Talk:Hubbert peak theory/Archive 3

General Comments

grasshopa says,

"Over 90% of transportation in the United States relies on oil". I have no doubt that this is true (from common sense) but can anyone support this statistic?

--Charles H. Featherstone says, "If there were commercial quantities of oil in Hell, Exxon executives would not call God and demand regime change. They would buy an extremely nice lunch for the Devil, and they would talk contract and concession terms".

It should be noted, however, that the above rebuts only specifically the idea that corporations rallied for the war for immediate monetary gain; long term motivations are another question. In fact, Featherstone also says later in the same article:

But there is an oil component to the invasion and occupation, and I believe it is this: the United States, through invading and occupying a nation with significant oil reserves, would show the world –especially the up-and-coming consuming nations of China and India –that in the event that push comes to shove, and this resource gets scarce, Americans come first. "Everyone else gets in line behind us. If there's any left, we'll make sure you get some."--

• Nice! I like this guy's style. We need to annex the rest of the middle east and we need to do it quick. Once we control the world's oil supply, the world will be at our mercy (and France will regret being such a bitch to us.)

• The "alternatives to oil" section does not mention nuclear fusion. The research around ITER (the first thermonuclear reactor that will produce more energy than it consumes) gets 1/7 of all the research budget of the European Union, and it is a project that includes USA, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea, besides the EU. It is the greatest scientific project ever, and it will be a safe, rentable and ecological source of energy. It should definitely be mentioned!

The alternatives to oil section is mainly about transportation fuel alternatives. The article currently mentions that after the peak transportation will be the hardest hit. Nuclear is not mentioned because it is not yet a proven large scale nor sound alternative especially considering plug-in-able electric hybrid cars aren't even on the radar. And when they come up with a long term solution to storing radioactive waste and begin actually implementing it then you might have a point. zen master T 03:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The alternatives to oil section is introduced by "If or when conventional oil begins depletion the following alternative energy options may be increasingly relied upon to meet the world's energy needs.", and mentions Nuclear energy (fission, not fusion). Besides, you may not know it, but one great advantage of fusion over fission (witch is mentioned in that section of the article) is precisely the fact that fusion does not generate radioactive waste. In that sense, your (Zen Master) objections are totaly invalid, I believe.

My objections are against radioactive fission, not fusion power you silly anon account. Your attempt to misframe the debate has failed, I believe. You are indirectly hinting they've made fusion power work, really? Very environmentally sound is it? When will we start hearing about this officially? FYI: fusion is not included under the term "nuclear power", it is and/or should be known as "fusion power". zen master T 16:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Your objections ("My objections are against radioactive fission, not fusion power you silly anon account") do not make sense in this context, as I was suggesting the inclusion of some information about fusion in a place where information about fission is already included (go there and check). By the way, let me answer to "When will we start hearing about this officially?" with a recommendation: search about ITER at http://www.iter.org/

To be as clear as possible "nuclear power" does not equal "fusion power". "Nuclear power" is the historic generation of power from radioactive decay. All my comments were directed at nuclear power specifically. Perhaps you intentionally commingled the two concepts when you said "nuclear fusion"? In any event, the environmental sustainability and overall energy efficiency of the technology is at best unproven. zen master T 22:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong. There are 2 types of nuclear reactions that may generate energy: nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Stars generate their energy through nuclear fusion. Our sun gives us light through nuclear fusion. Although it is very easy to generate energy using nuclear fusion (there are already fusion bombs), it is very difficult to generate energy in a controlled way using fusion. However, mankind approaches the day where that is possible: in 2015 the first generator of 500 MW of fusion power should be ready – it will cost 10 billion dollars paid by EU, Japan, China, Russia, South Korea and USA. Anyway, if you believe that fusion is just "speculative", you should mention it in this article, in the "alternatives to oil" section, in "speculative" subsection. Note: when people talk about nuclear power, they generally mean nuclear fission, and all nuclear energy that is currently produced in centrals is nuclear fission energy - generates nuclear waste and involves a risk – nuclear fusion does not generate nuclear waste and does not involve such a risk of nuclear meltdown.

You miss the point, historically "nuclear power" refers to the arguably unsound radioactive waste producing nuclear fission. I disagree people think of fusion as being under "nuclear power". This discussion is all moot anyway until fusion power can be made to work -- "nuclear power" means exactly what is already being used to generate power. zen master T 00:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned "nuclear fusion", and that is totally correct, regardless of what you think. Research and check it, and admit you were wrong, please. Nevertheless, that's not the point. The point is the fission energy is mentioned in this article in "alternatives to oil" section, and fusion should also be mentioned. If you believe fusion is merely "speculative", fusion should be included on "speculative" subsection of "alternatives to oil" section of this article. Don't you agree? Irason 03:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I was not the one that classified fusion as speculative. I agree fusion should be included in the alternatives section, though, the point about the biggest problem being transportation fuel should be taken under advisement. zen master T 04:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I added it. Right under nuclear power it is fusion power. I will take your suggestion in to account and I will edit my text to include that warning about transportation. Irason 12:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC).

• The "market solution" section gives a version of the pro-markets argument that is too short to be understood, and a much longer rebuttal. I believe this needs to be NPOV-ed.

• Oil is one of the places where international relations, politics, economics and geology intersect. Hubbert's peak is essentially a geological and economic phenomenon. I suggest that politics and international relations aspects become the subject of another article. There are plenty of people who think that oil supply and price underpin these, and plenty of people who scoff at the very idea. Tony Blair is a scoffer, whereas Deffeyes derides the scoffers in both of his books.

• MediaWikis on this topic available at http://www.PeakOil.com/wiki and http://www.PostCarbon.org/wiki . I have added Peak Oil and PostCarbon to the InterMap for this site. Perhaps much of the interest in the esoteria of peak oil expressed here could spend some energy on those sites!
• McClatchie mentioned that a "Wikipedia article should be about facts," and felt that "The article should present the basic theory, present the facts leading to particular predictions, report predictions made by reputable people (and who made which predictions), and that's it." 00:59, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • No, that's not good enough in an inherently constrained area like this, where everything is an "Estimate" and you can't trust any "Fact", especially not oilco numbers that are known to be doctored.
• Zen-master said that future speculation could be included in the article, "as long as all reasonable or possible future scenarios...are presented." 04:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Zen-master suggested adding "many charts", including "rate of demand" and "how much oil is coming from non-conventional sources" 06:41, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Tom suggested an Energy development article that "chronicles humanity's" development of evolving energy exploitation regimes and culimnates with current status and trends". 22:14, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Zen-master and Roadrunner discussed whether there are scientific articles supporting the view that the Hubbert model is "wrong". 04:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• WCityMike commented that "...someone who knows this subject well needs to go through and start consolidating text together, removing duplication," and he was "concerned that the article overreaches," and "sometimes falls victim to POV language." 02:31, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Exile suggested that we "summarise opinion within [different areas of] the energy production industry" concerning the accuracy of the Hubbert peak, and follow this with "the economic and political implications of each" outcome. 13:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On splitting the article into Peak Oil and Hubbert Theory

• Roadrunner suggested splitting the article into "Peak oil" and "Hubbert Peak", as "Hubbert peak...refers to a particular model of peak oil". 19:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Zen-master preferred the names "Peak oil" and "Hubbert theory", but thought that "one article is ok". 20:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Jwanders repeated Roadrunner's suggestion. 08:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Tom said, "in my opinion, Peak Oil is a poor title for an article, being mainly a recent colloquial term," and was in favor of leaving Peak Oil as a redirect to Hubbert Peak. 19:18, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
• David Jackson says "We NEED to differentiate use extraction and or refinement instead of production. Oil is NOT produced (at least not by humans). It is rather extracted from the ground or refined."

On moving alternatives to oil to a different article

• Amadeust and an unnamed user discussed whether the alternatives to oil section should be moved to other articles. Amadeust argued that those alternatives mentioned were being "singled out," but to make the list comprehensive would force "very speculative" alternatives to be included. The other user felt that the alternatives section should stay if the article was going to "present all points of view." 22:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Nick Fraser said "There's some great stuff here but the article is too dense and detailed in places," and proposed "moving some of the content from this page to new or existing articles." 07:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Zen master felt that a "substantially edited" alternatives section should remain. 21:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Tom, Matthias5 and Aquamarine supported moving the section. 23:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• The section was moved, but was later reverted.
• Amadeust proposed that the section be moved but agreed with Zen master that "some information regarding alternatives needs to be presented with respect to Hubbert Peak" 22:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Zen master said "the impetus for even having an 'alternatives to oil' section/article anywhere is because of the (potential) for an oil peak, so for that reason alone the alternatives to oil section should remain here." 02:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Amadeust clarified his position by saying "I do not want a Hubbert peak article without an alternative energy section. However, i do want information regarding each alternative source to pertain to the topic at hand and the best way i feel this can be accomplished is by moving the existing alternatives information to future energy development and then re-developing only that information which pertains to Hubbert peak." 17:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Zen master responded "The content was developed here with the issue of oil peak in mind, so it makes logical sense for it to stay." He suggested that "each sub section...get their own article and we have a short 2-4 sentence synopsis of the technology."
• Tom responded to Zen master's Dec 14 comment by saying "I think...excessive time with this article that would lead us to think the whole of the energy development field hangs on the implications of Hubbert's Peak."

On building a project around the article

• Tom proposed an Energy Development project.

-Sustainability
 |
 |-Water development
 |
 \-Energy development
   |
   |-Oil energy development
   |  |
   |  |-Hubbert's Peak Theory
   |  |
   |  \-Alternatives to oil (see Future energy development)
   |    \-Future energy development

19:35, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, except "Future energy" does not depend on this theory. It depends on climate change and combustion being replaced by digestion etc.

