Talk:Hubbert peak theory

message: *************************
Making Gasoline from Carbon Dioxide
Technology Review Apr. 25, 2007
*************************
Chemists have shown that it is possible to use solar energy, paired with the right catalyst, to convert carbon dioxide  into a raw material for making a wide range of products, including plastics and ... 
:Here is a link to the article itself (from Technology Review). The article describes converting CO2 into carbon monoxide, not exactly an earthshaking accomplishment. And I guess I must have missed any humor in that article ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funny 

message: I must take an issue with the way Campbell and ASPO are described. The section makes it appear as if they are just making random forecasts and then try and hide it.
There is no way Campbell could have predicted the rapid rise in Russian oil production, a result of political rather than geological factors that did influence production rates but may not influence URR. As he got new data he revised his forecasts acordingly.
Campbell first declared Peak in 1990. His prediction for 2005 oil production in that article was approximately 35 MBO/D. After he had been wrong for a decade, he used nearly identical information to reforecast and hoped people hadn't noticed his initial bad estimates. He has just been making random forecasts.
Also, this article deals with Hubert's peak, not Campbell's prediction. It's analogous to saying Global warming was a hoax because 2012 predictions did not come to pass.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.1.158 (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique of Critiques 

message: "It is unlikely that the actual peak in global oil production will be a direct catalyst of global economic decline. Instead, economic turbulence could be precipitated by the realization of the financial and investment world that "peak oil" (and natural gas) is either imminent or has already occurred."
Not exactly sure what this means, but it seems to imply that if the financial and investment world understand that peak is happening or has happened that they will obviate any economic decline.  This has no cite and is contradicted by the relevant studies (Hirsch, etc), but I'll listen to rationale before revertingSkyemoor 20:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic Impact 

message: This may be a sign of increasing demand having started to outstrip supply or it may just be that the various geopolitical forces in t"he regions where oil is produced are limiting the available supply. One other explanation for the rising oil prices is that it has been a sign of too much paper money and not too little oil. In this view, dramatically higher prices of all commodities and real estate indicates rising inflation.  Political instability in oil producing nations has also been claimed to be increasing oil prices.  Significant or potentially significant oil exporting nations suffering from social upheaval or war include Sudan, Iraq, Nigeria, Chad, Ecuador, Azerbaijan and Mexico."
I removed this as it was simply speculation.  Anyone have a list of oil producing countries that are (or were for any length of time) stable democracies?  Skyemoor 12:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: List of exporting even somewhat stable democracies - I'm going to guess Canada, Norway, Venezuala (having survived US backed cout attempt), Angola (having survived US, USSR backed 27 years long civil war) and Algeria (just now trying to grab some oil profits for itself  and maybe inviting foreign backed cout as a result).  For most of the world the peak oil that matters is the United States production.70.132.14.98 14:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: US production peaked in the seventies, this is why the oil embargo was able to have such a large impact on the economy of the US; it was unable to increase production to control the price of oil. The peak that matters to the world is the world peak. Also, countries that are stable exporters includes Russia and mexico - they aren't democracies, but they do have representative governments. See:Chart of exports and production of oil by nation.Christopher 19:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Yes I know American oil production has already peaked.)  America is using 1 in 4 barrels of world production.  If America stopped using oil the world peak would move out by 25% (okay technically put it on a different curve).  Do you really think American oil interests weren't mixed up in Mexican general election 2006 controversies?70.132.30.205 02:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: cantrell, the largest oil field in mexico (3rd or 2nd largest in the world) is now probably in permanent rapid decline, with the average decline per year predicted to be a massive 14% for the next few years (possibly even the foreseeable future) 192.172.226.121 02:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oil Prices due to unstable oil producing countries? 

