Talk:Peak oil

Notable discussions from archive

Endless oil?

What about new discoveries like Jack?

According to BP in 2006 the world consumed 83.7 million barrels per day. 15 billion divided by 83.7 million is about 180, so Jack is a 6 month supply for the world, assuming the oil in Jack could be extracted quickly enough and no increases in consumption occur. Some newer estimates suggest it may only provide enough oil for the world for 2.4 to 5 days.[1]

Weren't other predictions about our oil supplies wrong in the past?

Further information: Peak oil § Historical understanding of world oil supply limits

The Hubbert peak theory has proved accurate for modeling the extraction history of mineral resources in specific regions. Also, virtually every type of scientific prediction has improved over time, so this is a rhetorical argument.

ABC's 20/20 report from 2006 says we have endless oil[2].

That's a video about tar sands. It says we're running out of cheap, clean oil, and that if we include tar sands we have 100 years left. Their expert also said $500/bbl oil isn't out of the question.

The IEA's Oil Market Report shows that global oil production has increased x% in the last x months, and shows no sign of slowing down.

The IEA does not define "production" the same way as most Peak oil literature. They conflate the concept of "production" with "supply". They never mention what total production is, so one has to do some foot work to put the numbers together. To them, supply "Comprises crude oil, condensates, NGLs, oil from non-conventional sources and other sources of supply", and includes gains in refinery capacity (processing stored oil). In other places, they actually include ethanol and other biofuels in supply!

Nine barrels being used, one barrel being found?

Is this true?

Yes. Actually about 7.6. In 2005 we consumed 30 billion barrels per year and the discovery rate approached 4 billion barrels of crude oil per year[3]. This is crude oil though; quantifying unconventional discoveries is problematic.

UPDATE: In 2008, oil consumption had risen to 32 billion barrels per year. The discovery rate dropped to around 3.6 bbls per year. 32 bbls / 3.6 bbls = 9

Why is James Howard Kunstler here?

Because he examines oil from the demand side, rather than the supply side which most economists and oil men consider. This is important.

References

This article has been listed as a "Good Article". Please help maintain this status by making sure that any references you use is in the correct format (see: WP:FOOT, WP:CITE, WP:CITET, and WP:EIW#Citetools). This is a technical article, so make sure to only the highest quality reliable sources.

Here are some sample searches using {{Google scholar cite}} which links to the Universal reference formatter (below each search result is a {{Wikify}} link to automatically generate a reference):

• Template:Google scholar cite
• Template:Google scholar cite - recent
• Template:Google scholar cite
• Template:Google scholar cite - recent

Featured article status?

See Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Need to fix all "citation needed"'s and make sure all references fit proper format ({{cite web}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, etc.). See WP:EIW#Citetools for citation tools (such as {{Google scholar cite}}) to make this easier to do.

External links

We've done a good job so far patrolling the new links, and the current ones look good. Please discuss before removing the links section.

Abiotic oil

This article is not for discussing the merits of the Abiogenic petroleum origin hypothesis. Given that the prevailing view among geologists and petroleum engineers is that abiotic oil does not exist in any significant amounts, abiotic oil as a source of petroleum is a fringe hypothesis. It gets a fair mention in the appropriate section per the undue weight policy, and this text does not need to be expanded unless scientific consensus changes.

Proposed link

I propose this link : http://wiksa.free.fr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.164.61.183 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 26 June 2009

Timing of Peak Oil section and subsections

Although I have followed peak oil for 10 years now I regret not to have contributed here earlier. A good and thorough article overall. For this section however, I see two concerns:

1. The terms "optimistic" and "pessimistic" include the POV that late peak is better in all respects (online definition of optimistic: "expecting the best in this best of all possible worlds"). Correspondingly about the term "pessimistic". Clearly without dispute, some things will be better/easier with a late peak (and more difficult with an earlier peak) while other things relating to pollution for example, might very well end up being worse. Proposed new subsection names would be Early Prediction and Late Predictions, or Earlier and Later, or something along those lines.

2. Either in another section, or expanding this section to "Timing and Level of Peak".

There is a vast, huge difference between predicting peak at 110mdb in 2012 (for example) and predicting a peak at 90mdb in the year 2012. This variable has profound impact, as profound or in some scenarios more profound, as farf as the effects on society, than the date alone. To have a useful summary of predictions/analyses side by side, this variable needs to be included.

