Talk:Hubbert peak theory

Archives

to 18:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

to 11:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) -Jwanders 23:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

to 14:51, August 31, 2005 (UTC) - Taxman ^Talk 14:51, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

to 02:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC) --HereToHelp (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

to 00:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Ideogram 00:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

new non-controversial controversial section

Reagrding this material ....

The theory is subject to continued discussion and controversy. The central overwhelming feature of the oil industry at the beginning of the 21st century is Albertan oil sands, the subject of $100 billion of investment through 2010. Before about 1980, this form of oil was basically unusable. Due to dramatically advancing technology, since about 2000 it has been trivial to use this form of deposit to produce petrol. The figure for estimated usuable reserves of Albertan oil sands shot up to 180 billion barrels in 2000 and is increasing dramatically every quarter due to advancing technology and investment and is currently (mid 2006) over 300 billion barrels (cf. the Saudi Arabian reserve of about 260 billion barrels). Again, this figure is increasing, very rapidly, every quarter. Previously "alternative," Albertan oil sands are now the mainstream of the industry. http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/102spring2002_Web_projects/M.Sexton/ http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/statistics/energy/default.html http://www.cnrl.com/horizon/ http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2004-09-07-oil-sands_x.htm http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/canada.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4649580.stm http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/docs/oil/pdfs/pub_NAOR2003.pdf http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2005/agenda/agc3e.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401533.html http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/mar03/NN_canada.html http://www.eyeforenergy.com/news.asp?id=458 http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/oil/supply_demand.html http://www.varldsbild.org/artiklar.php?artikelID=225 http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/2003/May3.htm http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10003476.shtml

It would be EXTREMELY BIZARRE not to mention the "bull in the chinashop" which is oil sands.

Bitumen is not oil. The oil has to be extracted from bitumen and the conversion/refining process is energy intensive.

Canadian reserves at 300 bb are now bigger than saudi reserves.

Bitumen requires much more energy to refine than even the heaviest crudes. The cost of energy in the extraction process reduces the actual reserve potential.

It's just really, really nutty not to see this as the primary, the central, issue for any discussion about peak oil.

Please don't pointlessly say "oh, that's controversial, I'm reverting" -- it is just not helpful.

---

Nonsense. Hubbert's theory is not about tar sands;

This is UTTERLY, TOTALLY, COMPLETELY NUTS -- no offense.

Bitumen is not oil.

It would be like saying "Hubbert's theory is not about ultradeep drilling" because ultradeep drilling was not used for producing oil when Hubbert was writing.

Bitumen is not oil.

> Therefore, the section is not central to this article. You could argue differently if this article were about "the coming oil crash" or something like that, but it's not. It's about the Hubbert peak theory.

It's definitely not important enough to go in the lead section, before the theory is even adequately described.

Albertan oil sands are now the mainstream of the industry.

is just not true:

Albertan oil resevres are bigger than Saudi Arabian reserves. Not much more can be said.

3 mbpd, by 2015, maybe, are hardly "the mainstream of the industry".

increasing dramatically every quarter

is a prediction.

Again, this figure is increasing, very rapidly, every quarter.

is totally unnecessary in an article. We do not repeat ourselves in articles (at least not in two consecutive sentences).

<sarcastic rant> Ah! (*basking*) The "Royal 'We'"! I do so love to see the Ambiguous-Collective logical-fallacy -- it's always a tip-off and sure sign that science (or whatever) is being or has been abandoned for political manuevering. Which, in the case of this article, is doom-n-gloom mongering asserting "diminishing" oil-reserves, with the unspoken insinuation that, why YES!, fascist bozo Bill O'Reilly and Marxoid pinhead Al Gore are absolutely correct in that we need new Stalinesque transnational uber-bureaucracies to control production and prices in a stupendous ejaculatory spasm of Utopian Socialism With a New, Improved Human Face! (Why the hell else does anyone give a runny anal-leakage about such complete pie-in-the-sky guessing, save to fantasize their bossing around all those "exploiters" and "guzzlers"?) If this interjection does not in any way describe you personally, please consider it just a general observation sure to apply to many, many worthy others. </sarcastic rant> --Mike18xx 03:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The reference section is totally unusable; sources need to be for specific statements, and long lists of URLs do not belong in an article, at least not in the lead section.

Accusing other editors of being "really nutty" is not helpful. Alberta tar sands are, and will remain for the next couple of years, in all probability, an interesting footnote: their scale is currently, if not negligible, then masked by other developments. They're not the "central feature" of anything, and they're only overwhelming on a very local scale. It's not "trivial" to use them to produce petrol, from all I hear.

If you have so little knowledge of how oil is produced, should you even be involved here?

All these statements need to be fixed. The section needs to be moved, for example to "Alternative sources for oil", where there is a much better paragraph on the Alberta tar sands already, as far as I can tell.

So the short story is, Hubbert "peak oil" theory is now as redundant as the Ptolemic description of the solar system - specifically because of Alberta - but we're not going to mention that in an article about peak oil.

Funny !

RandomP 12:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

While you do manage to make a number of rude comments, you do not present any facts about tar sand production rates, most likely because you know those facts do not support your outrageous claims. Tar sands production is now 1 million barrels a day and is projected to increase fivefold by 2030. That fivefold increase is a huge growth rate, but 5 million b/d is still only about half of Saudi Arabia's current output and less than five percent of projected world production in 2030. Five million barrels a day will never make up for global production shortfalls if Hubbert Peak Oil theory is correct and the world production has begun to decline. To claim Hubbert theory is now "redundant" is a willful and deliberate distortion of the facts. Now that's "Funny!" --Valwen 01:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What you say is nonsensical, Valwen.

The amount of oil (USABLE) in Canada is astronomical. It is already (2006) far more than the known (USABLE) amount of oil in S.A.

There are many projections of the amount of recoverable barrels of oil in the Alberta oil sands, though the Canadian Government estimates 180 billion, which is less than S.A. reserves. --Skyemoor 15:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)- Skyemoor

As a thought experiment, let's say the amount of oil in Canada was --- say -- TEN THOUSAND times the amount of oil in S.A. Would you THEN start saying, "yeah, I guess peak oil theory is kind of dopey" -- ? Or no? My point is, "nothing would make you happy" - no matter HOW much new oil becaomes available, you will just feel "oh, that's not enough, we're running out of oil, of course we're running out of oil, we're about to run out of oil."

"Five million barrels a day will never make up for global production shortfalls" why not? What do you mean? You're proposing it will increase 5x in 20 or 30 years, so in the following 20 or 30 years it will increase another 5x, so now we're at 125 .. etc. What's the big deal?

Note that there's plenty -- absolutely plenty -- of oil coming from the current "conventional" (ie, difficult) sources such as drilling.

This statement couldn't be more incorrect; supply margins are the lowest they've been since the 1973 Arab Embargo. --Skyemoor 15:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)-

There is currently not the slightest hint of a shortage of oil. The price of a barrel of oil continues to go down and down and down and down and down, decade after decade after decade after decade. In inflation-adjusted dollars it is cheaper than ever.

Good, then let's compare the price with 1999 levels of $11/barrel...--Skyemoor 15:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

But LET'S SAY for some incredible reason we couldn't use the conventional oil on hand. Would we then have a shortage of oil? No, because of Alberta.

This completely misses the point about the bleeding edge technology pilots that are struggling to get around the natural gas and water limitations of current technology. THAI is a dream right now; it needs to go through a complete prototyping phase, then a piloting phase in order to achieve proof of concept. Then, and only then, can it start to begin the ramp up to full fledged extraction infrastructure, say by 2030. If the peak happens before that time, then the impacts of the peak will not be obviated by oil sands production. --Skyemoor 15:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In essence, in the last 5-10 years, a much bigger than S.A. amount of oil has been "found." It's always been there, but it's moved from being unusable, to easily usable, due to new technology (such as "big dump trucks") ... it's really just incoherent for "pealk oil" fans to be unaware of this, to not see it as the "bull in the china shop" in the entire issue.

