Talk:Hubbert peak theory/Archive 1

message: dsl-203-113-210-57.QLD.netspace.net.au (203.113.210.57) just made some ok clean ups to the peak oil page and I was wondering if that was you One Salient Opinion? Zen Master 13:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  OSO, Is That You Cleaning Up The Page? 

message: I realize this may be far less than what One Salient Oversight may want, but here is the paraphrasing of my proposed solution sentence, the points it should convey and my reasoning on why it shouldn't be more than this. 
A one or two sentence mention of Athabasca in a more appropriate section on the Hubbert Peak page (the section that deals with either non conventional sources of oil, or the section that discusses various predictions on the date of peak) that touches on the promising potential of extracting a significant portion of future oil from the huge tar sands deposit, plus, mentioning the skeptical nature of that happening given either the current limited rate of production and/or the large envrionment impact should be a fair compromise I believe.  Any mention larger than that would definitely have to mention the larger enrvironmental impact of tar sands oil production among other things I believe (stuff more applicably put on another page, like the Athabasca page or the generic tar sands page).  A link to the Athabasca page from Hubbert Peak may make the most sense regardless if one isn't there currently.
Hopefully this dispute can now be resolved quickly.  Absent a counter proposal from OSO I believe we are just going to continue to agree to disagree about what is best for the Hubbert Peak page.  A third party/admin should just decide so we can all move on and spend our time more constructively adding info to and cleaning other articles.
Zen Master 18:08, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Solution Sentence 

message: "...OSOs reading comprehension challenged. Not the best heading to use when attempting to solve a dispute with another person. I'm choosing to let it go and not get angry about it."  I titled my post that way because your argument does not make logical sense to me, you seem like a logical person so the only other explanation is a misread.  You agree Athabasca only has potential yet you want to focus on the mere fact it has a large deposit and not mention the significant challenges of exponentially increasing tar sands oil production?  This does not compute.  
"...the issue of whether or not it is possible that the Athabasca deposit can be exploited via massive oil company investment in the next 10-20 years".   Monetary investment is only the beginning of the challenge in extracting oil from tar sands, have you read the entire Hubbert Peak page?  Note the point about how for it to make any sense at all you have to be able to recover more energy than is used in the various extraction processes.  Energy efficiency should be the focus in the article not monetary investment facts.  Conventional oil has a much higher ratio of extracted energy over energy used in the recovery processes, why do you want to give Athabasca a free pass on this point?
The difference in nomenclature between reserve and deposit is the essense of the issue, reserve means it can be counted on to have oil extracted from it, deposit means just that, it's sitting in the ground but who knows if we can ever extract a significant percentage of it.  Perhaps we should define the differences between oil reserve and oil deposit as so inside the page so there is no confusion?
"...As it stands, Hubbert's Peak is a theory that is yet to be widely held."  This is simply not true, Hubbert Peak theory is widely held, it's the when and the how that are in debate.  And the existance of Athabasca or any other new source of oil in no way disproves Hubbert Peak theory (which is what you seem to keep insinuating), it would only be a delay.   The First law of thermodynamics means there can be no denying there is ultimately a finite fossil fuel reserve on planet earth.  IF, we run out of oil here are some of the things that happen is what should be discussed in the effects section, promising sources of non conventional oil are best put elsewhere, why do you disagree with a logical formatting such as this?
You agree Athabasca has to prove itself so please indicate why you have problems with the language in the proposed sentence I want to use that says just that?  The key caveat word in my mind is to be skeptical on the point that Athabasca must increase production exponentially to be a factor.  Extracting oil is far easier from conventional oil sources and it takes them 30+ years to exponentially increase, so why do you seemingly give Athabasca a free pass on the logistics and efficiency of actually extracting oil?  It's at least twice as difficult/inefficient to extract oil from tar sands yet one would think it was twice as easy from the paragraph you wrote, that is simply wrong.
Here is a quotation indicating how you are missing the point in my opinion, "My section on the Athabasca tar sands that we are debating about is, I think, very relevant to the 'Effects of a World Peak' section. It points out that, while oil reserves are dropping, there is an oil deposit in Canada that is very large and could, in fact, be exploited, then it would certainly add a few decades to the peak"  Please note this quotation already on the page (I wrote it myself), "Others believe in a 'market solution' to an oil supply crisis, believing that the rise in oil prices will stimulate investment in oil replacement technologies and/or more efficient oil extraction technologies".  I've already captured the point you want to capture on the page.   Why get into endless specifics at the wrong place when I've already covered the point generally.