message: After reading Kunstlers book 'The Long Emergency' in which he stated that it will take 37 years to deplete known petroleum reserves, considering estimated reserves and assuming no growth, I wanted to know what those numbers would look like if current growth(~3%) was considered, so I made a spreadsheet to calculate the graph and used the Malthusian model of population growth to do the computations. The model can also be used to determine the amount of remaining reserves after the peak as well, as long as it is told the rate of depletion.
I'm telling you this because you might be intersted in seeing it. This might qualify as OR, but I'm not sure, and in any case, if any editors are interested, I will upload it. If you are just curious what my results were, I found that if we grow 4% every year, reserves will be exhausted in 2027, 3%:2029, 2%:2031. Christopher 21:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My differential equations textbook refers to the equation as created by Thomas Malthus and it is actually designed for population growth on a small scale on a small time period but it works for this too. The graphs that I produced were of remaining reserves, not of production. I chose not to model the production because I have no way to predict the rate at which production will decline after the peak, or when the peak would occur(I would be very iterested to learn why the organisations that have curves on that graph chose the values that they did). I do however know how much petroleum reserves the planet is predicted to have, how much we produce now, and about how much we need to grow in order to keep our economy stable. So this is a model that shows how long we can use petroleum the way we do now before we run out. The model can graph post peak production, but I don't have predicted values to give the model. Hubbert's model seems to predict that growth after the peak will be the opposite of growth before the peak, but I haven't come up with a way to satisfyingly graph an unknown peak year in a spreadsheet.Christopher 02:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright then. You may find a copy here; you will need openoffice to play with it. Christopher 06:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The equation was recycled a zilion times in many fields.Basicly hubberts aplies the mathus equation,and asumes that trends will continiu .to learn why the organisations,it's a bunch of jerks,ther models don't worth a damm,they basicly say,technology will save us.The descoveries of new fields have almost complitly flatened.I would like to see that graph to understand exacly what you did.--Pixel ;-) 19:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peak Oil Spreadsheet 

message: "More generally, the supply of oil may be somewhat elastic in both the short term and the long term.  Higher prices may encourage greater production and the use of more expensive extraction approaches.  Over time, the current higher oil prices may well cause increased investment.  However, absent added reserves or alternative sources, this may only delay the peak, rather than eliminating the peak altogether, and accelerate the depletion of reserves."
This paragraph doesn't seem to critique anything and is not sourced.70.231.241.78 11:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Elastic

message: Revision as of 13:06, 6 October 2006 (edit)
72.139.119.165 (Talk)
(→Articles - remove some spam links)
The articles removed were not spam; what criteria were you using for removal?  Skyemoor 14:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles 

message: I think the article needs to say something about the viability of this. Sylvain1972 19:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Synthetic fuel for that, mentioned under "alternative sources". --John Nagle 18:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coal Liquefaction

message: Alternatives are energy sources other than conventional oil and natural gas which can be used instead in one or more applications, such as: 	 
* a prime energy source to generate electricity 	 
* a transportation fuel 	 
* for space heating 	 
* for water heating 	 
* an ingredient in plastics, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and fertilizers 	 
* a lubricant in industrial machinery and manufacturing. 
This is taking up a lot of space and is not clarifying anything about Hubbert peak theory or mitigation of a peak.70.231.247.209 05:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some redundant sentences

message: This is from Wikipedia:
"Production in Q2 2006 was 85.1 Mbbl/d..."
And this is from a reuters news article: 
"Energy Information Administration data showed world supply of crude oil has declined to 83.98 million barrels per day in the second quarter..." Richard Cane 15:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IEA also adds in biofuels, though not in a way that is yet clear or unambiguous. Skyemoor 16:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would explain the difference. Perhaps this information should be added to the article in order to avoid confusion. Richard Cane 19:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We technically haven't received the official Q3 report, this one's only an estimate. And normally a month or two after the official report is out lately, they've revised it downward. You are right, we need to do something to explain. Will mull over and tackle later this week.  Skyemoor 18:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: From the IEA report: "Difficulties in collecting biofuel data are also apparent. It is much easier to collect ethanol and biodiesel supply than to capture the demand side of the equation. Further, there is very little information on stocks. The US Energy Information Administration has been very open about the difficulties of reporting US data, but the same problems apply elsewhere - does gasoline or diesel demand from a non-OECD country include or exclude biofuels? Ethanol blending takes place at terminals rather than refineries, so its inclusion in primary stocks data is unclear."  Skyemoor 02:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A second problem that is often overlooked when including biofules and some other 'other liquids' is that a significant amount of oil or gas is used in their production, which has already been counted. Eg from the canadian tar sands it takes 0.4 Mcf of natural gas to produce one barrel of synthetic crude oil , but that gas is also counted under gas production.203.173.42.48 01:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with world oil production numbers

