User talk:NJGW/5

Gone Fishing

Oil shale economics

Hi, NJGW. There is an attempt to give a boost to the Oil shale economics article. Considering your expertise in the field of petroleum, you may be interested to participate. The discussion is going on here. Thank you.Beagel (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

US oil dependence

Thank you and good work. I will give it a serious thought and try to merge them together. I am a newcomer, as you can see. I would propose to merge them together under a title of "Oil Dependency of North America". Obviously I don't know how to merge articles and I need your help.

Regards, Dreamliner888 (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

tortoise

Replied. Thanks for your comment. Tony (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaskan gas production

Saw your hidden connent in the Peak gas article, wondering if gas production rose in the late 1970s due to Alaskan gas production. Good guess, but off the mark, because there are still (2008) no gas pipelines connecting Alaska to the lower 48. Some gas is produced around the Cook inlet for the Anchorage market, but whatever gas deposits there are on the North Slope remain untapped. More likely explanations for increased US gas are technology and price rises. Regards. Plazak (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I cited the great difference between Hubbert's projected figure (from his 1956 figure 22) and actual production to illustrate how far off these sorts of projections can be if based on erroneous inputs, even if based on the best data available from someone as highly regarded as Wallace Pratt. Hubbert made a valid contribution, but neither he nor his theory are God, and the mathematical fatalism implied by his curves is subject to modification by technology and economics. I have not studied Pratt's methodolgy, but I do know that since 1956 there have been great fluctuations in natural gas prices, great advances in seismic exploration technology, great improvements in horizontal drilling and massive hydraulic fracturing (needed for tight sands and shale gas), and the startling realization that some coal beds that had been drilled through thousands of times would produce immense amounts of gas if properly handled. Just in 2008, there is a terrific excitement over what some companies say is a huge new gas field in NW Louisiana's Haynesville shale - a formation that had been drilled though hundreds of times. Undoubtably we will run out of gas someday: Hubbert was certainly right (though not original) on that point. But gas production peaked in 1971, again in 1979, 1997, 2001, and now the 2007 data point to a still higher peak. After each of these "peaks" people said, with some justification, that gas had "peaked" ala Hubbert, and we had nothing but shortages ahead; someday they will be right, but it's difficult to say when. The Wikipedia articles on peak theory are full of statements that "X commodity has peaked" in this or that country, with the implication that there is only one peak. To be accurate, the wiki articles should include the fact that for some commodities and regions there have been multiple peaks (Hubbert himself pointed this out), and a "peak" does not always mean irreversable decline from then on. Sorry for being so long-winded. Plazak (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As Hubbert pointed out, local peaks are global peaks in microcosm. He used observations for individual states to justify his projections for the US as a whole, and data from the US to to forecast the world as a whole; if his theory succeeds or fails in individual regions, that has serious implications for the accuracy of the theory in global projections. Also, US consumers depend largely on US-produced gas, so peak US gas would have an important effect on the US economy. If it is valid (as I certainly believe that it is) to point out how accurate Hubbert was in his US oil projection, why would it not be equally valid to point out how inaccurate he was in his US gas projection? It would be extreme POV to emphasize the hits and gloss over the misses. As for his using "outdated" gas reserve figures, believe me, all reserve figures are subject to becoming outdated the day after they are calculated. Now matter how modern the statistical methods used, the best present-day reserve calculations are still subject to the same problems faced by Pratt: it is almost impossible to forecast technology or economics. Also, the earth is full of surprises, both good and bad. Plazak (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have to eat my words (see above) on Alaskan gas production. Looking closer at the USEIA data, it turns out that a great amount of gas is being co-produced with the oil on the North Slope, and being reported in the Gross Production totals, even though the gas is being reinjected to maintain reservoir pressure. Plazak (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• "He used observations for individual states to justify his projections for the US as a whole" I was under the impression that he used past discoveries to justify his predictions.

see pages 11-13 of his 1956 paper. He used the examples of Ohio and Illinois to justify the shape of his curve.

• "if his theory succeeds or fails in individual regions, that has serious implications for the accuracy of the theory in global projections" I'd have to see a source which a) says the theory itself has failed anywhere (barring changes in the data) and b) that this has serious implications for the global application.

