Talk:Peak oil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articlePeak oil has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
July 17, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 27, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
August 10, 2014Good article reassessmentDelisted
November 21, 2015Good article reassessmentListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 19, 2016.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of extraction of petroleum is reached, after which it is expected to decline?
Current status: Good article
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team  
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.
Note icon
This article was included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (see Peak oil at Wikipedia for Schools). Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Peak oil reached in 2015?[edit]

Increase Iraq at war not real just to get more credits and USA 2016 with decrease like China, Mexico, Nigeria, Angola, Colombia, India, Egypt, Vietnam, Peru, Denmark, Brunei, South Sudan, Australia, Argentina & Others. Venezuela reserves also not real like polar and shale oil [1]. Positive more reserve Brazil so again until 2030 but decline before and more expensive etc.   Meaning peak oil is low since in practice by gas... replaceable until 2025-2030 with gas peak. Atomic energy never goes out and changed already peak oil also gas substitution etc. less new findings like true for gas.

The cold northern hemisphere shows reality demand/supply price oil can't be talked down like effect war, terror&embargo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment moved from article to talk page[edit]

I may have found an error in this***. coveries made since then. Additionally, the reported 1.5 billion barrels (240×106 m3) of oil burned off by Iraqi soldiers in the First Persian Gulf War[55] are conspicuously missing from Kuwait's figures. ** I believe it should read ten to the ninth power. ** I'll need somebody to verify that however. — Preceding text originally posted on peak oil by Swan899 (talkcontribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excirial (talkcontribs) 08:20, 30 May 2014‎ Excirial (UTC)

Extraction or production[edit]

Talking about oil "production" is inaccurate and could be misleading, given that oil is not produced, but extracted. On the other hand, "production" is a commonly used term. That being said, "extraction" is also a commonly used term, as exemplified by the title of the article Extraction of petroleum which is linked to from the first sentence of this article, and by some authors, for example William R. Catton, Jr. in Overshoot, who actually criticizes the use of "production" as a way of fooling ourselves. Therefore I suggest changing the term "production" for "extraction". Any thoughts? Support? Objections? --Felipe (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

"Production" is an established term of art used in that industry, though "yield rate" or "extraction rate" might be less likely to be misinterpreted. List_of_countries_by_oil_production cites several refs using "production", which does have the merit of contrasting clearly with "consumption". It gets rather less clear in oil sands operations: with intermediate stages of separation (bitumen from sand) and upgrading (synthetic crude from bitumen) the quantities at each stage are different. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Felipe is obviously knowledgeable on the subject, and brings up several good points:
  • Production” is inaccurate. Answer: Natural petroleum is certainly not produced in the sense of being manufactured, but I just looked up the definition of “produce” online, and down the list (admittedly the 3rd listed meaning of the word) I found:
“show or provide (something) for consideration, inspection, or use.”
Examples: "he produced a sheet of paper from his pocket" and "no evidence was produced"
Petroleum production is within this meaning.
  • “Production” is misleading. Answer: I have never heard anyone being mislead into believing that the oil companies are manufacturing petroleum. Lacking actual examples, I must consider this a Straw man argument.
  • “Extraction” is also commonly used. Answer: A quick review of usage indicates that “extraction” seems to be mostly used in the context of field processes of getting the stuff out of the ground, while “production” is almost always used when describing the statistics of quantities and rates produced/extracted. “produced” and “production” is commonly used to describe statistical data by the USGS:
British government:
International Energy Agency
I certainly don’t want to ban the term “extraction”, but I found it a bit jarring to see it completely replace “production” in statistical contexts, where I am accustomed to seeing “production.” Regards. Plazak (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I also support using "extraction" over "production". --Fixuture (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Needs section on "Great examples of scare mongering"[edit]

In the 1990's, you could not go to a web site and discuss music or other trivial subjects without a constant barrage of "Stop and read this about the end of the world due to Peak Oil !" articles.

Now, in the 21st Century, we are more concerned with stopping all oil production, rather than concern about it running out.

So, it's a great example of "Your pet cause does not justify interrupting everything".

There should be a section in the article stating this. (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Peak Oil : a serious scam[edit]

In the beginning of the Eighties, the US oil companies lost a large amount of crude oil assets :

  • they got kicked out of Iran by Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979; the subsequent Iran hostage crisis left little hope of a come back
  • they got bought out from Saudi Arabia, Aramco becoming Saudi Aramco

At that time, the oil reserves of these two countries were nr 1 and 2 worldwide. This equalled to an accounting catastrophe for these companies, as they have to include their oil reserves in their statements ; these reserves suddenly dwindled to near zero.

For a few years, the oil market was simply crazy ; oil was very expensive, and oil companies made so much money selling a suddenly rare oil that no shareholder was complaining. Then the USSR crumbled, but to the dismay of the US, the Russian oil industry was first to recoup and there was no way to get hold of it; no luck there. Worse than that, Russia started pouring oil on the market and prices fell. The old problem of non-existant crude oil reserves surfaced again : US oil companies were in no situation to conquer fields in hostile countries, and shareholders decided en masse that oil companies were very overpriced.

So the US oil companies reacted on several fronts. For one thing, they advised the US gov to take hold of available countries, such as Irak, or reserves, like the Caspian Sea, by securing the southern corridor, namely Afghanistan, in the mid-nineties, through the PNAC lobbying. Second, they launched a cheap image campaign in the US, searching to impress the US citizen by telling them there were no more reserves. Mind you, that was true of their accounting reserves, not of the world reserves. That is why they dug out this Peak Oil fable, to frighten Joe Public, which in turn would ease a toughened operation abroad.

Ten years later, when Irak was secured and accounting reserves started building up again with home tight oil, the lobbying was no longer necessary, most "Peak Oil" advocates ceased to be paid for voicing the fable, and merely disappeared, which explains why noone is speaking in favor of this fable nowadays.Environnement2100 (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The Critique from "The Peak Oil Scare and the Coming Oil Flood"[edit]

In 2016, Praeger published Michael Lynch's "The Peak Oil Scare and the Coming Oil Flood," which covered not just oil supply economics and forecasting, but a history of modern peak oil theory and an analysis of the theories and arguments behind them. He characterized them as falling into two categories, mathematical modeling and concerns about specific challenges facing the industry. The mathematical models are show to be invalid. In particular, the claim that the so-called Hubbert Curve allows one to use historical production data for an area (nation, region, or the world) to estimate the ultimate recoverable resource and predict the pattern of future production is not supported by any theory but is curve-fitting, that is, assuming a given pattern is determined by physical factors in this case geology. Production trends are assumed fixed and extrapolated to an end point. However, most countries do not follow a Hubbert Curve and production trends often change with new fiscal terms or changes in technology. Similarly, the use of 'creaming curves,' representing the trend in discovery sizes for a region is based on the assumption that geology determines the sequence of discovery size. This is often used by geologists for a given basin, but not for geologically heterogenous regions. The best example of the method's failure can be seen in the display of creaming curves for the Middle East. Discovery size dropped sharply in the 1970s, making it appear as if the region had nearly no more oil to be found, but the smaller size represented a shift from exploration in oil rich countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia to countries like Oman and Syria, where the fields were much smaller. Specific challenges faced by the industry--depletion of oil fields, rising costs, and resource nationalism, for example--are shown to be common in the history of the industry and represent not insurmountable obstacles but simply indications of the need for resources (drilling, investment and so forth) to be overcome.

Ultimately, the peak oil claims are shown to be part of a long line of neo-Malthusian fears of impending resource scarcity that have time and again proved to be invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCLynchMIT (talkcontribs) 21:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)