• Zen master disagreed with Tom's proposal, saying "Hubbert peak is absolutely not in an related or a daughter article of energy development or sustainability." 19:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, it isn't, but, it can still be part of a project on that

• Aquamarine supported the proposal, commenting that "the article was bloated and much discussion was not related to the peak."
• Ctrl_build said that a "energy development wikipedia project" was "needed...because this is a larger issue, one which will grow, and is relevant." He proposed this outline:

{{Energy related development}} [[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk

• Zen master said "There is no need to go to that level of organizational detail...most of the articles in question are simply not that related." 04:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• A project was made entitled Energy Related Development by Civilizations, although the name is still in flux. 03:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

sorry, was really User:219.164.51.29 that added clandestine opposite POV

Sorry The Anome, it was actually 219.164.51.29 that did it. When the edit doesn't match the check in comment I get suspicious. zen master T 13:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Time for a Criticisms sub section?

I think the time has come for a sub section to move all modern day criticis and supporters opinions, the intro section is becoming unwieldy, what do people think? Either way, including Lynch and Mauregi (both critics) in the intro section is rather unbalanced in my opinion. zen master T 05:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Will attempt to move both. Ultramarine 05:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2007?

Since the theory itself is disputed, much less the date of the peak, I think it is inappropriate to put a specific date, 2007, in the introduction, unless is is mentioned as being one of several dates (past and future) that have been designated "peak" years. Perhaps something like, "The actual peak year will only be known after it has passed. Over the past decades proponents have predicted the peak years to be 1987, 1995, or 2007." Or defer discussion of the date of the peak until later. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:00, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

This is the date the ASPO, the most influential pro Hubbert peak organization, gives based on available production data. It's on page two of the pdf here. I don't know of any recent geologists that dispute hubbert peak theory itself, the exact date and impact of the peak is hotly disputed however, especially considering there are disagreements over oil production data. The only people that seem to be disputing the hubbert peak theory itself are oil company affiliated economists. Matthew Simmons, an advisor to president Bush on energy policy, even says the peak will happen within the next few years. Feel free to find sources for your claims, we can discuss them. zen master T 22:09, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sources? The article itself.

Some geologists think that the peak will be around 2007 for oil and somewhat later for natural gas. This may lead to either minor economic or major catastrophic consequences for the world since our civilization is dependent on cheap and abundant fossil fuels. The Hubbert peak theory, while controversial, is increasingly influencing policy makers both within the oil industry and government.

In 1971, Hubbert predicted, using high and low estimates of global oil reserve data available to him at the time, that global oil production would peak between 1995 and 2000. This peak has not occurred, ....The United States Geological Survey estimates there are enough petroleum reserves to continue current production rates for at least 50 to 100 years. ...Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995, based on oil production data available at that time.

So that is why I suggest something like this: "The actual peak year will only be known after it has passed. Proponents have predicted the peak years to be 1989, 1995, 1995-2000, or, according to one influential group, 2007 for oil and somewhat later for natural gas." It's important, in my opinion, to mention that since the theory was first proposed different dates have been offered. Otherwise it appears as a flat prediction without the context of previous predictions, which I think projects a pro-Peak theory POV. So to speak. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:33, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

That sounds ok but how about adding something to the effect of "predictions are made based on available oil production data" like we do elsewhere in the article? Also ASPO is pretty much the consensus amongst pro hubbert peak theorists, and, in the last half year or so, they are increasingly achieving consensus with most everyone else. zen master T 23:04, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unless there is some way of sourcing the consensus it should probably be left out. If there is a way of expressing the number of petroleum geologists who agree on the 2007 date then by all means that info should be included. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:06, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying the article should yet convey there is increasing consensus, I am only saying that on the talk page. ASPO should be considered a better source than other pro-hubbert peak theory sources. But I will look for more info on peak dates. I think Greene 2003 is old news nowadays, please find sources after summer 2004. We should add info on Matthew Simmons (a government oil consultant) that at least partially contradicts Greene, Lynch, and Maugeri. Perhaps we need more proponents besides Campbell? Also, someone keeps having the article state directly that non-conventional oil sources are increasingly cheaper which is contradicted elsewhere in the article, I think we should not state that as fact, we should make it clear this is coming from a critic. Peak oil is happening because conventional oil is turning into non-conventional oil (increasingly inefficient to extract). Also, non-FSU, non-OPEC oil production has exactly followed a bell shape curve almost exactly (look at the image in the article), it could be argued that a bell shaped curve happens when short term expansion of available energy is the only goal. zen master T 12:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What happened in the summer of 2004? I will change the Maugeri paragraph. Ultramarine 13:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Before about August 2004 there was a perception in the oil industry that Saudi Arabia had a limitless ability to increase production, this is no longer the case. World demand for oil is increasing at the same time supplies are dwindling, it's perhaps a double whammy. zen master T 13:15, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please provide link to support this change in perception in the oil industry. Note also that Saudi Arabia is a producer and it is in their interest to talk up the price if possible. Ultramarine 13:31, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Here is some perhaps relevant info, especially in the Case Studies section where it describes specific oil fields that have definitely passed peak and discusses Saudi Arabia near peak, note that many of the world's largest oil fields are on this list: [1]. We should include this info in the article.
• [2]
• [3]
• zen master T 14:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Saudis themselves deny that they are near a peak. Even if their largest field may be near deletion they still have many smaller fields that have not been developed at all. In addition, much of the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia have been out of reach for oil companies and advanced technology for political reasons. Many new oils fields may be discovered if the political barriers disappear. As noted in the article, new technolog may increase extraction from old fields and allow extraction from non-conventional sources. Ultramarine 15:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. See in the article already there is a quotation from a retiring Saudi oil executive where he calls the US government's reserve forecasts "dangerous over-estimates". The Saudi's are only regurgitating what they think the US wants them to say. They don't want to spook markets until the peak is definitely in the past, fear could drive oil prices way higher than they would otherwise. Also, the peaking of the largest oil field in the world is a very significant event. Though, I gather from ASPO's chart peak oil would be happening now if it weren't for a half dozen medium sized oil fields (including deep sea) that are going to go online in the next few years, which will delay the peak for another 2-3 years. The easiest oil to recover has already been recovered, increased technology can't cheat on the first law of thermodynamics. The Caspian Sea reserve turned out to be much smaller than hoped, and the oil is of a poorer quality (takes more energy and money to refine it). zen master T 17:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand the first law of thermodynamics. New technology can certainly allow more efficient use of existing energy. For example, more efficient engines can make better use of the available energy in fuel. Less energy is lost to heat and more is used for useful work. Think of new technology as decreasing the amount lost to heat and instead increasing the amount that can be used in useful work. The first law only states that the total amount of energy is constant, not that energy use cannot be more efficient. Similarly, new technology might allow non-conventional oil to be extracted by decreasing the amount of heat lost in extracting the oil.

Again Saudi Arabia (and its executives) wants the price to be higher, not lower as you seem to think. Who ever heard of a producer who wants a lower price for his product? If they can use talk to rasie the price, they will. Ultramarine 09:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is no technology that creates energy, there is no alternative source or method of extraction of oil that is as energy efficient. Oil is best thought of as "spare energy" that happens to be stored underground, the ratio of extracted energy over energy invested in extraction will approach each other long before the last drop of oil is removed from the ground. How much energy does it take to construct 100s of millions of new more energy efficient vehicles? After the peak is reached energy efficiency will have to exceed the rate of depletion every year, so thereafter vehicles etc will need to become 2-5% more efficient year over year over year, how is that possible? Each year how much more efficient do vehicles get (including older vehicles still on the road)?

Price gouging is indeed a possibility, but so it peak oil, I consider the latter more likely in this context. Note that this Saudi oil executive wasn't saying in a scary PR sort of way "We will run out of oil" he was contradicting the USGS's forecast which is very reasonable, the US Government seems to think generally that citizens can't handle the truth or they outright ignore the truth. A source I've read about that has the possibility of a significant contribution to future supplies is Oil sands but it has a much larger environmental impact than oil drilling, and is currently more energy intensive than conventional oil extraction. And it may not be able to ramp up production to keep pace with the rate of oil depletion. Another possibility that seems to actually be happening to some degree is biodiesel but it's entirely unclear how fast or how much it can increase. zen master T 13:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No one is denying that there will be a peak. But there is nothing in the laws of thermodyanmics that prevents increasing energy efficiency. You cannot use that as an argument that non-conventional fuels will never be useful. They might not be now, but they may be in the future. Ultramarine 13:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying you are denying there is a peak, instead, it is all a matter of predicting how well alternative energy sources do of replacing oil. Currently, no one is claiming that alternatives are nearly as good/abundant as oil. Alternatives could possibly make up the difference at some point in the future, for example increasing nuclear power significantly is feasible from a technical standpoint but perhaps not a political one. Anyway, plan B is/should be planning to make do with less and less. zen master T 14:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Price of oil after peak?