I think it would be very easy to say that most people rabbiting away on this web page, simply, HAVE AN AGENDA.

And you do not, it seems.--Skyemoor 15:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In the face of blatant reality there is a tortured attempt to jury rig the notion that "we're running out of oil."

Unfortunately it's a good example of the Wiki at it's worst .. activists who tediously CAN BE BOTHERED endlessly editing the wiki page, keep the wiki page how they want it.

It's important to remember that Peak Oil is not about the amount of oil left, but rather about the rate at which it can be produced. The world produces around 73 million barrels of crude a day. Production is actually lower than it was last year. 1 Every year declining fields loose several million barrels a day of production. The expected increase in Canadian oil sands prodution of 4 million bpd in the next 25 years comes nowhere close to replacing depletion.--Karma432 14:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi, I am Adam and I have taken this case. The details of the request for mediation are at 2006-06-16 Hubbert Peak Theory.

Note, it would appear that this article IS NO LONGER IN mediation (see below).

By the way, would anyone (RandomP) be able to summarize the position of the two apparently opposing posters, which resulted in the mediation? I seemed to miss what happened and the mediation process (now abandoned?) seemed to erase the previous discussions, etc. Cheers

During this mediation please refrain from editing the article.

Please remember to stay civil. Please be sure to read Wikipedia:Verifiability.

For future reference, Mediation Cabal may take up to a week to respond to requests, depending on the queue. Ideogram 00:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

---

What's being mediated? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm honestly not sure what the current issue is.

The articles has problems. I made some attempts to help those problems, thinking they would be uncontroversial. With one exception, no attempt was made to justify the previous content over what I replaced it with; however, most of my edits were reverted.

So, what's the state? Who's participating in mediation? Am I? Who's supposed to "refrain from editing the article"? Is that just a friendly request or is it an order from the mediation cabal? (Again, all honest questions.)

I'm confused.

RandomP 14:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Please continue your regular discussion but try to reach a consensus before proceeding to edit the article. Ideally all participants should refrain from editing the article. Occasionally a non-participant may come along and edit it, not realizing we are in mediation. If that happens, do not try to edit in response, just leave it alone until we reach consensus.

Feel free to summarize your concerns and then wait for your opponent to address them. I will be here to gently remind you of Wikipedia policies should you violate them by, for instance, being uncivil or refusing to verify your positions.

I have no power and cannot give orders. Should you be unable to reach a compromise by your own efforts (with my guidance) you will have to move to a higher form of dispute resolution. However, any party that does not show a good faith effort to solve the problem here will be at a disadvantage in later stages. Ideogram 15:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Considering that the only person who was discussing with me has, by my reading, announced they're not talking to me anymore, before reverting the article, telling another user that "it's your problem now", and trying to get other editors involved (just to be clear here: none of this is a bad thing), I'm taking a guess here, which is that that user has stopped editing the article for now. RandomP 15:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your opponent has been gone for less than a day. Ideogram 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not "waiting" for concerns to be addressed by an editor who has disappeared. RandomP 15:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be patient. Wikipedia will not suffer if the article stays in this state for a few days. Ideogram 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if that sounds a bit harsh: I'm grateful you, and the other members of the Mediation Cabal, volunteer so much time for the dispute resolution process. I think when there are opposing parties wishing to discuss things, and they agree to mediation, that can work. However, it appears to me that this is simply not the case here. RandomP 15:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, your opponent has been gone for less than a day. Without me you would still be waiting for a Mediator to take the case. Ideogram 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we are not in mediation; I haven't agreed to mediation (though I would); ruber chiken has ignored both requests for mediation, the one I made and the one Nagle made, and at this point I see no reason to believe that he would agree to it (which, again, I would consider a good thing. That's why I suggested it in the first place).

As far as I'm aware, mediation as a process requires at least three participants. Two short, so far. RandomP 15:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If this mediation fails, you will have to move to a higher form of dispute resolution. However any party that does not make a good faith effort to solve the problem here will have a disadvantage in the later stages. That means if you both fail to participate, you are equal. If only your opponent fails to participate, you will have an advantage.

You have much to gain by simply being patient, and nothing to lose. Ideogram 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

All I'm questioning is whether we are in mediation, and whether it makes sense to ask people to deviate from normal Wikipedia guidelines (WP:Bold is still official?) if we're not. RandomP 15:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:Bold is commonly understood not to extend to the point of edit-warring, Once other people oppose your boldness, the need for consensus overrides the advice to be bold. Ideogram 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Other people" seems to be only User:Ruber chiken. Nonetheless, I'm willing to hold for a few days, also. (In other words, I submit to the mediation on this article until such time as User:Ruber chiken rejects it or the mediation dissolves.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Ideogram, your last comment could easily be understood as an accusation of edit-warring; I did not say anything about edit wars, it is you who first brought this up. I do not think anyone's behaviour here could adequately be described as "opposing my boldness".

Furthermore, I cannot help but read the comment about parties "not making a good faith attempt" as a threat. Here I thought the idea was informal mediation, not setting myself up in a good position for whatever happens next?

Without you, I'm afraid, I would shrug off ruber chiken's last comments, and continue working on the article, until such point when an editor of this article suggests to keep the article in whatever state they're happy with and wait for mediation. That hasn't happened.

I am, frankly, puzzled why "informal mediation" appears to have an influence on "later stages".

Ideogram, I'm going to go by what rules I can find here (from Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators):

you [the mediator] should try to gain general acceptance, otherwise people are free to just treat you like any other participant in the discussion.

As far as I can see, you haven't tried; I mean, as far as I can see, there is no reason to believe a mediation process will ever happen.

So, welcome to the discussion. You suggested we all stop editing the article, and I would like to ask why, as there seems to have been no disagreement since ruber chiken stormed off?

(Just for future reference: "You have nothing to lose by [waiting indefinitely]" and "Wikipedia will not suffer if the article stays in this state for a few days" might be unhelpful things to say. While I'm not reading them that way, what you technically said is "there's no advantage to your edits" (otherwise, Wikipedia would "suffer" (just not very much) by having the lower-quality article in place for a few days). You might find it helpful to avoid those phrases.)

Wikipedia's dispute resolution process appears to be slow enough. At many points, it gives both involved parties the opportunity to stall; I don't think that the time between another party's suggestion of informal mediation and its acceptance is a point where everything has to grind to a halt on the off chance that people who have stormed off return.

Note that I'm not going ahead and editing; but, for the time being, I'm treating you like any other user who requested everyone stopped editing: please supply a reason.

RandomP 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you. I have a dozen cases on my plate. If you don't want my mediation, I'll leave and let you figure it out for yourself. Ideogram 18:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, if it's my personal decision, then bye, for now. I'll call in the mediation cabal if and when there's something to mediate ...

Good luck with those other cases!

RandomP 18:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll close the case. Ideogram 19:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What is correct term for 'admin' rights?

Dear ideogram,

Regarding this sentence: "Wikipedia does not allow free editing: a user, William M. Connolley, who's wiki page states that he is a Climate Modeller, has "admin" rights over this page, and can and does block users from posting if they use strong language on the discussion page, etc."

You said: "removed editorial comments; assertion about "admin rights" was simply false"

Please note that this sentence:

                   Wikipedia does not allow free editing: a user, William M. Connolley, who's
                   wiki page states that he is a Climate Modeller, has "admin" rights over this
                   page, and can and does block users from posting if they use strong language
                   on the discussion page, etc.

is utterly correct and true and literal in every word.

A user, William M. Connolley, who's page states that he is a Climate Modeller, can and does block users from posting, if they use strong language on the discussion page.

Presumably, by this English sentence: "removed editorial comments; assertion about 'admin rights' was simply false" you must mean that the term "admin rights" is not the correct term to describe the event: "can and does block users from posting, if they use strong language on the discussion page."

Is that right?

So - what is the corrcet term to use to describe "can and does block users from posting, if they use strong language on the discussion page." if the term is NOT "admin rights" ?

Thank you.

