Talk:Hubbert peak theory/Archive 6

message: I actually just had a quick question, I am pretty sure I read somewhere that peak oil theorists were denoted with some sort of title - what is it?
--Falieson 17:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: Regarding the anonymous request
:By the way, would anyone (RandomP) be able to summarize the position of the two apparently opposing posters, which resulted in the mediation? I seemed to miss what happened and the mediation process (now abandoned?) seemed to erase the previous discussions, etc.
I can certainly give a summary from my point of view;  so I didn't even make any significant effort to be neutral:
*I fixed an image caption in the article, and, when this was first reverted by , explained why I did so:  the short summary is, as it always has been, is that a "Hubbert curve" is the graph of any one of a very small family of functions, and they all are symmetric;  the graph in the image is not.
* objected to this;  they were convinced that a "Hubbert curve" was not always symmetric, and it probably didn't help that the image that was then in the logistic distribution article was incorrect.
*during the discussion, ruber chiken and I happily reverted each other whenever we were convinced that our argument was now so convincing that the other party would surely have to agree with it.  Oops.  Again, my apologies for reverting once too often, at least.
* was concerned about the edit warring, and called in the Mediation Cabal.
*Before the mediator arrived, ruber chiken had already made clear he wasn't going to edit the article further, by my reading.
*I agreed with the mediator, at least, that there was no point considering the article "in mediation" when ruber chiken had left and I was under the impression no one else was feeling the need to be involved in any further disputes.
*the last three edits to the image caption were  (back to the correct version), Carbonate (back to the incorrect one), and Arthur again (back to the correct version), where it stands now.
* now agrees that the Hubber curve is symmetric, in a post I do not want to link to.
*the image in logistic distribution has been fixed in the commons;  turns out it was a typo.  So, at the least, that got fixed.  We're making some progress :-)
There are still issues that now need discussion, like the misquoted EIA reference;  I can conceive those might need mediation (between, as things look now, Carbonate and me) at some future point, though the case seems extraordinarily straightforward to me.
(Full disclosure:  I have previously been in informal mediation with Carbonate, which failed.  I think he supplied me with a link to this article in that discussion, though I had looked at it previously, and it might have been a remark of his that caused me to attempt to find the fabled mathematical model attributed to Hubbert.  So I don't think any wikistalking or other misbehaviour is to blame for the coincidence of disagreeing with Carbonate again so soon.)
RandomP 15:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of discussion 

message: This section currently reads, in part:
:Most critics instead argue that the peak will not occur soon and that the form of the peak may be irregular and extended rather than a sharp logistic curve peak.  Like any mathematical model, the accuracy of the prediction is dependent on the validity of the model and further to that, by the accuracy of the input data.  If variables such as consumption are estimated incorrectly, then the formula will yield different results.
I'll try to discuss the individual sentences separately, so partial consensus might work.  Please try responding after the right signature.
I'm going to go ahead and remove the first paragraph soon, unless it's defended;  however, please defend each sentence separately, as I believe they should all be removed for different reasons.
RandomP 12:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the global petroleum supply is finite, alternative energy sources must be found in the future.
Not relevant to that section.  Anyone want to keep it?
RandomP 12:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Most critics instead argue that the peak will not occur soon and that the form of the peak may be irregular and extended rather than a sharp logistic curve peak.
That's what Hubbert said, too!  The "most critics" bit is simply misleading;  it's possible that the Deffeyes crowd argues that a sharp logistic curve will happen, but that needs to be sourced, since it's a position not appearing in Hubbert's papers.
If no source can be found, that whole sentence should go out.
RandomP 12:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Like any mathematical model, the accuracy of the prediction is dependent on the validity of the model and further to that, by the accuracy of the input data.
It is unclear which "mathematical model" this is about.  As I have been unable to find any mathematical model, please provide sources pointing to one.
At present, it's impossible to say anything about the validity of the model since it simply hasn't been sighted.
Again, in the absence of new sources, I see no reason for that sentence to remain;  it is simply inapplicable without a mathematical model to point to.
RandomP 12:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If variables such as consumption are estimated incorrectly, then the formula will yield different results.
Which formula?  I've not seen a formula in the article or the references that treats "consumption" (of what?) as an input variable.
Again, if there's no source, I'll have to remove that.
RandomP 12:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peak prediction section 