The utility of any such equation is to make predictions about the future. The whole boldness of Hubbert's work is that he dared to make detailed predictions about future. Anyone can jigger a curve to fit past data. If the timing and rate of peak gas is known only in hindsight, it loses its utility. If the EUR is not accurately known, as it turns out it was not in 1956 and 1971, then the Hubbert equation will give erroneous predictions, as it did.

• "why would it not be equally valid to point out how inaccurate he was in his US gas projection?" I don't believe we've seen anything which indicates that he was inaccurate, only that Pratt was inaccurate.

Hubbert adopted Pratt's numbers as the very best available at the time. So even using the best information then available, the Hubbert curve was a poor predictor in this case. Anyway, Hubbert used his own numbers in 1971, and was again wrong. Again, the point is that even the most knowledgeable workers in the field (Hubbert himself) can be wrong if they have to rely on poorly known inputs.

• "It would be extreme POV to emphasize the hits and gloss over the misses." Again, Pratt's miss, but see the text before you say I've glossed anything over.

Agreed. It is not glossed over as presently written.

• "all reserve figures are subject to becoming outdated the day after they are calculated." Pratts predictions held for 20 years, and given the advances in technology and statistics, I expect today's predictions will last much longer. NJGW (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Increased gas was largely due to new technology (unconventional gas and deep water drilling), driven by higher prices. What modern technology and statistics are there that can predict future technological advances? Your faith in today's peak gas predictions is not justified by past experience. Plazak (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

What is your basis for adding this? Bstone (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: AZ links

Sorry, I got a bit overhasty, when I saw you'd trimmed some useful links (that I probably put there -- I live in the area). Full agreement on the spammy stuff, which is an ongoing problem. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

year links from ancient times

" Has there been any consensus on whether any dates should be linked? "

Sorry for the delay in replying. Single-year links have been on the nose for quite a while, although people are a little more accepting when they're in ancient times. But honestly, I can't see any advantage. Those who write the year articles will complain that they'll eventually be "orphaned"; but my response is "make them a lot lot better and we can find ways of promoting them". Tony (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger of Renewable Fuels and Renewable Energy

You're right, I was neglectful. I was hurrying down a list (for other purposes) and saw two articles that apparently didn't know the other existed, and threw in Merge notices thinking they were obvious. The two articles really do need to wikilink to each other, and not just through the Sustainable Techniologies category. And the Renewable fuel redirect needs to be fixed or disambig'd. I'm rushed right now, and haven't yet looked to see what to do about the overlapping articles in the Renewable Energy portal. Simesa (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Economic_crisis_of_2008

I have started a new thread at Talk:Economic_crisis_of_2008#Meltdown_Monday, of which you may be interested. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified claim

You have entered an big unspecified claim on the article Drug policy of Sweden. Several sources are official government documents about the present drug policy, the latest is from September 2008, others represent different critical views on the Swedish drug policy. So can you please explain what is unsourced etc in the article.Dala11a (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do that as soon as you show me where I said something was unsourced. The key here is that you are too involved to be able to accurately decide when the tags have been fulfilled. This has been proven by you time after time. NJGW (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not involved at all i any governmental or anti-drug organization or any pro- or anti-drug organization of any kind. If you don't have any claims on the sources, what is then not in line with Wikipedeia policy in the article?Dala11a (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Your actions on this article and others show that you have an emotional involvement with the topic of illegal drugs. Your misconstrual of sources in the past and other issues show that you are not the proper judge for when the tags should be removed. NJGW (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You have still not mentioned one single error in the articleDala11a (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A question for you: Where the tags valid when they were placed? NJGW (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw in May 2008 (and I have not change my mind) the general tags on top of the article as a misuse of tags. The user who had critical comments should have specified what parts of the article which he considered to be inadequate. I have improved the article since May 2008, but the general view is the same, the Swedish drug policy was well known to me in May from many different sources in Swedish. The latest update is a speech in September 2008 about the Swedish Drug policy, in your recommendation, from the governments official web site, Maria Larssons speech.Dala11a (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If you saw the tags as incorrect to begin with then you obviously are not partial enough to decide when they have been taken care of. The tags were discussed, and a third party was even brought in and agreed that there were issues with the article. The issues stem from your COI. The tags are a signal to some editor with the time to deal with you that they should go through all of your edits and make sure they sources say what you claim them to say... often they don't (and not just on this article). As for the speech, quoting a politician is not a great source as we have seen many politicians say many untrue things in this world... better to use some impartial third party analysis, or at the very least the actual policy in question. I don't remember recomending that you find a speech. NJGW (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy declined