All admins can and do block users if they violate any Wikipedia policies such as by being uncivil or issuing personal attacks. William M. Connolley is not special in this regard. No one owns a page on Wikipedia. Users are free to edit as long as they obey Wikipedia policies, including being civil. Ideogram 10:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

PS Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. Ideogram 10:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I guess I don't understand .... "assertion about 'admin rights' was simply false" ... what was false?

"William M. Connolley is not special in this regard. No one owns a page on Wikipedia." Sure, I did not state or imply that Connolly is special nor that anyone owns Wiki pages.

Everything it says here is completely true:

                   Wikipedia does not allow free editing: a user, William M. Connolley, who's
                   wiki page states that he is a Climate Modeller, has "admin" rights over this
                   page, and can and does block users from posting if they use strong language
                   on the discussion page, etc.

You've made a fairly bold claim. You're saying that what I said was "SIMPLY FALSE." That is a bold claim and a fairly astonishing claim.

As it stands you've made a fairly - very - bold claim .. that what I said was "SIMPLY FALSE." I'm trying to be as polite as possible here, but I'm just not seeing anything "SIMPLY FALSE," you know?

84.92.111.247 06:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't argue with me about the wording of the edit summary.

Uh ... ok then, I won't

It may not have been accurate, but it can't be changed now. And it's not important enough to me to argue about. Ideogram 07:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

PS I encourage you to register and get an account. Ideogram 07:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're fairly new to the Wiki. The broad consensus of opinion is that the Wiki works MUCH BETTER with anonymous entities. I encourage you to try for a year or two: stop using your nym, and go anonymous. This is better for the community overall.

Athabasca oil sands

I reverted the section added by an anon about the Athabasca oil sands: "The central overwhelming feature of the oil industry at the beginning of the 21st century is Albertan oil sands, ... Many analysts think the superabundance of these nowadays easily-usable low grade forms of oil trivially consigns peak theory to the history books." for lack of verifiability. Wikipedia has a good article about Athabasca Oil Sands, and even the oil sands companies don't make claims that strong. --John Nagle 07:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're into oil sands, I suggest reading the Long Lake Project web site. This is the first big in-situ extraction project, the one that has to work if oil sands extraction is going to produce really big volumes of oil. The 9-minute video intended for construction workers is worth watching. Construction is on schedule and extraction starts this fall. Take a look at their projected output numbers, even after the next two phases of expansion. --John Nagle 07:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The National Energy Board of Canada just issued a new report, updating their 2004 report to 2006 and projecting through 2015. Their projections are a bit less optimistic than the ones previously discussed; they think that production in 2015 will be closer to 3 Mbbl/d than the 4 Mbbl/day previously discussed. That's still 3 times the production today. One big problem is that there isn't enough water in the Athabasca River to to drive all the proposed projects. The reserves are there, but the extraction rate may be water limited. See section 6.21 of the report. --John Nagle 22:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The Long Lake project is based on SAGD processes and requires vast quantities of energy and water. A newer process called Toe to Heel Air Injection (THAI) is discribed in [1] and plans to burn a portion of the original oil in place (OOP) to produce heat and carbon dioxide to drive the rest of the oil toward collection wells. Petrobank Energy and Resources Ltd. is building a test project near Conklin. Carbonate 01:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That process worries me. I hope they don't create an underground fire they can't put out. There are several big underground coal fires that have been going on for years.[2].

I would also like to know how they plan to relight it if the air pumps stop for some reason.Carbonate 13:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary of discussion

Regarding the anonymous request

By the way, would anyone (RandomP) be able to summarize the position of the two apparently opposing posters, which resulted in the mediation? I seemed to miss what happened and the mediation process (now abandoned?) seemed to erase the previous discussions, etc.

I can certainly give a summary from my point of view; so I didn't even make any significant effort to be neutral:

• I fixed an image caption in the article, and, when this was first reverted by Carbonate (talk · contribs), explained why I did so: the short summary is, as it always has been, is that a "Hubbert curve" is the graph of any one of a very small family of functions, and they all are symmetric; the graph in the image is not.
• ruber chiken (talk · contribs) objected to this; they were convinced that a "Hubbert curve" was not always symmetric, and it probably didn't help that the image that was then in the logistic distribution article was incorrect.
• during the discussion, ruber chiken and I happily reverted each other whenever we were convinced that our argument was now so convincing that the other party would surely have to agree with it. Oops. Again, my apologies for reverting once too often, at least.
• Nagle (talk · contribs) was concerned about the edit warring, and called in the Mediation Cabal.
• Before the mediator arrived, ruber chiken had already made clear he wasn't going to edit the article further, by my reading.
• I agreed with the mediator, at least, that there was no point considering the article "in mediation" when ruber chiken had left and I was under the impression no one else was feeling the need to be involved in any further disputes.
• the last three edits to the image caption were Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) (back to the correct version), Carbonate (back to the incorrect one), and Arthur again (back to the correct version), where it stands now.
• Ruber chiken (talk · contribs) now agrees that the Hubber curve is symmetric, in a post I do not want to link to.
• the image in logistic distribution has been fixed in the commons; turns out it was a typo. So, at the least, that got fixed. We're making some progress :-)

There are still issues that now need discussion, like the misquoted EIA reference; I can conceive those might need mediation (between, as things look now, Carbonate and me) at some future point, though the case seems extraordinarily straightforward to me.

(Full disclosure: I have previously been in informal mediation with Carbonate, which failed. I think he supplied me with a link to this article in that discussion, though I had looked at it previously, and it might have been a remark of his that caused me to attempt to find the fabled mathematical model attributed to Hubbert. So I don't think any wikistalking or other misbehaviour is to blame for the coincidence of disagreeing with Carbonate again so soon.)

RandomP 15:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

EIA quote

The actual quote in the EIA document is:

The initially recoverable oil and gas resource volumes in both known and undiscovered fields are projected to increase through 2020 in all cases. Ultimate recovery from the initial stock of inferred reserves in all cases except the moderate resource case is assumed to expand over the period of the forecast, exceeding the published estimates from the USGS and MMS. Economically recoverable resources for currently undiscovered fields are assumed, with one exception, to expand by 2020 to the level of current technically recoverable volume estimates released by the USGS and MMS. Recoverable resources in shallow waters in the Gulf of Mexico are assumed in all cases except the slow and rapid technology cases and the moderate resource case to achieve

a level of about 40 percent greater than the volume estimated by the MMS to be technically recoverable. These adjustments to the USGS and MMS estimates are based on nontechnical considerations that support domestic supply growth to the levels necessary to meet projected demand levels.

(quoted liberally, but I believe this is PD).

So it's a quote (from 1997!) about specific adjustments:

• currently technically recoverable resources are expected to become economically recoverable by 2020
• furthermore, recoverable resources in the shallow part of the Gulf of Mexico are expected to increase by 40%, in some cases.

This just isn't a very big deal; the first adjustment essentially assumes that if no cheap oil is found, the oil price will rise.

The second adjustment is about a few billion barrels at most.

I see no reason for the quote to remain.

RandomP 11:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There is also no comparable quote (that I can find) in the 2006 version.

RandomP 12:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Peak prediction section

This section currently reads, in part:

Most critics instead argue that the peak will not occur soon and that the form of the peak may be irregular and extended rather than a sharp logistic curve peak. Like any mathematical model, the accuracy of the prediction is dependent on the validity of the model and further to that, by the accuracy of the input data. If variables such as consumption are estimated incorrectly, then the formula will yield different results.

I'll try to discuss the individual sentences separately, so partial consensus might work. Please try responding after the right signature.

I'm going to go ahead and remove the first paragraph soon, unless it's defended; however, please defend each sentence separately, as I believe they should all be removed for different reasons.

RandomP 12:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Since the global petroleum supply is finite, alternative energy sources must be found in the future.

Not relevant to that section. Anyone want to keep it?

RandomP 12:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Most critics instead argue that the peak will not occur soon and that the form of the peak may be irregular and extended rather than a sharp logistic curve peak.

