Talk:Peak oil

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Comment moved from article to talk page

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 (talk⋅contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excirial (talk • contribs) 08:20, 30 May 2014‎ Excirial (UTC)

Suggested changes to Reserves section

I'd like to suggest a modification to the Reserves section. Currently there are three subheadings in this section. The first two discuss reserves; however, there is no discussion of reserves in the "Synthetic sources" subsection. Therefore, it might be more appropriate to move this to the "Unconventional sources" section. I'd also like to include a graph in that section which illustrates the contribution of tight oil to recent global production. Any comments on these suggested changes are welcome. Blandx (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peak oil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/saudi.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131019162214/http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/182007167301.htm to http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/182007167301.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Worldwide Production Trends and Oil Field Decline subsections

I'd like to suggest some changes to these two subsections. They are both bulky, and the information is mostly outdated. For the first, "Worldwide Production Trends," I'd like to combine the two paragraphs, trim some of the outdated information, and improve the general logical flow. For the second subsection, "Oil Field Decline," I'd like to remove most of the last two paragraphs, and rearrange the remaining paragraphs. I don't think the last two add much, and the information is mostly outdated. Please let me now if you disagree, or have some alternative suggestions. Any help in keeping this page current would be greatly appreciated. Blandx (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Both edits would be an improvement. Regards. Plazak (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have done it. It reads better, but I think maybe it needs more recent references about anticipated production from IEA and EIA. Blandx (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent modification of text and images

Dated May 8 there were a number of changes to the page by BillJamesMN that I think are unacceptable. Firstly, the changes were not discussed on the Talk page. Secondly, the images don't appear to be from a reliable source and actually appear to be the individual's own research. Some are marked "Jpods.com" which is a webpage of a personal pod transport company. I intend to give the person the option of removing it within a day. Blandx (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate it if somebody would have a look at the edits on May 8 and provide some support on this. I believe the edits have been quite destructive as content has been removed as well as added. In my opinion it is close to vandalism. However, I am loathe to start an edit war. I can't wait much longer before acting. If it is left on the page for too long I think it could tarnish the reputation of the page. In my opinion, undoing all the edits on May 8 is entirely appropriate. Any advice is appreciated. Blandx (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to discuss every edit, but these edits needed to be removed. Interesting issues raised, though they will need some good sorcing if they are to return to the article. The images themselves just won't do, and will likely get deleted once someone nominates them for deletion. 184.100.17.71 (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Your sage counsel is very much appreciated. Blandx (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, on May 16, the individual who placed unacceptable images and text on the page, and had them removed, has decided now to put them back. I would like to avoid an edit war. So, I plan on leaving a message on his personal page asking him to remove them again. This is unlikely to result in success. If this leads to a dispute, I would appreciate if other editors could either remove the content if they believe it to be inappropriate, or leave a note of support on this page. Thanks. Blandx (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

One of the graphs is from data published by the EIA.You can download the US and import data and recreate the graph. http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/weekly/crude.cfm#tabs-production-production . Flags are added to show the correlation between US Peak Oil in 1970 and increase in demand for foreign oil, and Federal debt. Another graph is from the EIA, modified to show the decreasing access to oil in Unit of Harm equal to the 1.2 mb/d decrease of the 1973 Oil Embargo. Life requires energy. Less energy, less life. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=25892 . Here is a summary of that EIA report http://seekingalpha.com/article/3970509-peak-fracking-1_3-2-times-1973-oil-embargo . The Syria data is also available at EIA https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis.cfm?iso=SYR . Syria's Peak Oil in 1995 and tipping point collapse in 2012 seems to point to what might be the recurring "Post-Oil Era" consequence. Saudi Arabia and China have both announced >$trillion "Post-oil Era" Funds http://seekingalpha.com/article/3972963-100-trillion-shift-just-time-just-case BillJamesMN (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• 3O request one of you requested a third opinion on this dispute; however, the third opinion process requires the dispute to have been discussed thoroughly beforehand; this has not happened. Also, there are already more than two people involved here. I would suggest continuing the other editor to participate in this discussion, and remind everybody of the need to follow WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:DUE. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

