Jump to content

Talk:Predicting the timing of peak oil

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Leobold1 (talk | contribs) at 20:00, 5 June 2008 (→‎Correctly?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

IEA report

NJGW, please do not garble the original information, which is as follows :

"In its December 14, 2007 report, the International Energy Agency stated that world oil production in November 2007 had risen again to 86.5 Mb/d ; the agency concludes to a 2007 average of 85.7 Mb/d (+1.1% over 2006), and considers a 2008 further demand increase to 87.8 Mb/d (+2.5%)[1]."

Yes, I saw that. It talks about demand, not supply. You posted in the wrong article. This article is about predictions of supply shortages. Also, you might have noticed this is a monthly report. They also publish a different report twice a year which better indicates their predictions of market trends (vs. the discussion of seasonal peaks and vallies which this report is concerned with). NJGW (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any evidence against this agency, please source it.--Environnement2100 (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, did you not notice where they say that 50kb/day is more than 180kb/day? NJGW (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe start a new sub-section titled International Energy Agency Reports, or a fashion thereof? Jim (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. NJGW (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the added sentence addresses the said topic, i.e. "Has it happened already". You also can add a new section for IEA, but this sentence belongs there.--Environnement2100 (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not that's true is debatable, however, in case you didn't notice the statements are still in the "Has it happened already" section. They only have their own subsection because the source may have reliability issues, as mentioned. Also, the IEA report section discusses their medium term report, which is a better indicator of trends than the monthly report you are referencing. Also, I made a perfectly good wikified version of the reference, so please use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NJGW (talk • contribs) 15:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NJGW, stop destroying sourced information, quote :

In November 2007, world oil production had risen again to 86.5 Mb/d, leading to a 2007 average of 85.7 Mb/d (+1.1% over 2006)[2], and EIA plans on a 2.2 Mb/d increase in 2008[3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Environnement2100 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is moving a sentence to its correct section vandalism? Please refrain from unconstructive comments. NJGW (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to your request here. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To quote ~a (user • talk: "Firstly, this is a content dispute. Please discontinue labeling the content dispute with incorrect label of "vandalism"." So if there's no other argument that I've vandalized anything, I'm going to move this content to the above section and delete this section in a few days. NJGW (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For why it is important to look at medium and long term reports vs. monthly reports, go to the IEA's website and look at the graphs there. You can see that Q3-2006 world oil supply is higher than any Q after that, so the whole paragraph really isn't adding anything to the debate.

Also, you will notice that demand is what is going up according to IEA, and that is what I'm trying to get across here: there is confusion in this contentious sentence over whether demand or supply is being described. Please double check the report, look at the graphs, and reread the sentence carefully before this "edit war" goes any further. NJGW (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, the said sentence is concerned by the said paragraph : it has to be there, as it answers directly the title of the paragraph. So no, it must not be moved away : editor NJGW wants to hide it away. For a second thing, editor NJGW is lying, because there are two different sentences concerned now :
  • one is referring to the IEA, an international agency
  • the other one refers to the EIA/DoE, a national US agency. Both agencies provide concurring figures, though not exactly the same.
Editor NJGW is trying to destroy/put away both references, obviously because he is not happy with the figures provided by both agencies. NJGW should not choose what is good and what is not : these references are totally authentic and relevant.--Environnement2100 (talk) 06:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said before, sometimes it seems you don't read what is written, Environnement2100. There is an EIA section, but it's in another part of the article and unconnected with the edits we're discussing. Also, you clearly haven't read the source you're using because it doesn't make any point about peak oil. In fact, if you look at the graphs on their webpage, you'll see a peak in production in the Q3 of 2006! just like some of the other sources suggest. The subsection was created to hold both the Medium and short term IEA reports as they could be seen as an answer to the other sources, but read what they actually say and you can see they're really not. The medium report could be moved to the section below about undulating plateaus, but the short-term report doesn't add anything to this article. It discusses DEMAND and SEASONAL supply changes. NJGW (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Environnement2100, I urge you to read this, which is the most current fully available monthly report (the other 57 pages of the report). There you can see more of what I'm talking about. In the December 2007 report, they show average supply in Q3 2006 as the highest, and in fact had revised up their estimates of Q's 1-4 of 2006 supply. Also, some of their numbers don't seem to add up: how does 51.25mb/d (the high predicted output of non-OPEC in 2008) plus 31.1mb/d (November '07 OPEC output) add up to 86.5mb/d (November world oil supply)? Answer: it doesn't. As they say in their report, there is some accounting juggling going on in a gain in refinery capacity (processing stored oil), so to really know what production is you have dig in the report. As is already stated in the article, the only way to accurately figure out when peak oil production happens is to look back in time. That probably means looking 2-5 years back in time. NJGW (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correctly?

This is the first sentence:

M. King Hubbert, who devised the peak theory, correctly predicted in 1956 that oil production would peak in the United States between 1965 and 1970.

Yet, the first subhead is titled: "Peak oil production—has it happened already?" This, to me, is contradictory. If it happened in the late 1960s, how could it have possibly happened in December, 2005? Later in the article, the IEA says it happened in 2006. A later listing of countries show that the only nation that peaked before the 1970s was Japan, with most not peaking until the 1980s or later.

With all these contradictions, how can Hubbert's prediction be "correct"? Leobold1 (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ International Energy Agency, monthly report, december 2007
  2. ^ International Energy Agency, monthly report, december 2007
  3. ^ Short term energy outlook, EIA/DoE
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Predicting_the_timing_of_peak_oil&oldid=217380782"