That's what Hubbert said, too! The "most critics" bit is simply misleading; it's possible that the Deffeyes crowd argues that a sharp logistic curve will happen, but that needs to be sourced, since it's a position not appearing in Hubbert's papers.

If no source can be found, that whole sentence should go out.

RandomP 12:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Like any mathematical model, the accuracy of the prediction is dependent on the validity of the model and further to that, by the accuracy of the input data.

It is unclear which "mathematical model" this is about. As I have been unable to find any mathematical model, please provide sources pointing to one.

At present, it's impossible to say anything about the validity of the model since it simply hasn't been sighted.

Again, in the absence of new sources, I see no reason for that sentence to remain; it is simply inapplicable without a mathematical model to point to.

RandomP 12:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

---

If variables such as consumption are estimated incorrectly, then the formula will yield different results.

Which formula? I've not seen a formula in the article or the references that treats "consumption" (of what?) as an input variable.

Again, if there's no source, I'll have to remove that.

RandomP 12:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment on reverting to June 6

Since this article was first tagged for merger with with the cirtisim page, RandomP has been making many major edits that have been disputed in the talk page by many including RuberChiken. Mediation was requested by Nagle and rejected by RandomP. I would like to ask for comments about reverting this article to the state on June 6th before the edits made by RandomP and/or RuberChiken. Carbonate 01:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

---

• Oppose. RandomP's changes seem generally helpful, in spite of User:Ruber chiken's illegible scrawls. (I think he copied in a French article, then performed a word-for-word translation. If his babelboxes are correct, he would have been better off using babelfish.com.) For what it's worth, I think Ruber Chiken rejected mediation, as well, although I can't figure out exactly what he said. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Despite my previous disputes with RandomP, he's been quite reasonable and has only gradually made changes. If there is a mathematical model, it needs to be in here, or any reference to one should be removed or clarified. MrVoluntarist 01:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Alberta tar sands, again

Whatever the state of the now heavily {{fact}}ed section on the Alberta tar sands, is there any reason it's in the lead section?

This article is about Hubbert's peak theory. Hubbert defined the scope of that theory precisely, as petroleum, which he takes to mean crude oil from conventional sources. Whether or not tar sands are significant is a different question, but I don't think it's such a terribly relevant issue to this article. After the split, maybe ...

RandomP 12:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the current mess, I have no objection to reverting anything from 84.92.111.247 (talk · contribs). They're getting close to vandalism. And since they don't have an account, you can't talk to them. That material belongs in Athabasca Oil Sands, which is watched by some people close to the actual projects and is more factual. --John Nagle 16:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming because the user does not have a talk page, they are monitoring this discussion page.

I think that they should definitely stop putting that section in without further discussion. In particular, while far from vandalism, they have now readded the section without the {{fact}}s that have not been resolved.

I'm also not sure whether the section is a verbatim copy of some of Critique of Hubberts peak theory, or whatever it was called.

It also does not belong in the lead, or at least we need some discussion first.

So, for now, I'm taking it back out, because that's easier than fixing all those things, unless there are any fairly immediate objections?

RandomP 18:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

OK with me. The Athabasca oil sands are important, but not big enough or easy enough to extract to totally solve the problem. That material was unrealistically optimistic. Incidentally, if you're really, really into this, there's an Oil Sands Discovery Tour. --John Nagle 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm trying to make this a good article again, without changing the perspective much. I cleaned up the "Alternatives" section, with the general concept being that the alternatives should be covered in the articles on each alternative. There are Wikipedia articles on all the alternatives, from oil sands to fusion, so that's covered. I cut down the oil sands stuff a bit and added a mention of and link to the Orinoco field in Venezeula, the other big oil sands area, which somehow nobody had mentioned yet.

I also rearranged some sections without changing them. Now the Hubbart peak theory and predictions are at the top, and the alternatives, implications, and criticism follow. That reads better.

Comments? --John Nagle 19:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Looks great so far! The rearrangement seems kinda familiar, but I totally spaced on redoing that after the ruber chiken situation resolved itself.

I've got to review the article again to list all the places where there are claims about "Hubbert's theory" (there is one, it just doesn't make as precise a prediction as some people think), Hubbert's "model" (I'm just not sure whether what Hubbert did qualifies as a model), or a "mathematical model" (doesn't exist), but I think most of my concers can be fixed fairly soon :-)

RandomP 20:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether what Hubbert did qualifies as a model either. What we do have is an emperical result that, for each field of finite size, production increases with investment up to some limit, then tapers off despite additional investment. That's the per-field peak. We also know roughly how long this process takes for a field - about 30-50 years. (Interestingly, that's true even for oil sands; the Athabasca people are planning for a 40 year field life.) We know the discovery peak was in the 1960s. Those statements alone lead to expecting a world production peak around now. --John Nagle 21:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Notes on USGS assessment

I've been reading the USGS world oil resources assessment, which is cited in the article here. It's older than one might expect; the report is from 2000, and the data is from no later than 1996. There's a 4:1 ratio between the high and low reserves estimates. The USGS web site for energy resource has become much more vague than it used to be. There's still a link to the "classic site" on that page.

There's a big IHS study underway on reserves. IHS has the best data, which they sell for large amounts of money. IHS data goes down to the level of exactly which wells are doing what. Much of the USGS study is based on 1996 data from IHS. In late 2006, IHS will have a new world oil study out, and the overall conclusions will probably give some better information about what's really happening. --John Nagle 19:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Natural gas peaking claim

"Natural gas is expected to peak anywhere from 2010 to 2020 (Bentley, 2002)." This one sentence claim seems a bit out of place to me. Isn't the article about oil? Regardless, the word 'anywhere' in that sentence implies a greater degree of certainty than exists. I imagine that some people think that gas will peak after 2020, a few may predit its peaking before 2010. I vote for getting rid of this sentence, or at least trying to better integrate it into the article. Matthias5 22:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

redundancy in article

Most of the 'has it happened?' section is repeated in the article. Except for the first sentence, this section could be junked or merged with current events. Matthias5 22:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is redundant material that could be cleaned up. Since current events tend to become out of date, maybe that section should be merged into the 'has it happened?' section. Also, the two items for discussion that appear at the top of the article have been there long enough. If nothing is happening with that, they should be deleted. Jkintree 21:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Natural gas production had been in decline for the last three years in North America. This is worth mentioning.--69.251.234.83 01:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Opinions on Hubbert's peak

Concerning this sentence

Opinions on Hubbert's peak range from predictions that the market economy will produce a solution, to predictions of doomsday scenarios of a global economy unable to meet its energy needs.

I'm a bit confused; this appears to say, to me, "opinions range from predictions that public policy intervention won't be required, to predictions public policy intervention would be futile".

Any thoughts on rewording this to include people who believe this to be a problem to some degree, and think public policy can do something about it? That kind of appears to be a common government position, at least ...

RandomP 18:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's saying that opinions range from "it's not a problem" to "it's so bad we can't solve it". That already includes people who hold intermediate positions such as "it's a problem but solvable". But it could use a better wording. MrVoluntarist 18:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Critique of Hubberts peak theory and/or split of article

I'm in favor of moving the critique's in the article, and then possibly splitting out other parts. (No specific discussion section of this page was ever set up.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think they should be merged.--8bitJake 18:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reject - They should remain seperate Carbonate 00:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I just wrote more about this at Talk:Critique of Hubberts peak theory. Right now, almost all of the material on the critique section is already covered in the main article. I went through this paragraph by paragraph. Check it out. There are really only two items left to merge, and they're basically references. So I'm inclined to do a merge. --John Nagle 17:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• merge for now. As by John above. However, it's an important subject and probably deserves more space in the future to give the arguments some credibility. When the current section starts growing big, we can consider splitting it up, but not now. Jens Nielsen 10:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Speed Limits