Wouldn't this Venezuelan Orinoco tar sands site deserve equal mention to Athabasca given its equivalent size?  Where does this end?  A detailed Athabasca mention is more logically put elsewhere. 
Zen Master 07:17, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response Header 

message: Okay Zen, let's try to work these things out.
**Energy usage vs energy gain
Do you think that the energy used to extract oil at Athabasca is greater than the energy that is extracted? This seems to be your tacit assumption. It is my assumption that the energy used in the extraction process will be less than the energy extracted.
What do I base this assumption on? Pure economics. At Athabasca at this moment there are trucks and machinery and buildings that use energy in different forms: coal/gas/nuclear based electricity that is powering the machinery and buildings; oil that powers the trucks. And then we have to factor in the energy used to build and transport the trucks and machinery and so on. All these expenses add up. And yet, for some reason, Syncrude and the other two oil companies have decided to create this synthetic crude oil and sell it on the open market. There is no way they can do this if they did not hope to make money out of it.
It is my belief that the energy usage vs energy gain situation will be born out through the economics of it all. In other words, IF an energy extraction technique is greater than the energy that is actually extracted, then this will translate into either financial loss for the company involved, or a reaction by the marketplace against such high prices (they won't want to buy it).
Now I can't prove the assertion above without some more detailed research. However we could probably both agree, barring some very obvious information that I have missed, that, at this point in time, we cannot make any firm assumption that the extraction energy is greater than the extracted energy. It might be, but no one knows. The opposite is also true - I might be very wrong and the extraction energy IS greater than the extracted energy. But without clear information either way we can't make any biased assertion.
Yet we must remember that it is possible that Athabasca could be exploited and that the energy used is less than the energy gained. That in itself is reason for inclusion in the article.
Unless you can find clear, unambiguous evidence that the extraction energy is greater than extracted energy, you won't convince me.
**The widely held view of Hubbert's Peak
Let me explain myself further on this point. If you take a poll on society, would 50.0001% of people hold the view that Hubbert's peak is correct? If so then the belief is widely held. If the poll results in 49.9999%, then it is not widely held. As it stands I would guestimate that less than 5% of the world population believe in Hubbert's peak... if that. Obviously we have to ignore those who wouldn't know this and more basic things (ie 80% of the world's population), but even in the Western world you would not find Politicians, Radio Commentators, Newspaper editors etc jumping up and down and screaming "emergency... we're going to run out of oil". Again let me refer you to The Economist magazine. This magazine is an internationally renowned news and economics magazine that has publically refuted the idea that the world is running out of oil. This doesn't mean they're right - I think they're very wrong (along with other things like supporting the war on Iraq... but let's not go THERE!). But what it does indicate is that some very powerful and influential people are yet to be convinced.
**And the existance of Athabasca or any other new source of oil in no way disproves Hubbert Peak theory (which is what you seem to keep insinuating), it would only be a delay'''
Look Zen you've got to be very clear about what you're saying here. Which part of my argument indicates that I am trying to disprove Hubbert's Peak? Please quote me, freely. What have I actually said that shows that I am trying to disprove it?
I have maintained all along that the existance of Athabasca and Orinoco in no way disprove Hubbert. In fact, I have said so explicitly above. You have said that "it would only be a delay" - yes, we are in agreement here. I have said this! If Athabasca and Orinoco are able to be exploited then all this would do is push the peak ahead a few decades. I've said this! It's all there above! How many times do you want me to say "I believe in Hubbert's Peak"
**The First law of thermodynamics means there can be no denying there is ultimately a finite fossil fuel reserve on planet earth.  IF, we run out of oil here are some of the things that happen is what should be discussed in the effects section, promising sources of non conventional oil are best put elsewhere, why do you disagree with a logical formatting such as this?
What is going to happen if we begin to run out of oil? That to me is what the section is about. The article is predicting all sorts of horrible things to occur - and it should because it will probably happen. But exactly when will oil run out. Will it run out like in your petrol tank? One day the world is happily running along and then the next day everything stops because there is no more oil? Of course not - most Peak oil people would argue that the running out of oil will take a long time. The whole point of a "Peak" is that oil consumption will gradually become more scarce. It is the timeframe that is important in the discussion of the effects. It's not so much that bad things will happen, its the idea that bad things will happen over a period of time - that idea MUST be included in the article
What Athabasca does is add a variable to the equation. It is basically saying "If tar sands can be exploited then the effects will be drawn out over a longer period".
