Talk:Peak oil/Archive 1

Yet more information about endless oil

http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/magazine/15-09/mf_jackrig

the average dipshit who reads wikipedia doesn't know shit about geology, or probably science, and tends to have an entitlement mentality, i.e., they have a god-given right to have and use oil. just wait dumb-ass motherfuckers, when your stupid and wasteful ways end in disaster, you will have your just reward, fuckers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.0.84 (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This whole article looks more and more embarassing with each passing year. A sad example of wikipedia at it's worst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.36.207 (talk) 09:36, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

According to the Wired article you reference, Jack has 3 to 15 billion barrels of oil. According to the BP http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9017895&contentId=7033495 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 no increase in consumption. Wikipedia accounts are free and articles are written and edited by users. If you don't like the article and feel it is providing dis- or misinformation, then correct it yourself.--I Use Dial 17:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Any complete discussion of peak oil should include, for sake of balance and historical perspective, the many times that peak oil and presumed catastrophe have lurked just around the corner. Oil gloom and doomers come out with predictable regularity every twentyish years or so going back well into the 19th century. These twenty year doom cycles coincide, of course, with the natural periodicity that impacts every capital-intensive commodity product.

Many will dismiss those predictions of the past. After all, we are so much smarter now, right? But I have read some of them and they are just as credible and reasonable as similar arguments presented here. And, they have, time after time, proved DEAD WRONG. No, such predictions were not made by fools or knaves, but by the best people with the best motivations, no doubt like those who have contributed to this article. And if history is a guide, these preditions given here will also be quite wrong. But just how wrong is the big question.

It is true that oil is a finite resource and that those who predict resource exhaustion often enough will eventually be right, just as the proverbial stopped clock is right twice per day. But a stopped clock is useless. Actually since it is misleading, it's worse than useless.

The big thing I see missing here is the burgeoning world-wide natural gas trade, which has great power to supplant oil demand, and in fact in most applications is a superior fuel, anyway.

The cheeky title to this section hints rather strongly at an underlying bias. And the response to the Jack discovery is disingenous as best. The point is that the deep Gulf of Mexico is the first oil province to be explored in deep water and it is yielding big potential...and in contrast to another theme of the article, reserves are understated far mor often than overstated as will be revealed in about five minutes of looking at reserve growth history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.151.160 (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Pelewis 04:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)pelewis

Can you provide some facts to support your argument so that we may include them on the article? Or do you prefer generic rhetorical arguments with no basis in the real world? Historically the peak oil theory is fairly accurate. Read the article, please.--I Use Dial (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• ABC's 20/20 report from 2006 says we have endless oil[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.105.102 (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

When considering the premature predictions of oil depletions in the past, we should also consider that virtually every type of scientific prediction has improved since the year 1860. For example, consider the state of medicine, meteorology, and chemistry back then. People in all those fields have gotten dramatically better at what they do. For example, with regard to weather forecasting, just in my lifetime I've seen a very noticeable improvement. One cannot dismiss the advice of today's physicians solely because physicians made lots of horrible mistakes in the distant past. Instead we must consider the claims of today's physicians on their own merits, taking into account that medicine learns from its mistakes (bloodletting, purgatives, failure to wash hands between patients, etc.). Interest in the topic of peak oil is increasing for two basic reasons:

• M. King Hubbert accurately predicted the oil peak in the U.S.A. His prediction was widely ridiculed when he made it in 1956, but nobody is laughing now.
• World oil extraction appears to have peaked right now. Despite record-high oil prices, oil-exporting nations are unable to increase their overall output, and numerous large fields have already peaked and are in decline, with new discoveries not keeping pace. With each year, more nations move from the oil exporting column into the oil importing column.

If peak oil prognosticators are correct, world oil production will soon begin falling by around 3% to 5% per year, with possibly dramatic increases in the price of oil to force down demand to match the shrinking supply. The decline will not necessarily be in a straight line; there may be secondary peaks as new discoveries come on line, but with all the major producers having peaked or being soon to peak, the overall trend in oil production will be downward after the peak. So, if you have unwisely built your life around gaswasting, it's time to learn new habits. Fortunately, if you are reading this, you already know about wiki technology. Corporate wikis can eliminate vast amounts of unnecessary travel by information workers (i.e., people who don't get dirty on the job). --Teratornis (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I might also mention Oil price increases since 2003; I recently added a link to that page to {{Peak oil}}. If oil isn't currently peaking right now, why is production remaining mostly flat despite the run-up to record oil prices? Oil has gone from about $20/bbl in 2003 to $110/bbl today, despite no major interruptions in supply. At these prices, anybody who could pump more oil has every incentive to do so, yet the world can barely maintain the current production. If we are really at peak now, get ready for an accelerating decline in the coming years. --Teratornis (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

why is production remaining mostly flat despite the run-up to record oil prices

Global oil production has increased 4% just in the last 8 months, and shows no real sign of slowing down. See the IAE's Oil Market Report archives for details. http://omrpublic.iea.org/indexpublic.asp Ordinary Person (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to read between the lines on this report (this comes up every quarter). Look on page 17: "non-OPEC production 50.4" and "OPEC crude supply 32.1" in February 2008. Together that makes 82.1, but somehow global supply is 87.5!!! It's because they include other factors (such as the use of strategic reserves) in "supply". NJGW (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the arithmetic error, the source seems to conflate the concept of "production" with "supply". LeadSongDog (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not an error or a confusion of terms. This same issue has come up before from previous editions of this same news letter, and their production is always less that supply. They never mention what total production is, so one has to do some foot work to put the numbers together. If you dig, you find that supply "Comprises crude oil, condensates, NGLs, oil from non-conventional sources and other sources of supply", and including gain in refinery capacity (processing stored oil). In other places, they actually include ethanol and other biofuels in supply! See my comment below. NJGW (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There has been strong growth whether you look at supply, or production. Ordinary Person (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this March 2008 graph from the IAE, I don't see the strong growth you mention (look at the total supply line, and have a look at note "7" while you're there). Then look at table 3, where they discuss production itself, but include non-conventional sources, NGL's, biofuels, processing gains, etc, so that we never get told what crude oil production by itself is. Any statements based on these graphs would seem to become OR. NJGW (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Past history

The Anome has removed all past history of this article. This is extremely impolite.

I do not care somebody changing the article, but I hate to lose the history.

To The Anome: if you want to redirect to Hubbert Peak, do it, but restore the history first. Otherwise, I will keep on editting this page, and maybe Hubbert Peak too.

(I moved the above comment from the article's page to this talk page. It was written by Gonvaled. Quadell (talk) 12:52, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC))

Spam?

I have reviewed through the references and found only one spam reference trying to sell books. It has been removed along with a bunch of dubious dead links.Kgrr 15:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected links and added national organizations but they are removed. I believe the people removing them are trying to funnel traffic to their specific projects such as peak oil chat. If the history has been removed that shows the same issue IMO. To the person or person's involved: This topic is too important to be trying to use Wikipedia as a marketing agent for your initiative.

References are Messed Up

Can someone fix the references, it looks like a bunch of garbled html/css code.

The last two articles called: 'Articles' and 'Reports, essays and lectures', have spam tags, but I checked them out and non contained any spam. However in the block external links under 'Reports, essays and lectures' are some links that are linking to either slow sites or sites that are not working.

Is it appropriate to remove the not working ones and the spam tags?

Kind regards, "MisteryX 08:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, removing the spam tag is definitely appropriate if there's no spam as well as removing non-working links. Keep in mind though that these were all just copied from the Hubbert peak theory article so I'd check there as well. Publicus 14:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I should be done soon.Kgrr 15:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

questionable sources

many sorces here are special interest groups if not personal webpages....the article is a little imbalanced in my opinion. Macutty 19:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. If you feel that certain facts are missing to "balance" the article, by all means, please contribute other facts that show another viewpoint. I will help clean up the references themselves. Many of the references are improperly cited. Next, we can find better references for the material cited. The goal would be to find more primary sources - one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described.Kgrr 14:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup for GA status

I would like to improve this article so that it can achieve GA status. I have put a Todo list at the top of this article to show where you can help. Feel free to add what you think needs to be done to improve this article.Kgrr 16:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Table of largest oil fields

Moved to Peak oil/Table of largest oil fields Kgrr 15:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Consistency, people

Early on...