So Arthur Ruben deleted a section suggesting that speed limits be reduced to 55mph (90km/h). His reasoning? Its immoral. You have got to be kidding me! It is common knowledge that driving 55 saves fuel over higher speeds. I have personally verified this fact. How can anyone suggest that driving faster saves lives? Absolutely amazing how selfish and self centered some people can be. Carbonate 07:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't get into a revert war over this. It's a side issue. If desired, a link to Energy conservation would be appropriate. That would be the right place for speed limit issues. Thanks. --John Nagle 16:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It also happens to be the low hanging fruit in terms of oil conservation (not that I believ it will happen). Along with proper tire pressures, reduced speed could actully make a dent in U.S. oil consumption. Carbonate 22:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This argument ignores that people have other priorities than just conserving petroleum. Time is generally very valuable in the US and elsewhere in the developed world and for what it's worth is the reason the national speed limit was overturned in the first place. My take is that the optimal speed depends on how much your time is worth, the curve of fuel efficiency versus speed for the car, your driving habits, and how expensive your fuel happens to be. -- KarlHallowell 20:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not an argument, it is a statement of fact about petroleum consumption. As such, it belongs, whether some people are impatient or not. I notice you left out depletion in your list of criteria for determining cruising speed. Skyemoor 20:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not link to general Energy conservation. As the reference about oil usage shows the two are not the same. --70.132.36.238 05:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

A section of the energy conservation article is the main one for the section of this article. Rewriting. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup of references

I've been cleaning up the overly large reference section, dropping some refs to web sites which were mostly pointers to other web sites. I'm tempted to drop the entire "blogs" section? Are any of those blogs worth keeping?

--John Nagle 04:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to drop the entire "blogs" section, unless someone objects. Are there any particular blogs worth keeping? Most of them are not too useful. --John Nagle 21:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

'The Oil Drum' should be moved to Sites. It's very informative. I agree the rest should go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.239.71.240 (talk • contribs)

More Information?

In the section dealing with the effects the perspective is quite narrow, is there room in the article for more detail? Example - since plastic is derived from crude oil, hitting peak oil has implications for packaging, medicine (disposable needles), and so on. Another example I saw in a National Geographic article (sorry, don't know which, but it was a cover story) included the information that a single cow being raised, slaughtered and transported to shops requires the equivalent of 7 barrels of crude oil for the various stages. If anyone has access to the article to reference it properly, it gave a broader coverage of the issue. 59.167.168.152 10:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible resource for further expansion of this article.

At the risk of being one of those "complain but don't fix" editors...

Australia's national non-commercial public broadcaster Four Corners program this week ran a story on the subject of Peak Oil. It summarised all the current voices and implications nicely (has an Australia-centric viewpoint however). If anyone's interested in an unbiased report they have the entire program on broadband here. Perhaps it may give some editors some new starting points for improving and updating this article.

(Also I'm suprised there's no mention here of the emerging economies' need for oil and the future imapct of this. I'm thinking of China and India here.) --Monotonehell 14:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Added definition of "Peak Oil"

After reading the article, I felt that the proper noun term "Peak Oil" needed to be defined in order to set a context for the rest of the article, particularly since the Wikipedia term "Peak Oil" redirects here. I strongly suspect that a high percentage of the people who find their way to this article do so by looking up "Peak Oil". So I expanded the earlier section about the US oil peaking and used it as a way to explain the concept of the unique global event. I think this explanation adds a lot of context to the rest of the article and makes it more intelligible for readers.SparhawkWiki 06:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I approve of Nagle's overhaul of the article's introduction. Nice collective editing. Jkintree 17:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I also like the edits, but I couldn't just leave well enough alone and I made some more contextual additions. Hopefully they meet with community approval.SparhawkWiki 20:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of attention to peak oil the media here in Europe, most of it referring to the theory that it is peaking (globally) very soon, and (to a lesser extent) that we're on a disaster course if we don't make major changes to our energy system. I believe the article should address that, and in fact that it should be the focus. Jens Nielsen 17:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of that is in Implications of peak oil, which could use some work. --John Nagle 18:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Has it happened already?

Regarding the section on "Has it happened already?": It's very welcome and essential information we have now on current and recent annual supply figures, but I think the current perspective (2004-2006) shown in the bar chart is a bit too short for us to draw any strong conclusions from it. Year-on year variations can be rather large, and can lead to overinterpretation of the significance of a single year's production. How about expanding the chart and the information to cover, say, a decade? What are the time scales used in the literature? Jens Nielsen 10:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that only one chart showing short term information can be limiting, though charts in the previous section meet your criteria; should we also show them here as well?--Skyemoor 14:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I must admit I had not read the whole article up to that point, but we cannot expect everyone to do so either. Unfortunately, the last chart in the previous section stops in 2001, five years short of now. Can't we construct one anew, up tp and including 2006? Or at least refer to the previous chart? Jens Nielsen 15:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be helpful to add a newer chart that portrayed the data over a longer timespan, while including current data. I would leave the short terms chart in, though, as it provides a 'zoom-in' view of near term data (which needs updating as well).--Skyemoor 15:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I had to dig into IEA tables, and I noticed that the IEA total oil production includes biofuels, which is obviously negligible, but also natural gas plant liquids. NGPLs give a substantial, and steadily growing component to the IEA total data. NGPL is arguably not crude oil, so the (IEA total) - NGPL - biofuels might be a relevant (additional?) quantity to plot on Image:WorldOilProduction2002-2006Q2.gif. I also feel that the two plots showing actual production data are somewhat redundant. --AndrasCz Thu Aug 24 08:09:59 UTC 2006

Understand, though a request was submitted to go back before 2004, as the timeframe shown in the first one was too short. Skyemoor 12:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure! now we have a figure with as long a timeframe I could find data for, and also your figure for the short time frame, which is updated every 3 months. I was just saying that your figure contains all the information which is in the first (John Nagle's) figure. I guess you guys need to decide who is more willing to maintain it in the long run.. --Andras Thu Aug 24 15:21:01 UTC 2006

Redirect created

I have turned the article Implications of peak oil into a redirect going to this page. The reason for this can be viewed at its talk page. --Polonium 21:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Peak oil myth

Hear is a good reading, relevant to this article, for anyone with a open mind: [3] --Striver 23:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• An open mind has a much greater requirement for critical thinking than a closed one. The link implies a conspiracy theory between a diverse group of producers with myriad individual interests. May oil companies have tried to artificially limit to-pump supplies by restricting refinery growth in the highly inelastic price environment of the US? Perhaps. But there is broad world consensus that liquid oil will peak sometime in the next 30 years (retired industry experts and independant analysts are mostly saying 2005-2025) - among nationalized oil industries, multi and transnational corps, governments, everyone. What doesn't get consumed in the US will get refined and consumed elsewhere, including by governments whose direct interests lie in cheap oil.

Removed final sentences

I removed this text from the end of the article: "Note that it is very dangerous to tie the amount of oil we can get, to the price per barrel. The reason is that despite the possible profitability of the venture, when the ERoEI falls below 1, it is no longer a SOURCE of energy, just profit".

This had only been in the article for the last few days. It is a problem because of the phrase "very dangerous", and because it assumes that oil must be an energy source. Even if, at some point in the future, oil is no longer an energy source, it still may have many uses, as a fuel, a source for making plastics, etc. --Xyzzyplugh 18:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

And, reading the article more extensively, I see that this is indeed covered in an earlier section, "Energy return on energy investment". So this content was redundant as well. --Xyzzyplugh 19:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is Hutter here

I don't see why Freddy Hutter gets mentioned here at all. Unless he actally wrote himself into the arcticle. He is just some guy with a webpage, possible mental problems, and no credentials whatsoever. Here are some actual quotes made by Freddy on "The Oil Drum"

"Maybe before we ask the nazi pope to bestow sainthood on mr deffeyes we should take two minutes for a reality check"

"Had one too many slips on the skree? Our website graphs and other content is referenced at hundreds of other sites and in some journal work. Are u as bad with search engines as you seem to be with comprehension? If i ever turn into a grumpy old man i hope somebody shoots me."

"Apparently u and greyzone know about as much about the pope's pre-omipotent days as y'all do about deffeyes seven predictions and all his backpeddalling. They guy is on the book ciruit and looks only for notoriety. Simmons $200 public bet for $5k is of the same ilk. Sleazebags both. And we see the have any easy time attracting koolaid drinkers here at TOD."

