Jump to content

Talk:Peak oil: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Platinumshore: RSVP Malljaja
Line 117: Line 117:


:Just a soloist. Try validating the section's claims on the ELM through the sources provided. Try validating anything other than that Jeff Rubin said higher oil prices equals higher manufacturing costs (though nothing about how this raises the price of oil). [[Special:Contributions/24.143.90.21|24.143.90.21]] ([[User talk:24.143.90.21|talk]]) 03:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
:Just a soloist. Try validating the section's claims on the ELM through the sources provided. Try validating anything other than that Jeff Rubin said higher oil prices equals higher manufacturing costs (though nothing about how this raises the price of oil). [[Special:Contributions/24.143.90.21|24.143.90.21]] ([[User talk:24.143.90.21|talk]]) 03:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

::I would greatly appreciate a response to the above. Otherwise I would assume that you agree that the section lacks proper sourcing and the issues raised ''repeatedly'' since January have not been addressed. [[Special:Contributions/206.188.32.1|206.188.32.1]] ([[User talk:206.188.32.1|talk]]) 20:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


== Prognosticism is not encyclopedic ==
== Prognosticism is not encyclopedic ==

Revision as of 20:32, 13 June 2011

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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 17, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 27, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article
WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Notable discussions from archive

Endless oil?

What about new discoveries like Jack?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nine barrels being used, one barrel being found?

Is this true?

Yes. Actually about 7.6. In 2005 we consumed 30 billion barrels per year and the discovery rate approached 4 billion barrels of crude oil per year[3]. This is crude oil though; quantifying unconventional discoveries is problematic.
UPDATE: In 2008, oil consumption had risen to 32 billion barrels per year. The discovery rate dropped to around 3.6 bbls per year. 32 bbls / 3.6 bbls = 9

Why is James Howard Kunstler here?

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

References

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

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

Featured article status?

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

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

Abiotic oil

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

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


Peal Oil - is it Reality TV ?

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

Your opening remarks are extremely unclear (google translate?), but I assume you are suggesting that there is a problem with the theory's predictions. On it's face, this is an unfair statement as the predictions are made by various models, not by the "Peak Oil Theory". Though this discussion topic is not about the article we're now discussing, I will say that these models are limited by the input data used. Given the extreme complexity in calculating reserve and production numbers (the many factors are constantly changing and hard to accurately quantify), it's not surprising that there have been many differing predictions over the years. Detection of the peak similarly difficult, but the "indicator" is very simple: production never rises over some historic high. If you have sources which discuss these issues, perhaps Predicting the timing of peak oil can be expanded.
As for the two articles you linked to, the first one is behind a paywall for me but looks outside the scope of this article. The second looks interesting and could easily be used to bulk up the section mentioning the Hirsch report, which has been gradually gutted over time. This is the "beef" of Peak oil theory (the "why we should care"), and it's sad that it gets hidden by so many pages of (important) data. There are many governmental and semi-governmental task forces out there which have published similar conclusions and recommendations. 174.28.159.219 (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the incompetence of the poster trivializes the valid point that was intended. If Peak Oil is valid science, then why is it always presented in a way that makes it look like manic raving? This article appears to be little more than a bullying attempt to legitimize an argument by piling a weight of words on a weak foundation of statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Platinumshore

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

Platinum, discussion threads on websites are not acceptable for citing economic theory here. Please restrict your edits here to verifiable information about peak oil. Please explain here if this is still unclear. 206.188.60.1 (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting extremely ridiculous. Platinum, either enter into discussion here in some way, or stop this insertion of what appears to be your personal theory about the export land model. I'm ready to delete the whole section as you have not added to the veracity or encyclopedic nature of this section since first requested in January. 173.10.73.233 (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section Platinum introduced in January has been deleted because the issues with it have not been addressed, despite six months of requests to do so. There are limits to patience. If Platinum would like to cooperate within the standards of Wikipedia sourcing, then this is the place to start. 24.143.90.21 (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion could use some focus on the issues at stake. Also, I'd like to suggest that all parties involved in this discussion use locatable user names rather than anon IPs—its unclear at first glance whether one looks at a choir or a soloist here. Just a thought. Malljaja (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a soloist. Try validating the section's claims on the ELM through the sources provided. Try validating anything other than that Jeff Rubin said higher oil prices equals higher manufacturing costs (though nothing about how this raises the price of oil). 24.143.90.21 (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would greatly appreciate a response to the above. Otherwise I would assume that you agree that the section lacks proper sourcing and the issues raised repeatedly since January have not been addressed. 206.188.32.1 (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prognosticism is not encyclopedic

In the first few paragraphs, I find the language includes: "...believe the high dependence of ... ...Predictions vary greatly as to what exactly... ...If political and ... Optimistic estimations...