There are a few mentions scattered here and there, but not organized as the timing is. If someone has time, a two dimensional graphic (one axis for how early, the other for what level the peak would be) is one possibility. Without that, then at least adding careful parenthetical or otherwise linked information about "at X mbd" next to every date prediction "will peak by the year Y" would allow readers who scan one prediction after another in this section (which does a decent job of listing predictions from many sources) to get a more useful sense for how sharp an impact on society is implicit (all other factors being equal) in each respective prediction.

Peak in the year 2020 at 115mbd? Or peak in theyear 2020 at 88mbd? Very, very big difference... Make it easy for readers to have this variable in the predictions (or state "level of peak not predicted" for those who refuse to include that estimate but only estimate date of peak)as they scan and juxtapose all the analyses we have listed side by side in the current form of the section..--Harel (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: #1, I don't think the words introduce any sort of bias in the article, but perhaps there are more neutral ways of stating the same thing. Earlier vs. Later feels a bit awkward and informal to me ("earlier than what?"), otherwise I'd be for the change.

I am thinking of the terms earlier and later like the sense of the terms "older" and "younger" where these words don't need to be relative to some point; the same sense of the word we use when we say, "younger visitors to this part of Florida seem to enjoy Disney while older visitors seem to prefer..." Thus you have earlier and later predictions, younger and older people, cheaper or pricier restaurants. I wouldn't use the word "bias" but certainly a value judgment as per the definition of "optimistic" cited above as "expecting the best in this best of all possible worlds" for optimistic. The current language basically states a POV that earlier peak is bad news in all ways, and later peak is good news in all ways. I'm open to alternatives to "earlier" and "later". Those just seemed the most simple and accurate terms for what the intention is: earlier dates of peak versus later (including "time=infinity" or "never") dates for peak. --Harel (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: #2, if there are RS sources which discuss these issues in the same way you suggest, then by all means be wp:BOLD. If it's any more than a retelling of RS sources though, it's unfortunately novel synthesis and not really appropriate for this venue (regardless of real-world veracity). 69.127.18.249 (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments here too. I assume RS stands for referenced source. I wish I could take credit for being so smart as to be "novel" and the first person to have ever thought about this. I'm not. It is unfortunately true that only a small minority of articles on the matter take this dimension into account, the rest being over-simplified (sometimes to extreme levels of confusing peak with "running out") and if not that, then less extreme levels of distortion. I'll be glad to be bold when I next have free time to do a more exhaustive search; meanwhile, I'll hope that people who have been following peak oil and are on wp might beat me to it (if not, I may try to boldly add from RS by summertime) Thanks. --Harel (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear my original suggestion #2 is not for novel synthesis in the sense included in your link since it does not include any new conclusiond (a fortiori, no new conclusion "that was not in either of the multiple original sources" since it introduces no new conclusions at all) but rather instead -andwithout making any new conclusion(s) - to organize the data, which in fact has two or more dimensions, in a way that highlights the two or more dimensions (time of peak, and level of peak**) rather than the current form which takes this data and organizes it as if only one (relevant) dimension/variable exists (time of peak). As I said when more time I'll find one articles which is among the smaller collection of more careful expositions, which don't brush such things under the rug, which we can then add reference at same time as more accurate and careful organization of peak is made. Or else, another possibility would be to keep the current organization, but add a caveat that yes, cites an outside reference, to point out that the effects on society cannot be approximated with only the date of peak but depend also on the level of peak.--Harel (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• • (other post-peak variables include length of time of plateau, and rate of decline post-plateau. However these variables come in after initial peak. In the leadup to the peak, which is being predicted, these two do not directly come into play)

I've noticed a lot of scholarly articles (in research journals and policy journals) using the words. I've decided they are accurate representations of how the literature describes the situation. 165.230.203.23 (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the terms are used widely (not sure whether universally in scholarly articles, but certainly widely). Nevertheless, an article on "climate change" might well clarify for readers that while that's a commonly used term, that the phrase does not refer to any 'change' in climate; that indeed climate 'has always changed' but that the term refers to modern, faster, anthropogenic changes. Other examples come to mind, too..but in any case, similarly it should be clarified, at least, for readers that the so-called "optimistic" scenarios are not necessarily those which would result in the best or optimal outcomes for society as a whole. Harel (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That might work in a note or something, so that the flow of the text doesn't get disrupted. It seems hard to do without editorializing though. 24.16.85.252 (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Link to Oil Smoke and Mirrors in section Documentary films

Dear all

I propose to add a link to Oil, Smoke and Mirror in the documentary films section. Ohnoitsjamie and I disagree on the relevance of this link. See e.g. talk

I believe it is worth having it here, amongst other reasons because this documentary can be watched online for free without copyright infringement. What do you think?