message: Since this article was first tagged for merger with with the cirtisim page, RandomP has been making many major edits that have been disputed in the talk page by many including RuberChiken.  Mediation was requested by Nagle and rejected by RandomP.  I would like to ask for comments about reverting this article to the state on June 6th before the edits made by RandomP and/or RuberChiken. Carbonate 01:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on reverting to June 6 

message: I'm trying to make this a good article again, without changing the perspective much.  I cleaned up the "Alternatives" section, with the general concept being that the alternatives should be covered in the articles on each alternative.  There are Wikipedia articles on all the alternatives, from oil sands to fusion, so that's covered.  I cut down the oil sands stuff a bit and added a mention of and link to the Orinoco field in Venezeula, the other big oil sands area, which somehow nobody had mentioned yet.
I also rearranged some sections without changing them.  Now the Hubbart peak theory and predictions are at the top, and the alternatives, implications, and criticism follow.  That reads better.  
Comments?  --John Nagle 19:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure whether what Hubbert did qualifies as a model either.  What we do have is an emperical result that, for each field of finite size, production increases with investment up to some limit, then tapers off despite additional investment.  That's the per-field peak.  We also know roughly how long this process takes for a field - about 30-50 years.  (Interestingly, that's true even for oil sands; the Athabasca people are planning for a 40 year field life.) We know the discovery peak was in the 1960s.  Those statements alone lead to  expecting a world production peak around now.  --John Nagle 21:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I've been reading the USGS world oil resources assessment, which is cited in the article here.  It's older than one might expect; the report is from 2000, and the data is from no later than 1996.  There's a 4:1 ratio between the high and low reserves estimates.  The USGS web site for energy resource has become much more vague than it used to be.  There's still a link to the "classic site" on that page. 
There's a big IHS study underway on reserves.  IHS has the best data, which they sell for large amounts of money.  IHS data goes down to the level of exactly which wells are doing what.  Much of the USGS study is based on 1996 data from IHS. In late 2006, IHS will have a new world oil study out, and the overall conclusions will probably give some better information about what's really happening.  --John Nagle 19:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on USGS assessment 

message: "Natural gas is expected to peak anywhere from 2010 to 2020 (Bentley, 2002)." This one sentence claim seems a bit out of place to me. Isn't the article about oil? Regardless, the word 'anywhere' in that sentence implies a greater degree of certainty than exists. I imagine that some people think that gas will peak after 2020, a few may predit its peaking before 2010. 
I vote for getting rid of this sentence, or at least trying to better integrate it into the article. Matthias5 22:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural gas peaking claim 

message: Most of the 'has it happened?' section is repeated in the article. Except for the first sentence, this section could be junked or merged with current events. Matthias5 22:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there is redundant material that could be cleaned up.  Since current events tend to become out of date, maybe that section should be merged into the 'has it happened?' section.  Also, the two items for discussion that appear at the top of the article have been there long enough.  If nothing is happening with that, they should be deleted. Jkintree 21:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  redundancy in article 

message: Concerning this sentence
:Opinions on Hubbert's peak range from predictions that the market economy will produce a solution, to predictions of doomsday scenarios of a global economy unable to meet its energy needs.
I'm a bit confused; this appears to say, to me, "opinions range from predictions that public policy intervention won't be required, to predictions public policy intervention would be futile".
Any thoughts on rewording this to include people who believe this to be a problem to some degree, and think public policy can do something about it?  That kind of appears to be a common government position, at least ...
RandomP 18:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's saying that opinions range from "it's not a problem" to "it's so bad we can't solve it".  That already includes people who hold intermediate positions such as "it's a problem but solvable".  But it could use a better wording.  MrVoluntarist 18:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions on Hubbert's peak 

message: I'm in favor of moving the critique's in the article, and then possibly splitting out other parts. (No specific discussion section of this page was ever set up.) — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Critique of Hubberts peak theory]] and/or split of article

message: In the section dealing with the effects the perspective is quite narrow, is there room in the article for more detail? Example - since plastic is derived from crude oil, hitting peak oil has implications for packaging, medicine (disposable needles), and so on. Another example I saw in a National Geographic article (sorry, don't know which, but it was a cover story) included the information that a single cow being raised, slaughtered and transported to shops requires the equivalent of 7 barrels of crude oil for the various stages. If anyone has access to the article to reference it properly, it gave a broader coverage of the issue. 59.167.168.152 10:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Information? 