"Because of world population growth, oil production per capita peaked in 1979 (with a plateau 1973-1979).[2]"

Later...

"Matthew Simmons, Chairman of Simmons & Company International, said on October 26, 2006 that global oil production may have peaked in December 2005, though he cautions that further monitoring of production is required to determine if a peak has actually occurred.[28]"

Orange ginger 19:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not inconsistent. The first is per capita, the other global net. Since population is increasing the per capita peak will occur before the global peak. 85.166.69.8 06:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad math.

On average, a one percent increase in fuel prices leads to a 0.4% increase in total freight rates. Using this rule of thumb, the recent doubling in oil prices has raised averaged freight rates by almost 40%.

I have trouble seeing 32% as "almost 40%". (1.01^70 is about equal to 2. 1.004^70 is about equal to 1.32) Taemyr 06:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A doubling of fuel prices is a 100% increase. If a one percent increase in fuel price leads to a 0.4% increase of freight rates, then a one hundred increase would lead to a 40% increase of freight rates.Kgrr 16:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No Kgrr. That is wrong. Please sit down and do the math. To take a simpler excample: An increase by a factor of 10 (900%) corresponds to an increase by a factor of 2 (100%), then an increase by a factor of 100 (9900%) would correspond to an increase of 4(300%). Taemyr 16:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I am looking at this the wrong way. Nm. Taemyr 16:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up

Just a quick note on the clean-up. Several people have lent a hand so far. A table of very large oil fields has been created and referenced in the new supply section. Another section detailing demand has been created. Uses of oil have been ordered from largest to smallest. Gralo has helped in re-organizing the article, moving the section on mitigation to a new sub-article. I have been writing missing sections and cleaning up references (correcting them and changing them to a consistent format_, checking links to valid material, and removing spam. We should be done with the cleanup soon. If you would like to help, there is a whole list of things to do up on top of the talk section.Kgrr 15:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added more material to cover developments in current events and a new section on resource nationalism. From here, I will work on finding missing references.Kgrr 15:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Unconventional sources

The article stated that the two major sources of unconventional oil are the extra heavy oil in the Orinoco province of Venezuela and the tar sands in the Western Canada Basin. This is incorrect as the reference talks only about heavy oil not including shale oil. Talking about the oil shale, the Green River Formation oil shale reserves are estimated to be equal to estimated 1.5 trillion barrels of conventional oil. Beagel 14:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Tar sands and oil sands - same thing. Reference #23 talks about heavy crude oil. Reference #24 mentions both oil sands and oil shale. References #25 and #26 both talk about oil shale. None of this oil is easy to extract. Heavy oil is almost tar-like, thicker than molasses and is full of sulfur , heavy metals, and carbon. Oil shale has to either strip mined or heated in situ. Kgrr 19:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Poor graphs

In the current events section three of the four graphs show data for 4 years or less. This is slightly misleading since it over-emphasizes the levelling-off of the last few years and gives no context of long term variation.

and are trying to show the plateau in production (rather than the continual increase that the oil companies continue to claim) The long term pictures are under the supply section.Kgrr 15:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The other graph in that section shows trends for a century; the ones you refer to are intended to show current event trends, hence the section they are in. --Skyemoor 21:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Global warming

Might be interesting to point out the [2003 paper] which estimated combined oil and gas reserves of 3500 billion barrels which they claim is too little to cause the "most catastrophic effects" of global warming (although they add that burning the remaining coal reserves would do it). 172.203.235.207 14:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought. However, I believe this point needs to be brought up under Global warming and not under Peak oil.Kgrr 15:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oil dependency

Currently, the article reads:

"Because of world population growth, oil production per capita peaked in the 1970s.[10] It is expected that worldwide oil production in the year 2030 will be the same as it was in 1980. The world’s population in 2030 is expected to double from 1980 and much more industrialized and oil-dependent than it was in 1980."

This would appear to be a contradiction. Clearly, if the population doubles but oil production (and hence consumption) remains constant, the population will be _less_ oil dependent. Ordinary Person 11:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The oil production will drop back to 1980 levels. And the population is expected to double. Clearly there will be less oil per person to go around even if people conserve due to the increased population.71.32.87.210 20:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What this is pointing out is not the amount of *use* of oil will go up, but rather the *dependency* on oil will - i.e. infrastructure, reliance on cars over mass transport, general level of industrialization. The point is that the world as a whole and many individual parts of the world have developed in such a way as to be effective in an oil rich world and will potentially have problems adjusting to a world in which more people have to be supported by less oil. See sprawl, "modernization" of agriculture in developing countries, increases in mechanized industry in developing countries as an economic base, etc. 75.33.73.107 07:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

I have completed the todo list and have found the article to be well written, factually accurate and verifiable, broad in its coverage, neutral and stable. It contains images that have been verified against licensing standards. I have nominated the article for GA status.Kgrr 15:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed

This is a very informative article and you have done a good job dealing with what is obviously a controversial topic in an NPOV and comprehensive manner. It is well sourced. The graphs add a lot to the article and all seem to be licensed correctly. So I have passed the article. I do have a couple of minor suggestions about the alternatives section however. In the discusion of the EIA position and how it differs from Hubbert's approach the phrase "Does not use symmetry" is not very informative. Something like "Does not assume that the post peak decline will be symmetrical with the incline prior to the peak." might be more informative. In general I think you might want to expand and strengthen your summary of the Wood, Long, and Morehouse paper as it is clearly a significant dissenting position. Rusty Cashman 06:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I saw the same 'symmetry' issue and updated it before I read this comment. 198.151.13.8 18:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No sources critical or contrary to Peak oil listed.

This article does not provide any information regarding opposing points of view. I question its neutrality.

150.135.84.98, I strongly disagree. Did you read the section marked Alternate views? That section has 11 references, or 1/7 of the references for the entire article. If there are other viewpoints not represented, I would like to encourage you to edit the article yourself and add them.

As a side bar, as a student of University of Arizona (or any other location where the IP address is not exclusively yours), you should probably get yourself a Wikipedia ID and sign your posts so that people can respond to questions like this one.Kgrr 12:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Abiotic theory

Dmh had 'toned down' the section that discussed the abiotic theory. The abiotic theory is no longer supported because ALL oil samples tested contain bio markers. This means there is a remote possibility that a sample that was not tested was from a source other than life, although not very likely. It's like the flat earth theory is no longer supported because there are pictures of the round earth now. I think the statement should be there and that strong. Opinions?Kgrr

First, I'm not asserting that there is any significant support for the abiotic theory. I'm taking issue with the assertion that "99.99999% of all the oil and gas accumulations found up to now on earth have a biologic origin." This is a completely different statement from "ALL oil samples tested contain biomarkers". The former is a possible but unwarranted inference from that latter.

Let's assume that biomarkers absolutely mean biotic origin. I'm willing to believe that, but then I already buy biotic origin. A skeptic would, of course, dispute that. Even given that, how, exactly, would we know that 99.99999% of all oil and gas ever found had those markers? All the samples taken had them. Great. Good enough for me, but how can you say for sure that all the oil and gas ever found, even in the decades before testing was done, had those markers? Did they test every single oil or gas field ever worked, worldwide? Do we really know for sure that there's no hole in the ground in Siberia or elsewhere that produced marker-less oil? How do you know that the biomarker-bearing oil that was tested never ever mixed with even 0.00001% of non marker-bearing oil from some other source, say some freak pocket deep underground? You don't, of course. None of that seems likely, but you can't rule it out on that basis alone, which is why geologic and other evidence also plays in.

