volume and the conversion between them would be very straightforward and defined precisely, if there was not a difference in the "standard" temperature at which they are measured. Assuming no change in temperature:The words of the original paragraph were chosen very carefully and were correct. The paragraph above is not. You are confusing a "standard oil barrel" with a "stock tank barrel"(stb). A "standard oil barrel"(bbl) is not defined as being measured at any particular temperature. For example, "barrels at tank temperature" is a common stat in the oil industry and relies on a "standard barrel" just meaning a certain volume. If I want to convert bbls at tank temp to m³ at tank temp, the conversion is utterly straightforward. The caveat about conversion between stb and standard m³ is valid, but the point is made in the preceeding paragraph and it is not relevant to conversions between bbl and m³. In summary, "stock tank barrel" and "standard m³" are measures of mass and cannot easily be converted. "standard oil barrel" and "m³" are measures of volume and there is no difficulty. If you have no objection, I will revert the paragraph above to the original form?HighsideUK (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]The article still needs a bit more work.stock tank barrel (stb) - a unit of volume used in the oil industry. A stock tank barrel is the same as the petroleum barrel, that is, 42 U.S. gallons or about 158.987 liters, but the oil is required to be at a temperature of 60 °F (15.556 °C). The corresponding metric unit is the standard cubic meter (scm) with the oil at 15 °C. A stock tank barrel is not a measure of mass, nor is a standard cubic metre. They are both temperature and pressure adjusted measures of volume. When oil men talk of a "barrel", they normally mean a stock tank barrel because they have corrected the tank volumes to a temperature of 60°F, and when they talk of a "cubic metre" they normally mean a standard cubic metre because they have corrected the tank volumes to a temperature of 15°C, in both cases using standard correction tables.My intention was to make clear to readers that it is not valid within the oil industry to convert one directly to the other without adjusting for the differing temperature bases. It's all very well and good to give readers a theoretical conversion factor, but in the real world, they might have to use temperature correction tables to correct the volumes to the right system. I have an advanced certificate in petroleum production accounting, so I can be somewhat picky about this kind of thing. It's not as simple as it appears.I see what you mean about stb and standard m³ not being a measure of mass. I was thinking the same last night before going to sleep. But the original paragraph I posted under "Oil Barrels" did not make this mistake. I still fear you have missed the point. Do you realise I am conceeding that converting a stb to "standard m³" is hard? I understand how to do this, I have written programs that use ASTM lookup tables to do it and understand the physics (if not the chemistry!) thouroughly.But why do you think that converting a standard oil barrel(bbl) to m³ is also hard? This is a completely different problem. I have just noticed that the Wikipedia units converter template actually has a bbls conversion. It is a simple multiplication factor. A bbl and a m³ are not volumes at a particular temperature. I think you are mixing up your stbs and bbls.What, precisely, is incorrect in this, the original paragraph?However, a "standard oil barrel" and a "cubic metre" are simply measures of volume and the conversion between these is very straightforward and defined precisely.A stb is not a bbl and a "standard m³" is not a m³. HighsideUK (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]I object to the word "standard". A standard cubic foot of gas is corrected to 60°F, a standard cubic metre of oil is corrected to 15°C. By analogy, a standard oil barrel might be a stock tank barrel - the word "standard" normally means something is measured under standard conditions. If you leave the word "standard" off or substitute "uncorrected", then it is valid.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] Again, I see what you mean. The problem was that on the very first line the original article used "standard" to mean "a standard as defined by a standards body". It said "standard oil barrel", meaning simply an oil barrel. I did not write this, but continued with the same nomenclature to aviod controversy (I thought!). I agree this is confusing when "standard" is, as you say, so commonly used to mean "corrected to standard P&T". I suggest that the article would be better if all mention of "standard" were removed (including from that first line), unless it was being used to mean "corrected to standard P&T". So how about this:===Conversion to metric units=== Care must be taken when converting an oil barrel (bbl) to any other unit of volume, especially cubic metres (m³), for the following reason:A given mass of oil will change volume according to its pressure and temperature. In order to precisely quantify an amount(a mass) of oil, it is not sufficient to give a volume. We must also give a pressure and temperature. Because of this, the oil undustry has adopted the convention that when it talks about "a barrel", it usually means "a barrel of oil at standard atmospheric pressure and 60F". Thus, while a barrel is, strictly, a unit of volume, the term is often used to mean slightly more than that. The equivalent unit to a barrel in the metric system is a cubic metre. The industry convention with cubic metres is to mean "a cubic metre at standard atmospheric pressure and 15C". Unfortunately, 60F and 15C are not quite the same temperature, and the difference this makes to the amount(mass) of oil in the specified volumes depends on the composition of the oil. There is therefore no simple and precise conversion between a "a barrel of oil at standard atmospheric pressure and 60F" and a "a cubic metre at standard atmospheric pressure and 15C". Empirically derived lookup tables must be used for this.However, if all that is needed is to convert a volume expressed in barrels to a volume expressed in cubic meters then this is very straightforward and defined precisely. A barrel of oil (bbl) is defined as exactly 42 US liquid gallons. A US liquid gallon is defined as exactly 231 cubic inches. An inch is defined as exactly 0.0254 metres. So therefore 1 bbl = (42 x 231 x 0.0254³)m³ = 0.158987294928m³ preciselyWhat do you think? HighsideUK (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] Darn. The bits that mention "mass" are still not quite right. It's harder to explain this stuff than I expected! HighsideUK (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]