--MarmotteNZ (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't find any indication that this is a notable documentary. Ohnoitsjamie stated that it's a fringe doc, and given the heavy concentration of the film on 911 conspiracy theories, I tend to agree. Seems more about 911 conspiracy than anything else. We don't link to things just because we can. Please state why you think it adds to the article. 24.16.85.252 (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Can't find any indication that this is a notable documentary."...what would that be? I get a 404 when going to www.notable.documentaries.org :-/ As I wrote earlier, I think it ads to the article a lot because 1/it can be watched online, therefore can be watched with no further expense by any reader discovering this topic on wikipedia and wanting to learn more without having to spend $10, 20 or 50 and wait a week for the delivey of a DVD, 2/It contains, besides of the 911 conspiratonist bits, interviews from notable experts (from the industy as well as (retired) politics) which show very clearly how this issue is voluntarily unspoken and obfuscated from all politician's discourse, and ignored in all public policies. --MarmotteNZ (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Snark will get you nowhere here. WP iz sirius bizness. Read up on notability. 206.188.60.75 (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

THX 206.188.60.75, but the guidance you quote is quite explicit about its own scope: "The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content." so your remark is out of point. As of mine, sorry if you don't appreciate irony, but what I mean is that their is no one unique criterion to evaluate the notability of a documentary. Also note that other documentaries and links (e.g. Collapse) have a large conspirationist content as well. --MarmotteNZ (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A) We're not talking about content. We're talking about links. I thought I remembered notability listed among the criteria at wp:ELNO, but I could be wrong or that may have changed. I hold that given the large numbers of items having been inserted into the section in the past, notability is an important issue. See previous discussions on the issue. However, if you disagree we can move to the issue of wp:V (see ELNO #2).

B) As far as Collapse goes, you're complaint is not a convincing argument for inclusion. If you'd like to discuss the merits of that link, we can do so separately. I note, however, that the wiki article about that movie (to which we link, rather than linking directly to the film) states that the documentary presents certain views as those of some person, and that the film itself is neutral on those ideas. I also see that the movie had great critical acclaim. 206.188.60.97 (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 206.188, I think the policy he's looking for is reliable source. The documentary does not seem to pass under those criteria, and it doesn't really matter if it's easily accessed if it is not an acceptable source. To put it another way, the fact that it seems largely composed of fringe theories discredits it to the point that its use is inappropriate, in my opinion. TastyCakes (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok tHX all, I won't try any further ;-)--MarmotteNZ (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Article is far too long

At 143kb, this article is far too long, making it difficult to read and navigate comfortably, so I've added a "too long" tag. The article definitely needs to be less than 100k and closer to 80k would be better. More use of WP:Summary style, where material is split to sub-articles, leaving a summary here, would really help. Also some sections need to be trimmed, eg., See also, External links, and Further information. Johnfos (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please take into account that a lot of information such as references and comments do not count to that number therefore real length is much smaller. Also, please ensure that you fully integrate the material you are removing to the main articles. It's not like, 'I can read something similar elsewhere -> remove'. Please transfer all references and update the information there. 1exec1 (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The main text of the pdf-version is a little longer than 16 pages. That should be ok. I therefore removed the template.--Victor Eremita (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've looked over your recent changes and found some deficiencies:

| revision 1: the material here was better than in the [[4]] article. This mostly includes the dates and some references that should be transferred/updated.

| revision 2: Hirsch report should definitely be at least mentioned.

Please correct these problems or I'll revert these changes at some time. Excluding that, you edits were really good. Thanks!1exec1 (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Hirsch Report is linked and discussed at Peak oil#Possible effects and consequences of peak oil... I think the article is a bit cleaner and easier to read now. Johnfos (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like peak oil happened in 2005

Actual production figures from the US DOE are out through 2009.[5]. World oil production peaked in 2005. Deffeyes has published "When Oil Peaked", [6], which is an "I told you so" book. --John Nagle (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's possible that oil has peaked, but we can't say for sure yet. Oil production has sometimes decreased for several years before and then continued rising again, as can also be seen in your list: E.g. the 1979 "peak" stood for 16 years until being surpassed. And the 2008 figure is only marginally below that for 2005... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, too early to say if production decreased because countries were physically unable to produce as much (which is what people usually mean when they say peak oil) or if demand shrank and production was shut in accordingly. Also keep in mind that the measurements are not perfect, in some parts of the world they are rather rough approximations. I'd say being 1.6% off the peak quite possibly falls within the error bar of the calculations. TastyCakes (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Peal Oil - is it Reality TV ?