For that matter, there's no point in ruling out every last possible alternative. At some point no one's mind is going to change. The consensus will remain the consensus and hardcore skeptics will remain skeptical. This point happens well before 99.99999% certainty.

Flatly stating that 99.99999% of all oil and gas ever found was biotic is significantly overstating the case, and as much as one might like to put abiotic origin to rest, this never helps. I'm not suggesting weaseling around this statement ("Some believe that ..."). Rather, just state the base result: All the samples had biomarkers. That's supportable and strong. --Dmh 05:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Softer statements that do not include ridiculous claims I think are more palatable to those that don't already have an opinion on the matter. Simply stating the theory and following it with a statement such as "no evidence has been provided to support this theory" should be ample. This isn't an essay or forum for driving home 'points'.--I Use Dial 18:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe we've reached consensus. I edited the section to support the wording all.User:Kgrr|Kgrr]] 15:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Link 101 doesn't work for me - is it broken? It seems that the 99.99999% is OK if it is a quote from the source, but I can't get there to check it.Stainless316 (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a google cache of it: [2] I'd look at it, but I have to run. Later if I get a chance. NJGW (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also at web.archive.org.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Discussion about section "Resource nationalism"

It is not a "nationalism", but power struggle between some governments and multi-national companies. In this sense, section should be completely rewritten (with relevant sources) in WP:NPOV manner and not in the point of view which supports one of the sides. In this moment section is classical example of POV and supports claims of one side in the power struggle ("nationalism" governments of Venezuela and Russia against "objective", "progressive" or what? multi-national companies like Shell is). --millosh (talk (meta:)) 13:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My guess would be there's a terminological blurring between "nationalisation" and "nationalism". But I completely agree: we need some good sources to cast some light on this. Alai 18:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Resource nationalism is the label that the media attaches to this phenomenon - a power struggle between nations and multi-nationals over their oil. Essentially, the oil producing states are wanting to hold on to the oil for themselves and not sell it to the world. Often, the oil producing states end up throwing out the multi-nationals and nationalize their own oil resources to gain control over them. Hubbard assumed that all the discovered oil in the world would be available to the whole world. However, his scientific theory about the supply and demand for oil could not include this political behavior. The point of this section is that the supply of oil available for oil consuming nations is reduced by this phenomenon. Re-write and improve the section if you have to.71.37.19.117 15:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This section does not appear to pass a validity test. It is runs completely contrary to some of the evidence out there. I know that we're pumping a million fewer barrel per day this year and that demand is a million barrels per day stronger compared to last year.

But it doesn't answer questions such as why - when Saudi Arabia is supposedly trying to horde its reserves - it's also importing increasing numbers of oil rigs. All this while production slows.

I can see no evidence that there is any national entity out there that is trying to keep oil production down. On the contrary - they appear to be doing all they can afford to pump more.

I think people here are correct when they state the belief that foreign nations may very well end up hording - in fact it's inevitable at some point. However, there is no evidence of it now. It's an interesting concept, but I don't believe that is belongs here. Criminoboy 07:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Criminoboy, I really don't think you read the section thoroughly. It's not about keeping oil production down, it's about not wanting to export it, but to use it for their own country. The PFC study that is quoted implies political factors are limiting capacity increases in Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Russia. The study does not include Saudi Arabia, which is trying to produce as much as they can. There are plenty of quotes in the section that show that countries are not selling their oil abroad to oil consuming nations and keeping it for themselves that did not come from the study. Please find some countering evidence for each of these countries being labeled as being national with their own oil if you wish to balance the section. Kgrr 14:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Kgrr, thanks for the response. I actually did read the section carefully, and unless you can show me evidence of new oil storage facilities and/or significant increased domestic consumption in these countries, then it would necessarily be about keeping oil production down (intentionally keeping capacity down would be one in the same IMO). I couldn't actually find the PFC study referenced - only a Financial Times article about the PFC study. You are correct that it "implies" that political factors are limiting capacity increases in certain countries, but that's all it does. I can find no references which SHOW that this is actually the case. Perhaps the study itself would actually be more revealing - do you have a link to it? You have stated: "The PFC study that is quoted implies political factors are limiting capacity increases in Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Russia. The study does not include Saudi Arabia, which is trying to produce as much as they can." This actually contradicts the section in question, which states: "Saudi Arabia is also limiting capacity expansion but because of a self-imposed cap, unlike the other countries." This statement is not supported by any numbers, and it directly contradicts the evidence I provided earlier (to be clarified below) that shows that, in fact, Saudi Arabia has been increasing the number of rigs in country, while oil production is declining. As the official numbers do not support the Financial Times article's case for Saudi Arabia, why should we accept an unsubstantiated statement to support the existence of resource nationalism? You state: "There are plenty of quotes in the section that show that countries are not selling their oil abroad to oil consuming nations and keeping it for themselves that did not come from the study." I do not see any quotes (or references for that matter) which "show" this to be the case. All I see are some statements in two media articles that carry the statements of a few individuals that work for oil consulting firms.Criminoboy 04:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So far no one has presented any credible evidence countering that resource nationalism exists by certain nations such as Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Russia. Note that this list clearly does not include Saudi Arabia. There is plenty of references in this section that resource nationalism is occurring in these countries. Let's stick to the facts and not speculation. If you feel some critical information has been suppressed, please find some credible references. For example, blogs are not a credible reference. I also object to quotes from Newsmax. This source is clearly biased and does not reflect a neutral point of view. Please see WP:NPOVT. I will close this item by 10/31 if there is no discussion to bring a consensus on this section. Kgrr 15:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Kgrr:As I indicated above, I do not believe that any references have been provided in this article that SHOW that resource nationalism exists; therefore I don't believe that there is currently anything to be "countered". As I indicated above - the section in question does indicate that Saudi Arabia is a factor - and the numbers do not support the assertion. As for the criticism to the references - I'm sorry, I just didn't think that anyone here would actually dispute the numbers provided within the references - allow me to clarify. The chart which shows the number of Saudi oil rigs in country, along with Saudi oil production, can be found here. The chart was created by Stuart Staniford, whose qualifications include: "PhD Physics, MS CS. 10 years as an innovator in computer security (especially worms). Patents, research papers with 100+ citations, major media coverage. Ran a company for 5 years. Now working as a consulting scientist and researching peak oil." Certainly one could argue that he is not a geologist, economist, etc - however the content of the graph in question cannot be questioned. Please refer to the references that Staniford has linked to under the chart. All data comes from official sources: US EIA, IEA, and Baker Hughes - hardly questionable from a mainstream perspective. As for the Newsmax link - it's quoting numbers from Goldman Sachs, and it's a Reuters story - hardly POV. If you'd like a different source citing lower daily production year over year, just ask the US government. 2005: 84,631 Mb/d, 2006: 84,603 Mb/d, 2007: 84,404 Mb/d (through July)Criminoboy 04:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Criminoboy, I don't really have a problem with seeing a large increase in drilling rigs in Saudi Arabia. Oil rigs are used to explore for oil, not to get the oil out of the ground. Pump jacks do that job. If Saudi Arabia is buying more oil rigs, it's a sign that they are desperately trying to find more oil. About 1/10 wildcat holes are successful. And yes, declining production is exactly that - peak oil. Saudi Arabia is sitting on very old oil fields and clearly running out of oil. They simply cannot pump more oil because the don't have any.Kgrr 11:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Kgrr, thank you for calling me into the discussion before the conclusion. I reread relevant sections carefully and the only problem which I see is marking behavior of particular governments with obscure and insulting term "resource nationalism". Before treating the term as a valid designation for some behavior I would like to see the article which describes that term with more examples from history. Until that, term shouldn't be used without quotes, as well as it should be used only in conjunction with reference to the document in which it was used. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 16:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