Does anyone know of estimates for the price of oil after a peak? If there are estimates, or a range, it might be nice to add this to the article. For example, some people think that the current run-up of oil prices, (over $50 a barrel again) is an example of a supply crunch. Others disagree. If we had any estimates (say $100 or whatever they are) it might help to understand when oil really peaks. I don't imagine that there will be a sharp peak and then decline, I would anticipate more of a plateau(though I don't know how long the plateau would last) -- due to increased exploration when prices rise, increased conservation, etc. Matthias5 14:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It depends on the rate of depletion over time and other factors. How do you put a price on going without energy? Which economies can handle a recession with the smallest impact? At some price point the money is better spent on other sources of energy even if they don't give as much initially. It should be noted that the price of oil in Euros has remained relatively constant the last couple of years, the current rise in oil prices in dollars can be traced almost exclusively to the fall in the value of the dollar. When actual scarcity sets in who knows what will happen. zen master T 18:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that assessment of the situation is totally off the mark. Inflation of the dollar is not at the root of the increase in oil prices that have taken place over the past half a year or so, as an examination of the following two charts will show:

[[4]]

[[5]]

I'm wondering, where did you get the idea that increasing oil prices were caused by inflation of the dollar? 64.222.115.30

Not "interest rates" but "exchange rate", if you plot the price of oil in euros over the last few years it has remained pretty much flat, so it can be argued that the rise in the price of oil in dollars can be attributed solely to the devaluation of the dollar vs the euro. Though recently the dollar has rebounded vs the euro a little bit. 04:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But, the graph I cited had nothing to do with interest rates, it was the graph of Euro/Dollar exchange rate. As you can clearly see, it doesn't correlate with petroleum prices at all. 64.222.115.30

There is a correlation, look at charts for the last year or longer. zen master T 17:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If memory serves, the figure that some peak oil folks have mentioned (like Matt Simmons) is approx rising until it levels off around $187 a barrel. However, since this is speculative at best, I'm not sure if or how it should be included in the article.

Very speculative. Oil price will rise steadily until alternatives meet demand, at which time it may decrease as alternatives become more advanced and economical. We might introduce some reasoning, and quoting a few speculations wouldn't hurt, I guess. That's what Wikipedia's for, to get a grasp of the experts' POV's. Tom Haws 22:03, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Currently, alternatives can not make up the difference or we'd be using them already. In a truly fair market, the price is set by the higest bidder that does not want to go without. zen master T 22:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would surpose that it will be a process of supply and demand, if the supply is declining, the price would keep rising until the price choked off demand (which is another way of saying recession) and the supply and demand was balanced. Of course demand would have to keep falling every year in line with the supply, otherwise the price would start rising again. Put simply we will either have to use oil far more efficiently year after year, or do without. And we will somehow have to make the transition to other forms of energy under these conditions. Gee isn't this peak oil stuff going to be fun!!. G-Man 18:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Currently, alternatives can't make up the difference because enterprising fellows such as ourselves require only a few weeks of research to arrive at the conclusion that the market value of energy is not enough to support any but the most optimal wind farm locations, any but the most remote photovoltaic applications, etc. The moment the market price is deemed by the pointy-headed economists to have tipped safely above the break-even point for any of the alternative technologies, those technologies will come on-line without delay. I can tell you for certain people would be up in Millard County Utah tomorrow (from Arizona) developing wind farms if the price supported it. Based on this principle, we can envision maxima for the price of oil. For example, the value of rooftop photovoltaic energy is currently 25 cents per kilowatt hour. If oil prices rise high enough to make photovoltaic rooftop energy competivie with oil, voila, solar rooftops by the millions will spring up. I don't know immediately the conversion of this concept into dollars per barrel, but such an approach might be followed by some forecasting economists. Tom Haws 23:08, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, as I understand the subject, oil doesn't work that way. Oil/energy is not like a "traditional" resource despite what a pointy-haired economist believes. Oil/energy is the ability to do work, alternatives aren't as good so less work will be done. As the price of oil rises to the same degree so does the price of researching and deploying alternatives. I don't know the mathematical details, but say wind energy is "viable" on paper at say $100/barrel oil, but at that point in time everything will cost that much more in kind, the initial viability assesment is fundamentally flawed. The errant metric for energy is price, the proper metric is: energy return on energy invested. Alternative sources not only give less energy returns, but require more energy to begin with, a double whammy of having a poor ratio. Think about it this way, conventional oil's ratio of energy return on energy invested is steadily dropping, once we start running out of oil (the peak) more and more energy will need to be diverted to research and production of alternative sources, yet at the same time we will have less and less energy, a paradox. Fundamentally, it boils down to the fact that money can not create or invent energy. Price is irrelevant, it's how much "spare energy" (all energy humans consume is best thought of as spare energy) that can truly feasibly be recovered (fossil fuels storing energy up over millions of years, solar power, tidal power, wind power), plus, the negative effects of pollution have to be considered in any calculation. zen master T 01:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's actually not a wise thing to dismiss economics at this point. Regardless of Oil's special part in our economy, it is still a commodity that is bought and sold. The price of oil is a reflection of the combination of its demand with the ability to supply it. Once oil reaches a certain price level, world-wide demand will reduce and so will the price of oil... until demand increases again. However oil is unlike other commodities in that once the peak has been passed, there is no known way of increasing supply to match demand... which will lead to high oil prices constantly (even though it will go up and down). As energy becomes scarce, the relationship between energy price and EROEI becomes closer. What this means in practice is that any alternative power scheme that is unviable from a scientific point of view will be unviable from an economic point of view. All this assumes that a functioning marketplace will exist in the years following Peak Oil, however. --One Salient Oversight 05:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think a mathematical analysis of economics disproves it, or at least the classic version of it. If change will be required after the peak why not change now? One implied suggestion of peak oil theory is that governments should do everything they can to slow the rate of depletion, which also means slow the rate of oil consumption so the usage curve is less steep on both sides. Hubbert actually invented steady state economic theory that based "prices" in units of energy, so you only can do as much as you have the ability to in the real physical world. This would be a dramatic shift in thinking from today's economic system, a steady state economy implies an interest rate of 0. But when you think about it, the notion that constant economic growth/expansion is required is exactly what is to blame for the increasingly unquenchable thirst for oil. zen master T 05:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not understanding you. Are you saying that the market will not respond to a scarcity of energy by raising prices? You see, if an alternative energy scheme is proven to use more energy in its extraction than in its consumption, then this would be indicated in its pricing - which would be beyond what the market could afford.

As for a steady state economy having an interest rate of zero, are you impying that the central banking system will be printing massive amounts of currency to ensure that no one wishes to invest money in a bank and save it? I may have misunderstood you here.

--One Salient Oversight 08:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The market will definitely respond to scarcity by raising prices. But it takes a while for pricing pressure to be reflected in all other aspects of the economy, for example there was a notion that alternative corn based fuel could be used to offset oil depletion. On paper now corn based fuel looks cheap, but when the price of oil rises so will the cost of corn based fuel. It turns out that corn based fuel takes more energy to produce than energy contained in the fuel, but we would never realize this by analyzing corn fuel by its price. Its price is a completely misleading metric when trying to measure energy. Corn production relies heavily on oil for fertilizer and oil based machinery for production and transportation which would face price increases to the same degree. The issue is not a problem with the oil market directly, but the overall economy. I don't know the details of steady state economic theory, but I assume it implies a non capitalist economic system. zen master T 08:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fully agree with you there. The reason why the current price mechanism fails to take EROEI into account is because energy is currently cheap and plentiful. As it becomes more scarce, these "solutions" (including hydrogen) will be seen for what they are - mere pipedreams. I think a steady state economy will still be capitalist, but in a different way to what it is now. Certainly (barring sudden changes in economic behaviour) there will still be some who are richer than others. --One Salient Oversight 09:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This EROI stuff may be true for some types of energy supply such as biofuels, hydrogen etc, which I think are pure fantasies designed to prevent us from facing hard realities. Even if biofuels were viable, to supply the ammount of liquid fuel we use now with biofuels, would take up most of the worlds farmland, leaving little space for growing food.

However I've read that some types of alternative energy eg wind turbines have a positive EROI and produce many times more energy than is invested in them [6]. I belive that even solar panels have a positive EROI ableit a much smaller one. Although these produce electricity, which is little use for cars, aeroplanes, plastics etc.

However from what I've heard, I dont believe any of the alternative energy supplies can sustain our economy or way of life as it is now. I think we will probably have to return to localised semi-agrarian economies in the fairly near future, and mass car ownership and economic growth will be things of the past. G-Man 19:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is an interesting conversation, a little diversion, but a harmless one. Statements like "alternatives aren't as good so less work will be done" and "I dont believe any of the alternative energy supplies can sustain our economy or way of life as it is now" are problematic. The plain fact is that it now costs 25 cents per kilowatt hour to supply energy through photovoltaics, and it costs 6 cents per kilowatt hour to supply energy through wind farms. The only thing, and I repeat only thing special about oil is that it is cheap. The minute oil prices become uncompetitive, coal, nuclear, wind, and solar will expand to fill the gap. There seems to be a perception in the above comments that "alternatives" are somehow inferior in their "bang", but one photovoltaic rooftop is perfectly adequate to power one family at 25 cents per kilowatt hour, should they choose to pay that rate. Money and existing infrastucture are the only factors that will drive and limit the transition from oil to other perfectly suitable and capable alternatives. In short, the only thing to fear is 25 cent per kilowatt-hour electricity. Because, at the risk of repeating myself, if energy prices ever exceed that, you will promptly march down to the nearest representative of BP Solar, cover your rooftop with panels, and become a net producer. And whether that will power your car is a simply matter of whether the auto industry transition to electric/hydrogen is timely. I would like to hear more about those statements I quoted. Tom Haws 20:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

EROEI is very important in this issue Tom, because it gives an absolute and objective way of valuing energy. Cost, what you are talking about above, is not absolute and depends upon the vaguaries of the marketplace. One thing you possibly fail to realise is that energy and hydocarbons need to be used in order to create the photovoltaic rooftop that you are proposing. If the creation of the PV cells uses more energy than the cells generate over their lifetime, then there is no point in producing them.

