Talk:Energy superpower/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)).

OPEC

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Brazil

I was wondering if adding Brazil to a potential list would be appropriate. They have already achieved energy independence and are gearing up to export huge amounts of ethonal. They could be the next evolution to an energy superpower. Uopmegabytes 10:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have any verifiable quote from experts claiming that Brazil is potential energy superpower, or in process of becoming one, go ahead. Otherwise we will have again OR problem, which previously ended with removing large block of the text.Beagel 12:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

well i can guarantee that brazil has more potential to be energy superpower that canada.recentily they discovery a biggest gas reserve in world in santos sao paulo and a big oil reserve too,and brasil has potential energy in other sources like hydroelectricity, have a biggest reserve of uranium in world,have a great potential in solar energy and eolic energy believe or not, the future will be witness of brazil energy superpower and brazil superpower,and start now already!

Any source confirming energy superpower status? Beagel (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Source.[1] Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• They know what they’re doing and they keep finding more oil in Brazil. Brazil is also a big producer of ethanol and hydroelectricity and has big plans to increase it’s nuclear power. Brazil is not just the “new Saudi Arabia”, it’s a rising world power.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2007/db20071115_045316.htm

BRAZIL IS THE SECOND POWER OF THE AMERICAS AND WESTERN HEMISPHERE; THE USA(DECADENCE POWER) HATE´S THE EMERGENCE OF BRAZIL IN THE REGION..!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.85.110 (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• the amazon river (the biggest basin/river of the world) have a big potential of geration of energy..the missisipi is very inferior in the potential to amazon in the future.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.174 (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Status of Canada

Currently Canada is listed under sections of disputed superpowers and potential superpowers. It needs to be cleaned-up, as it can't be both at the same time.Beagel 07:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps we need to clarify then that some feel it is already a energy superpower in uranium & hydroelectricity production, just not oil. That would probably solve the issue. Drakeguy 01:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OAPEC

I think that the OAPEC (organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries), or the Arab States should be up there, since combined they make up over 60% of world production, in Petroleum, they also have a large Natural Gas production and reserves, lets not forget the 1973 oil crisis made by these countries, al together and not Suaid Arabia alone, also when the invasion on Iraq was close, Liyba and Iran cut off the oil exports to the western world, which led to the Boom of the oil prices!!! --Arab League User 16:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Projected superpowers

Regarding the forthcoming shift towards other energy sources, shouldn't there be appended headline pondering the 'about to rise' 'energy superpowers'? I.e. headline on countries capable of utilizing theirs wood resources with connection on renewable technologies. --213.250.13.223 (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Austrailian uranium

According to lots of stuff I've read (eg http://www.uic.com.au/ozuran.htm) Australia has the worlds largest uranium reserves as well as lots of coal and natural gas, wouldn't that make it a potential future 'energy superpower'? Shadoom (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There is some debate about this. Australia's former PM certainly used the term Energy superpower, but his government lost the election last November. It has been suggested that it is more appropriate to call Australia a Sustainable energy leader. (see [2] and Renewable energy commercialization in Australia) -- Johnfos (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is the United States?

Isn't the U.S. an energy superpower also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumble45 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the United States is not an energy superpower. User:Saruman20 (talk 18:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The U.S is not currently independent of energy resources. The potential exists. It may take some time for the U.S to become self reliant in terms of energy requirements.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The US does have the world's largest coal reserves. Shouldn't that be taken into consideration, seeing as how we're basing the energy superpower status on a particular country's energy 'specialty?' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.134.119 (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If Poland is listed and described, the U.S. should most definitely be listed as well. We are talking in sheer capacity and reserves of natural resources, are we not? Dillan.Murray (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Mineralogical superpower

The mineralogical superpower seems to be original research as there is no search results by Google Scholar for this term. Beagel (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• russia, canada, australia, saudi arabia and brazil are the most potential emergence energy powers; brazil have the biggest territory in the tropical zone of ultra-violet ray, the most potential of geration of solar energy.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.174 (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This article needs a re-write to get rid of all the OR