Links to non-English sites normal?

There is a link to http://www.crisisenergetica.org/ in the links section. Seeing as it points to a Spanish site I removed it as I assumed it was a mistake. The link has now been restored with the question "Why shouldn't we link to Spanish sites?" in the history.

My answer would be that I would suggest that the link actually belongs on Spanish Wikipedia here (where there is already a link to that site):

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teor%C3%ADa_del_pico_de_Hubbert

I have left the link in place but surely if it were to stay it should actually point to an English section on the site or a translation? Or do we normally link to sites in languages other than English on the English Wikipedia?

Its quite normal to link to foreign language sites especially when no translation or English equivalent is available as many readers dont just read English. Sometimes it is necessary to source things in a foreign language, no source being available in English, SqueakBox 21:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• • OK thanks - I'll remember that.

More reference cleanup

Continuing to clean up the references. Dropped the "Voices" entries, most of which were just links to Google searches. "Voices" with a published book were moved to the book section. Fixed many of the "Book" cites to use the proper template, eliminating redlinks in that section. All book entries now either have an ISBN link or a link to the author's Wikipedia article. --John Nagle 18:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Lynch

People need to be careful when considering statements regarding Michael Lynch, since there are at least two distinct Michael Lynchs which have been referred to. Compare http://www.energyseer.com/MikeLynch.html with http://reason.com/Bio/lynch.shtml. Bobo159 20:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Production Statistics

There has been something of an edit war over the production statistics in the "Has it happened already?" section. I would argue that any statement of the form "it appears that" is POV; if it appears that way, then it will appear that way to readers without you having to tell them.

Identifying a trend is not POV; clearly the production is leveling off, in the near term, as is supported by the referenced data, whether or not one likes the message the data depicts. Skyemoor 14:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

When I fit a curve to the historical production data and found (to my surprise) that it showed oil production was exponentially increasing, that was deleted on the grounds of being "original research".

You would have had to cook the books to come up with that trend in 2005 and 2006. The data clearly shows otherwise.Skyemoor 01:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If you pull the last several years of data (I think I used the last 8) into a stats package (or even Excel) and fit an exponential, you'll find I'm right. That the best-fit curve does not agree with your bias does not mean you're correct. I would ask you not to start slinging unfounded accusations of malice, though; I have "cooked" nothing. Bobo159 18:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I repeat: the trend in 2005 and 2006 is not exponential increasing, no matter how you try to spin otherwise. Skyemoor 01:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I've never said the 2005/2006 data shows an exponential-increase trend; I only mentioned the fact that the data shows an upwards exponential over the last 8 years to illustrate the point that Wikipedia is a place for data reporting, not data analysis. Insisting that there is no positive-exponential trend in the last two years of data is simply missing the point (and ill-founded, since there aren't enough data points to do a statistically-significant analysis with this amount of noise anyway.) Bobo159 06:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Missing the point"? You are leading a cheer to make it look like oil production is still growing steadily, when the data clearly shows this is not the case in the last 18 months. I don't misunderstand you at all, I simply am not going to twist the words to portray a falsehood. Skyemoor 12:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You have just demonstrated that you are, in fact, grossly misunderstanding me. In particular, I am not leading a cheer to suggest that oil production is growing steadily; this should be obvious from the fact that the year-over-year methodology shows a particularly low rate of increase right now (0.6%), due to the vagarities of the data. I'm not leading a cheer for any conclusion, as should be obivous from my statements to that effect. What I am leading a cheer for is for a neutral and unbiased methodology, regardless of what conclusion that methodology gives us.

By contrast, it appears as if you have the pre-determined conclusion that oil is peaking now, and hence all data must be made to support that conclusion. That's biased analysis. Pick a common and well-regarded methodology and let the data tell its own story, regardless of what that story is. Bobo159 01:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You haven't proffered a 'methodology', beyond your reporting data in 'year-on-year'which distorts short term trends over the last 18 months. THAT'S biased analysis. Can you show me where my math was incorrect concerning the growth since Q4 2004? Skyemoor 03:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably rightly so, too - Wikipedia is not a place for analysis of the data, but only for reporting the data or for reporting analyses done elsewhere. So cite an authoritative source saying that production is levelling off, and we're good to go. Otherwise, it's your opinion, and that's POV, regardless of whether I agree with you (which I do) or not. Bobo159 21:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm only citing the data, which clearly shows a leveling off in the near term. And that is what I state, no more, no less.Skyemoor 01:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No - you're interpreting data. Citing data is "production for period X was Y"; interpreting is "production appears to me to have the following trend". That is not how the data appears to everyone - indeed, I've read arguments saying that this pattern means a further increase is likely - so this is pretty clearly interpretation of data. Once that is recognized, we can discuss whether this is reasonable interpretation of data (which it may well be). Bobo159 18:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The data shows a leveling off from prior growth, which is obvious.

Obvious to you, perhaps, but Wikipedia is not here to report things that are obvious to Skyemoor. Now, it would be reasonable to cite someone saying that production is levelling off, such as these guys, but then you'd have to contend with the fact that they appear to be contradicted by more recent data. Still, that would be a much more reasonable basis for a "levelling off" claim than "it's obvious to me". Bobo159 06:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

With production growth rates declining over the last 18 months, production has indeed leveled off. It doesn't take a quote from an expert to state the obvious, even if you don't like what the data communicates. Skyemoor 03:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to demonstrate otherwise, please provide something concrete which shows a 1% growth over 18 months is exponentially increasing over 1.7% from the prior 2 decades. Skyemoor 01:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Law of the Excluded Middle Fallacy; it's quite possible that neither of those descriptions is true, so failure to demonstrate that production is increasing at 1.7% annually in no way demonstrates that production is levelling off. A steady 1% growth rate, for example, would be neither 1.7% nor levelling off, so I'm afraid you'll have to back up the "levelling" claim a little bit. Bobo159 06:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If a yearly average growth rate of 1.7% is replaced by a yearly average growth rate of less than 1%, that shows the growth rate to be leveling off. Note that I didn't say 'level production', which would infer no growth. Skyemoor 12:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also argue that year-on-year changes are the most neutral statistics to report, and that it's biased to carefully pick either an unusually high starting point (to give the impression of low growth) or an unusually low starting point (to give the impression of high growth).

It interesting that you've chosen to pick the lowest starting point to give the impression of high growth, all the way through your section. On the other hand, I've chosen to identify the peak production of 2004 (Q4), which showed a steady progression throughout that year. After that, production became volatile, which would not be the basis for rational comparisons on a quarter by quarter basis, but lends itself to the cherry-picking you've been insisting upon.Skyemoor 14:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You are in error. I have consistently shown year-on-year changes, which involves neither the highest nor the lowest starting points. Take a look at the chart -- you'll see I'm right. Were I cherry-picking a starting point to suggest that growth is high, I would clearly choose Q3 2005; since it's lower than Q2 2005 and more recent, it would give a very high annual growth rate. I have no interest in pushing an agenda that oil production has been growing either quickly or slowly, though, so I used Q1 2005 vs. Q1 2006, and then updated to Q2-vs-Q2 when the data became available. I don't see how showing year-on-year changes is "cherry-picking". Perhaps you could explain how that is so, and how carefully selecting the data point that makes growth look lowest is more reasonable. Bobo159 21:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You are overly hasty in your assignment of error. Yes, you compared Q2 2005 with Q2 2006 with Q2 2004. But Q4 2004 was the eventual peak in 2004, which you've somehow missed in your cherrypicking.Skyemoor 01:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you insist that Q4 2004 be used in every possible analysis? If one is doing a year-on-year comparison - which is the standard for comparing this kind of thing - then quarters other than the corresponding one a year ago don't play a role. Indeed, you're engaging in the very definition of cherry-picking here - you've identified a data point you really, really like (Q4 2004), and you're trying to shoehorn it into every single analysis. By contrast, I'm picking a standard analysis methodology - year-on-year - and simply letting the chips fall where they may, without trying to influence the story the data is telling one way or the other. Bobo159 18:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember, we are talking about peaking production in this article. Look at the graph for 2004 - production progressively grew up through Q4. It then became volatile. What was the peak up until that point? Q4 2004. So that becomes the benchmark. Your 'year-on-year' methodology conveniently avoid some of the lower production quarters in 2004 and 2005, which skews your results. Skyemoor 01:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Find anyone reputable who analyses data like that. You will find that nobody does, because that's cherry-picking. By contrast, everyone analyses the data the way I'm suggesting: the International Energy Agency does year-on-year (p.4), the US Energy Information Administration does year-on-year, British Petroleum does year-on-year, ... This isn't me making up a methodology; this is how this kind of thing is done, precisely to avoid the temptation to cherry-pick data to support a cherished belief. Massaging the data like this is the reason for the saying regarding "lies, damned lies, and statistics". As that article notes, "even accurate statistics can be used to bolster an inaccurate argument through such methods as selectively choosing data." That's the reason for using a clear and well-defined methodology, such as year-on-year. Bobo159 06:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've visited the sites you've provided many times in the past, and they even describe differences in production on a month by month basis, so I have no problem with using an 18 month time period. You, on the other hand, are cherrypicking data out of selected quarters, ignoring those data points which dismiss your contention. That, is the essence of 'lies, damn lies, and statistics'. Skyemoor 12:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your approach would be fine, if you were consistent in using an 18-month time period. Instead, you've used a 16-month time period, then a 17-month, then a 18-month, and soon a 19-month, all to keep your favorite data point in use. That is the essence of lying with statistics.