While it is obvious that meaning of the term exists, borders of the meaning are not so clear. There are at least a couple of meanings (with possible other with more derogative sense): (1) Political elite of one country keeps exclusively rights for resource exploitation because of their economic interests (I think Mexico is an example); (2) because of economic-ideological reasons (Venezuela); (3) because of global political reasons (Russia is an example); (4) or because emotional nationalistic reasons. Only the fourth meaning is clearly "resource nationalism". While it may be partially applied to the first three meanings, it may be fully applied only if the term is well established, not if it is a neologism. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 16:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So, problematic parts of the article are: --millosh (talk (meta:)) 16:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Outside the section: POV quote (reference "Medium-Term Oil Market Report" (PDF), IEA, July 2007": "Some countries are becoming off limits. Major oil companies operating in Venezuela find themselves in a difficult position because of the resource nationalism that's spreading. These countries are now reluctant to share their reserves" --millosh (talk (meta:)) 16:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Then, inside of the section written as a part of text and without referencing: "Major oil companies operating in Venezuela find themselves in a difficult position because of the resource nationalism that's spreading." --millosh (talk (meta:)) 16:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Millosh, I too was a bit reluctant in using the term "resource nationalism". Unfortunately, the term is far more pervasive than you might think. But I can see how it can be insulting. Perhaps it's framed to make oil rich countries that choose not to export oil to look bad. I see that all the countries involved seem to do this based on political reasoning within the country. Is political peak oil more fitting?Kgrr 11:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This section certainly looks much better, and is much better-referenced than it did the last time I commented on it, and it does at least source the terminology used. However, most of the sources in this section do not use the terms "resource nationalism" or "oil nationalism", so I'd also have doubt about it necessarily being the most appropriate or neutral section heading. I note the sentence "Major oil companies operating in Venezuela find themselves in a difficult position because of the resource nationalism that's spreading." This looks like it's "leaked out of" a quote from reference #41, appears earlier as such, but in this section is incorporated as an editorial statement, I assume erroneously. Alai 18:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Alai, I avoided writing the section with what could be a politically charged word. I wrote each of the subsections independently, citing the reason that the trade was being restrained. I may have erroneously have failed to quote a source when writing the subsection and thus made it look like I was editorializing.Kgrr 11:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Resolution

So to summarize, we have me as the original writer of the section and three people that see NPOV. Peak oil is a theory that attempts to predict the timeframe at which the maximum global petroleum production rate is reached. The factors that go into the prediction are related to geology, geophysics and the science of oil production. Ideally, peak oil happens when the demand outstrips a falling supply.

However, that theory never took other factors into account such as politics: (politicians make decisions that get themselves re-elected and not necessarily the best for the county), economics: (monopolies - countries and companies seek to restrain trade just enough so that marginal revenue = marginal cost) OPEC is still a very powerful monopoly although it does not have complete control over the oil supply, etc. Some countries are choosing not to export their oil even though they have a lot of it. Instead, they take it off the world market and consume it at their own rate for themselves. One thing stands in the way of secure and abundant supplies of oil: Government.[3]

Here is a proposed path that we can take in order to resolve this NPOV issue:

1. Can we agree that this is happening somewhere in the world? Or is free trade being practiced the world over and the oil supplying nations are all doing whatever they can to supply the oil consuming nations?

2. Is the current supply of oil altered by other factors besides just Hubbard's oil production factors? Do politics control the supply of oil as well?

3. Let's settle on the title of the section. I have thought of "Political peak oil", but the news media uses the term "resource nationalism" to describe the phenomenon where trade is being restrained for various reasons. Searching the term with Google, there are over 51,500 hits on the search. I did not choose Political Peak oil because it only comes up with 343 hits. Clearly, the accepted term is "resource nationalism". Let's find another title for the section if you find that "resource nationalism" is a loaded term since the US is an oil net importer. Can we find a title that better frames the idea?

4. Can we do a bit better research to find those countries that choose to restrain how much oil they bring to the world market?

5. Can we better identify some reasons as to why they are not willing to engage in free trade?

6. Do we need to change the name of the section again in the light of what we've found.

7. What sides are there to this NPOV argument? Can we make sure that all sides are being fairly represented?

8. Do you like the above plan? If not, suggest a way that we can all move forward.

Kgrr 11:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Having not received any answers to above steps in two weeks, I have removed the NPOV flag. There is no legitimate claim to NPOV problems. Kgrr 15:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Australian senate enquiry

I found reference to this document while researching a freeway construction proposal related to the Sydney-Newcastle Freeway, and thought that it might be a useful reference for this article: Australia’s future oil supply and alternative transport fuels --Athol Mullen 13:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

feel free to add it to the reference section. Be bold, and put it in there. Kgrr 15:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Lede, quotes and external links

Is it just me or is the lead section a little bit lacking. This article is quite a longun (70kb, or around six pages on the monitor in front of me), yet the lead is only a couple of paragraphs, the first one being very brief. I would think 3 or 4 would be not only justified but necessary here. It's an area that's often overlooked - perhaps someone who works on the article regularly can give it some consideration. Richard001 10:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead should be a very brief two or three paragraph section that gives the reader the "nutshell" of what the subject is about. In this case, the reader should be able to walk away with a concise summary of peak oil. The rest of the paragraphs in the article flesh out this summary. I don't think the lead should be expanded anymore.Kgrr 15:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but a half page is still brief. For an article over 30kb a 4 paragraph lead is recommended. A lead section is generally far too short on Wikipedia, though there are a few that are too long at well. Richard001 08:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the quotes the US section (second to last), I think the large quote marks are a bit much, especially when used that often. They're only really for major quotes, not every single one, aren't they?

That is the proper style for block quotes, not single sentence quotes.Kgrr 15:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And why do we list books for further reading under 'external links'. A link is an internet specific word, and books, DVDs etc should not be placed in such a section. In fact, looking at the external links they seem quite bloated. I've removed one - I don't think a link to some 'chat about peak oil' site is GA material; in fact I doubt that the article currently is in its current state either. Richard001 07:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the books into a section called further reading, which is being used in many other articles. I agree the chat site is not a noteworthy reference on the subject. I have deleted it. Quite a few changes have been made since July 17, 2007 when the article received GA status. A lot of the changes revolve around an ongoing revert battle. If you are interested, we should work to get it cleaned up further to make it an A-Class article. Could you please put together a list of improvements after looking at the guideline? Kgrr 15:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Nine barrels being used, one barrel being found?

This is an open question to anyone who reads it. Please respond with your info or understanding of the actuality:

I recently read a figure (perhaps a bit glibly stated, and perhaps a bit "Chicken Little" in expression). It was said that we modern, civilized humans are currently using/demanding nine barrels of crude oil for every one new barrel we're discovering.

Is this accurate? Is it haywire? Is it looking only at conventional "light crude" well oil, and not at unconventional crude-oil sources?

I like measured, balanced assessments - so please tell me the best you know (and good Web-site addresses related to the topic would be welcome too). Thanks. Joel Russ 14:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

TRUE Scary isn't it? Fifty years ago the world was consuming 4 billion barrels of oil per year and the average discovery was around 30 billion. Today we consume 30 billion barrels per year (84 million barrels of oil per day) and the discovery rate is now approaching 4 billion barrels of crude oil per year (11 million barrels of oil per day). 84/11 = 7.6 Kjell Aleklett The oil supply tsunami alert Energy Bulletin, April 25, 2005. The difference is being made up from draining known reserves (since production = consumption right now).

This is well oil - "crude". Unconventional oil is often in the form of tar sands and shale and to date still very difficult to extract. Consumption continues to go up because of developing nations and discovery of new oil is going down fast every year. Find some sources to disprove it.Kgrr 14:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be scarier if we kept finding it. Imagine how much damage we could do if oil reserves were unlimited? We'd make the planet Venus look like a sauna. Richard001 08:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have thought about this: Is peak oil a solution for global warming? The problem is that many of the alternatives - Gas, Coal and Nuclear power are really not a global warming solution because they add CO2 to the environment (Constructing and operating nukes still requires a lot of Carbon-based fuels) also, except for gas, they are very dirty. Hopefully, we will start seeing that renewables are the way to go.Kgrr 11:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Gotta call BS on this. The carbon fuels used to construct and operate nukes are neither "required" in a fundamental sense nor "a lot" when compared to the energy produced. Do the math.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is James Howard Kunstler here?