Another point, Tom, is that when oil costs rise, so will the cost of producing the alternatives. It is not as though the price of oil rises and the rest stays static - their prices, too, will move upwards to take into account the inflationary effect caused by oil price rises.

G-man is right, however, when he asserts that some alternative energy is viable. Wind Turbines, especially in windy areas (average wind speed 20kph or more), can produce quite a lot of energy if there are enough built. When you consider that a doubling of the wind speed leads to an eight-fold increase in electricity[7], then the advantages become quite obvious. --One Salient Oversight 23:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here are some EROI numbers and references [8]. (Scroll down to see the numbers for several different energy sources). Ultramarine 23:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are right that I oversimplified my comment. EROEI numbers could be important as a reality check for technologies whose EROEI is anywhere near 1, but for all the serious energy technologies, EROEI is safely far from 1. Even PV is no higher than 0.27. Yes, they are in an absolute sense more costly than oil, but they are all in the simplest terms clear energy sources. I guess I still take the economist's view that, sure, there is a Hubbert Peak, sure we are at it, and sure it is personally exciting to contemplate the implications, but in the final analysis, it won't be that big a deal because we already have decades of experience developing technologies that are only marginally uncompetitive with cheap oil. A thousand years from now, our entire love affair with oil for energy will have been just a blip on the timeline of energy development. Just a blip. Energy does not equal oil. Tom Haws 03:25, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Amongst all my Peak Oil peers I am considered a hopeless optimist and I am bit more pessimistic than you!! What is needed is a clear and verifiable EROEI for every form of alternative energy (including Syncrude from Tar Sands). It's nice, however, to see another Peak Oil optimist! --One Salient Oversight 04:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bless you for the nice comment, O S O. Tom Haws

I know this is a bit off topic, but one small problem with most of the alternative energy sources, which everone seems to have overlooked, is that most of them produce electricity. However electricity can only replace a fraction of the things oil is used for. For instance cars cant be made to run on electricity anywhere near as well as on petrol, as battery powered cars are fairly useless, and electricity cant be used to run trucks or aircraft etc. Also electricity cant replace oil in uses such as plastics and chemicals, and cant be used to make fertiliser. So far I havn't heard a viable sounding plan from anyone for as to how these functions are to be replaced with alternatives. G-Man 18:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is decidedly on topic. zen master T 21:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Plug-in hybrids offer a way to essentially power cars by electricity. The Prius can be converted into a plug-in that gets 150+ miles to the gallon (by adding batteries and a flywheel). The cars can be powered entirely by electricity for 30 miles, enough to commute. For longer distances, can use the conventional hybrid engine. There's a recent NY Times article on this. There's no engineering reason that I'm aware that this technology couldn't be expanded to other cars, even trucks. This technology is already available (for the Prius I mean), it's not far in the future like fuel cells. Matthias5 19:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are very large oil, coal, and gas resources that can be converted to fertilizers, plastics, and transportation fuel. Taking for example coal resources, these are 10 times larger than the today economically known coal reserves that will last 200 years at current consumption. Note that for this purpose the EROI can be below 1 [I assume you meant over 1 --Tom], as it is in conventional mining. Just build a nuclear plant in the coal field for the mining and conversion. This would make the plastics, fertilizers and transportation fuel more expensive than today but there would be plenty of them. And when these resources run out (or we stop using them for environmental reasons), we can synthesize hydrocarbons from carbon dioxide, just like plants do, if we have plenty of energy from nuclear or renewable power. More expensive but there will be no shortage of plastics or fertilizers. Ultramarine 22:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right, Ultramarine. Tom Haws 14:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody know an approximate kilowatt-hour/barrel of oil equivalency? I realize that is a sloppy question for an engineer to be asking. For the sake of precision, I suppose I mean how many barrels of oil does it take to generate a kilowatt-hour at an oil-fired generating station. On the matter of ultimate peak price of oil, are we really interested in it, or are we asking what is the ultimate peak price of energy? Thanks for clarifying. Tom Haws 14:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sustainability project poll

We currently have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations that seems to be going nowhere. Please answer in poll format (Support or Oppose) the following proposals: Tom Haws

Move Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sustainability.

• Support. This seems to be the biggest umbrella and the most acceptable term. Tom Haws 22:35, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The sustainability project seems to be limited only to topics acceptable to some environmentalists. One cannot claim to discuss energy development in general when excluding nuclear energy, coal or natural gas. Ultramarine 10:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Very insighful. I agree. Tom Haws 17:56, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Move Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations to Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy development.

• Oppose. See above. Tom Haws 22:35, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. See above. But there might be few people interested so an alternative might be to have no project at all for the moment. Ultramarine 10:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that could be. In any case, it should definitely start very low key.

Simplify the Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations page to initially include just Participants, Guestbook, Polls, and List of categories and articles.

• Support with conditions. Only if the name is changed or the project is moved to Sustainability. The current name is not attractive. Tom Haws 22:35, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Why have a project with no activity? Ultramarine 10:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am moving the Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations to Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy development. It may not be a final change, but at least it is a non-controversial one. And I made a disambiguation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sustainability. Of course we can move it again if that doesn't work out, and I am leery of splitting our work on POV lines. We really need to try to all rub shoulders and listen to each other. Tom Haws 04:46, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

I still wonder why this sort of vote always takes place in the Hubbert peak article? Though I disagree with Ultramarine's comments above, the name of the project is "Sustainability", so nuclear, coal etc can go to Energy development or they can start their own wikiproject. Sustainable energy development is a perfectly acceptable wiki project all by itself. Relatedly, perhaps we need to start mentioning the impact pollution relating to oil etc have on the environment (carbon dioxide) and the implications post peak? These may become increasingly noteworthy after the peak as people will likely turn to other sources such as coal which have a much greater environmental impact. So we will have less and less energy and we will be polluting more and more, not a good scenario. I wonder if there is an article already created on "clean" coal technology. zen master T 13:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great comments, Zen and Ultra. Zen, I don't know where to figure all this out, and in fact I put this poll on several talk pages and am monitoring the responses at all. Ultra, I agree with your sentiments. Here is what I have found. The Sustainability project redirects to the Ecology project, which is a child of the Biology project. I am driven by two needs here: 1) Topics like Hubbert Peak, Solar energy, Wind energy, Fuel cell cars, Hybrid cars, Energy development, Nuclear energy, etc. need a central place where relationships, policies, organizational hierarchies, and issues can be centrally discussed; 2) It is good to have people of different POVs working on the same issues; we should avoid splitting projects on POV lines. My gut feel is that Sustainability should be a separate project from Ecology, and Sustainability shouldn't be a child of Biology. But that may be wrong. Whatever Sustainability (including Hubbert Peak and Wind energy) goes under, I think it needs a central place to discuss organizational and presentational issues.

The articles Hubbert Peak and Future energy development

It seems to me that the Hubbert Peak page has become an excellent place for discussing the peaking of oil. However, now the article has become quite long. The Alternatives to oil section is almost identical to Future energy development although with less information. How about removing this duplicate information? Hubbert Peak should be the page for information about the oil and gas peak and political and social consequences of the peak. Future energy development the page for more technical descriptions of alternatives to oil but no discussion of politics or changes in society. Ultramarine 19:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While you're sorting out article content, let me add that Colin Campbell (geologist) contains an extended "peak oil" discussion which does not belong in his bio. It probably should be merged over here. Also, why are there separate articles for the Hubbert curve and the Hubbert peak? -Willmcw 19:14, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hubbert curve seem to be the name of a new mathematical curve. As such it should have an article of its own. The peak content from Campbell's page should be moved. Ultramarine 19:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alternatives to oil should not be moved, this was tried before. Future energy development is a mis-named article regardless of alternatives. The peaking of oil production is significant precisely because alternatives are not yet up to the task of replacing oil. zen master T 19:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you have a better name then we can change. Future energy development article do not state that the replacement of oil will be painless or even possible, it just lists alternatives that may be possible. I think future energy development contains all of the information in Alternatives to oil and much more. Is it something in the content that you object to? Ultramarine 19:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about renaming it to "Energy alternatives to oil" or "Energy alternatives to fossil fuels"? Ultramarine 19:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No. That would be narrow-minded and indicate tunnel vision on our part. The future of energy development as a whole is important irrespective of the future of oil in particular. As an engineer and a lifetime devotee of development, sustainability, and energy issues, I feel we come off looking unprofessional when we neglect the bigger picture in favor of the current hot issues. Tom Haws 20:12, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

The alternatives to oil content inside Future energy development started in this article, the people that duplicated it there were given the option of tackling similar content from a different perspective. See above or the archives of this talk page for a discussion on that. Future energy development can define its scope however it wants to, however, in this article the alternatives to oil section is logically defined in the context of peak oil.