**You agree Athabasca has to prove itself so please indicate why you have problems with the language in the proposed sentence I want to use that says just that?  The key caveat word in my mind is to be skeptical on the point that Athabasca must increase production exponentially to be a factor.  Extracting oil is far easier from conventional oil sources and it takes them 30+ years to exponentially increase, so why do you seemingly give Athabasca a free pass on the logistics and efficiency of actually extracting oil? 
I totally agree that an exponential increase in oil production from Athabasca is required. What I am pointing out, however, is that it is possible. You mention that 30+ years above as proof. I think this is spurious logic. You've assumed that because it took conventional oil 30+ years for exponential production then it will take longer for tar sands. The question is... why did it take them 30+ years for exponential oil production? You seem to assume that it is due to technology and geology - that the conventional oil extraction process is a scientific given. I don't think that is a logical thing to assume. We're talking here about the Middle East, mostly. A bunch of nations that have repressive and corrupt governments and uneducated workers. It could be that oil extraction levels were affected by things like red tape, inefficient oil well designs, political and religious revolutions... and so on. It's also affected by market demands. 30+ years ago there was less demand for oil than there is now - mainly because there were less people driving cars on planet earth. Since that time, more people have been driving more cars, which leads to growing demand, which leads to Oil producers sinking new wells to gain the riches of selling oil to a willing planet. THAT to me is the reason why oil production has increased exponentially - not because conventional oil extraction is restricted by some geological and scientific barrier.
**  It's at least twice as difficult/inefficient to extract oil from tar sands yet one would think it was twice as easy from the paragraph you wrote, that is simply wrong.
Show me the proof that it is twice as difficult and inefficient. The fact that oil companies are making lots of money from Athabasca synthetic crude is enough for me to think that it is viable.
**Here is a quotation indicating how you are missing the point in my opinion, "My section on the Athabasca tar sands that we are debating about is, I think, very relevant to the 'Effects of a World Peak' section. It points out that, while oil reserves are dropping, there is an oil deposit in Canada that is very large and could, in fact, be exploited, then it would certainly add a few decades to the peak"  Please note this quotation already on the page (I wrote it myself), "Others believe in a 'market solution' to an oil supply crisis, believing that the rise in oil prices will stimulate investment in oil replacement technologies and/or more efficient oil extraction technologies".  I've already captured the point you want to capture on the page.   Why get into endless specifics at the wrong place when I've already covered the point generally.
Because it offers more detail and specific information that what you wrote. I don't like having brief articles on wikipedia. I want them to contain as much relevant information as is reasonably possible. I hope that the Hubbert's Peak article will grow in content and quality to be around 4-5 times the size it is now. Why? Because it is all good information to have.
And Athabasca gives people a concrete example of what is going on. I want people around the world to read the Hubberts Peak article on the Wikipedia page and to be armed with as much objective and truthful information as possible. That's why we need to give them the example of Athabasca - because it gives them facts. Remember, all those peak oil links that I gave above took Athabasca into serious consideration. They did not ignore it, they did not say "those are just deposits and not reserves". No, they have taken it on board and they see Athabasca as a very important factor in the effects of Hubbert's Peak. Like you and me (yes me too) they are not sure about whether it is viable or not - but it is certainly not off their radar screens.
**Wouldn't this Venezuelan Orinoco tar sands site deserve equal mention to Athabasca given its equivalent size?  Where does this end?  A detailed Athabasca mention is more logically put elsewhere. 
Because I am a major shareholder in Syncrude and I don't want people to invest in Venezuela. C'mon, this is a bit of a silly argument isn't it. Do you want me to edit the entire talk page so I can add "and Orinoco" to everything? Everything that I have been arguing has been so that the tar sands in both Athabasca and Orinoco are taken into consideration. There is absolutely no need to have one section of the article dedicated to Athabasca and another section dedicated to Orinoco because they are essentially arguing the same thing. Was this final comment of yours a serious one? Because if it is then I think you may be not understanding much of my argument at all.
===What to do now?===
I'm going to email someone at ASPO and get an opinion on this. One reason why I wanted a mediator was so that other people could come in and give their opinion rather than just you and me duking it out. To be honest I would be far more inclined to trust the opinions and beliefs of others on this matter than simply debating them with you.
It might be good if you told me what your interest is in Hubbert's Peak? Are you an environmental scientist? Which country are you from? What areas did you study? What is your current job?