Concerning peak oil, Kenneth S. Deffeyes and Matthew Simmons are respected geologists and oil analysts whereas Kunstler is a urban planner and social commentator, why is he listed here as an expert on worldwide oil reserves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.114.110 (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

-I agree wholeheartedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.237.93 (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Because Kustler is looking at peak oil from the demand side, not the supply side. Keep in mind that Deffeyes and Simmons are looking at the problem mostly from the supply side. But all these viewpoints are valid and should be included. Kgrr 14:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Prediction or modelling of the peak oil consequences

I find this article very interesting and I thank all contributors.

I have found here very few informations on the possible consequences of peak oil. Main questions are :
1) What could be the consequences of peak oil on oil prices (smooth or abrupt changes, with which amplitude) ?
2) What could be the consequences of peak oil on Gross Products ?
3) What could be the effect of peak oil, on oil consumption and on global CO2 or other greenhouse gazes emission ?
Such questions seems me very important and worth discussing in this article. Unfortunately, I have myself no ideas what could be the replies ?

To reply such questions need the modelling of the economic impacts of peak oil. Do anybody know references and possibles replies ? The only link to such a question I found in this article, is the link "Backstop resources" in the "Prediction" subsection of the "See also" section. Any alternative links for such controversial issues ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.65.57.104 (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Although there is a section on Mitigation_of_peak_oil, feel free to add a section entitled consequences of peak oil. I will be happy to help you research what will happen if nothing is done and we stay the course.
2. The economics of peak oil such as GDP could also be discussed in a new section. Certainly our current GDP has a very large dependence on oil. I personally feel that the current housing crisis is not the cause of the current economic slump, but the rising oil prices. The rising oil prices are direct evidence of peak oil (supply vs demand).
3. Clearly you cannot consume more than what is being produced. As the supply of oil gets more constrained, we will see more substitutes such as ethanol, methanol, coal to oil conversion and so on. Unless choices are made towards non-carbon cycle substitutes, there won't be a large change. If the substitute of choice becomes nuclear powered electric cars, then we will have a net reduction in carbon emissions, but a substantial increase in nuclear waste. If we make a shift to renewables, then things might get better. However, I would argue that such a section is probably better discussed under Global warmingKgrr 14:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Merging Peak_oil#Alternative_views with Peak_oil#Timing

No argument for this action was presented so far. I am against it. The Timing section deals with people that generally agree with the theory and are saying it's going to happen sometime soon. The Alternative views section is intended to balance the article to present the opposing viewpoint that says that there is no peak oil. If the pro argument is not presented, I will close this item by 10/31.Kgrr 14:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion closed Kgrr 15:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Peak Oil happened last year?

A report came out this week from Energy Watch Group that uses economic evidence to show that Peak Oil happened some time last year. Worth adding to the main article?

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Oil-report.32+M5d637b1e38d.0.htm

"The analysis is based on an industry database for past production data and partly also for reserve data for certain regions. As reserve data vary widely and as there is no audited reference, the authors have in some cases made their own reserve estimates based on various sources and own assessments. Generally, future production in regions which are already in decline can be predicted fairly accurately relying solely on past production data."

In 2005 the established world oil consumption was about 30 Gigabarrel per year, and the best case scenario world oil reserves (assuming OPEC isn't overstating--see below) is 1255 Gb "provable plus probable", which is about 41 years worth... if consumption doesn't grow. As of 2004/2005, total new oil discovery was 12Gb/year and has been falling quickly, steadily, and reliably since the 1960's. Most of our current reserves were discovered before 1970.

"In the period 1960 to 1970 the average size of new discoveries was 527 mb [megabarrel] per New Field Wildcat. This size has declined to 20 Mb per New Field Wildcat over the period 2000 to 2005... Since about 1980, annual production exceeds annual new discoveries." The report even says it's common practice for private companies to under-report reserves to allow for over-reporting of discoveries over time. OPEC nations, on the other hand, are accused of overstating reserves (even going so far as not to subtract anual production!) in order to have higher quotas.

The report claims that production has peaked last year and will not recover. They base the peak on calculations of ability to exploit reserves (saying nobody has the ability to increase capacity significantly enough to offset the fall in reserves each year--even OPEC is producing at so near their potential maximum that they no longer control the market). "The oil boom is over and will not return," Abdullah [king of Saudi Arabia] told his subjects. "All of us must get used to a different lifestyle."

One more quote: "The maximum of discoveries was in the 1960s. However, the average size of new discoveries was declining with time. Higher oil prices in the wake of the oil price crises in the 1970s could not reverse this trend. One important lesson can be learnt: there is no empirical relation between oil price and the rate of discoveries (contrary to the assumptions of many economists)."

Meaning production controls the market, and since we are at or near peak production, reserves are on the decline (since 1980's) and discoveries are low and falling to near insignificant, we have reached "peak oil." --24.225.185.179 18:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)GW

I already added two sentences about this report to the "has it happened already?" section, but feel fre to add to or expland it. Wachholder 03:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I got bold and integrated the info in the relevant sections: Timing, related peaks, reserves, created a production section (production = supply according to EWG), used EWG to refute IEA's claims in current events (that's a major section of the report), and gave some perspective and context to the numbers in "past estimates on when peak oil would occur". --24.225.185.179 05:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)GW

The report doesn't claim an annual decline of 7%, but roughly 3% instead. The Guardian got it wrong. -- 85.194.224.181 16:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? 3%/7%... Guardian? What am I missing here? --24.225.185.179 02:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[GW]

"Peak oil" or "Oil peak" ?

I don't know where else to ask this question, and I know this may not be the right place, but here goes: I am not a native speaker in english, but I have some knowledge of it... I am intrigued by the words "peak oil". Shouldn't it be "oil peak"? As in "oil rig", you know. In french, my native language, "peak oil" is "pic pétrolier", where "pétrolier" is the adjective for "oil", ie "pic pétrolier" would translate literally in english as "oil peak" ("oil" being used as an adjective). I'm a little confused. Why not "oil peak"? Why "peak oil"? Who came up with the expression first? Hey, this could be mentioned and explained in the article, after all! Thanks in advance. Onaryc 11:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Peak" is a noun that's been turned into an adjective, helping us picture the state of oil production. We're speaking in the lexical domain of oil, not of peaks, so we describe the oil. It's like little oil, big oil, arab oil, black oil, green oil... Peak Oil. In "oil rig", "oil" is an adjective because we're talking about the rig itself; if we say rig oil we're talking about oil that comes from a rig. I can see how this might become confusing if you think about terms such as "peak natural gas" or "peak copper" (see the Hubbert's peak article), but in these cases the adjective has been established in the language and its use has been transferred to other domains. I hope that makes sense... if not, just look at it as a contraction of "the Peak of oil production." -- [GW] 24.225.185.179 00:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and your answer. I am aware of the fact that in "peak oil", the word "peak" is a noun used as an adjective. I was only confused by why in english you chose to speak about "peak oil" when in french (see the french wiki article on the same subject) we chose the expression "pic pétrolier", which in fact means "oil peak". I suppose "pétrole du pic" would mean nothing in french. Anyway, now I get it: "peak oil" means "the oil being produced after the peak". Doesn't it? Onaryc 20:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe that's where your confusion is coming from: Peak Oil is not actually the oil being produced but the highest point (or time period) of oil production. The oil produced later would be "post-peak oil production" (which works as both a use of "peak oil", and as an entirely new construction that uses peak as a noun modified by "post" to be an adjective, and then combined with oil to modify production--essentially the same thing that happens in the contraction I mentioned above). So peak oil is not the oil itself, but the specific period when maximum production is reached. But again, since we're speaking in the domain of oil (specifically oil production) and not the domain of peaks, peak is the adjective. As far as French goes, that's not one of my languages, so I can't comment... Is there a "peak oil" article on the French Wiki? -- [GW] 24.225.185.179 23:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is an article about "peak oil" on the french wiki, as I said. And the title is "Pic pétrolier", which literally means "oil peak". I am even more confused by what you say, and I quote: "Peak Oil is not actually the oil being produced but the highest point (or time period) of oil production". Those words ("the highest point (or time period) of oil production") sound like a very good definition of "oil peak" to me. The "peak" is "the highest point"! So it should be "oil peak", not "peak oil", by your definition. Hence my first question. A bedroom is a kind of room, an armchair is a kind of chair, a cannonball is a kind of ball, and an oil peak is a kind of peak. And "peak oil" has to be a kind of oil. Not of peak. Doesn't that make sense? The only way I can understand "peak oil" is if it refers to a kind of oil. The oil produced in relation to the "peak". And also the production of oil in general during or after the peak. Which boils down to the same as "oil peak", in a way. Onaryc 22:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think of it even more, I realize we have lots of phrases like this in English: Peak production levels, peak efficiency, peak output, peaked curiosity, etc... If you look at each of those, we're not talking about an efficiency/output/curiosity, but rather amounts of those things. They can be seen as contractions, but just as importantly they are saying something about the second word in each phrase. This becomes the key: "peak" is strictly a describing word about something in the world of the noun that follows. If "peak" is the noun, we think we're talking about the world of peaks... a world which conjures up mountain climbers, goats, clouds... it's like the way "roombed" makes me think of a bed instead of a room, and "chairarm" makes me think of something arm-like... "oil peak" makes me think of a big frozen mountain of oil, or maybe just a mountain covered in oil. And like I said, if this still doesn't work for, the easy way out is to think of it as a contraction of "peak of oil production" (after all, we're just a bunch of lazy Americans... and Brits).