It is quite interesting that the so-called Peak Oil theory is so precise, it cannot predict when it happens ; it cannot even witness the Peak when it happens. The theory has been around for so long, one might think that an indicator would have been issued - but no, nothing. Desperation that the subject might disappear afterwards ? Absence of knowledge of what an indicator is/is for ? In any case, it has the taste of mere incompetence - or is it reality-TV ?--Environnement2100 (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC) PS: when one looks hard, one can find these pieces : ‘Reserves’ as a leading indicator to future mineral production and [http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/15-STG-Peak-Oil-Discussions.pdf SUMMARY DISCUSSIONS ON PEAK OIL] Is that worth mentioning ?--Environnement2100 (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Your opening remarks are extremely unclear (google translate?), but I assume you are suggesting that there is a problem with the theory's predictions. On it's face, this is an unfair statement as the predictions are made by various models, not by the "Peak Oil Theory". Though this discussion topic is not about the article we're now discussing, I will say that these models are limited by the input data used. Given the extreme complexity in calculating reserve and production numbers (the many factors are constantly changing and hard to accurately quantify), it's not surprising that there have been many differing predictions over the years. Detection of the peak similarly difficult, but the "indicator" is very simple: production never rises over some historic high. If you have sources which discuss these issues, perhaps Predicting the timing of peak oil can be expanded.

As for the two articles you linked to, the first one is behind a paywall for me but looks outside the scope of this article. The second looks interesting and could easily be used to bulk up the section mentioning the Hirsch report, which has been gradually gutted over time. This is the "beef" of Peak oil theory (the "why we should care"), and it's sad that it gets hidden by so many pages of (important) data. There are many governmental and semi-governmental task forces out there which have published similar conclusions and recommendations. 174.28.159.219 (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge of Hubbert curve into Peak Oil

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

After two weeks of comments, the unanimous result was no merge is required. -- 24.216.225.123 (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Hubberts 1956 paper in broad and length dealt with global peaking. I therefore assume the various articles about local peaks and the Hubbert Curve as such should me merged with global. One should not try to suggest that Hubberst peak was only a local issue. Bakulan (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC) PS I inserted the Merge tags for Hubbert curve and Hubbert peak theory.Bakulan (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose – These are quite different articles. Peak oil is about what is actually happening in the physical world to our ability to draw more oil as oil stocks are progressively run down. The Hubbert curve is about the conceptual problem of fitting a mathematical model to phenomenon like this. For example, the Hubbert curve can also be applied to peak water and peak fish. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and we should not say "This concept is derived from the Hubbert curve", just as we would not say "the concept of gravity is derived from" Newton's equation or Einstein's theory. Fourtildas (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is also the length issue to consider. At 112 kilobytes long this article really needs to be shortened, not expanded. Johnfos (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Epipelagic. Seems to me that it might be appropriate to merge Hubbert curve into Hubbert peak theory, though. --FormerIP (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It seems to me that the Hubbert-like 'peaking' of several key resources are going to be defining factors of our world in the next 30 - 50 years. These articles are part of a growth area in WP, both in their importance and in the amount of material that will be published. Restricting the number of articles is counter-productive. --Nigelj (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The Hubbert Curve is a statistical distribution applicable to any depleting resource Casey (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose For the very reasons listed above, these articles were originally split from one article into several. Having several articles allows each article to go into specific detail. The level of detail in the Hubbert curve article is not helpful for the average person just beginning to research Peak oil (the geologic/economic/social/political issues), and visa versa for those wanting to learn more about the curve itself (statistical/mathematical questions).134.10.123.106 (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hubberts 1956 paper was about Peak oil, coal and gas world wide and in the US. So it beliongs here and nowhere else. It was however no big theory. To print a growth curve on logarithmic paper is no major theoretical breakthrough. Hubberts was of opinion that there was enough oil coal and gas left till the buildup of nuclear would equalize the decline of oil. This has been left out of the Peak Oil article so far. The Peak Oil article is far from telling real wold issues. Wether we hava peak now or in 2030, wether its a peak or a plateau or still beyond a max is still under debate. Insofar to have three lengthy and overburdened articles where one short would be sufficient. Bakulan (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.