Hi NJGW. I just wanted to let you know that I declined your speedy tagging of Catch 22 (band). Since the band has apparently released multiple albums on a notable label, there is a suggestion of notability under the WP:MUSIC criteria, so it does not meet criteria for speedy deletion. If you believe this merits a community discussion, feel free to nominate it as an AfD. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Also this Google News search suggests that there are many references out there that could be added to the article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I just came to the article randomly and saw it had only one non RS looking ref, and news.googleing "catch-22 ska" didn't look promising. Looks like they just need to use some of those refs you found though. NJGW (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Peak gas

I have unhidden the paragraph headings. Also I have added a half of a dozen diagrams and a small amount of supporting text. Could you perhaps give me a hand to fill-in the needed paragraphs in the next few weeks? Konrad Kgrr (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So what are your views NJGW on USA orchestrating 1973 oil shock?

Do you have any opinions NJGW?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yasis#More_on_USA.27s_orchestration_of_1973_oil_shock

218.186.69.253 (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean what is my opinion? This is not a discussion forum, and I have not written any wp:RS sources we can use in the article, so it really doesn't matter what I think. Please log in (yes Yasis, you need to log in), and suggest the changes you would like to make, as well as the sources you would use, at that article's talk page. NJGW (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking of writing a new section on this issue at the 1973 oil crisis page, so I need your opinion.

Thanks. 218.186.69.253 (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Put it here and I'll have a look at it: User_talk:Yasis/1973_sandbox NJGW (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't have the time now. But I will write up a new section and put it on the 1973 oil crisis page. The current version seems like a fraud.

So are you going to oppose or support?

Thanks. 218.186.69.253 (talk) 06:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose or support what? Put it in the sand box and only then I can answer. If you don't have time to build consensus, you don't have time to edit Wikipedia. NJGW (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Oppose or support what?" Supporting the new section on possible USA orchestrating the 1973 oil shock to support their hidden agenda. You don't seem to like the idea.

Thanks. 218.186.69.253 (talk) 07:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're going to write, so I don't know if I'll support it. That's why I suggested that you use the sandbox. As for the Shiek, from what I've read "He is best known for his role during the 1973 oil embargo, when he spurred OPEC to quadruple the price of crude oil." NJGW (talk) 07:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Look Yasis, your editing history is not very credible. You should really take things easy and play by the rules... make sure your sources are wp:RS, make sure your wording is wp:NPOV, and make sure that your text reflects consensus. You also need to log in. NJGW (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"As for the Shiek, from what I've read "He is best known for his role during the 1973 oil embargo, when he spurred OPEC to quadruple the price of crude oil."" That is probably not the full story or some sort of cover story or USA false propaganda, like the Iraq war deception on WMDs.

It's still something you're going to have to reconcile somehow

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2001/jan/14/globalrecession.oilandpetrol

This is the only accurate account I have seen of what really happened with the price of oil in 1973. I strongly recommend reading it.

How do you know this is the only accurate account?

Sheikh Zaki Yamani, former Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia

http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Zeitfragen/Century_of_War/century_of_war.html#WorldOrder218.186.69.253 (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Look Yasis, your editing history is not very credible." What do you mean by that? My editing history not credible???? 218.186.69.253 (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters there this: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Yasis#User:Yasis and this; and then there's your total refusal to understand other certain editing policies (besides sock puppets and edit warring there are: reliable sources, formatting your posts, logging in, concensus building on talk pages [for example on Carroll Quigley]). NJGW (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

NJGW, I think you got things wrong. I was never involved in any sockpuppet activities. Check your facts. That is an unfair allegation against me. 218.186.68.211 (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see... you were blocked for edit warring, and then used at least 11 different IPs to continue the edit war (skipping from one to another as they were blocked) until the whole range had to be blocked. How is this an unfair characterization? NJGW (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That does not fit in with definition of sock puppet, NJGW. You should know that. 218.186.68.211 (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thanks for letting me know about date formatting. Schmiteye (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)