Talk:Niger Delta Basin (geology)

Can some-one fix the line "Success rate to hit oil in the past of this area is as high as 45%" so it makes some sense?--Auric The Rad 01:19, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

Niger Delta Province

Indeed, "success rate as high as 45%" is confusing. On average 45% might be better. What it means is that 45% of the wildcats (exploration wells on new, seismically defined prospects) drilled found oil or gas or both. By the way, the term "Niger Delta Field" sounds odd to a petroleum geologist. One should brather talk about Niger Delta province. That is a "geological" province where oil fields occur. Now it appears as if the whole of the Delta is underlain by an oil-bearing layer. (although this was explained in the article not to be the case). In fact only about 5% of the area is underlain by accumulations! That in itself is interesting because then a "Random driller" would have a 5% success rate. The 45% shows the improvement made by geology and seismology. Dr M.H.Nederlof, geologist, Netherlands

Class assignment

Hey Ashton, I think it is pretty apparent you page isn't more than just a stub of the Nigerian Basin at the moment. There are a lot of different directions you could look for expanding your page, such as describing the structures seen, the evolution of your basin, the stratigraphy of the sediments, and even go into the different types of resources found within the petroleum system. I can not really give you much feed back seeing that you only have a very basic single paragraph background of your basin, but when you really get the page going I would be happy to look at it again and give you some additional comments!

Peer Review

Say boy,

You have some great bones for your article here. I like how you mention important formations found within your basin. Once you beef up those sections, maybe add one or two more major sections to give a well-rounded amount of information. I do not know what kind of information is out there about your basin but stratigraphy is always interesting and easy to write about. Over all, you and your article rock. No pun intended.

Keep up the good work!

Shelbyrich (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Shelbyrich

notes

Hey Ashton, I came back to review your page again. Its looking like it’s coming along better now but I am just going to start off with things you may consider updating with what you already have.

First off I think you may consider to retitle your first section to being just “overview” and then have a Page Title -- “Niger Delta Basin” at the top. Next in your overview, you should introduce basic properties of the basin such as the basins boundaries, sediment depth, etc. Lastly on this section I would likely take out the word unique from the last sentence, there are numerous basins with high oil potential.

In your formation section I would pick out geological terms that the average person may not know and give them links to the wiki pages on them ex: rift junction. The rest of this section looks good, I will say reread it a couple of times and maybe work on your phrasing.

For your Formation section (doesn’t exactly look finished) you may consider instead of bullets making subsections for descriptions of each formation. So if your main title is ==Geologic Formations== then you can have sub titles by doing ===Oceanic Basement=== and then ===Akata Formation=== and so on.

LASTLY AND PROBABLY MOST IMPORTANT: you should cite your resources through out your page! It is really difficult to go back and cite things after you have already written the page because what came from where? Also you will want to get permission to use your figure, or just remake a version of the figure and say its your own work. I have a feeling that someone is likely to remove that figure. Good luck man. -Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirbdurel (talk • contribs) 03:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)