If there really are size concerns about this article now then the Criticisms section should be moved to a new article. And we can reduce the verbosity of many other sections in this article, the Hydrogen section is currently at the top of my list for that. zen master T 19:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But I do not understand your objection to Future energy development? Is it that it contains information about nuclear energy? This seems to raise an automatic red flad in many environmentalists. Also, the information in this page about alternative energy seems out of date compared to Future energy development. Ultramarine 19:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And I would add to Ultramarine's answer that in the broader view, all things energy do not hinge on discussions of the Hubbert Peak theory (whose implications I do accept). This article needs to stay disciplined to the discussion of that theory and its phenomenon in the popular imagination. Broader energy issues belong in broader articles. Tom Haws 20:12, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

See the previous discussion on alternatives to oil vs future energy development. The people that created future energy development can define its scope however they want to. What happens there has no bearing on this article. Please note that your one rationale for moving the alternatives to oil content is because of size concerns, we can fix that without moving anything. Why do you want to move it so badly? Please respond to my specific point: that the alternatives to oil section is more applicable here because the peaking of oil production is only an issue precisely due to the fact that alternatives can not yet make up the difference? Moving the alternatives to oil section would be going against a previously established talk page consensus and any such change would be immediately reverted by me. The criticisms and even the implications of a peak section are less relevant to this article than the alternatives to oil section, it all comes down to energy efficiency, alternatives to oil are difficult from an energy efficiency perspective, peak oil exists because conventional oil is also increasingly difficult from an energy efficiency perspective, from that logical point of view the alternatives to oil section is the most relevant sub section inside this article. zen master T 20:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let me see if I can understand your position. You seem to be saying that the sole purpose for discussing future energy schemes at Wikipedia is that oil production may be peaking somewhat soon. Is that right? Tom Haws 20:26, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

I want to move because the information is duplicated in the two articles. This makes reading and updating the information confusing. I think this is a very important subject in Wikipedia so this should be avoided. Furthermore, future energy development could be relevant even if there was no oil peak. It could be preferable to switch to renewable or nuclear energy because of environmental or cost reasons, even if there was no end to fossil fuels. (Note that I do think that a peak will happen relatively soon). Ultramarine 20:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ultra, that is essentially my position. Zen, I am having a hard time understanding why you feel it is important to discuss all things energy in the context of an impending peak to oil production. Is that an accurate assessment of your position? Tom Haws 21:19, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying what you describe, I am saying that alternatives to oil are more relevant within the context of peak oil, than the context of a generic future. Although I am still strongly not in favor of moving the section at all, given further discussion I could perhaps support an article titled Alternatives to oil or something like that (slightly more limited scope than future energy development and still within the context of being an "alternative" to oil). However, if there is a problem with duplicated content then perhaps it should be removed from the future energy development article since it is less relevant there? Perhaps all the non-duplicative content in future energy development should be merged into other articles and that article deleted? Just because another article has duplicated content does not mean this article definitely must change. Are criticisms and the implications section also to be moved? Why are you both interested in moving content besides the reason of duplication? Since the two articles approach energy sources from different perspectives there is bound to be some overlap, and the previous talk page consensus here affirmed that point....

Also, the lifestyle choices section in this article is way way way too big, any non duplicative content should be moved to the relevant sub article like voluntary simplicity movement or whatever. zen master T 21:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that this subject is too large for one article to handle it all. Its importance will probably only increase in the future and more information will need to be added to several related articles. Alternatives to oil, implications, and critique may all need separate articles in the future. But the very close duplication need to be removed, as stated earlier it makes reading and updating much more difficult. And possibly leads to errors, if one only reads the article with that is not updated.

Perfect place to plug for a real, working project page. Tom Haws 23:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

The title Hubbert peak suggests this is about the peaking of fossil fuels. This is a somewhat different subject from future energy development which is relevant no matter if there is a peak or not.

ABSOLUTELY TRUE. Everything after "political implications" belongs in DIFFERENT ARTICLES, since it could be EITHER a Hubbert peak OR climate change or some other (maybe decentralization) argument triggering "lifestyle" change or "alternatives to oil". This stuff just does not belong in an article about only ONE possible cause of such a shift. As the "political implications" section now makes clear, relying on the supply arguments as SOLE motivation of conservation or shifting to renewables is inherently unreliable. Remember the 1970s?

There are LOTS of reason to "Get off oil", and Hubbert Peak affects literally NONE of those reasons. It changes NOTHING: the climate change arguments are the relevant ones, as they are the most pressing. Conflict comes second. Sane people are more afraid of atmospheric disruption and global conflict due to disrupted civilizations and dying biomes than they are of the price of oil going up a lot...

And is also relevant in the far future when the peak is history. To me it seems natural that Hubbert peak should primarily discuss this peak and the social and political consequences. Future energy is a more technical article that gives a lot of data for different energy sources, including a future beyond the fossil fuel peak. Hubbert peak instead discusses how these data could be interpreted from view of fossil fuel depletion. An article about future pollution might also have a link to future energy development and try to interpret these data from an environmental view. Or an article about future military or transportation technology might also link to an article about future energy development. Hubbert peak cannot claim that it all future energy technology is only relevant from the view of the peak. Ultramarine 22:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Refactoring is required.

The other title of this article is peak oil. See discussion above on why we did not split between hubbert peak theory and peak oil articles. Future energy development is energy development absent an energy crisis, whereas the alternatives to oil section is energy development from the perspective of Peak oil.

This is nonsense. Without knowing exactly when the event occurs, you cannot exactly build a contingency plan for it.

Let me spell this out for you as succinctly as possible: the previous talk page consensus affirmed the point that there would be some overlap between these two articles which is OK because they approach similar but not the same content from two very different angles.

Could you provide me an exact link to that consensus discussion? Thanks. Tom Haws 23:50, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

You both keep subtly stating that this article is too big size wise but then when I call you out on that you say that isn't a reason why you want to move content, so which is it? (if size isn't the reason then please completely stop mentioning it as an issue). Because if size is an issue then there are lots of things in this article that are on the chopping or moving block before the alternatives section.

Let me make it perfectly clear that I have never stated or implied subtly or frankly that the article is too large. That is not an issue to me. Tom Haws 23:46, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

I just took a look at future energy development and that article is of a really poor quality, the alternatives to oil section is very old and the article clearly has a poorly defined scope, I definitely don't think we should move alternatives there. Perhaps I will propose a merge on future energy development's talk page and we can delete that article and move anything important elsewhere? zen master T 23:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The primary reason is the duplication. This leads to difficulty in reading, updating and errors if one only reads to inaccurate version.

Regarding the future energy development article, what exactly is your critic? What is the old information you refer to? Essentially all the information in Hubert peak is there and much more that is not in Hubbert peak. Ultramarine 23:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If Future energy development is struggling, it can be put back into Energy development at any time without any ado. Tom Haws 23:52, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Merge then Delete section

See the discussion above. Zen master has started a vote so another one here seems indicated.

The Alternative to oil section in this article is shorter and inferior to Future energy development. It should be merged with Future energy development and then deleted. Please also vote here. Ultramarine 00:03, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about these votes. I think what we have here is two people who are trying very hard, but who have too much history between them and too few varying POVs to come to a consensus. I suggest trying to get at least three other kind souls to brush up on this dialogue and give their opinions. That is why I am repeatedly trying to find out where is the hub of activity (if any) for the area of the Wikipedia that deals with Sustainability. We need more minds! Tom Haws 04:21, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Everyone please take a look at the future energy development article and you will see that it is profoundly inferior to this article. The alternatives to oil section there hasn't been significantly updated in weeks. That article's name is wrong, the scope is wrong, the content is poor, and sustainability is de-emphasized so why is moving even an option? zen master T 04:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Voting

• Merge then Delete Ultramarine 00:03, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Invalid vote request zen master T 04:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can you move this vote poll to Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy development? That way we only need to invite people to one place to help us out. Tom Haws 06:00, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Project page

Please add Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy development to your Watchlists and let's move as much discussion as appropriate, as well as polls, there. Tom Haws 05:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Minor Comments

ASPO

From Peak prediction: "The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas...argues that...the world faces the start of oil depletion around 2007"

All I can find on www.peakoil.net is a 2008 prediction. Does anyone have a source on this?--Jwanders 22:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Most recent prediction is on the 2nd page of their February 2005 newsletter here. zen master T 01:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Catastrophe

Edited-out the sentence under 'Catastrophe' which said "No other known energy source is as cheap to extract, as easy to transport, and as full of energy as oil" as it's a meaningless statement.ajf 08:44, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

LNG Technology

From Fischer-Tropsch: "exploit with conventional gas pipelines and LNG technology."

<looks around meekly>... um... does anyone know what "LNG technology" is? --Jwanders 22:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

LNG = Liquified Natural Gas, natural gas has to be liquified before it can be transported long distances. On a side note I've read that this liquification process wastes 30% of the energy in the natural gas. zen master T 01:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The history of the future

So, I'm a little confused. I've been trying to get my head around this for a while now without really getting anywhere, so figure I might as well see if my fellow Wikipedians can help me sort it out.

My concern is this: how can an encyclopedia have articles about the future?

It seems like that's what most of the Hubbert Peak page currently is. Yes, granted Hubbert's theory is all about predicting the future, but only in a very narrow sense. Speculating at length about the ramifications of oil depletion--although the very thing that brought me to Wikipedia in the first place--seems to me a little out of scope. Compare the Extraterrestrial life article; it only has a brief, very general paragraph on ramifications. Even futurology has less speculation than we do! Of course, peak oil strikes me as somewhat more likely than alien encounters, but it seems like that's more the level of speculation we should be aiming for, no?

I think this problem stems from oil depletion being an emotial topic. It's downright scary to think about. Ever since I first read about peak oil I've been resiting the urge to buy a megaphone and stand on busy London intersections yelling, "The end is nigh!". That would, of course, do more to convince people I was crazy than raise peak oil awareness, but unfortunately it seems to be direction the article is currently leaning. One of the biggest strengths of Wikipedia is how the NPOV policy steers articles towards presenting only the clear facts from both side of an issue, thus allowing the reader to come to his or her own conclusions, and we should try to move this article further in that direction.

Thoughts? -- Jwanders 22:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By future do you mean just the implications section? There are many different scenarios, each one is discussed only briefly. It's not an article about some random future event, it summarizes current thinking about energy development and sustainability. How much space have "traditional" encyclopedias given to the issue of peak oil and other somewhat "future" related articles (I suspect a fair amount)?

