Talk:Vaca Muerta

expropriation section
I don't see any reason to have this section here, as it belongs instead with the articles on YPF and Repsol. A one-sentence mention here should suffice. Plazak (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Belongs, as a testament to Chevron's courage. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really about this formation. Belongs to YPF article. Beagel (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Article title
Should this just be titled "Vaca Muerta," and geological material added? I notice there are several references to paleontological discoveries in the Vaca Muerta formation, but no cross-references available. Doesn't seem too likely anyone will look up any dead cows by mistake.Isidorpax (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. It should be also clarified that Vaca Muerta is a shale formation and not a single field as it consist of several fields (e.g. Loma Lata Norte and Loma Campaña). Beagel (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Los Molles Formation
The current text says: ''It is underlain by the Los Molles Formation, a middle Jurassic formation which is thicker but less rich. The Los Molles Formation is estimated to have 275 trillion cubic feet (7.8×1012 m3) of technically recoverable shale gas and 3.7 billion barrels (590,000,000 m3) of technically recoverable oil.''

Unfortunately it seems to be a misinterpretation of data by the EIA. Although both formations lay in the Neuquen basin, there is no information in the giver reference that the Los Molles Formation underlains the Vaca Muerta formation. At the same time, this source this source says: The Chachao Formation overlies gradationally The Vaca Muerta Formation. I will change it accordingly. Beagel (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Beagel (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Oil and gas development
Information on oil and gas development is split at the moment between 'History' and 'Oil and gas development' sections. I would be probably better to have all this information in the 'Oil and gas development' section. Also, while I think that agreements to develop different blocks are important, the information of rigs contracts by YPF is probably WP:WEIGHT. Any comments? Beagel (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. In typical Wiki fashion, additions are being plopped in at random, without regard for organization or narrative flow. Plazak (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)