By contrast, I have used a 12-month time window. Period. No changing the window to make sure the right data is highlighted. That is the essence of good statistics.

If you don't agree, by all means ask a statistician. You will find they agree with me. Bobo159 01:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've simply picked the last production figures from 2004, which happen to also be the highest. Since the subject IS peak oil, then gauging production growth drops is a possible indicator of a peak... or it could just be another hiccup. As you see, I draw no particular conclusions, other that what the data itself states. And I am not stating by months, but by quarters. Are you a statitician, or do you just speak for them? I have no doubt I could find a statician who would be thrilled with the simple statements I've made. Skyemoor 03:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You ignore Q1, Q3, and Q4 of 2005, because they show a dropoff or insignificant increase from Q4 2004. That's cherrypicking, no matter how you try to wrap it in banal rhetoric of 'year-on-year' changes.Skyemoor 01:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No; I'm not reporting Q1, Q3, or Q4 of 2005 because that's how year-on-year statistics work, not because they do or do not support my argument. In fact, the annual rate of increase has been 1.3% since Q1 2005, 1.7% since Q3 2005, and 1.9% since Q4 2005, all of which would give a much higher value for annual production growth than the Q2-vs-Q2 comparison I'm suggesting. You keep accusing me of "cooking the books" and "cherry-picking data" to artificially inflate the recent production growth, but I keep showing that you are provably wrong. So would you stop doing that, please?

By contrast, though, your absolute insistence that by far the most important data point is Q4 2004 is the very definition of cherry-picking data. You're seizing on a single data point and insisting that that proves your point of view is correct; that's not a valid argument. Bobo159 18:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Q4 2004 set a historical production high, which was the benchmark from that point forward. Production became volatile after that, which could be a signal or just a temporary setback: I make no judgement about that, I simply report the data, which shows production growth leveling off in the following 18 months. Skyemoor 01:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

According to IEA figures, production has been higher than Q4 2004 for all of 2006[4], so I don't see how you're calling it a "historical production high". Bobo159 06:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Reread the sentence; I never said it wasn't surpassed (indeed, I supplied data to show it was), I simply said it became volatile after that. If you can find a quarter in which production surpassed Q4 2004 prior to that point, I'd like to see your sources. Skyemoor 12:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Relatedly, the "Countries Past Peak" table linked to in that section is verifiably incorrect (see that page). While it is known that a large number of countries have passed their petroleum peak, that table is not a reliable source for a precise count. Bobo159 20:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The term 'approximately' should be fine.Skyemoor 14:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. No parts of the cited table are reliable until it's overhauled -- for example, it was showing Canada as peaking in 1973, but the linked-to data shows Canada's petroleum production has been higher than that peak since 1993 -- so there's no basis for using a number derived from that table. Given the requirement that content must be verifiable, I don't see how it's reasonable to say anything more specific than "many". Bobo159 21:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. While you provide a reason to restate the number as 'approximately 38", I see no reason not to reference another Wikipedia page that has not been declared invalid. Indeed, the table clearly states, "Inclusion on this list does not necessarily mean oil extraction cannot exceed the previous peak in that country." Skyemoor 01:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no indication that any of that table is valid. I've checked about a half-dozen of the countries on the table, and about half either are erroneously listed as peaking or are below their all-time high but completely fail to follow a Hubbert curve.

Nothing in the statement mentions whether or not the countries have followed a bell curve, only that they have passed peak production. Please provide data on other countries in that table that are erroneously showing they are past production when they are not. Skyemoor 01:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The table is linked from the top of the "Has it happened yet?" section of the "Hubbert Peak" article with the statement "have passed their peaks"; there is a distinct implication that they have passed their Hubbert peaks, which is not what the table is talking about. However, I think the paragraph is much better with your new edits, especially since the Chevron quote you've put there is more informative than what we had previously. Bobo159 06:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia insists its articles be verifiable, and there is no indication the data in that table has been verified, it's not reasonable to rely on it, especially when a general quantifier such as "many" would do the job just as well. Why is "approximately 38" (but maybe some other number) more valuable than "many" or "a substantial number"? Bobo159 18:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Referencing another Wikipedia article is perfectly acceptable. If the number is approximately 38, why shouldn't that number be used? Skyemoor 01:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Part of the edit war was that I inadvertently reverted a legitimate user's contribution thinking it was that 70.134.*.* vandal. Nova SS 20:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I originally added the "appears to have levelled off" phrase, but I'm inclined to wait for the end of 2006 to see what happens.

Actually, I did on July 28. You are referring to another quote about "flattening out", which Bobo took out as well. I'm not making any declaration that this is the beginning of the global peak, but simply reflecting the data over the last 18 months, which I state clearly. Identifying the peak will occur sometime after it has taken place. 01:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Skyemoor

Realistically, we'll be sure that the peak has been hit only about 3 to 5 years afterward. Meanwhile, we should keep updating the charts quarterly and let the reader judge the trend. The really striking effect, which isn't mentioned much, is that the price of oil more than tripled without much increase in production. That's an indication of how inelastic the supply side is. --John Nagle 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, agreed, agreed, and agreed - in that order. Bobo159 06:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

One interesting thing I ran across: quarterly oil demand from the IEA (p.4). The interesting part is that Q4 2004 had unusually high demand, which might explain some of why it was such a high-production quarter. It's also interesting to note that Q4/Q1 has much higher demand than Q2/Q3, which the text suggests is due to heating requirements in the winter. This pattern seems to repeat for the reports from the previous years, suggesting another reason why year-on-year is the normal way to analyze the data: demand and production vary with the seasons, meaning that comparing numbers from two different seasons will invariably give skewed results. It's like comparing apple harvests for Q3 and Q1; one is not likely to get sensible results without taking into account where in the apple's growth cycle we are. Similarly, it appears as if we won't get meaningful results unless we take into account where in the winter heating/summer driving cycle we are. Hence year-on-year - compare at the same point in the cycle to cancel out those cyclic effects. Bobo159 07:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

At unheralded high prices, and low stockpile rates in late 2004 and early 2005, oil produced was still being absorbed into stockpiles, and in the US and China, was continually being added to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve and China's petroleum reserve. Indeed, production was still being added in a few short months after Rita/Katrina. [5] If you simply look a the chart on the right of the page, it shows production rarely affected by seasonal variation. So if we are at a point now where suddenly this becomes an issue, at historically high prices and razor thin demand/supply margins, such a claim would have to viewed with suspicion and a high degree of scepticism. Skyemoor 12:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Critiques