message: At the risk of being one of those "complain but don't fix" editors...
Australia's national non-commercial public broadcaster Four Corners program this week ran a story on the subject of Peak Oil. It summarised all the current voices and implications nicely (has an Australia-centric viewpoint however). If anyone's interested in an unbiased report they have the entire program on broadband here. Perhaps it may give some editors some new starting points for improving and updating this article.
(Also I'm suprised there's no mention here of the emerging economies' need for oil and the future imapct of this. I'm thinking of China and India here.) --Monotonehell 14:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible resource for further expansion of this article. 

message: After reading the article, I felt that the proper noun term "Peak Oil" needed to be defined in order to set a context for the rest of the article, particularly since the Wikipedia term "Peak Oil" redirects here. I strongly suspect that a high percentage of the people who find their way to this article do so by looking up "Peak Oil". So I expanded the earlier section about the US oil peaking and used it as a way to explain the concept of the unique global event. I think this explanation adds a lot of context to the rest of the article and makes it more intelligible for readers.SparhawkWiki 06:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I approve of Nagle's overhaul of the article's introduction.  Nice collective editing. Jkintree 17:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also like the edits, but I couldn't just leave well enough alone and I made some more contextual additions. Hopefully they meet with community approval.SparhawkWiki 20:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a lot of attention to peak oil the media here in Europe, most of it referring to the theory that it is peaking (globally) very soon, and (to a lesser extent) that we're on a disaster course if we don't make major changes to our energy system. I believe the article should address that, and in fact that it should be the focus. Jens Nielsen 17:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of that is in Implications of peak oil, which could use some work. --John Nagle 18:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added definition of "Peak Oil" 

message: I have turned the article Implications of peak oil into a redirect going to this page. The reason for this can be viewed at its talk page. --Polonium 21:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect created 

message: Hear is a good reading, relevant to this article, for anyone with a open mind:  --Striver 23:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peak oil myth

message: I removed this text from the end of the article: "Note that it is very dangerous to tie the amount of oil we can get, to the price per barrel.  The reason is that despite the possible profitability of the venture, when the ERoEI falls below 1, it is no longer a SOURCE of energy, just profit".
This had only been in the article for the last few days.  It is a problem because of the phrase "very dangerous", and because it assumes that oil must be an energy source.  Even if, at some point in the future, oil is no longer an energy source, it still may have many uses, as a fuel, a source for making plastics, etc. --Xyzzyplugh 18:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, reading the article more extensively, I see that this is indeed covered in an earlier section, "Energy return on energy investment".  So this content was redundant as well.  --Xyzzyplugh 19:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed final sentences

message: There is a link to http://www.crisisenergetica.org/ in the links section. Seeing as it points to a Spanish site I removed it as I assumed it was a mistake. The link has now been restored with the question "Why shouldn't we link to Spanish sites?" in the history.
My answer would be that I would suggest that the link actually belongs on Spanish Wikipedia here (where there is already a link to that site):
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teor%C3%ADa_del_pico_de_Hubbert
I have left the link in place but surely if it were to stay it should actually point to an English section on the site or a translation? Or do we normally link to sites in languages other than English on the English Wikipedia?
Its quite normal to link to foreign language sites especially when no translation or English equivalent is available as many readers dont just read English. Sometimes it is necessary to source things in a foreign language, no source being available in English, SqueakBox 21:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to non-English sites normal? 

message: Continuing to clean up the references.  Dropped the "Voices" entries, most of which were just links to Google searches. "Voices" with a published book were moved to the book section.  Fixed many of the "Book" cites to use the proper template, eliminating redlinks in that section. All book entries now either have an ISBN link or a link to the author's Wikipedia article. --John Nagle 18:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More reference cleanup 

message: People need to be careful when considering statements regarding Michael Lynch, since there are at least two distinct Michael Lynchs which have been referred to.  Compare http://www.energyseer.com/MikeLynch.html with http://reason.com/Bio/lynch.shtml.  Bobo159 20:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Lynch 

message: "Some oil industry executives, economists, and analysts" simply refers back to Michael Lynch, who was already referenced before.  When citations can be provided, then this sentence could be reinstated. Skyemoor 15:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critiques 