message: Alright, so I reread the intro section (I wrote some of it originally months ago), and I still didn't think that it read well, so I made more changes to it in a way that I hope is an improvement. I only added one sentence, but I reworked how the paragraphs are structured. If anyone's bored, please review. SparhawkWiki 15:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back into the breach (Intro section) 

message: A lot of this stuff seems to be decades out of date. For example the Stern report out last month says//  
Far from running out of oil, it said, we are still awash with it. Taking all fossil fuels together — oil, gas and coal — the world has so far used 2,700 billion barrels of oil equivalent. The amount of oil, gas and coal left in the ground is at least 40,000 billion barrels, with at least seven billion barrels of that economically recoverable. On unchanged polices, demand for energy will be some 4,700 billion barrels over the next half-century. Oil demand will be 1,800 billion barrels, and that amount, according to the report, is economically recoverable as long as oil remains above $30 a barrel. 
“There is enough fossil fuel in the ground to meet world consumption demand at reasonable cost until at least 2050,” the report said.// 
Probably the 600 page report merits its own article? --BozMo talk 15:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope but a similar BBC one. However the figures conflict with the ones in this article: heance call for update --BozMo talk 13:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating 

message: Has become highly technical and confusing. Since "peak oil" redirects here and since "peak oil" may be the more common search phrase I think the into should address the general ideas in a broad way in terms of how it is understood in the broader cultural context. 
Something like: Peak Oil is a theory that explains how the world's rate of production of oil will eventually stop increasing (more oil has been produced every year) and eventually start decreasing. The debate about peak oil centers around the question of when the decrease in yearly production will occur (rather than if it will occur) Some people such as so-and-so suggest that it has already occurred and the decline will begin in only a few years. Others project...etc.
--futurebird 15:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The intro 

message: one thing the introduction misses out on is the idea that any finite resource (of which oil is one) must have a(tleast one) peak. At t=0 you start producing it, t=final you have used it all up and you stop producing it - therefore there must be a peak, and as such this argument isn't about the existence of a peak, its about a peak within in the next -1 to 10 years (yes i mean -1, some people predict end of 2005 as the peak). 
The hubbert peak theory is based off the idea of exponentially increasing exploitation of a decreasing fixed size resource. this leads to a symetric bell curve with a single peak. Obviously this assumes maximum extraction rates, which ignores political aspects (70's oil emargo, current rise of FSU production) which no geologically based model can cover, however (as this article notes) the long term trends will be geologically limited.
re: reserve growth -  when reserve growth is included i believe (can't find the reference) that the peak (which this article is about) does not move significantly, only the tail is extended.
even with reserve growth, the ammount of oil extracted can not exceed 100% of what is there (current amount that is possible to extract is 30-60%, depending on the field (i think)) so reserve growth of 3% of oil in place can only extend the amount of extractable oil from any single oil field for 10-20 years. 
some comments above may be currently classed as OR because i can't find the references.
is this the appropriate place to discuss Hubert linearisation? ( the idea that plotting current production(p)/cumulative production (q) vs q gives a straight line w/ the intercept being the URR (ultimate recoverable reserves) )
Andrew 203.173.42.48 03:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started an article on the | "Hubbert linearization",(Sfoucher 18:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  peak oil vs hubert peak theory 

message: Half-way down through the article, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MEESchart.png is misaligned, and is overlapping text. I am new to Wikipedia and don't know how to fix this. Hopefully someone will see my comment here and make note of it. 4.155.3.221 00:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphic needs fixing.  