"Some oil industry executives, economists, and analysts" simply refers back to Michael Lynch, who was already referenced before. When citations can be provided, then this sentence could be reinstated. Skyemoor 15:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Mitigation

Mr. 70.132.*.* wanted the 55 mph speed limit under #Mitigation. Although that makes little sense, as it has not been shown that speed limits, even if observed, significantly reduce actual fuel usage, even a tightening of the CAFE standards would qualify. (I'm going to be on wikivacation from a time less than a 24 hours from now for at least 5 days, so I'll have to leave it to others to watch Mr. 70.132.*.*'s edits.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Within appropriate ranges, lower highway speeds (i.e., 70mph -> 55mph) do reduce fuel consumption on a mile-by-mile basis. There are endless studies and lab results to confirm this, even engine manufacturers agree;

http://www.everytime.cummins.com/every/pdf/4103811.pdf

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml

The exact fuel efficiency point is a complex matter for each vehicle, related to the final drive ratio, peak efficiency motor speed, and aerodynamic drag characteristics, primarily.Skyemoor 21:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it just about "watching my edits" or are there others out there interested in presenting relevant information in this section? So far there seems to be a bias towards bland statements that cannot convey actual information and are lieing by omission. For instance ordinary hybrid vehicles do not save much gas over a modern fuel efficient regular car but I am forced to leave that fact out due to Arthur's zealousness for saying nothing. Arthur's statements on the 55 mph speed limit above is just incomprehensible.12.162.10.2 16:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"For instance ordinary hybrid vehicles do not save much gas over a modern fuel efficient regular car". You don't give the definition of a 'ordinary hybrid vehicle', but my Honda Insight achieves 60-70 mpg, which is significantly greater than 'a modern fuel efficient regular car'. Granted, a hybrid Accord only gets a couple of extra mpg, but you can't lump all hybrid vehicles in one category. Skyemoor 01:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I know its confusing because people usually quote the plug-in hybrids at 100 MPG which is not true. The plug-in hybrid vehicles can go 40 miles without using gas. So for me that would mean driving to work all week and back without using any gas! On the week end people take longer trips but then they are also frequently car pooling. So the savings from plug-in hybrids are much much greater than what 60-70 mpg will mitigate. Also your 60-70 mpg is not free way. Ironically if you are in the fast diamond lane in California, which the hybrid allows you to be, your gas mileage will not be much different than any other new Honda because you are not braking and recharging the battery. This is all true and well known but I don't know how to put it in a form that will get past the censors. 70.132.29.69 02:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

On plug-in hybrids, I agree. On my hybrid Insight, however, I do indeed attain 65+ mpg on the highway/freeway. You must be thinking of the Prius, which gets better around-town mileage than highway. Skyemoor 12:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right I hadn't researched the Insight - updating the section12.162.10.2 15:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The Insight isn't the only hybrid to achieve significant savings; the Prius and Honda Civic, for example, also fall into this category. Updating the section. Skyemoor 16:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Without the "some" in there it sounds like you are saying all hybrids are high efficiency.12.162.10.2 16:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "high efficiency" is an adjective, which identifies those hybrids which are high efficiency. Other hybrids do not apply to the sentence, which makes the use of 'some' unneccessary. However, a better adjective might be 'high mpg' I understand your concern and I agree wholeheartedly that hybrids that do not achieve high mpg are not in any way mitigations, but a form of greenwash. 66.225.251.176 14:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

split proposal

hubert peak refers in general for fossil fuels and resources, like oil AND gas,coal,uranium,iron,coper ...The article is complitly overwelmed by oil problematic and nothing for the others.--Pixel ;-) 04:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I sujest to rename this one to oil peak, and move the hubbert theory section to it's one article.--Pixel ;-) 04:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

also it's 38 kilobytes long !

Can anyone produce references that show that M. K. Hubbert applied his peak theory to anything but fossil fuel fluids? Skyemoor 10:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

See Hubbert's 1956 paper at http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf . Jkintree 19:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Kelly has suggested that the Alternate and EROEI sections do not belong in this article. This may be the best reason to have a separate Peak Oil article, so that this article could focus on the theory itself. The Peak Oil article would focus on the rest. Skyemoor 11:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that both the Alternate and the EROEI sections are relevant to this article. The Alternate section mostly links to other articles, which is good. Splitting this article has been discussed multiple times in the past, and never agreed on. While Hubbert's theory also applies to natural gas and coal, the most immediate impact is likely to come from peak oil. I originally found this article by searching Wikipedia for "peak oil." Leave well-enough alone. Jkintree 19:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, will restore the Alternate and EROIE sections. Skyemoor 01:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Support a split to Hubbert peak theory and Peak Oil. The former should deal with the actual theory and criticism of it and can be quite technical, the later should describe peak oil and cover the implications of peak oil, mention that Hubbert is just one of the peak oil models/modeller/modelling techniques (and could link to others), it could also cover the cultural phemnomen of Peak Oil, ie the emergence of the blogs and local community groups planning for post peak. Everyone refers to the page as the "Peak Oil" page anyway - Peak Oil is the best term for this info and Hubbert peak theory does not describe the content in this page. Such a large subject as Peak Oil can easily support lots of separate pages on the subject. - Drstuey 10:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Support Whell Drstuey explaned it nicely.--Pixel ;-) 03:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Support Oil production info, prediction, and implications of peak oil is a much larger subject than Hubbert's works. Actual oil production is clearly not a Hubbard curve, still, oil production will start to decay sometime with a wide range of possible consequences. --AndrasCz 06:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Would like a split but not this one. Whether oil peaks or not is not as relevant as whether humanity is forced to seek alternatives. For instance production could go up 100,000 barrel per year for the next 100 years and all the peak ramifications described in the article would still be immediately relevant. The correct split is between "Hubbert Peak Theory" and "Oil Supply and Demand".70.132.29.69 13:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The theory, the likelihood of occurence, and the ramifications are tightly coupled. It would be possible to split them into two articles, but there would have to be some overlap in order make sense of the separate articles (e.g., "Is it happening yet?"). Supply and demand outside of peak oil is related, but ultimately different. Skyemoor 14:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Support Drstuey's opinion. Things like the breakdown of fossil-fuel based infrastructure, the reduction of exports as opposed to production, the relation to energy and malthusian scenarios - peak oil needs its own article.Lesqual 18:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Support Doesn't Hubbert's theory equally apply to gas, for example. Peak oil is one thing his theory can be applied to and is a matter in it's own right. Webchat 21:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

External Sites

Almost every one of the sites referenced could be classified as blogs. It is discriminatory and arbitrary to include some but not others, especially when some of the others contain newsfeeds and static articles. These are not social networking sites. Skyemoor 00:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My criteria for weeding was whether or not the site appeared to be notable. One for instance was written by an expert who is frequently quoted by major media outlets. The other main criteria I looked at was whether or not the site was ad-laden. It's pretty common for people to put together quick "news aggregator" sites on a particular topic, then seed them with ads. It's unusual to see an article with this many links; I think most editors agree that we should focus more on content and links should be limited to only a few highly-relevant/notable ones. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Way to many links here, and very few are needed. let's stick to scientific ones, nothing on blogs or comapnies. HawkerTyphoon 01:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the best research and analysis is going on in the blogosphere using what numbers are publicly available, to be honest. Not everything has to link original research, linking valuable analysis is probably more important for something as technical as oil reserve analysis. Respectable third party reports on the topic are quite pricy, and internal research tends to stay internal. Some of the most cited (in mainsteam press) reports involve statements by non-scientists, and organizations like CERA consistently overstate predicted production figures in what's become a cottage industry of yes-men. Eliminating, for example, The Oil Drum would be irresponsible, as one of the places producing pages of many analysis on how Hubbert's curve fits with reality, every single day. "Social Networking" involves the primary goal of developing friendships, whereas a blog can be anywhere on a continuum from personal diary to medical-journal level article. Judge on content, not whether the source allows comments and discussion of content.