message: Almost every one of the sites referenced could be classified as blogs.  It is discriminatory and arbitrary to include some but not others, especially when some of the others contain newsfeeds and static articles.  These are not social networking sites. Skyemoor 00:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My criteria for weeding was whether or not the site appeared to be notable. One for instance was written by an expert who is frequently quoted by major media outlets. The other main criteria I looked at was whether or not the site was ad-laden. It's pretty common for people to put together quick "news aggregator" sites on a particular topic, then seed them with ads.  It's unusual to see an article with this many links; I think most editors agree that we should focus more on content and links should be limited to only a few highly-relevant/notable ones. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Way to many links here, and very few are needed. let's stick to scientific ones, nothing on blogs or comapnies. HawkerTyphoon 01:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some of the best research and analysis is going on in the blogosphere using what numbers are publicly available, to be honest.  Not everything has to link original research, linking valuable analysis is probably more important for something as technical as oil reserve analysis.  Respectable third party reports on the topic are quite pricy, and internal research tends to stay internal.  Some of the most cited (in mainsteam press) reports involve statements by non-scientists, and organizations like CERA consistently overstate predicted production figures in what's become a cottage industry of yes-men.  Eliminating, for example, The Oil Drum would be irresponsible, as one of the places producing pages of many analysis on how Hubbert's curve fits with reality, every single day.  "Social Networking" involves the primary goal of developing friendships, whereas a blog can be anywhere on a continuum from personal diary to medical-journal level article.  Judge on content, not whether the source allows comments and discussion of content.Lesqual 01:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Sites 

message: Hi there, I removed the first sentence from the article because its completely unsubstantiated or referenced, and controversial, as well as being completely out of place within the flow of the article.  This sentence was:
"Many people believe Peak Oil is the untold motive of 9/11, facilitated by the U.S. government, as a pretext to secure energy supplies.  "
Astack 21:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad edit. 

message: TrendLinesOilDepletionScenarios41211.png which appears in the Implications of a world peak section has 6 lines, yet the legend refers to 7 of them (the OPEC 2004 line being absent in the graph).  As I do not have the original data, nor am I photoshop adept, I cannot fix this.
24.203.57.221 02:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad graph 

message: Skyemoor reverted my statement "At present, industrialized economies are highly dependent on oil." to the above.
I do not believe my statement is POV as Skyemoor asserts in the edit history. Perhaps my statement is not the best way of saying this, but "some" is NOT a correct characterization of the current oil dependency situation. There are ZERO industrialized economies on the planet that are not highly dependent on oil. It's that simple, and "some" does not illustrate the scope of the issue here. SparhawkWiki 15:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Highly" is an adjective with no set meaning in this context; Do you base this on the per capita consumption? Along with GDP or standard of living? Or because most commuters in a country have a whim to drive themselves to work? Or does it have to do with the amount of critical infrastructure that cannot operate without it?  Do you mean the simple existence of oil, or high volumes of oil production/imports? Do you distinguish between heavy or light industry? Are there specific industries that are completely dependent on oil in all countries?  If so, state those that are and provide citations. Note that the industrial nation with one of the highest oil exports (Norway) is the least dependent, whereas the country with the highest imports is the most dependent (U.S.). There is no clear answer to any of the above questions, so a complete blanket statement about all industrialized nations is not only ambiguous, but also  speculative and therefore POV.  Skyemoor 18:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all, if you disagree with the use of the word "highly", then why revert to a version of this that also uses the word "highly"? Secondly, I disagree that this statement must be that specific, again, all criticisms that you make here are equally applicable to the reverted statement. My point is: all industrialized economies at present are dependent on oil for the continued existence of their economies. I do not believe that this is a controversial statement, nor do I believe that it is a statement that, for the introduction to the subject matter, requires a lot in the way of citation. For most of the 20th century and the 21st, industry is synonymous with oil. At present, a country that does not have an oil supply does not have an industrial economy. If you insist in using "some" instead of "all", I suggest you point out an industrial economy that does not depend on oil in 2006.SparhawkWiki 18:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the term "highly" is indeed subjective, but some industrialized countries are indeed highly dependent on oil, such as the US, Canada, and some other developed nations.  However, the degree of dependency is widely variant, as Norway and Sweden, for example, use less than half the oil per capita, and Sweden is on an agressive path to eliminate its oil dependency completely.  So I believe it's important to note the distinctions, instead of using an overly broad brush. You are certainly on the right track, as GWB did admit that the US was addicted to oil in the SOTU speech this February.  Skyemoor 22:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not only energy,ther's also derivatives like plastics and chemicals.Even norway wher 100% of it's electricity commes from hydro,they still are dependent to oil for all the rest.--Pixel ;-) 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And...what does that have to do with my point? MrVoluntarist 19:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't read you well in my original comment.Any whay it's a lot more cumbersome than the use of oil,even if energy is present.If energy is present we can do enything we whant.Is quite probable that we continue to pump oil for centuries,not for energy but for the chemical indistry(by consuming energy).--Pixel ;-) 23:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, yeah, and I guess it depends on how pedantic you want to be about it. For example, lets say that China's diet is 80% rice or something like that (don't know if it's true, lets assume it is). One could correctly make the statement that the Chinese are "highly dependent" on rice. But, a pedant could come along and say "well, they're not highly dependent on rice so much as food, after all they could eat any food, right? Well, it's true, but it doesn't correctly reflect reality since they can't easily supplement the amount of rice they eat with some other equivalent food. Once you start down that road, you start abstracting the dependencies so far up the chain that they don't make sense anymore. SparhawkWiki 17:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, you remember incorrectly.  In any case, it's true that is oil were to have a shock, that would cause significant disruptions until substitutes are in place.  But then, you could say that about anything currently in reliable supply.  If the supply of something seems to be reliable, people will predicate more of their actions on it continuing to be supplied.  Like food.  So a more accurate statement would be that "current infrastructure is built in the anticipation of a steady flow of oil, requiring readjustment during shocks" or something along those lines. MrVoluntarist 20:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prove it.  Show me one case where a modern society has completely transitioned off oil to another energy source.  During WWII several countries tried transitioning to ethanol and not one of them was doing it after WWII ended.  Also, I point out that the countries that won that war also happened to retain control of the oil fields, those that lost didn't.  Some countries like Norway and Iceland which are small could concievably rely on their geothermal and hydroelectric, resp. for all their power but they certainly couldn't power the rest of the world.  France gets about 70% of its electric power from nuclear, but they still transport 8b metric tons of freight by truck, second only to 14b for rail (both of which use oil). The bottom line is that your assertion that a society could transition off oil is unsubstianted, it may very well be true, but it is by no means proven.  Astack 23:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some industrialized countries are currently highly dependent on oil.

