Talk:Petroleum seep

Requested move[edit]

Most of this article is about the Coal Oil Point Seep Field. I think this info should be moved to a seperate article. Any other opinions? Green caterpillar 19:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think, at least for now, that the Coal Oil stuff should be left where it is--the article would be greatly weakened by its removal, and cannot stand very well on its own as a full article. Let's see how things develop.DonSiano 20:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious why this wasn't originally merged into Petroleum geology? Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start cleanup by moving Coal Oil Point seep field to its own article. Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A billion barrels in the Monterey?[edit]

Don't know if anyone is watching this page, but I question this assertion. While the Monterey Formation does indeed contain an enormous oil reserve, in the range of a billion barrels, that reserve is nowhere near Coal Oil Point -- it's in Kern County and elsewhere. Remember that the Monterey is colossal; it's present in much of California. According to the California Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) the Coal Oil Point Oil Field produced a total of 1,307,279 barrels of oil before being abandoned, as played out, in 1984. (Its oil was in the Vaqueros, underneath the capping Rincon.) The actual amount of "seepable" oil in the vicinity of the Coal Oil Point field is considerably lower, probably by about four orders of magnitude -- basically whatever was left over from the old field, and a few scattered deposits around it. Antandrus (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 1999 JGR reference does state that the amount of oil found in the Monterey Formation offshore from Coal Oil Point is estimated to be in excess of 1 billion barrels. However the source says nothing about how long it will last at the current rate of seepage so I've removed that part as WP:OR. Vsmith (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved[edit]

Renamed page Petroleum seep, moved water content to Seep (hydrology) and created dab page. Most of the content and of the linking pages were petroleum related. Fixing links from other pages now. Vsmith (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More scientific description[edit]

This article needs a more scientific description of why and how a petroleum seep occurs. It's on my to-do list, but that list is quite large. Nwhit (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tar pit vs. seep[edit]

Prolly need to be clear, right up front, what the difference is between a seep and a tar pit. In the US, La Brea is well known, and I'm guessing it's a type of seep. Leptus Froggi (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Petroleum seep. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]