I understand what you're saying, but I still can't help asking you something about what you say here (quote): "If "peak" is the noun, we think we're talking about the world of peaks... a world which conjures up mountain climbers, goats, clouds...". I mean, surely the word "peak" conjures up other meanings, which it has, according to my dictionaries? After all, if "peak" makes you think of mountains and goats, why isn't it the case in the term "peak oil"?

Well, this is something that for me happens automatically. Peak comes first, so my brain says that's the adjective, and since it's originally a noun must have a metaphorical sense, which I assume is shape related.24.225.185.179 (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think of oil coming out of snow-peaked mountains when you hear "peak oil"? Ha! Why not? Because you know that other meaning of "peak"! So why do you ignore that other meaning when you hear "oil peak"? It IS the world of "peaks" we're talking about: and the "oil peak" is not the iron peak, or the corn peak, or the coal peak. It's the oil peak.

The reason I'm saying "this isn't the world of peaks" we're talking about is because nobody here cares too much in this article about real mountains. We care about Oil. Iron peak, corn peak, and coal peak all sound like either descriptions of a certain mountain or the names of certain mountains.24.225.185.179 (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand the importance of language usage and habits. Sometimes you say this and not that and there's no explanation (happens in french all the time). Why do we say a film is in "black and white" and not in "white and black"? No particular reason. I'm ready to accept that the expression "peak oil" caught on because somebody once used it in a book ("Geologist M. King Hubbert coined the term, "peak oil," to describe the tipping point at which petroleum supply reaches its maximum in the fifties" as kgrr says below), and thanks to you I know this is indeed the way you say it in english, and that it can be seen as a contraction of "peak of oil production". I'm OK with that! Btw, did you notice how in "peak of oil production", the main word is "peak"? Just like the main word is "world" in the expression "the world of mountain peaks".... How interesting. ;) Onaryc (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right in your grammatical analysis of "peak of oil production," but in that case there's enough context to tell the reader what's really being discussed. In the term "Oil peak" there is no context and it can easily be misunderstood (in English), where ass "Peak oil" gives a much better mental picture from the start. Sorry to keep up this conversation when we both seem to understand each other well enough, but I've taken too many linguistics courses to be able avoid explaining this. [GW] 24.225.185.179 (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

On another note, I was looking at the French "Peak Oil" page and liked some of what they have that we're missing. I brought one table over to help prove one point, but I don't want to do too much for risk of botching a translation. Do you mind helping with some of that, and maybe tracking down the references (which the French page seems to be lax on)? Just note that we have a separate page for the Hubbert Peak Theory, so we wouldn't need that info. Thanks in advance if you get a chance. -- [GW] 24.225.185.179 23:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking me to translate from french to english something on a rather technical subject? I don't know that I am competent enough for that task...Onaryc (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oil peak is redirected to Peak oil. There is no reason to move the article. Peak oil as a proper noun, or 'Hubbert's peak' applied more generally, refers to a singular event in history: the peak of the entire planet's oil production. Geologist M. King Hubbert coined the term, "peak oil," to describe the tipping point at which petroleum supply reaches its maximum in the fifties.Kgrr 15:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A late quibble: in English we do not have the expression "peaked curiosity." That is a misspelling of the expression "piqued curiosity." Compare the following two Google searches:

• "peaked curiosity" - 522 results
• "piqued curiosity" - 9,570 results

--Teratornis (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Improvement

Two people nominated this article for WP:ACID. I have worked hard to bring the article up to GA standards. I would like to see the article improved and nominated to be a Featured Article WP:FA. Is there any interest? Let's discuss the issues. Kgrr 16:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What would it take to get from here to featured? It could no doubt be shortened: Current events spread to daughter articles, Demand section made more concise. We could use some consensus on the order of sections (is it by relevance, truthiness, arbitrary, what's wrong with timing and predictions up front?). The references could be cleaned up, maybe the energy portal developed more... Otherwise, not much disagreement over the facts is there? [GW]24.225.185.179 06:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

...not much disagreement over the facts is there? You must be joking :P

I definitely should have qualified that as "not much disagreement on the status quo of balance of the facts as they are presently presented." Which is to say, nobody thinks the article as a whole stated unfairly, do they? If not, it just needs to be edited and graphs updated. [GW] 24.225.185.179 (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

anyway, the good article status was achieved precisely because such a controversial and charged concept is presented with factual and cool manner, while giving each argument and counter argument the treatment and weight they merit.

There are many things to improve before one can even imagine FA status. The statistics for the graphs are old. Nor do the sources and subtitles for them explain the caveats in them, eg. that what is meant by 'liquids production' vs. 'crude production' etc. and what is the difference and reasons for the difference between 'barrels of oil' in energy and the actual net energy produced. The issue of double counting is paramount to the issue of the world peaking.

Also the idea of peaking could be best illustrated by actual examples of indivial nations peaking - when and how it happened and what has happened since. This would enable alot information to be moved to a separate article, for example Hubberts peak in the USA. --Miikka Raninen (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see others are looking at this. I'm going through it, basically just looking to clarify and add some sources in specific areas. It generally looks good to me, although I've seen a couple of things I'd like better explained that I'm working on. Moving some material could help as well. Plinkit (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, several of the longer quotes should be moved into paragraphs. The "US economy versus US government" section could use that especially. Plinkit (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I integrated the quotes from "US economy versus US government" into the paragraphs, but the whole section still needs to be edited to make the points a lot more coherent. If I get a chance I'll tackle it. [GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that looks good. From reading that and some of the other material, I think one issue with the article is how much oil prices have risen recently, since much of the commentary in the article. I'm interested to see if a section could be written on recent rises in prices and what effect that's had on the discussion. That might go with the Oil Prices section. I'll look myself, but if anyone knows of good sources that could help. Plinkit (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of things have happened recently and a lot of new infomation has come to light. If you're starting to look for sources then the best place to start is something like www.theoildrum.com that has extensive discussion and analysis of various sources and statistical methods. --Miikka Raninen (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the resource. I just moved some material from the 2004-2007 article that seems appropriate. If I can find some sources, I think that may work well. Plinkit (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Whew... time to take a break for the holidays. At some point I hope to pick up where I left off. I really think the whole current events part could be split into daughter articles. If no one else gets there before me I'm going to hack it up. [GW]209.151.109.188 (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've got a big deadline coming up, so I'm forcing myself away from editing here for a while. I think it's really close to FA quality, but it still needs work on 'Current Events' and 'Other Predictions'. Current events is about half the text of the article and definitly needs to be spun off into seperate articles. Other predictions could be expanded and then made into an article called "Implications of peak oil" or "Predictions of peak oil" or "Peak oil's predicted effect on global economies" etc... I've given names to a lot of the refs (^ref name=smith012007>) where smith is the last name of the first author, with the month and year of publication. Articles without obvious bylines got name=publication012007 etc.