User:BillJamesMN, I am afraid that without better citations, this looks to be WP:OR and WP:SYN. Unless you have established credentials as an expert in the field, your blog is not an appropriate reference. Please cite a WP:RS for "Unit of Harm" (I must confess that I had never heard of this unit), and for the connection between Syrian peak oil and civil war. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Blandx, Plazak I will put the links to the EIA data sources on the graphs. All three graphs are exact EIA published data. The current graphs on the page are out of date, fail to show Peak Fracking in June 2015. If you wish, the "Unit of Harm" label could be changed to "1.2 mb/d decrease experienced during the 1973 Oil Embargo" but this is pretty long. The Potato Famines of the 1840s were an energy collapse that resulted in a mass migration. Recommend reading the book "Collapse". There are mass migrations in nature seeking and/or avoiding energy depletions. The Syria's energy collapse and mass migration follow these well-established examples. Perhaps a new section should be added on indicators of the consequences of post-Peak-Oil energy collapses. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20060710/ BillJamesMN (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You can't add any of your own analysis (that's called "OR"). You have to find a source that a concensus of editors decided is reliable. I suggest looking for any source besides your blog which is drawing-the-conclusion/connecting-the-dots you are, and bringing them to this forum to discuss how they can fit into the article. Otherwise any discussion here is moot (and against the guidelines on talk-page usage). Also, be sure to remove any extra statements or reference to your blog in the graphs you create. That will just get them deleted (since it will be seen as OR and self-advertizement). 184.100.55.34 (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

REF: "You have to find a source that a concensus of editors decided is reliable." The SOURCE is the EIA. The SeekingAlpha articles are not a blog, but published articles at a respected publisher for investors. I will repost the graphs just referencing the source data as EIA. There was no effort to self-advertise, only to be held accountable for accurately reporting EIA data. The current graphs at the site are out of day. They do not reflect Peak Fracking or the loss of a million barrels per day of production. Awareness of Peak Oil is the entire purpose of talking about Peak Oil. BillJamesMN (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The statistics are not the issue. The issue is the connection made between statistics and events. Should you re-add essentially the same material to the article, it would likely be re-deleted as a violation of WP:SYN, unless there is a consensus otherwise on this talk page. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Direct references to EIA data are provided. Replaced the out of date US Production and Import Chart with current EIA data. Lines are added and peaks labeled for clarity, not opinion. BillJamesMN (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Plazak You removed current EIA data for outdated charts without posting notes to this discussion as you instructed me to do. That is wrong, but I will not put more time into this. At some point in time, others will correct your bad behaviors. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus1&f=m. BillJamesMN (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting your “Unit of harm.” But you still need to cite a source for the figure of 1.2 MMBO/Day for the Arab oil embargo, and an explanation of what exactly it represents. But more importantly, you have not cited a source to the effect that this 1.2 MMBO/day is relevant to recent and projected decreases in US oil production. To my mind, the two situations are entirely different, but my opinion does not matter, as long as you can cite a WP:RS.

As to your graph of production, imports, and national debt, you have two vertical axes, neither one giving units, and three graph lines, with no indication as to which vertical axis they refer to. There is no obvious reason why national debt is on this graph. Perhaps you could cite a source as to the connection. You label the import surge of the late 1970s as “Extra energy required to retool for efficiency gains,” but again, no source is cited. The most recent peak in US production is labeled “Fracking”, but should more accurately labeled “Light tight oil,” because fraccing has been around since the late 1940s, and massive fraccing since the early 1970s.

Without cited sources, both graphs violate WP:SYN. You protest that the data is from the USEIA. If you would just present undoctored EIA graphs, I don’t think that anyone would have a problem with them. Such things as comparisons to the Arab oil embargo, national debt, and oil wars are better handled in the text of the article, with proper citations. Plazak (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to our comments on the Talk page. However, after reviewing your most recent edits, I must agree with Plazak. We believe there are major problems with the material which must be addressed. Firstly, it was incorrect of you to remove the US export/import figure without first discussing it. This figure could easily have been updated with the most recent data. Secondly, you have recently removed the modification of the Lower 48 production data figure referring to “Units of Harm.” Thank you for doing so as there is no such thing, and the concept is unscientific. Instead, you now have included reference to the 1973 Oil Embargo. I agree with Plazak, I don’t understand the significance of this reference, or exactly what connection you are making here. In addition, this figure is nearly identical to the one directly below it except for the modifications which you have made. Thirdly, you added a second figure which is incorrect and inaccurate on many levels. It refers to “Oil Wars.” What is his exactly? If you are referring to the Gulf War (1990-1991) and the Iraq War (2003-2011), then these were not continuous conflicts as you have indicated, and they are not correctly referred to as “Oil Wars.” What are the two scales you have used on either side of the graphs? This is not indicated in the figure or the legend. What is “Extra energy required to re-tool for efficiency gains” in reference to? You say you are using EIA as a source, but I cannot find any reference to this in the EIA documents; quite frankly, I haven’t heard of this before. Why are you making a direct connection between US debt and oil? How can this be supported? I would suggest being more global in your outlook in any case. What are the arrows about? They make no sense. Finally, if you wish to make edits, please discuss them first on this page before you change the page. This page is not a blog and the content must be of a high quality with no original research. Thanks. Blandx (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that the policy guideline that was being ignored in this case was WP:SYNTHESIS in regards to the connection between US debt and oil. as discussed below, editors are not required to discuss edits first. However, it is recommended if they are likely to be contentious, and they should not be surprised if their bold edits are reverted (as above). InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Review of above edit conflict as requested

The edit conflicts above basically boil down to the creation of three figures and the removal of one other by BillJamesMN.

