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

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)

Unfortunately, the incompetence of the poster trivializes the valid point that was intended. If Peak Oil is valid science, then why is it always presented in a way that makes it look like manic raving? This article appears to be little more than a bullying attempt to legitimize an argument by piling a weight of words on a weak foundation of statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2011 (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.

'The oil conunDRUM'

In the last week I have twice reverted an addition by WebHubTel. The point being made is obscure enough, but the citation is to an ISBN number that does not exist on Google Book Search, Amazon.com, WorldCat etc.[7] It is easy enough to find, by Googling the title, a blogger saying, "I synthesized the last several years of blog content and placed it into The Oil ConunDRUM".[8]. There is a link to 750 pages of these blog posts on Google Docs, but this neither satisfies WP:SELFPUBLISH ("Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published") nor WP:V ("Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"). Which of the 750 pages of this blogger's opinions are we meant to look at? Is he a recognized expert in this field? I can't tell from WebHubTel's text whether he thinks he's disproved Hubbert peak theory, or verified it, but surely if he has made a significant contribution to the world's understanding of Peak Oil, someone somewhere must have published something about his writings in a fact-checked source. Also per WP:V, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material", so it is up to WebHubTel to explain what he is trying to do here before adding this stuff back again. I see WebHubTel has also added the same text and reference to Hubbert peak theory,[9] which I hadn't been watching. --Nigelj (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Peak Oil entry has a figure front and center showing all the models of oil depletion. This was contributed by Sam Foucher and only published on the TOD blog, and so includes my Oil Shock Model. So the blatant hypocrisy is that they show an "unpublished" figure from a blog, which they should complain about, yet refuse to link to a book that contains the sole source information for a critical portion of this graph. If you want to see what professional geologists say about the lack of information on Peak Oil, please read this link from today by Rockman and RockyMtnGuy http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7410#comment-762791. BTW, I paid for an ISBN number through Bowker; it's guaranteed unique and provides the best way to track editions. WebHubTel (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Platinumshore

User Platinumshore continues to re-add and edit material which has been left uncited for months. They have been asked for citations several times now and have ignored these requests (removing the citation requests with no explanation was not adequate). They have also used commercial websites and wikis as references, which are violations of wp:rs. This is a GA article, and requires a high level of quality control to remain GA. Please help maintain this level of quality by closely monitoring all edits, not just those made by IPs. 173.10.73.233 (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)