Two points: First, "Energy superpower" is not, as far as I can see, a proper scholarly term, akin to Superpower. It's a media meme almost always used to describe Russia, without a definitive analysis of what the phrase means. There is no definition presented here grounded in the literature. Secondly, most of this article appears to be the OR of editors trying to make sense of who would be called an energy superpower if the term were used in wider discourse. That there is a dead link to Great energy power indicates the good faith, but OR approach editors have taken.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, "энергетическая сверхдержава" (energy superpower) meme was launched to counter the "сырьевой придаток" (raw materials appendage) meme. The latter term dates back to classics of Marxism. The former one is just a piece of $100/barrel-era internal Russian PR. Gritzko (talk) 08:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Potential energy superpowers

I removed the whole potential energy superpowers section as OR. As it is already described above, the term "energy superpower" is not scholar and used mainly by media for PR purposes. The term potential energy superpowers is even more problematic as it was clear from the prose these countries were even not described by media as potential superpower but thought by Wiki editors that they might be. This is classical OR. The section was OR tagged for years; however, no improvement happened, so deleting seems the correct solution. Beagel (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

With the same conclusion we should also delete Saudi Arabia as the current citations do not cite references calling it a super power. It just has the same level of citation/conclusions which potential super power countries had.

Please either add citations to Saudi Arabia (in the form of citations you suggest is necessary above) or delete Saudi Arabia. Farmanesh (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with this. Current references does not confirm this claim. There seems to be sources calling Saudi Arabia energy superpower, but it needs some research before adding here. However, the Saudi Arabia part needs some work. Beagel (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, at least in the case of Iran. The original text mentions Bear (CIA analyst) as the source.

Besides I have heard the editor in Chief of Forbes saying the same in an interview on the Charney report. I have to still to find the video (since he appears on this show quite often). Finally I don't think it is original research anyway since one does not need to be an expert to understand that Iran, with all its oil and gas reserves, is potentially an energy superpower.

Finally Saudi Arabia is an energy superpower. Just refer to the U.S. Energy Administration statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.216.198.99 (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

one does not need to be an expert to understand that Iran, with all its oil and gas reserves, is potentially an energy superpower is exactly what is called original research in Wikipedia. Let scholars and mainstream media called it energy superpower and re-add then. Beagel (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

..then it might become WP:copy. You think i am joking but someone actually made the remark in a different article (but in a similar context).... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.216.198.228 (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that you misinterpretate WP:OR and WP:COPY policies. Beagel (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Iran

I have some concerns related to the recent additions about Iran by anon user. He/she refers to Robert Baer and Flynt Leverett; however, there is no proof that they have called Iran energy superpower. Calling the country "conventional superpower" or "rising" power is not the same as "energy superpower. Beagel (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have added many refs, including 2 calling Iran "energy superpower". I hope it helps!

not one of the web sources refernce iran as an energy superpower. The do reference iran as a regional conventional superpower but nothing on energy specifically. Further web searching also failed to turn up any reliable sources backing this up. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does. Please look again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.50.54 (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You added two sources, which use Iran and "energy superpower" in the same sentence, but it is still questionable. The first source says that "Iran looks like an energy superpower." This is close but does not explicitly mean that Iran IS an energy superpower. The second source you added says that "Iran might turn into one of the energy superpowers" and "Iran has been growing into an energy superpower". Again, close but does not mean it is already is. Beagel (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

(Besides these references were added months ago I think but got removed somehow) All that means is Iran has 10 percent of the global oil reserves and 15 percent of its proven gas reserves. FACTS ARE FACTS. Regards, 20:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.50.54 (talk)

Nobody argues about the Iran's reserves, but we should avoid WP:SYNTH. That means if one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion. If the conclusion C is published by reliable sources, it is worth to be added but we should avoid making this conclusion ourselves. Beagel (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. It is not WP:SYNTH at all. Please read this source: "Over the past several years, the Islamic Republic of Iran has emerged as a bona fide energy superpower. Home to approximately 10 percent of world oil, Iran is the second largest exporter of OPEC." - Energy and the Iranian Economy (US Congress), Regards. 67.87.50.54 (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Energy superpower. 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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.eurojournals.com/AJSR_45_10.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.uidergisi.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Global-Energy-Geopolitics-and-Iran.pdf

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)