At least by API, and the definition seems to be accepted by NIST. The other two values are conversions.
The question is why do all the foreign oil companies operating in the US still use it. I don't know the answer. I also know that ISO publishes temperature conversion tables for petroleum; I don't know whether they also define the barrel or only use metric volume. ________________________________ From: Pat Naughtin <pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Thu, June 10, 2010 10:31:40 PM Subject: [USMA:47679] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI Dear John, Interspersed response. On 2010/06/11, at 04:55 , John M. Steele wrote: > >It is defined as 42 US gallons or 9702 in³. From the latter definition it can >be converted to 0.158 987 295 m³. >>For the lousy leak estimates 0.16 m³ is more than adequate. When you say, 'It is defined' you fail to mention by whom. I saw an article today in which the leak team gave a rough estimate of 19000 - 43000 barrels per day or 3 to 7 dam³/day. >>(How do you sensibly round a number with NO significant figures and debatable >>order of magnitude?) In Australia, we would be inclined to use 3 megalitre - 7 megalitres for this range of estimates. I think that you might be happy with this order of magnitude. Cheers, Pat Naughtin Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, see http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html Hear Pat speak at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lshRAPvPZY PO Box 305 Belmont 3216, Geelong, Australia Phone: 61 3 5241 2008 Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA. Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST, and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com/ to subscribe. From: Phil Hall <usmal...@hallps.name> >To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> >Sent: Thu, June 10, 2010 2:08:34 PM >Subject: [USMA:47652] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI > > >A search of the internet seems to suggest that a barrel of crude oil is widely >regarded as 42 "US gallon" > >It may be used in the international markets but it is fair to say it is >probably of US origin and largely the result of thier commercial dominance. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Martin Vlietstra" <vliets...@btinternet.com> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> >Sent: Thursday, 10 June, 2010 6:47:21 PM >Subject: [USMA:47651] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI > > > > >Barrels are the unit of measure used in the international oil markets. > > > >The oil industry is one of the least metric industries that I know. One of >their units of measure is to express oil reserves in a reservoir in barrels >per acre-foot. In metric parlance, this would be expressed as a percentage (or >decimal fraction). > > > > > > >From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of >Stephen Humphreys >Sent: 10 June 2010 18:41 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:47650] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI > > > >I was of the understanding that 'barrels' was an international thing used only >by the oil companies. > > >Interesting that this international company has stirred up a bit of anti-brit >feeling in the US (not on this list though) where BP is truly an international >company like Ford. > > > >Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:26:35 -0700 >From: jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net >Subject: [USMA:47641] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI >To: u...@colostate.edu > > > >I hope that is a joke, as I KNOW you understand precision and sensible >rounding. > > >However, we have some "decimal dusters" who might not get it. > > > > > >The 1000 m is of course one of "those" numbers where you ask how many of those >digits are significant. > > >Given a vertical plume, and general lack of precision in measurements at sea, >I'm guessing 1 or 2, although clearly it is a guess. > > > > > >However, I do wonder why British Petroleum measures the leak in American >"barrels." Do they think they are aidding or hindering understanding? Given >the range, that figure has no significant figures and the order of magnitude >seems debatable. > > > > > > > >From: "mech...@illinois.edu" <mech...@illinois.edu> >To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> >Sent: Thu, June 10, 2010 11:00:56 AM >Subject: [USMA:47640] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI > > >Pat, > >In my local newspaper I read that an oil plume was located at a depth of "3 >300 feet" which was probably reported at 1 000 meters. i.e. 3 300 x 0.3048 = 1 >005.84 meters. Note the discrepancy of 5.84 meters between the value reported >and the numbed down value disseminated by the Associated Press. > >Shame on the AP distortion! > >Gene, >Censor of Deviations from SI > >---- Original message ---- >>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:29:29 +1000 >>From: Pat Naughtin < pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com > >>Subject: [USMA:47625] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI >>To: "U.S. Metric Association" < u...@colostate.edu > >> >> Dear Gene, >> You might be interested in this article in our local >> newspaper, 'The >> Age': http://www.theage.com.au/world/experts-at-loggerheads-over-oil-leak-rate-20100608-xtlj.html >> Since each of the sources has their own >> 'down-dumber' I don't suppose we can have any >> confidence whether the original data (kilograms, >> litres, cubic metres, metres per minute, metres per >> hour, gallons UK, gallons USA, feet per minute, etc, >> ) is being reported reliable given the possibility >> of multiple conversion errors. >> Cheers, >> >> Pat Naughtin >>... > > > > > >Get a new e-mail account with Hotmail - Free. Sign-up now. > >