What exactly is POV about the article currently? Let's discuss and fix. There are more than 2 sides to the peak oil issue. zen master T 01:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just a general reminder: we are writing an article describing a theory. We don't have to decide whether that theory is true. All we have to do is describe how it works, its potential implications, and the criticism of it. We could have (and might already have) articles on the 2008 US presidential election, the Rapture, global warming, and other predicted future occurrences. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:41, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

This argument doesn't make sense

However, critics argue that market solution proponents mistakingly phrase everything in terms of money, e.g., they only consider the price of oil when in reality, the important metric is energy efficiency (the ratio of extracted energy over energy used by the extraction and refining processes).

A market solution will naturally rule out energy inefficient methods of energy, since cost is not independent of, but correlates with energy efficiency--Confuzion 23:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If the solution actually solves the problem, yes. Money can't invent energy is the point. zen master T 04:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is the Hubert Peak (Peak Oil) theory really controversial?

The Hubert Peak theory is often described as 'controversial'. However, it seems that there is very little real controversy surrounding it. Reports from all sides (large oil companies, governments, left wing groups) generally support the theory.

Whilst there may be some debate about the precise timing of the worldwide peak and the exact nature of its possibile repurcussions, no serious commentators are suggesting that we are not approaching one in the very near future.

Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of the Peak Oil model, is the relative indifference of the media and public in the face of what is going to be a momentous challenge to humanity. By presenting a reasonable, (relatively) uncontested theory as 'controversial' the media continually undermines its validity. Yes there are disagreements about the consequences of the Hubert Peak, but No, the theory itself is not controversial- in fact, you would be hard pushed to find an issue which has such diverse support.

I think that this is lazy journalism and something that we should attempt to avoid in the Wikipedia.

--Fergie

Stick around here a while and you will see how controversial it is.  :-) Tom Haws 13:34, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

"Controversial" does not mean "untrue". "Controversial" means "is the subject of controversy". Consider the theory of evolution, something which I believe to be true, and proven beyond all reasonable doubt -- it remains highly controversial. Similarly, progressive oil exhaustion is part of the mainstream view of the medium-term future, and something that I also expect to be proven true. Is it controversial, though? It certainly is. -- The Anome 13:46, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Controversy can also mean, in this case, "dates and implication details are not yet worked out with enough precision or agreement". Hubbert peak theory is controversial from many perspectives, though it's worth noting that almost all geologists believe in hubbert peak theory, it's mainly a few economists that do not. There is also a high potential for controversy over just the implications of a peak (whenever that happens) from doomsday scenarios to something milder but still not fun like an economic collapse, so there is a need to tread carefully and avoid the creation of panic in an article on the subject, though at the same time, an article should not induce people to stick their head in the sand either. zen master T 18:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that practically everybody acnowledges that oil is a finite resourse, which will one day start to run out. Therefore as far as I can tell the only disagreement is over when this will happen, and what will happen afterwards, not over if it will happen. Some people predict it will happen within the next few years, whereas others predict it wont happen for decades to come. Some people predict that we will be cast back to the stone ages, and domesday will occur, and others predict that hydrogen and wind turbines etc will come to our rescue. I think it's perfectly reasonable to report all of these views. G-Man 19:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree totally that there is no or little debate on the whether. I think the article does a good job currently of conveying the fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource, do you disagree? As far as scenearios/interpretations go what views are not being reported in the article currently? zen master T 19:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Hubbert Peak is part of the Hubbert Curve, which does more than say oil will run out someday- it predicts the progress of that depletion. Those and other predictions derived from the curve are the source of the controversy. -Willmcw 20:14, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that oil will eventually run out is not very controversial. Whether it will in "our lifetime" is, but, we have different lifetimes, so, it's not a reasonable question.

---

CfD: Peak Oil

FYI, there is a discussion going on about how to rename category:Peak Oil. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Peak_Oil. Folks here may have an opinion. -Willmcw 20:48, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

expanded "Political implications" section from [9] - needs quite some NPOV editing

As of 2005, the United States economy is the world's largest user of oil, with a historical reliance on what have been, and still are, some of the world's lowest oil prices. Its position as the global hyperpower rests on its economic supremacy, which in turn depends heavily on oil. At the same time, the world's largest oil reserves are held by Saudi Arabia, followed by those of Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Iran and Russia. If a Hubbert Peak occurs and oil becomes a progressively more scarce commodity, it is reasonable to expect the possibility of massive political and economic tension between its principal producers and consumers.

Some observers see the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq as the beginning of a geopolitical struggle driven by anticipated oil scarcity, whereby the U.S. will seek to establish a long-term military presence in the Middle East in order to be able to maintain oil supplies, by force if necessary. Others view this characterization of the invasion as a conspiracy theory. The original vision for post war Iraq was for it to be a tranquil example of a market economy and have free flowing oil. The U.S. military estimated revenues of between 50 and 100 billion dollars over 5 years for Iraq's oil which they alleged would offset the cost of rebuilding Iraq. This is one of many supply-side arguments in favour of military and political domination of oil-producing regions, especially the Middle East, which is Europe's most reliable oil source.

promotes supply-sided view

As a supply-side perspective, peak oil arguments promote the idea that it is ultimately the supply of oil, rather than the amount that can be safely combusted, that determines when a shift to other fuels is required. Some activists liken the noise among activists about peak oil to "screaming and yelling about how far away the cliff is, and trying to grab the wheel to turn away from the cliff, when the driver is already trying to turn away from it as hard as they can."

Like other earlier arguments, e.g. the Club of Rome's, it is seen as a "wake up" meme to masses of those who consume more than they "should". However the implication of giving this argument credence is that one is effectively authorizing a search for more oil, e.g. in the Alaskan Wilderness Reserve. Accordingly, the peak oil arguments may spur an effort to further military control of oil supplying regions - for instance, making it easy to argue for invasions of Iraq and Iran, continued presence in Saudi Arabia, and continued deference to the experts in finding oil: the oil industry.

empowers oil industry

As noted above there are strong reasons to believe that the supply-oriented arguments and industries had direct interest in controlling the oil supply of Iraq. If so this would be the ultimate example of supply siders claiming military necessity and literally invading any oil supply region. However:

Proponents of the oil industry claim it is unlikely that oil companies specifically asked for the invasion of Iraq. However, Iraq oil reserve maps were used by Vice President Dick Cheney and a group of oil industry insiders to formulate U.S. energy policy in early 2001.

Despite vast sums made in speculating on stocks and commodities that are dependent on political dcisions, some oil company executives claim to value stability above all else. The stock market also values the stability of contractual arrangements, a regular return on capital, and not getting company employees killed and equipment blown up. However, the sheer volatility of the markets rewards those who can successfully predict world-jarring events. This clearly is true of those inside the Bush Administration.

Charles H. Featherstone says, "If there were commercial quantities of oil in Hell, Exxon executives would not call God and demand regime change. They would buy an extremely nice lunch for the Devil, and they would talk contract and concession terms" [10]. However, to continue the metaphor, if the Devil refused to play ball, then the C.I.A. and the U.S. Marine Corps remain at the ready.

implies conservation contingent on supply

In addition to the many moral hazards of relying on the oil industry for advice about who to invade, supply sided arguments for conservation become subject to refutation should new ways to refine oil, e.g. from the Alberta Oil Sands, or to cheaply turn coal into liquid fuel, be discovered. The power remains with oilcos not ecologists.

As in the 1970s, it is often argued, an urge to conserve would be replaced, immediately upon a new source or supply, by simple confidence that the bright people who invent new technologies and find new supplies "will fix it".

As in the 1970s "Energy Crisis", today's conservation measures might be assumed to be contingent on supply, and set aside if new supplies are discovered or assured.

Meanwhile, the real problems that actually arise from burning oil are denied:

denies climate change

While those who promote peak oil arguments would generally deny it, arguing that conservation comes first, those who see the primary problem as the organization of the world's commodity markets and money supply and debt systems, argue that by sidestepping or ignoring the consequences of burning oil, the long term problem of how energy is priced and accounted for in the world economy is never addressed:

In ecological economics for instance the scarcity of carrying capacity, including the capacity of Earth's atmosphere to absorb CO2, is a primary source of value. The cap and trade schemes of emissions trading create a fixed number of credits that then are purchased by those who find it easier to pay others to save emissions than for themselves to do so. The Kyoto Protocol allows for this, and most monetary reform schemes championed by greens and anti-poverty activists place this scarcity, not scarcity of raw supply, as the central issue.

Many prominent figures who make supply-side arguments also deny climate change is occurring. One theory is that any theory that values carry capacity or natural capital explicitly is a challenge to supply-side power, and the whole paradigm of military domination of the planet to dig out its oil. The Bush Administration is an example, since it has gone to great lengths to promote the idea that oil supplies are short, even to create panic about that, while denying the very possibility that there may soon be no place to put CO2.

shifts focus on cause of conflicts

The peak oil arguments may also shift focus on the causes of conflicts. It is extremely rare to hear even ardent advocates of anti-terrorism measures admit that there may be some inevitable military response to burning oil: drowning whole heavily-populated countries, causing diseases and large storms - the IPCC predicted such effects on 3.5 billion people. Instead, this possible root cause of an attack on developed nations is always under-emphasized or not discussed by those seeking "more supply". They prefer to blame "hatred of freedom" to explain "why they hate us."

The more general theory that developing nations are actually being very much disadvantaged by developed actions, and may gain the capacity to do serious damage, e.g. to ports with nuclear weapons, is likewise denied. While there is reason to be concerned about oil-supplying countries being battlefields, there is even more to be concerned about those countries that are affected by burning the oil: the government of the UK and EU for instance, are extremely concerned about Europe losing the Gulf Stream warming, which would destroy its agriculture and industry.