message: Deleted the following as uncited original research:
More generally, the strong opacity surrounding the amount of real oil resources makes it very difficult to credibly evaluate the potential proximity of a global oil peak (timeline being the main sticking point, given that very few economists or geologists contest Hubbert's depletion model as such). The main reason for this opacity is rather simple : all players have an interest to inflate supposed oil resources - oil companies (it increases their financial weight), producing countries (it bestows them a stronger international stature), consumer countries (governments don't want to panic their citizens/consumers nor the financial markets). As a result, if the world is near or, worse, past an oil peak, it will be left grossly unprepared, and the consequences for economies and societies dependant on oil (that is to say most of the world) would be far-reaching and potentially devastating.
Actually, we don't need reserve data to find when the production peak occurs.  The main point of Hubbert's theory is that it's sufficient to observe current production over time. --John Nagle 05:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact,nowing the reserve data can help for beter modelling,for a real life prediction.Even actual production,is complicated too now with acuracy,too many peopol are encourage too cheat.--Pixel ;-) 17:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficulty of a Reliable Assessment 

message: Does anyone think we need a section on "Multiple Curves", other than Pixel?  Skyemoor 01:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a bit more info.Lesqual 05:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't understand why you whant it complitly out.--Pixel ;-) 19:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Curves 

message: I don't know if statements from industry experts are reliable sources of information on the real "industry opinion".  "Industry" will say whatever it takes to pander to consumers.  Real industry opinion is revealed in the pricing of oil futures contracts, which shows and sudden shortage of oil to be a long time off. MrVoluntarist 13:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, it is reasonable to expect people paid to represent the fossil fuel industry to put a spin on matters that will maximise their returns. However, criticisms of Hubbert's methods and modern predictions being made using Hubbert's methods are not based on trust in fossil fuel industry representatives. The criticisms are based on evidence available to everyone about the history of Hubbert peak predictions and actual oil production. Campbell's estimates of resources and general methods are at odds with those of the USGS, and the USGS is not a fossil fuel industry body. Ordinary Person 23:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MrV's Two Cents 