First, the fracking figure: This figure is an annotated version of a copy pasted version of this graph with anotations noting how many 'oil embaro units'. The first problem is that the figure seems to have been made without permission, so this may be a copyright infringement issue as well, though I am not sure. In any case, equating the forecasted decrease in production with units of 1.2mb/d is blatant WP:SYNTHESIS and original research in the sense that BillJamesMN is trying to make a point that was not implied by the data in the EIA report.

Second, the US Oil Production, Imports, and Debt figure is original research, the data contained within this graph is accurate, but the implications that the graph attempts to make are blatant original research and unsupported by any sources provided by BillJamesMN.

Third, the syrian migrant crisis graph is the worst of all, the most blatant of blatant original research, as well as betraying BillJamesMN's WP:NPOV, the graph is annotated with "Life requires energy, oil is finite, life powered by oil is terminal". Inappropriate on so many levels.

Fourth, the removal of File:US_Crude_Oil_Production_and_Imports.svg and replacement with graph #2 above is basically inappropriate because graph #2 is inappropriate as a replacement.

BillJamesMN then decided to get into an edit war when the graphs were removed, restoring the material twice (with minor changes) without taking it to the talk page as requested by other editors and giving no justification for the additions in any edit summaries. The reference to his own blog as a source is not ok, as this is not a reliable source.

In summary, the figures are not appropriate for inclusion in the article, BillJamesMN was attempting to push POV, and did not listen to other editors suggestion that he discuss the changes on the talk page following the reversion of his additions. I would suggest that BillJamesMN consider either listening to other editors suggestions, and discussing proposed additions or else moving to another topic. Behaviour such as that shown here is likely to result in a topic ban or similar if it continues.

As discussed below, the bold addition of material to the article without discussion on the talk page is not a problem, however, when that material is inappropriate due to a violation of policy and is reverted by other editors, the correct response is to discuss it at the talk page rather than getting into an edit war.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  12:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Excellent breakdown of the situation. I suggest only one tweak to what you said. Instead of "when that material is inappropriate due to a violation of policy and is reverted by other editors, the correct response is to discuss it at the talk page" I would suggest "when that material is reverted by other editors, the correct response is to discuss it at the talk page". 184.100.55.34 (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You are correct of course.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss intended edits on this page before making changes

I would like to stress that it is good practice to discuss any intended edits with other editors before you make changes, with the exception of minor edits. This is to ensure that the content is of a high quality, and discourse does not descend into conflict. Many thanks. Blandx (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. Editors are free to contribute whatever they want as long as it can be sourced reliably, and are not required to discuss it on the talk page first. Only if it is likely to be contentious is it recommended that it be brought up on the talk page first. Please read WP:BOLD as your statement above strays very close into WP:OWNERSHIP territory.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

My comments were made in the context of recent controversial edits that have been reverted a few times now. A third opinion was requested, who suggested engaging discussion with the other party on the Talk page. I think it is good practice to discuss edits before making them, and I have always done so. In the interests of avoiding an edit war, it is preferable when editing a controversial topic such as this. As for suggesting WP:OWNERSHIP, I don't think such comments are very helpful. I certainly do not own the page. Blandx (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You said to discuss "any intended edits, with the exception of minor edits" before making them. As this is a new section I could only conclude that you were using this as a general statement to all editors. The fact remains that your statement above is false and tantamount to telling people "clear it with me/us first", which is not how wikipedia works, per WP:BOLD. Read WP:BRD if you would like more context for how WP:BOLD and WP:CONSENSUS interact. The two options for a user are to either A) bring something up at the talk page and discuss it, then make a change based on consensus or B) may make a bold change, and if reverted, then bring it up at the talk page and discuss it. In no way are they required to discuss it at the talk page first (even if contentious). Edit warring obviously not allowed, so what you should have said is, "if you are reverted please bring it up at the talk page and don't re-revert it back to your change". I hope this clarifies what I mean, and why I thought your comment inappropriate.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Insertcleverphrasehere. You are no doubt absolutely correct. In reading WP:BRD that you referred to, perhaps I can see where some confusion has arisen. It says "if you advance a potential edit on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your edit." It seems to imply discussing first is a good idea, but I may have misunderstood. Thanks for bringing me up to speed.

Actually, I have a favor to ask. I am quite time poor at present. I won't be able to edit the page for some time. I see you have significant knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and conflict resolution skills. I would encourage, and really appreciate it, if you could engage to resolve the edit conflict above. Many thanks. Blandx (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

No worries mate, your intentions were good, and thats the important thing. I reviewed the above edit conflict as requested.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  12:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)