message: I removed:
:More recently, Gregson Vaux has analyzed the expected peak in U.S. coal production. His data suggests a peak taking place sometime between 2032 and 2060, with earlier dates more likely if coal is used as a partial substitute for plateauing or declining global oil supplies and North American natural gas supplies  Regarding whether the estimates may be 'optimistic' or 'pessimistic', Vaux adds that "The majority of the calculations were conducted at Carnegie Mellon University in the Fall Semester of 2003 before the severity of the gas crisis had become obvious. It is possible that gas consumption in the U.S. will not remain flat but will actually decline; in this case, the coal peak will come sooner."
Initially I did so about a week ago, and now again today.  There are several reasons.  First Mr. Vaux is not a scientist.  His terminal degree is a masters (according to his own website) and he has no scientific publications whatsoever in the Web of Science.  Secondly, the references are to A) Google Groups and B) "From the Wilderness", a newsy website that he copublishes.  And lastly, his analysis is just terrible.  I can't imagine any scientist looking at the poor fit in his figure 6 (end of page) and being willing to assert anything about peak coal.  See also WP:V, WP:RS.  Dragons flight 07:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gregson Vaux's Peak Coal 

message: I propose that the Hubbert Peak Theory be decoupled from Peak oil and they they put in 2 seperate pages. A lot of items on the page like economic effects and alternatives are really unrelated from the theory itself which includes the math. The economic effects are the effects of Peak Oil not Hubbert's theory.
Paullb 03:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we get rid of the intro altogether?  This is too complicated of a subject to describe in a paragraph without mangling.DodgeTheBullet 07:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decouple Hubbert Peak theory from Peak Oil 

message: According to this link oil production in Saudi Arabia fell by 8% during 2006. G-Man * 20:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This looks interesting

message: I can't believe there is no section about oil discovery which is a big part of the "Peak Oil" theory. I may start a new section. (Sfoucher 15:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What about Oil Discovery?

message: Please put your thoughts down in bold either, I support or I oppose. Just trying to get a sense of the views on this. Thanks Publicus 13:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your explanation: you have provided sufficient justification, hence I support the move. --Skyemoor 11:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It will be far clearer as two articles, dealing with closely related yet different concepts. And there's potentially more return as each article develops further. --Chriswaterguy talk 23:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, as I mentioned above all those effects of peak oil would move from Hubbert's specific theory on petroleum peak to a peak oil page devoted to discussing aspects of peak oil such as finances, social changes, agriculture, etc. So from a content perspective, the theory of a petroleum peak would stay with Hubbert peak theory, while everything that could be effected by Hubbert's theory could move to the peak oil page. Also, as other editor's add more theories on peak oil, hopefully the differing opinions of petroleum peaks could get their own articles as well, to cover those other scientists influenced by or disagreeing with Hubbert. Publicus 18:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Hubbert discussed peaks on a wide range of resources.  --Skyemoor 10:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POLL: Should '''Peak oil''' be split from '''Hubbert peak theory'''

message: #I support. Hubbert peak theory can now be viewed as one of a series of theories related to Peak oil. Peak oil as an issue has moved past Hubbert's original work. Publicus 13:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SUPPORT

message: Thanks for this discussion, Publicus. Before I decide, I have a couple of questions I'd like to get your thoughts on.  Hubbert is considered the Father of Peak Oil (though he wasn't the first); which other notable series of theories do you refer to that are not primarily based on Hubbert's theory?  Why do you believe they warrant separation? And if another article is needed, should it be named Peak Oil, or something more encyclopedic, such as "Global Maximum Petroleum Production" with Peak Oil redirected to it?  Thanks, --Skyemoor 14:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your explanation: you have provided sufficient justification, hence I support the move. --Skyemoor 11:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It will be far clearer as two articles, dealing with closely related yet different concepts. And there's potentially more return as each article develops further. --Chriswaterguy talk 23:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, as I mentioned above all those effects of peak oil would move from Hubbert's specific theory on petroleum peak to a peak oil page devoted to discussing aspects of peak oil such as finances, social changes, agriculture, etc. So from a content perspective, the theory of a petroleum peak would stay with Hubbert peak theory, while everything that could be effected by Hubbert's theory could move to the peak oil page. Also, as other editor's add more theories on peak oil, hopefully the differing opinions of petroleum peaks could get their own articles as well, to cover those other scientists influenced by or disagreeing with Hubbert. Publicus 18:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Hubbert discussed peaks on a wide range of resources.  --Skyemoor 10:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments/Questions

