I think cubic metres would be better then hectolitres. Hectolitres seems to be in common use in some parts of Europe for measuring large amounts of beer and wine. The hectolitre is about half of a barrel and thus the pricing per hectolitre would seem cheaper then either the barrel, the cubic metre, or the tonne.
Tonnes or cubic metres would be preferred by making numbers smaller Making it easier to do calculations and reports with a lot less zeros to deal with. The disadvantage of a cubic metre is that the price of oil would appear 5 times more expensive. Even though the cost of a litre of gas/petrol at the pump would not be affected, their is the psychological adjustment.to consider. There is a better chance to metricate this industry if American influence is heavily weakened. Metrication of oil products could easily happen as a result of the euroisation of the petroleum industry. I'm also wondering if the euroisation of precious metals could also bring about their metrication. Euric ----- Original Message ----- From: "John S. Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, 2004-01-13 20:10 Subject: [USMA:28295] Re: metrication in 5 years -- possibly > On Tuesday 13 January 2004 15:43, Michael Ossipov wrote: > > I hope this will finally kill the Barrel and move to hectoliters or tonnes > > of oil! > > Why not cubic meters? > >