Structurally I was thinking how it would look if "reserves" was much shorter and made a sub-section of "production" (with the remainder in a "current events" spin-off, or "concerns about stated reserves" main article), and predictions/timing at the beginning. That seems to flow more like most peoples interests when first reading up on the subject (important points first, deep background to follow it up). Any other thoughts? [GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No objections here. I'll look through as I can, but otherwise, sounds fine to me. Plinkit (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, here are some issues as I see them. Our current layout is as follows:

   * 1 Reserves
         o 1.1 Concerns over stated reserves
         o 1.2 Unconventional sources
   * 2 Production
   * 3 Demand
         o 3.1 Population
               + 3.1.1 Agriculture and population limits
   * 4 Predictions and possible consequences of Peak Oil
         o 4.1 The Hirsch Report
               + 4.1.1 Conclusions from the Hirsch Report and three scenarios
         o 4.2 Other predictions
               + 4.2.1 Agricultural effects
               + 4.2.2 Transportation and housing
         o 4.3 Mitigation
   * 5 Related peaks
   * 6 Current events
         o 6.1 Timing
         o 6.2 Peak oil production—has it happened already?
               + 6.2.1 Peak oil for individual nations
         o 6.3 Resource nationalism
         o 6.4 Oil price
         o 6.5 US economy versus US government
   * 7 Alternative views
         o 7.1 Non-dramatic peak oil
         o 7.2 Energy Information Administration and USGS 2000 reports
         o 7.3 No Peak Oil
         o 7.4 Abiogenesis
   * 8 Historical understanding of world oil supply limits
   * 9 See also
   * 10 References
   * 11 Further reading
         o 11.1 Books
   * 12 External links
         o 12.1 Web sites
         o 12.2 Online audio, podcasts
         o 12.3 Online videos
         o 12.4 DVDs
         o 12.5 Articles
         o 12.6 Reports, essays, and lectures

This makes most sense to me as it starts: 1. Reserves, 2. Production, 3. Demand. After that there seem to be some questions. The next header is "Predictions and possible consequences of Peak Oil." However, I think section four could equally discuss predictions as to timing. That discussion, in turn, is found in the current events section.

I wonder if the first step wouldn't be to separate out some of the "Current events" subsections that don't entirely discuss current events. Starting section four, we could say that in reconciling the various supply and demand issues, peak oil analysts look at two major things: when it will happen, and what will be the consequences. I would probably discuss timing first, and then move to consequences. Either way, I think if the "Current events" heading were simply changed to "Timing", that might clarify the organization a little better, leaving in effect 1. Reserves, 2. Production, 3. Demand, 4. Timing, 5. Effects. At that point we could potentially have two more articles: one on timing, and one on effects, each of which could take much of the material from here. How does any of this sound? I could see an article on current events as well, but am simply not sure any of the sections here actually fit directly into that category. Plinkit (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current events section needs work. Another editor moved Timing to Current Events 2 months ago, but I'm not really sure why. What do you think of making Production and Reserves into one Supply section? What do you think about moving most of the Current events section elsewhere (an article on resource nationalism for example). I think you answered that just before, but I wanted make sure. I'm still tied up in real-world projects right now, or I'd be getting "bold" all over that whole Current Events section. [GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine again, looks like we're both a little busy off-wiki. The added material on European taxes is also a good addition, I think. Definitely feel free to be bold, as they say. Plinkit (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I inserted {{Uncleardate}} to the tops of some sections which have unclear dates ("in recent months", "in the past 18 months" and so on). See: WP:DATED. --Teratornis (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Differential impact

Countries will be differentially impacted by the Peak, depending on their reliance on oil for their life and expansion. China, India, reaching economic growth while oil is getting scarce, will be impacted in the proportion of their oil use in their energy mix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Environnement2100 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can find supporting material for this heading, develop it. However, I believe there is another viewpoint: I believe that China and India should be very aware of Peak oil and can already make plans to move towards a sustainable economy if they wanted to. They can make choices to develop renewable resources as they are growing. Well developed countries like the US, and Canada in particular (which have a lot of sunk costs in an infrastructure designed around plentiful oil) will need to spend more money in order to replace a lot of infrastructure that assumes oil and move towards renewable energy and a sustainable economy. Also, I've partially covered this already under oil nationalism: Some countries are oil rich and do not want to export the oil, but instead they choose to keep the oil for themselves. Kgrr (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Abiogenesis theory held by "majority of petroleum geologists"?

Where is the reference to support the following statement?

"The theory that petroleum derives from biogenic processes is held by the overwhelmingly majority of petroleum geologists in the United States"

I checked the American Association of Petroleum Geologists' website and the term "abiogenesis" doesn't appear anywhere. There are a couple of references to "abiotic", but no indication that the "majority of petroleum geologists in the United States" supports abiogenesis.

Also, "overwhelmingly" should be changed to "overwhelming". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robingrrl (talk • contribs) 18:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed the grammar issue. Otherwise, "abiotic" is the opposite of "biogenic," so the point is that the vast majority believe that oil derives from biogenic processes. The "a" prefix in abiotic means "without." Plinkit (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Simply is not true. All oil is biogenic and no abiogenic oil has ever been found. This is a proven fact due to biomarkers. This is a flat earth issue. There is no abiotic oil. It simply does not exist. Someone has completely reversed the original text that I had written for the section.Kgrr (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Links

I'm not sure I see the complete rational in changing the links. I understand there were a lot, but the vast majority seemed to be very good information. Dmoz is OK, but for a complicated topic like this it's a shotgun approach to searching, and then you've lost all the DVD info incase you're the type of person that gets more out of videos than reading. Also, the links that were put back in place of the removed ones are strange... they just repeat what's available in the sources, and one is a news article from 2005, while another is the EIA (of important reservations are stated in the main article). Do people agree that this is the way to go, or should we restore the list and remove what needs to be removed?

My opinion: We've done a really good job of removing spam as it's added; what was there wasn't spam, was good extra information, and may have been more biased towards one side of the spectrum, but if that's really true then there should be some balance installed [GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it looks like the IP that removed it was just passing through. I'm not sure they're all necessary, but I don't think they all needed to go either. Plinkit (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I was "passing through" or not, but I still believe that was and still is an excessive and extreme external links section, however I will ask for other opinions. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oil price mitigation in European countries through lower taxes?

There is an inconsistency in the "Oil price" paragraph, quote :

"The effect in many European countries, which have high fuel taxes that could be temporarily or permanently suspended, could be mitigated. However the effect such a huge loss of revenue would have on those governments is unclear."

No, the European governments draw large revenues from oil taxes ; if they were to reduce or cancel them, they would have to set higher taxes elsewhere ; this option is just not available. The subject comes up at every major price hike, and the governments answer is always the same : no. The double sentence above is actually an oxymoron.