message: Let's split 'em up. No one seemed to have any problems with it, so here we go. I'll start moving some things over. Publicus 18:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POLL results

message: I've moved several whole sections over, the split was actually easier than I thought. I'm sure I've missed some of the more detailed items, but hopefully the new Peak oil article is taking shape. One thought, how much crossover should we have on the two articles in the "see also" section? I just copied Hubbert's "see also" to peak oil without any changes, but some of the articles probably don't need to be on both pages. Publicus 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split ongoing

message: I added a new section about the difficulty to validate Hubbert's model with external data. I created this as a new section but it might also be a subsection of the "Criticism" section. Comments welcome. - Fils du Soleil 00:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficulty of a reliable external assessment 

message: Although Hubbert peak theory and peak oil are now separate, this article remains a good length, and its scope still extends beyond the 'pure' theory. There may be a case for spinning off a couple of other sections to create a series of related smaller articles. For example, if the 'peak oil' article is addressing the world peak, "Peak oil production in the United States" might make a separate article too. "Mitigation of peak oil" also looks possible - it isn't part of the core theory, but is important to forecasting using the theory, and to the US and world peaks, for example... Gralo 14:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as far as the length of the article goes, it's well within norms.  Stripped of an article's references, infoboxes/templates/images or any other wikimarkup, it is considered ideal to have an article under 35k and acceptable to let weighty topics grow to 50-60k.  However, even without stripping away the markup, this article is still under at 36,753 bytes.  Don't have an opinion on the other points, although I would encourage you to keep some applied examples for illustrations sake, but as far as WP:LENGTH goes, y'all are doing just fine. MrZaiustalk 15:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further splitting?

message: Someone put in a statement that the "peak oil" concept applies to mineral resources generally.  That's not correct. Read Deffeys, who explains the geology.  The issue with oil is that it's only found in specific geological formations, with cap rock above and trap rock below.  Either you find an oil pool or you don't.  With many other mineral resources, there's a broad range of concentrations, so with more effort and energy, more of some resource can be extracted from lower grade ores, and the lower grade ores are more abundant.  Iron is like that, as are most of the metals.
This is a key concept to understand. It's why spending more money on extracting oil doesn't produce that much more oil. --John Nagle (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Peak oil" concept applies only to some resources 

message: thumb|300px|Oil imports by country
The oil imports map I've pasted here is obviously absolute imports, not net exports, as shown by the fact that Canada and Britain (both net exporters in the CIA factbook, given as the data source) are shown as significant importers.  I find this misleading and think the map should be changed or removed...  TastyCakes (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably an old version.  You should ask the author to update it, or else update it yourself.  NJGW (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking of making a map where it shows both exporting and importing countries, exporting in different shades of green and importing in different shades of red.  I think that'll be useful for this article and others.  TastyCakes (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Oil Imports

message: The article says, quote: 
"he later used the Hubbert curve, the derivative of the logistic curve[citation needed], for estimating future production using past observed discoveries"
This sentence is not sourced ; the terms "logistic curve" do not seem to appear in MK Hubbert's works ; can anyone provide a source ? Otherwise this should modified accordingly. TIA, --Environnement2100 (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hubbert didn't give away too much about his methods in 1956, but the logistic curve is what fits his work best.  Also, we're not married to 1956 here.  Hubbert style projections are logistic distributions.  It's better if you read-up or ask questions first before stirring up hornets nests all over the place.  71.125.71.215 (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Logistic curve reference in article supplied from Hubbert (1962). Regards. Plazak (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Logistic curve in Hubbert's works

