Talk:Oil depletion

message: I have deleted a massive chunk copied from or to Implications of peak oil. It can stay here or go there but this material does not deserve to be word for word in 2 afrticles. It makes editing extremely difficult if you have 2 versions that then start to slightly differ, and there was no good reason to text dump inthat way, SqueakBox 03:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My deletion

message: As long as we keep using oil, eventually it will run out. That is a consequence of the simple fact that the size of the Earth is not infinite. It's not a TARDIS inside! :) Whether or not climate change will hit first, or oil depletion first, or both at once depends on the estimates and data one is using. Some oil-depletion anaylsts suggest that we may have only 50 years of oil left, particularly when growht is factored in, and as it depletes the prices will skyrocket and crash the economy even before them. By contrast, it is suggested that it will take at least 100 years for climate changes to really ruin things -- ie. oil depletion hits first. Some though go to 75 years for complete depletion, but still the economy will crash sooner. For conventional oil, these estimates are very accurate. However, if one factors in oil sands they could push out the depletion date further, but they bring the catastrophic climate-change date closer, so that if these are used climate change would come first. It depends on how you analyze and whose data you use, really. Some even suggest both will get bad around the same time. There are many complex interactions possible -- for example oil depletion makes it harder to consume oil and thus harder to emit CO2, lessening climate change. Switching to junk like shale and sands would pump a frick of a lot of CO2 and exacerbate climate change. This can in turn rebound off of oil use, etc. Really, only time will tell, and the best Wikipedia can do (since it for one is not a crystal ball), is just to neutrally report the various data. 74.38.35.171 05:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Global warming vs oil depletion

message: Any reason why the lead talks at length about global warming? --Relata refero (disp.) 08:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Regarding this edit, User:Arnoutf is questioning the assertion that crude oil is no longer being naturally produced. (I'm saying *naturally* produced, because some articles claim that oil is being produced from plankton in the lab.) Is crude oil still being naturally produced? What source, either way, do you have? Timhowardriley (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a wp:fringe hypothesis that says oil is being produced abiotically (meaning with no biological feedstocks) deep within the earth's crust.  This hypothesis doesn't really say how fast this might be happening, and it is negated by the biomarkers found in all oil samples to date, and is not found to be predictive for petroleum drillers, but enough conspiracy theorists (such as Alex Jones (radio) and Stanley Monteith) keep bringing it up that people keep wanting to believe it.  It is also possible that oil is being produced in the same way it was originally produced (from kerogen pyrolysis, in a variety of mostly endothermic reactions at high temperature and/or pressure), but this process is so slow that it doesn't make a difference to current supplies.  I changed the wording to account for that ("effectively fixed because petroleum formation takes millions of years").  If someone were to want to debate this, it would have to happen at the petroleum article, as it is beyond the scope of this article.  NJGW (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Short answer yes.Oil is being produced naturally as we speek (biotically,abiotically is dubious).The problem is that is too slow, and the fact that it doesn't accumulate in a reservoir, it just get eaten up by bacteria or oxidized by O2.This is no different from the way we got our current oil,it got the chance to accumulate in a natural reservoir over millions of years.--88.82.47.67 (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  My understanding is that oil was generated through the incomplete "digestion" of flora by ancient microorganisms. More recent ones are able to digest it without letting oil form. So there may be some pockets remaining where the old process is still happening, but as a general rule, this is an old cycle that was broken a few hundreds of eons ago. --Iv (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is crude oil still being naturally produced? 

message: This discussion is a continuation of the discussion in Talk:Peak oil.  It is off-topic there and will be continued here.Kgrr (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "there is still plenty of oil in the world" 

message: In the Peak oil article, TastyCakes left the following comment:
:Simply dividing reserves by yearly consumption is obviously an inaccurate way of determining "how many years" of present consumption we have left because as the reserves approach exhaustion you produce at a slower and slower rate.  That, in my opinion, is why statements like "we have enough oil in the ground" are misleading.  You can't just extract an arbitrary amount at a whim, as time goes on you have to wait longer and longer to extract the same amount of oil.  TastyCakes (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  That's the fallacy of the reserves to production ratio everyone hurls around.Kgrr (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an important topic as to why depletion will actually happen sooner.  Let's develop this idea a bit further and put it into the article.Kgrr (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reserves to depletion ratio

message: dear NJGW, you obviously didn't read This_article_does_not_cite_any_references_or_sources.#Inline_citations. if you have, you wouldn't provide such an edit summary. i would like to see this article become a good or even featured article, but your reverts are being everything but helpful. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't say "this article does not cite any references or sources" when there are 19 inline citations, tons of wikilinks, and three sections which refer to a larger main article.  If there is something you actually want a citation for (and for some reason can't find it already used in this article or clearly referred to at the main articles) feel free to make reasonable requests.  Tagging every single sentence in an article for citation is not reasonable.  NJGW (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you misread what I wrote. Please be more careful. Although above link points to 'not cite any sources', the subsection i linked to talks about other cases too, and why inline citations should be used. I find my request for the inline tag reasonable, and your resistance to it quite odd. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline 

message: There is a report available: Evolution of Giant Oil Field Production Behavior Especially Figure 4 on page 5 may be interesting. Uikku (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typical oil field depletion 

message: The graph at the top of the article appears to be original research WP:OR.  It cites a source for current production and for reserves, but not for the projected future production profiles.  In fact, the model shown makes an assumption of increasing production for some countries: production flat at first, then increasing in each remaining country until each country in turn suddenly exhausts its oil.  This is precisely the opposite of what has been observed.  In fact, as regions or countries run out of oil, the production rates decline asymptotically (rapidly at first, then more slowly).  This is well documented further down in this article.  So is there a published source for the illustrated future production, or is it WP:OR?  Plazak (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No one came to the defense of this strange bit of original research, so I deleted it.  Plazak (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leading graph: File:Oil depletion per country.png unlikely [[WP:OR]] 

message: Several passages in the article say that once a resource passes its peak, Hubbert theory predicts that it will enter exponential decline; the implication to me is that the entire theoretical decline phase is supposedly exponential (according to this article). I am not aware of Hubbert or any other published studies of Hubbert curves saying this. In fact, the most cursory inspection of a Hubbert curve shows this to be false. In exponential decline, the steepest decline is at the very start, and progressively becomes less steep as production approaches, but mathematically never reaches, zero. The predicted Hubbert-curve decline cannot possibly be exponential until after the inflection point. Hubbert wrote of the early part of the curve being approximated by exponential growth, but he noted (1956, page 7 and Figure 10) that US oil production, exponential growth lasted only until 1930. Plazak (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exponential decline - or not 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Oil depletion. 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/20060624111423/http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org:80/library/admin/uploadedfiles/How_Much_Energy_Does_it_Take_to_Make_a_Gallon_.html to http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/How_Much_Energy_Does_it_Take_to_Make_a_Gallon_.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060127013201/http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu:80/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html to http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html
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 16:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Oil depletion. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20100112174512/http://www.theglobalist.com:80/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=5077 to http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=5077
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) 16:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Article: 
> Natural gas is used simply because it is the cheapest currently available source of hydrogen; were that to change, other sources, such as electrolysis powered by solar energy, could be used to provide the hydrogen for creating fertilizer without relying on fossil fuels.
There is no source at all. And if any, it should address the large scale feasibility. Tuxayo (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source needed for viability of solar energy => electrolysis => hydrogen => fertilizer