I propose to replace it by the following : "The effect in many European countries, where fuel still is more expensive than in the US, thanks to a higher tax level, proves otherwise : highly developed nations have less oil-intensive GDPs, and some currently cope with 4.80 USD/gallon gasoline with no visible impact on their economies." Thanks for your remarks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Environnement2100 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's what it says already. Let me see if I can make it more clear. [GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that might be a bit more clear. If you have a source for "the subject comes up at every major price hike" that would be helpful. If you add anything, just make sure to keep it NPOV. [GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. This source http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxe_int%C3%A9rieure_sur_les_produits_p%C3%A9troliers says "The consensus is more towards increasing the tax then decreasing it." This source http://www.centpapiers.com/Le-prix-de-l-essence-est-trop-peu,1521 says "The price of gasoline is too low." This source http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/economie_terre/289041.FR.php says : "There will be no tax decrease, says French Minister of Finances". This source http://www.prix-carburants.gouv.fr/index.php?module=dbgestion&action=fsearch gives real time gasoline (unleaded95 and diesel) price in Paris. This source http://goeurope.about.com/od/transportation/a/gas_prices.htm says "European gas prices are about 2.3 x higher"

This source http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewthread.php?action=printable&tid=430075 provides oil-intensity index for a list of countries, showing most industrialized countries lower than world average.

So I propose :

"The effect in many European countries, where fuel still is more expensive than in the US, thanks to a higher tax level, proves otherwise : highly developed nations have less oil-intensive GDPs, and some currently cope with 6.80 USD/gallon gasoline with no traceable impact on their economies."

--Environnement2100 (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Environment2100, I think you may be reading the section wrong. It says what you're trying to say, but in a more straightforward way. At least I thought it was more straightforward, but if you're confused I could be dead-wrong (other opinions?). Also, be careful with your sources: About.com is not peer reviewed or widely acknowledged as a reliable scholarly source, plus the high price of European gas is unlikely to be contested; the French site is... in French, so please see if you can find a good reliable English source (there has to be one); the information about oil intensity looks very interesting and I think we should try to include that somewhere, but again the source is older and it's unclear how reliable it is (the unclarity being my issue, not the question of reliability); and the real time price of gas source is unhelpful because it constantly changes (and we already know gas in Europe is more expensive). The main thing you need a source for is "with no traceable impact on their economies." Also, if you have a source for "the subject comes up at every major price hike" (above) I can figure out a way to work that in. [GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I repeat the point : the following sentence "The effect in many European countries, which have high fuel taxes that could be temporarily or permanently suspended, could be mitigated." is just plain wrong : no, oil price hike cannot be mitigated ; no, current taxes cannot be suspended. Can you understand that ? Or are you saying it can ?--Environnement2100 (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I finally understand what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure that was coming across in your edit. That taxes CAN be lowered is a fact. The effect of lowering the taxes is considered in the next sentance: "However, the effect such a loss of tax revenue would have on these governments is unclear." If you have a source for "current taxes cannot be suspended" then lets use it, as that does a better job of making the point of the whole section. [GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have joined plenty sources. I just noticed the current version has no source at all. Would you mind sourcing please ?--Environnement2100 (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Environment, what needs sources is statements which are not self evident or completely factual. Please tell me which statements you have trouble with and I'll find some sources:

Let's break it down:

1. "fuel taxes in European are very high"
2. "taxes in general are things which can be lowered or repealed"
3. "if fuel taxes are lowered or repealed in Europe, gas would be cheaper to the consumer"
4. "if fuel taxes are lowered or repealed in Europe, European governments would get less money"
5. "if you don't have high taxes you can't lower them"
6. "fuel taxes are not high in the US"

The most frustrating thing here is that WE'RE SAYING THE SAME THING, but you're adding "European countries don't actually have that option because they can't afford to loose that money in their budjets." That's probably true, but that part needs a source because it's not an obvious fact, and would be considered origninal research (which isn't allowed on wikipedia). The goal is to have this article conform to ALL wiki standards so it can be a featured article. Can I put that paragraph back now? [GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I told you 3 times, I hate to tell you again : stopping taxes is not an option. It is like saying "Mom could cook more pie". So "cutting taxes" definitely is an idea of yours, so you should take it off. I already asked you to source it, and you did not : cancel this paragraph. You might notice that it does not add anything to the core subject.--Environnement2100 (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a third opinion on this one? [GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I googled "Europe tax cuts" and found that European countries can indeed cut taxes [4][5]. Now, in 2000, there was resistance to oil tax cuts [6], but I found no evidence that oil tax cuts are impossible, which is what you claim. It was discussed again in 2004 [7], and like you said rejected BUT the fact that it was discussed cannot be ignored. You can't say "mom doesn't want to make a pie right now, so let's never talk of pies again." Also, now the situation is different from three years ago and there is a "tax war" going on in Europe [8], meaning countries are desperite to spur their economies by lowering the cost of doing business. This also means making sure consumers have more money in their pockets. You might notice that the whole section is about the effects higher oil prices would have on economies [9], so the ability of a countries to lessen the immediate impact of oil price rises on its economy through lowering taxes does have something to do with the section. I think the paragraph adds something to the section, so if you can't reasonably explain what your issues with the sources/logic/fit of the information are, I'm going to add the section back tomorrow. You might also notice that the last version reflects your position very clearly.[GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If I understand this discussion correctly, I think I agree with this. As I read it, the second sentence about the effect on European economies makes Environment2100's point, that this isn't necessarily practicable. Possibly that has already been resolved. Otherwise, my only concern would be with saying a point has been "disproved," where others might disagree. I find the point on European taxes interesting there, simply to remind the reader of that difference with the US. If the price of fuel did suddenly become catastrophically crippling due to a quick hike, I imagine European countries would then have a little more room to deal with that issue, but I think the point of the sentence is just to raise the issue without taking a stance on it. (Apologies if this was resolved, but I think it was still being discussed). Plinkit (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever sources you found do not concern oil taxes ; they do not prove your point, which is, I repeat, wrong. I also repeat that it is of little interest to the core subject. Now if you want to change your sentence to make it reflect reality, please do it here, but do *not* repost the previous version. I insist that I proposed another sentence, which I sourced accordingly, and you refused in a way which is not in line with the rules of WP. So you are the one making problems, and I strongly advise you to change attitude and find a a) correct sentence and b) sourced sentence, not your own thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Environnement2100 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I listed two news articles about European countries discussing oil tax cuts. The rest of the discussion is on Environnement2100's talk page.[GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Do any reliable sources point out what would seem intuitively obvious, namely, that the high fuel taxes would tend to dampen the effect of oil price increases by reducing the proportional size of an increase? For example, when gasoline consumers in the U.S.A. might see a doubling in price, European drivers would see only about a 50% increase in the price they have already adapted to, assuming current taxes remain in effect. Presumably the proportional increase in price would matter to the consumer more than the absolute increase. Things might get very interesting in nations which negatively tax motor fuels, such as Venezuela where the pump price for gasoline is laughably low as of 2008. See Gasoline usage and pricing. Eventually Venezuela will cease to be an oil exporter, or will exhaust its cheap oil and have to exploit its tar sands at high cost, at which point the currently low pump price for gasoline will be unsustainable. The Venezuelan consumer will then see the price of gasoline increase by a factor of 30 or more as the Venezuelan government becomes unable to shield its citizens from the world price. --Teratornis (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

revision 178346653

Revision [10]should have read "source is a 2007 report, not the 2006 report you mention; it changes every 6 months, and the statistic you mention is one possible scenario from the range they discuss; this discussion should be in "oil price" or "predictions of demand" NJGW (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured article?

OK, how close do we look now? As I see it the sources still need to be all wikified, the EIA/USGS section still needs to be better thought out, and Peak_oil#Peak_oil_for_individual_nations could be made into a nice table. Also, what kind of picture would work (or another couple of helpful graphs???). [GW] NJGW (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The references have been wrecked since the last time I worked through them. All references should be in the standard form for this article: The article should use the following templates exist for citations: {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}. Kgrr (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There are many {citation needed}'s in the text. These all need to be cleaned-up. Kgrr (talk) 11:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Simplify OPEC's position in 3.2.3: No Peak Oil

The OPEC commentary in this paragraph strikes me as overly argumentative and enters a level of detail inconsistent with the section. Bradau (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you. I'm not sure the best way to state the facts of the situation and not loose information, and balance that with a simple prose (see also predicting the timing of peak oil). If I remember correctly, one editor put the source in and I felt the inserted claims needed to be qualified/put into context. If you've got some suggestions, go for it. NJGW (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)