message: Comment: The list of external links had clearly grown too large, but to cut out the whole thing was too draconian. Certainly, websites devoted to Hubbert or to peak oil should be restored to the article, for readers who want to explore the subject in more depth, or see latest developments. Individual studies, it is true, should generally be cited in the text. Thanks.  Plazak (talk) 05:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links content to be put into article prose? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hubbert peak theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070818060558/http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk:80/mainpages/agriculture.html to http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/mainpages/agriculture.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928035437/http://www.soilassociation.org/peakoil to http://www.soilassociation.org/peakoil
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061206034220/http://cera.ecnext.com:80/coms2/summary_0236-821_ITM to http://cera.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0236-821_ITM
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hubbert peak theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041031184216/http://www.geo.umn.edu:80/courses/3005/resource.html to http://www.geo.umn.edu/courses/3005/resource.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061025195932/http://bartlett.house.gov/uploadedfiles/5-2-06%20Oil%20Speech.pdf to http://www.bartlett.house.gov/uploadedfiles/5-2-06%20Oil%20Speech.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061006120520/http://www.apda.pt/apda_resources/APDA.Biblioteca/eureau/position%20papers/the%20reuse%20of%20phosphorus.pdf to http://www.apda.pt/apda_resources/APDA.Biblioteca/eureau%5Cposition%20papers%5Cthe%20reuse%20of%20phosphorus.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060913031104/http://uswaternews.com:80/archives/arcsupply/6worllarg2.html to http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcsupply/6worllarg2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060903213215/http://www.earth-policy.org:80/Updates/2005/Update47_data.htm to http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2005/Update47_data.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just removed the image of Norway's production vs. a Hubbert Curve, as the graph was dated and no longer fits reality.  Norway has long been held up as the perfect example of a Hubbert Peak, but now Norway's actual production no longer resembles it so well.  Just like how the US used to be held up as one, but no longer resembles it at all.  Just like Canada before.  
And I know people can say, "Well, okay, then they're not at X point on the curve, they're at Y point on the curve, they'll get to X point later".  But isn't this just glorified pareidolia?  Couldn't you apply this argument to pretty much any curve? -- Rei (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good to remove a misleading graph, but ideally, it should be replaced by an update graph, showing how well or ill Hubbert's curve fits the latest data.  Regards.  Plazak (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ideally yes.  However, I must strongly disagree with the concept of leaving an outdated / misleading graph in the article until then. -- Rei (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What you seem to be saying is, 'Hubbert's peak was a theory, but it's  recently been disproved.' This of course would be highly relevant to the article, but it has to be backed by reliable sources that say exactly that, not just you with a link to an unattributed graph and your own opinion as to what needs removing from Wikipedia. Bring along the sources that say what you are proposing, in so many words, and we can look at them. In the meantime reverting the article to how you like it is tantamount to edit warring. --Nigelj (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norway 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Hubbert peak theory. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926221620/http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=18 to http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=18
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hubbert peak theory. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080307042349/http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2006/03/02/peak_copper/index.html to http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2006/03/02/peak_copper/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226104329/http://www.breedleader.com.au/images/chaco%20postcard%20.pdf to http://www.breedleader.com.au/images/chaco%20postcard%20.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Hubbert peak theory. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611071544/http://www.energybulletin.net/281.html to http://www.energybulletin.net/281.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221153321/http://dwb.adn.com/money/industries/oil/v-printer/story/7296501p-7208184c.html to http://dwb.adn.com/money/industries/oil/v-printer/story/7296501p-7208184c.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911224731/http://www.energywatchgroup.org/files/Coalreport.pdf to http://www.energywatchgroup.org/files/Coalreport.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104020042/http://news.silverseek.com/CharlestonVoice/1135873932.php to http://news.silverseek.com/CharlestonVoice/1135873932.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060805112847/http://ecosanres.org/PDF%20files/Fact_sheets/ESR4lowres.pdf to http://www.ecosanres.org/PDF%20files/Fact_sheets/ESR4lowres.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090320104604/http://www.worldwater.org/data20082009/ch01.pdf to http://www.worldwater.org/data20082009/ch01.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050911141056/http://www.peakoil.ie/downloads/newsletters/newsletter23_200211.pdf to http://www.peakoil.ie/downloads/newsletters/newsletter23_200211.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hubbert peak theory. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527233843/http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf to http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080522155229/http://www.energybulletin.net/29919.html to http://www.energybulletin.net/29919.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527233843/http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf to http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.energybulletin.net/node/13630
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Se quiserem traduzir o artigo fiquem a vontade. att 2804:14C:5BB1:9AC7:575D:4B96:73A8:28B2 (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{Ping|Luizpuodzius|Raimundo57br}}