Beliefs, by definition, cannot be verifiable.

If whatever this sloshy and original research article is about cannot be reduced to unequivocal and encyclopedic assertions, I propose this text be dropped and pointed to Hubbert's Peak Theory - which is how theories are and ought to be advertised. Benjamin Gatti (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is "sloshy" because the hard data from which more sound predication could be made is hidden from the public by OPEC for economic and political reasons. It is also impossible to predict precisely how our economic system will handle the shock predicted by Hubbert's theory. Anyway, documenting estimations and predictions based on a sound and demonstrated theory certainly makes this article about an increasingly talked-about topic encyclopedic. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sympathetic to the subject being interesting, but can it not be written in an active voice? and if not - why not?

Example: Peak Oil Theory describes the discipline of predicting a point in the future after which the production of oil will intractably decline. Notable schools of thought on this subject hold variously that the decline of oil will reflect the prior rate of growth (Hubbert peak), or that future means of extraction will increase the profitable yield (whomever); (for it's own part, Wikipedia has no view on the matter...) Let me suggest that absent some calibrated neutrality, one runs a similar risk to other "end of the world as we know it predictions. Benjamin Gatti (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is rated GA, and was reviewed by a number of uninvolved editors along the way. I find it hard to believe that they would have overlooked such an issue. Seems to me very well referenced and well within the bounds of RS/V/N. I do not agree with your claim that Wikipedia is contributing any views on the matter. Even CERA and various oil companies/oil producing nations are outwardly concerned. You seem to want to skew the article away from consensus. If you have references to cite which suggest otherwise, please state them. 50.34.27.22 (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be past the prognostication period. The highest year of world oil production (including oil shale) was 2005, and it's been downhill since then.[4]. We have figures for years through 2009; the 2010 figures will become available in July 2011. Let's revisit this in July. --John Nagle (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actual Public Policy §

A public policy section or separate article seems appropriate at this point as the peak has either occurred or will within less than a decade according to current text. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also looking in the general space of Hubbert theory articles, I'm not seeing the techniques for extraction factor fully applied although the last ¶ of this article's Oil field decline § seems to imply that these could radically affect when the actual peak occurs although the base theory is applicable to the total volume in the earth's crust. Does this mean that given a new price and extraction technique level, ignoring FTM any other consideration, that the peak could therefore be pushed considerably in the future? Or is it the case as I think the text currently conveys that a hard limit has been reached or shortly will? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Novels

I added more novels to the list and the self-published ones were removed because they were "non-notable". I disagree that self-publication has anything to do with notability. Indeed, one of the books, After the Crash by Caryl Johnston, seems pretty notable to me since it was the first US peak oil novel published by anybody. I don't see why Crossing the Blue by Holly Jean Buck is any more or less notable than any of the other novels. I found all the novels I added at this site that reviews peak oil books: http://www.seattleoil.com/essays-research/book-reviews/ 98.203.137.168 (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of removing this section. It is getting very long without adding to the article. Kind of reads like an advertisement for these books. 173.10.73.233 (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with removal of popular culture material. There's enough reality here. --John Nagle (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support removal of that section also. Not notable IMO. 1exec1 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Each notable fictional book about peak oil can have its own Wikipedia article and be listed at List of environmental books#Fiction and be categorized in Category:Environmental fiction books.
Wavelength (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peak car

There is a connected / possibly ameliorating phenomenon : "Peak car". See e.g. http://www.rudi.net/node/22123, http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/04/peak-car-transport-driving Would a short mention in the article be worthwhile, together with electric cars etc ? Morten7an (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]