So while some may exploit supply-side arguments to "wake others up", it is very clear that climate change or ecological impact or debt relations as cause of conflict, is subordinated or denied by those who elevate supply as issue.

This is a proposed change to the article? Very obvious POV in some areas, subtle POV in other areas. Very poor prose and word choices. It's all over the place, very unclear. I think a massive change similar to this one was reverted by Neutrality, myself and others a little while ago. zen master T 23:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now mostly restored and rewritten. This section was required to balance the present POV of the article, which is serious: by including "Alternatives to Oil" in THIS article rather than in say climate change or Mideast conflict or ecological footprint, Wikipedia is claiming that it is the Peak and not those other factors that cause the need to shift away from oil. This is a POV, and it is actually a very serious and extreme one: most scientists agree that burning all the oil that presently is known to exist, would destabilize the atmosphere or has such a high risk of doing so, that, the Peak is effectively irrelevant as an argument to move away from oil combustion. Claiming it is relevant to that shift is thus tantamount to denying climate change.

Strange vandalism

I moved this from my talk page on request:

could you explain your revertion of Hubbert Peak on the talk page? I didn't do the "vandalism", but I'd like to understand the anonymous editor's point. --goethean 18:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would too. Introducing a so-called "creaming curve" and "wildcats" without explanation or links seems very strange and suspicious to me. Unless the editor comes back and tells me what the heck that paragraph meant, I'll continue to feel that the revert was justified. --Pablo D. Flores 18:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Generally if something has some plausible possiblity, but looks incorrect, move the material to talk and discuss why you removed it. Then it is easy to justify or refute, and either stay out or go back in. - Taxman 18:33, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

According to Google, a wildcat is "A well drilled in an area where no oil or gas production exists." --goethean 19:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is the text that was removed: --goethean 19:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More recent analytical methods include the creaming curve that plots the cumulative number of new wildcats versus the cumulative discoveries. This hyperbolic plot is better at showing the underlying geology of oil fields than the hubbert curve and is not affected by the economics of production.

The first google hit on creaming+curve explains the concept.

Although the text is unclear and should be re-written, it is clearly not vandalism. --goethean 19:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now I would dispute the relevance of that to this article, since this is not an article on peak oil and running out in general, but instead an article on the Hubbert peak, a specific theory. But that is separate from the issue of calling something vandalism without researching it. - Taxman 20:37, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

My bad. Although I hold to my words (strange jargon thrown in without an explanation by an anonymous user), I made a mistake. In any case, it is clear that this observation seems too important to leave it out, but also too important to leave it in like that.

I'd put it like this:

More recent analytical methods include the creaming curve, which plots cumulative discoveries (the total oil that has been found out so far) against exploration activity (the number of wells drilled). This curve is better at showing the underlying geology of oil fields than the Hubbert curve and is not affected by the economics of production.

... but I'd like to insert "allegedly" somewhere into the last sentence, unless further details are given (why is it better? how is it not affected?). --Pablo D. Flores 02:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Field abandonment and EROEI

There is a problem with the following statement: Tom Haws 22:32, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

After the peak, but before an oil field is empty, another significant point is reached when it takes more energy to recover, transport and process one barrel of oil than the amount of energy contained in that barrel. At that point, oil is not worthwhile to extract, and the field is abandoned. Hubbert peak theory proponents claim that this is true regardless of the price of oil. This concept is referred to as the ratio of energy extracted to energy invested.

My correction follows. Should more be said? Tom Haws 22:32, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

After the peak, but before an oil field is empty, another significant point is reached when it takes more energy to recover, transport and process one barrel of oil than the amount of energy contained in that barrel. At that point, oil is not worthwhile to extract for energy. This is true regardless of the price of oil. This concept is referred to as the ratio of energy extracted to energy invested. Beyond that point, other significant points of deterrent are reached when the cost of extracting the oil for non-energy uses becomes higher than creating oil substitutes by other means.

Crash

This Crash wiki article references an oil crash which this article postulates. Why is there no cross reference?????

Seems like more liberal bias on Wikipedia to me.

--Capsela 17:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Remember, anyone can edit Wikipedia, so there's almost no way for there to be systematic bias. There can be bias in individual articles, but this is usually ironed out in the editing process. The best advice I can give you is to be bold and fix it! Remember that neutral point of view is the first priority, and be willing to discuss with other editors and come to consensus. Best, Meelar (talk) 17:18, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Jevon's paradox ceases to apply?

Once the rate of oil extraction can no longer increase with demand, in other words the oil peak has been reached, Jevons paradox instantly ceases to apply.

Can the anon explain this? The semi-paradox of local efficiency effectively not making a dent in global efficiency would still apply? A related point is that after the peak is reached it becomes increasingly harder to improve efficiency because there is less and less ability to do work? zen master T 09:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Depletion definition confusion discussion

Technically the word depletion can mean when the first barrel of oil is extracted, true. However, in the context of peak oil the word depletion means the point at which the rate of extraction starts going negative permanently. The thing being "depleted" is the abstract concept "extraction rate", not the physical resource itself. Prior to the mid point depletion of the physical resource isn't noticable, it's only when the rate of extraction itself begins depletion that the problems start. Depletion in this context basically means "the rate of growth in oil extraction begins being negative at the mid point". During the time the rate of extraction is increasing there is no depletion of the abstract concept. Here is dictionary.com's bottom most definition, emphasis mine:

depletion

n 1: the act of decreasing something markedly 2: the state of being depleted [11]

Does this make sense? zen master T 21:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The definition of depletion also says: "3. The use or consumption of a resource, especially a natural resource, faster than it is replenished." (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=depletion) According to Campbell, oil is not replenished (finite resource). Could you provide me with references that support this: "However, in the context of peak oil the word depletion means the point at which the rate of extraction starts going negative permanently. The thing being "depleted" is the abstract concept "extraction rate", not the physical resource itself." In http://www.geologie.tu-clausthal.de/Campbell/lecture.html for example, 35 N.Sea graph, Dr. Campbell says this also: "... We are getting better at depleting our resources." - EZ 23:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We are indeed depleting our natural resources, the word depletion in appropriate in that context. But let's not needlessly commingle concepts (or we should explicity explain both concepts). Within the context of the concept of peak oil, the word "depletion" means when the global rate of oil production starts going negative. Flat earth economists' notion of unchecked growth being a requirement is obviously wrong when there is increasingly less and less ability to do work (the truth of the laws of thermodynamics become clear at the mid-point). Hubbert's main points were about the rates of growth and the rates of oil extraction, so it should be obvious depletion applies to the abstract concept "rate of extraction". If you can show me a quotation from Campbell where he is describing the concept of peak oil and he uses depletion exclusively the way you want him to you might have a point, but you don't currently (just becomes the word depletion also applies to physical resources is not evidence against how the article currenlty uses the word depletion to describe peak oil). zen master T 03:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you can show me a quotation from Campbell, Hubbert, etc. where he is describing the concept of peak oil and he uses depletion the way you want him to (that is, depletion can be applied to the abstract concept "rate of extraction"), then you might have a point, but you don't currently. - EZ 19:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hawstom's sketch

EZ, I have often been at odds with Zenmaster. But in this case, I am having a hard time understanding why you don't want to say we are rapidly depleting the world's supply of oil. That we are depleting the supply seems obvious. We are using the supply at a rate that is significant in comparison to the known supply as indicated by rate of discovery. That seems to indicate depletion. The only controversial matter would seem to be whether we are depleting in some manner (rapidly, soon, slowly, etc.). I have a little graph I drew to help me keep the facts straight on this. Based on my little graph, I would say that since the 1990's we have been using more than we have been discovering, and today we have used 1/2 of the known and likely supply, giving us another 0 to 30 years until decline. Perhaps "decline" is the word you have in mind. Is that the case? Tom Haws 19:39, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

@Tom Haws: I see. Yes, I generally agree with you, the word "decline" would be (for example) (more) appropriate. (I might further decide not to engage too much in this debate because of potentially having to put too much energy and time into this. Nevertheless, it would be nice if this issue could be resolved (my POV)) - EZ 20:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The way Hubbert uses "depletion" applies to the abstract "extraction rate". Though I agree we should perhaps clean up and explain this potential source of confusion surrounding the word depletion. However, I am against any attempt at de-emphasizing the importance of the peak and what that means after the peak (remember this article is also titled Peak oil). zen master T 01:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of the importance of the peak. But do you have any document, URL... from Hubbert or someone else where you could explain that? (where "depletion" is used with the abstract "extraction rate"). Thanks very much, EZ 01:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I missed this discussion when I changed the article. But after thinking about it, I don't see any evidence that depletion has such a narrow usage, and even if it did, using it without explaining that it is different from the common meaning of the word is misleading. Nobody is saying oil is being regenerated, so oil has been being depleted since the first barrel was extracted. I see no value in using the word depletion in a narrow, misleading way especially when we can just say production begins declining and be just as accurate. - Taxman ^Talk 17:01, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

@Taxman: I agree. I discovered it in the paragraph "Hubbert's theory" too: "The period after the peak is referred to as depletion." - EZ 00:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So what are you saying? And what evidence is there for that use of the term? Besides, that's not my point. Using that word in the article in a different way that the normal understanding of the word cannot be done without explaining it nearly every time that it is being used in a non intuitive way. And what's the value in that? That just makes it even more confusing. Which one is more important, using the jargon of a field, or getting the point across accurately to the reader? Obviously the second one, and if we want to leave in the explanation of the term to cover the former, then that works too. - Taxman ^Talk 15:35, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm just saying that this is just another sentence where depletion is used in that non intuitive, narrow way, which we might consider rephrasing too. I suggest using "The period after the peak is referred to as post-peak era." or something similar. If we agree to this, feel free to carry out such an edit. - EZ 17:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That would kind of be a mistake, the way Hubbert means depletion is growth itself will deplete. Physical resource depletion is only an issue when the mid point of production is reached. "post-peak era" does not convey that the time after the peak will be any different, whereas "depletition" implies, quite precisely, that "growth" (as generally defined by many economists) is no longer possible. zen master T 18:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence (document, URL, etc.) from Hubbert or someone else where one can see that,

a) The way Hubbert uses "depletion" applies to the abstract "extraction rate". (posted @ 01:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC))

b) the way Hubbert means depletion is growth itself will deplete. (posted @ 18:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC))

In addition to that, there is also this definition of "depletion" from dictionary.com: "The use or consumption of a resource, especially a natural resource, faster than it is replenished."