My interest in Hubbert's Peak: A friend (the one I confused you with) emails me one day and says that we're all going to run out of oil. I have debated all sorts of things with him and assured him that this was not the case. He persisted and gave me the peak oil websites. I went to them and also read the Wikipedia article. After initially disagreeing with him I began to see his point. My own basic mathematical research involved dividing current known oil reserves by annual consumption... and coming up with a 40-year figure. I had previously been assuming that oil reserves would last 100+ years and so this figure cam as a shock. I then realised that 40 years was too optimistic because consumption rose every year. That convinced me that Hubbert's peak is probably true.
Area of Study: BA in English Literature and Modern History.
Where am I from?: Newcastle, Australia - where we export millions of tonnes of coal to the world so they can put more CO2 in the air.
Job: Was a training officer for disabled people but halfway through our argument I was laid off. Currently unemployed.
One Salient Oversight 11:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: OSO response header

message: I'm going to email someone at ASPO and get an opinion on this. One reason why I wanted a mediator was so that other people could come in and give their opinion rather than just you and me duking it out. To be honest I would be far more inclined to trust the opinions and beliefs of others on this matter than simply debating them with you.
It might be good if you told me what your interest is in Hubbert's Peak? Are you an environmental scientist? Which country are you from? What areas did you study? What is your current job?
My interest in Hubbert's Peak: A friend (the one I confused you with) emails me one day and says that we're all going to run out of oil. I have debated all sorts of things with him and assured him that this was not the case. He persisted and gave me the peak oil websites. I went to them and also read the Wikipedia article. After initially disagreeing with him I began to see his point. My own basic mathematical research involved dividing current known oil reserves by annual consumption... and coming up with a 40-year figure. I had previously been assuming that oil reserves would last 100+ years and so this figure cam as a shock. I then realised that 40 years was too optimistic because consumption rose every year. That convinced me that Hubbert's peak is probably true.
Area of Study: BA in English Literature and Modern History.
Where am I from?: Newcastle, Australia - where we export millions of tonnes of coal to the world so they can put more CO2 in the air.
Job: Was a training officer for disabled people but halfway through our argument I was laid off. Currently unemployed.
One Salient Oversight 11:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What to do now?

message: The Hubbert curve is a tool for making a prediction about the future
supply of oil.
Any particular oilfield has a curve associated with it.  The total
amount of oil under the curve depends on lots of things, which you can
predict with various accuracy.
Add all the curves together, and, like enough summed normal distributions,
you get a normal again, this time for the whole earth petroleum
production.
You two are arguing about the size and timing of one of the component
curves, having to do with one (or a few) oil sources.  It sounds like
the oil companies working on these sources have their reasons for not
being very explicit about how much oil is really there, or how much
oil it takes to get it out.  Maybe they aren't really sure.  Maybe they
are getting government subsidies that make extraction practical when
it otherwise would not be.  Maybe extracting oil using hydroelectric
power is a better way to convert electricity to oil that hydrogen
productions.  Lots of uncertainty here.
There is uncertainty in the timing of the worldwide Hubbert Peak.  Maybe
you two could do a section listing some of the sources of uncertainty,
listed by potential effect.  It sounds like these tar sands could push
the peak out for a few decades, if extraction gets efficient enough.
There are probably other sources of uncertainty:
* how much can be extracted from known oil fields
* undiscovered oil fields.  Maybe there is much much more oil, only further down than anyone has looked yet (farfetched).
* other kinds of uncertainty?
But all this uncertainty is different from doubt about the underlying thesis:
that oil production waxes then wanes, and follow a curve rather independent
of many of the technicalities of the situation, permitting easier predictions.
And is also independent of speculations about the worldwide economic
effects of decreasing oil supply, which are all subject to uncertainty
of a different sort.
It would be certainly be interesting if the greenhouse problem were limited
by lack of oil to some amount short of whatever needed to tip the global
environment into a noticeably different course.
Keep at it guys, you're doing good research.
Iain McClatchie
:Well, we were arguing about more than just prediction accuracy.  My point was the effects of Peak Oil should be kept separate and remain largely the same regardless of whether Peak Oil begin tomorrow or in 15 years (absent a suitible not fossil fuel energy source).  Also, Athabasca production increasing an order of magnitude between now and 2015 is extremely doubtful.  The Hubbert model is accurate, it's the data that is fed into the model where the disagreement begins.  The effects section of the Hubbert Peak page merely describes and should continue to describe what would happen should we increasingly start to run out of oil.   Does Athabasca have potential?  Perhaps.   But no one in the oil industry is denying that the days of cheap oil -- where "cheap" means all three of: low environmental impact, low prices, and high ratio of extracted energy over energy used in the extraction processes -- are increasingly over. 
:Zen Master 22:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  You are arguing about prediction accuracy