What shall we implement now? - EZ 13:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I dont think depletion is being applied here correctly to Peak Oil. The yearly barrel extraction rate will likely stay the same, and could even rise after we have reached the peak. The decline associated with peak oil has mroe to do with the "net energy ratio" of oil, i.e. the amount of energy that goes into extracting the product as compared to the amount that you get out of it. When oil fields are first tapped the oil is relatively easy to extract and pretty pure, therefore the net energy ratio is usually high. Once you get down near the half-way mark you need to start pumping air or liquid into the reserve, which drives the net energy ratio way down. One of the main problems with most alternative energy sources is that their net energy ratio's are nowhere near that of oil. Biodiesel, for example, has a net energy ratio of about 4, which means that one has to expend 1 barrel of oil for every 4 barrels of biodiesel you refine, not to mention that the biodiesel industry could never be grown fast enough to compensate for even our yearly increse in oil consumption. Eaither way, this stuff means big changes. I suggest everyone just saddle up, buckle in, and lets ride this 'civilization' into the ground. -frank

What's the ratio for oil itself currently? I know the efficiency ratio of oil refining to gasoline and diesel is about 83-85%, which would make for a 5.9-6.7 ratio, and that's just for the refining process. The extraction takes some more away of course. But you're right, using conventional crops it's not very realistic to produce enough vegetable oil to make enough biodiesel for all transportation needs. Though since something like 90% of farmland currently goes to produce feed for livestock, if all hell really broke loose, much of that "wasted" land could be converted over to raising oil crops and the world could still produce the same amount of food. And who knows what crop (algae) innovations will come about if the money is there for the research. Wind is supposed to have at least a 13.2 ratio too, but now I'm really getting off on a tangent. - Taxman ^Talk 21:05, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

On links in Hubbert theory criticisms

While counterclaims have a place in maintaining neutrality it needs more tightening up.

On the link "Known Saudi Arabian Oil Reserves Tripled"

I foleowed the link http://www.lesjones.com/posts/000863.shtml and found could only find unsubstantiated claims by officials from Saudi Arabia’s oil industry, no trace of auditing being done, no explanation on how this tripling took place. Was it new oil being added? More discovered? New methods of extractions implemented? Following the link above we find this quote What's more, in many cases older, depleted oil wells are re-filling backed up with links http://armor.typepad.com/bastardsword/2004/04/saudis_triple_o.html We've known for decades that existing Saudi fields are filling back up from somewhere and http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/24/101927/375 Apparently, this new oil is seeping up from deeper underground. In spite of these claims this theory is controversial and certainly not backed up with experimental evidence that I have been able to locate. Unless someone can substantiate this claim of Abiogenic petroleum origin I propose we delete this link. Countering a controversial theory using possibly more controversial theories does not seem productive, nor convincing. At the very least it should be clearly indicated.

Generally on Saudi reserves

None of the Saudi estimates are audited. No proof is given. Other regions use independent auditors to verify claims. These two links point out the need for more information: http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:UtTMRBnfXJAJ:www.energybulletin.net/3864.html+Saudi+audited+oil&hl=en http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:u3oQZL8DIeMJ:www.energybulletin.net/4293.html+Saudi+audited+oil&hl=en I propose we delete all counterclaims based on unaudited oil reserves, particularly Saudi Arabian oil claims.

Problems in the critique section

1. The third paragraph of the section notes the USGS estimates, but only generally links to the USGS site. It took me a while, but I eventually found this [12] which was linked to from [13]. The numbers those reports show, range from a 95 percentile of 812 billion barrels of oil and barrel of oil equivalent, to a 5 percentile number of 2847. Using the 30 billion barrels a year estimate for usage and no growth, that puts the estimate of supply from 27 to 94 years. I also don't know if the 30 billion barrels is just for oil, or for barrels of oil equivalent. That's me calculating the numbers myself, but it doesn't agree with the 50 to 100 years, especially without taking growth into account. So where is the 50 to 100 years quote from, what specific source? - Taxman ^Talk 16:57, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

2. The fourth paragraph appears to imply the EIA says the USGS "estimates are...", but from what I've read so far in the EIA paper, that quote seems to apply to the EIA's own work, not the earlier USGS data. But I haven't read the whole paper yet. Can anyone clarify? - Taxman ^Talk 16:57, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Point of no-return for oil

This article seems to suggest that oil can only be extracted with energy from oil and that oil is only used for energy, not products. From the article:

point is reached when it takes more energy to recover, transport and process one barrel of oil than the amount of energy contained in that barrel. At that point, oil is not worthwhile to extract for energy

But what if the power for the recovery, transport, and processing of the oil comes from other sources? Nuclear, solar, and wind could power oil pumps and pumping stations and those can't easily power vehicles (yet), so even if the amount of energy contained in the oil is surpassed by the amount used to get it, it's still acceptable due to lack of alternatives, right? Oil is also used for products like plastics, paint, fertilizers, and cosmetics so wouldn't those uses be compelling enough reasons to continue the extraction of oil past this supposed end-of-the-line? Anon

Dear Anonymous editor, you make two points. Note that your first point is addressed by the last two words of the passage in question, "for energy". Yes, oil might still be extracted for other uses for which it might still be cheapest. Your second point is a good one. If tomorrow the price of extracting oil rose to $500 per barrel, we would still have to use it to make gasoline, at least temporarily until internal combustion engines could be converted. Tom Haws 03:31, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you may call me stupid

So Hubbert correctly estimated the peak of production in the U.S.? What does this have to do with oil supplies? Isn't there untapped oil in the world? The U.S. may have peaked in oil production in the 1970s (I'm not sure on this either-I'm just citing the article), but wasn't that just stopped by tougher environmental laws and no new oil refineries? Did it really have anything to do with oil running out? I admit it, I'm so clueless on this topic. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

From memory oil production peaked in America in c 1970-71, and ever since then has been declining, much as Hubbert predicted it would. I believe that oil discovery reached its peak in America in about 1930, and declined from then on. Hubbert resoned that oil production followed the same curve as oil discovery with a time lag, obviously you cant extract oil which hasn't been discovered. So when oil fields which had been discovered in the 1920s-30s had started declining in the early 70s, not enough new ones had been discovered to take their place and maintain the same level of production, so oil production declined. Does that make sense?

Oil discovery worldwide peaked in the mid-1960s, and ever since then has been declining, most of our present oilfields are ones that were discovered in the 1950s-60s, and not enough new ones have been discovered to take their place when they start to decline. Hence the same peak scenario worldwide. Some people argue that the peak can be put off by better extraction technology etc, but nobody really knows exactly what's going to happen. G-Man 18:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Engine efficiency

I removed the following paragraph because it is misleading. The practical engine efficiency is typically 30-50%. The automobiles are inefficent becuase a lot of energy is spent on accelerating the car itself (and not just the persons inside) and due to the aerodynamic drag and not due to the inefficient engines. (see Fuel efficiency)

"Even the idea of a fuel efficient automobile is an oxymoron. The theoretical maximum thermodynamic efficiency for an automobile is roughly 25 percent, while the true efficiency of gasoline engines is much lower, perhaps as low as 7 percent in some cases. This means that every time you fill your gas tank, only about 1 Gallon of gas actually gets converted into the energy that moves the car along, the rest of the fuel gets converted into heat." Poszwa 02:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

External Links

Should all the external links have been left there or should they have been removed as they have been by 211.201.18.251? DarthVader 09:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Was troll. Clue #1 big change. Clue #2 no reason given. Clue #3 user isn't a register account but just a number. Is just an idiot having some "fun". (Either that or the big oil companies are trying to clamp down on the truth.)

Of course, at least a dozen people are always watching this webpage. So troll actions have 0% chance of success. Vandalism has already been reverted. WpZurp 02:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Energy Values

I think it's worth noting the decline in oil energy values (see EROEI) to add to the validity of the PO argument. I read maybe once or twice how the energy value of oil has declined from a 100:1/60:1 rate to something in the order of 4:1/3:1 right now.

A comparison b/t Shale_Oil and Petroleum, or Solar_energy and Petroleum would be a great place to start.. if there was more technical information available. Unfortunately it seems the work is being done as we wiki. I was hoping the people working on Petroleum would comment/have information on this but I guess, being a newbie, I'm learning how the community works a little more.

In any case, here are my comments talk:Petroleum#Energy_value.3F. h2oaso 05:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is a list from the eroei.com site: http://www.eroei.com/eval/net_energy_list.html --noösfractal 06:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know they had that! Thanks for the info, noosfractal.

What's the consensus? Energy Value section, link, new section? It could potentially bring together some of the disparate elements of the Alternative Energies section in a more coherent manner. h2oaso 05:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)