message: What hubbert theory means exacly,or oficially.It's clear that the method can be aplied in various places.Does someone has a source that sayes what hubbert theory is talking about, oficially?We schouldn't rearenge the article so that oil is one section(the biger one) among others,without some special place in the intro?--Pixel ;-) 01:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hubbert peak fossil fuel resources and the rest 

message: this gives me the impretion that hubbert arguments are quite general.It's just an other logistic curve model.
:This article isn't about Hubbert's "argument".  It's about a theory.  It's not about Hubbert coming out and saying, "oh, I think cumulative oil production will follow a logistic curve".  That has all the scientific value of someone claiming to know next year's lottery numbers.
:I've read the primary sources that people claim contain the derivation of the logistic curve as a model;  they don't.  I don't blame people assuming that they still do, of course, because many secondary sources claim so flat out, but, as far as I can tell, they are wrong.
:If you want to change the entire article to be about predictions Hubbert made, with no claim of an underlying scientific process, that's another story;  as long as it is about something that's portrayed as a scientific theory, though, we need to be accurate in distinguishing predictions based on rash simplifications from those based on acceptable theories.
:RandomP 13:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General theory

message: Until recently, I've thought that having a search on "peak oil" at Wikipedia bringing the user to the Hubbert peak theory article was fine.  The Hubbert peak theory article is becoming cluttered these days with sections relating to phosphorus, metals, and now even an attempt to include a section on renewables.  Maybe it really would be best to have a separate article on "peak oil" that would contain a link to the article on "Hubbert peak theory," but would be more focused on the issue of oil. Jkintree 14:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peak Oil article

message: hubert peak refers in general for fossil fuels and resources, like oil AND gas,coal,uranium,iron,coper ...The article is complitly overwelmed by oil problematic and nothing for the others.--Pixel ;-) 04:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: also it's 38 kilobytes long !
Can anyone produce references that show that M. K. Hubbert applied his peak theory to anything but fossil fuel fluids? Skyemoor 10:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Hubbert's 1956 paper at http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf . Jkintree 19:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To summarize, Hubbert's paper discusses not just oil production, but other fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, oil shale, etc) and fissionable materials, uranium and thorium. -- KarlHallowell 00:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say that both the Alternate and the EROEI sections are relevant to this article.  The Alternate section mostly links to other articles, which is good.  Splitting this article has been discussed multiple times in the past, and never agreed on.  While Hubbert's theory also applies to natural gas and coal, the most immediate impact is likely to come from peak oil.  I originally found this article by searching Wikipedia for "peak oil." Leave well-enough alone. Jkintree 19:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, will restore the Alternate and EROIE sections. Skyemoor 01:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  The assertion that oil production will peak someday is a direct (trivial) consequence of the widely held belief that there is only finite amount of accessible oil. An ever increasing oil production requires infinite supply, which is absurd. --AndrasCz 11:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  AndrazCz, yeah that's true but the form that the effects of the peak and at when it will occur are debatable.  That is, is there going to be a "soft landing" with people turning to alternate energy sources or is that "by 2025, we'll be back in the Stone Age" (to quote Deffeyes).  However, to get back on topic, after reading John Nagle's comment, I'm leaving my "oppose" vote.  As for splitting the page along the lines "Peak Oil" and "Hubbert Theory": in my impression, Hubbert is "the" man for peak oil, yes many more have worked on it, but he's the one widely credited with coming up with the peaks and predictions.  To illustrate from other wikipedia pages, the first sentence in the relativity pages (special and general) says Einstein came up with the theories and they don't have a separate page for "his" contributions versus others' contributions.  So I think its fine to give Hubbert his due by crediting him with the discovery of "peak oil".  :o) Astack 14:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  In my understanding, the work of Hubbert (e.g., what mathematical function did he suggest for the Oil production curve) should have a relativly small, own page. He is clearly notable as a scientist. As stated above, he is just one of many people dealt with peak oil. His particular statements and predictions may be wrong, but "peak oil" as an idea clearly exists. So, the proposed split is not between implications and facts, but to create a stand-alone page for the the personal contribution of Hubbert. --AndrasCz 11:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that it will stay small.Ther are other technics that are not discused at all.For example the use of multiple curvers.--Pixel ;-) 19:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  split proposal 

message: Despite the fact ,that in theory, hubbert theory shouldn't apply on renewable resources.Over exploitation often results in a hubbert peak anyway.An example is the Cod of the north sea.
----
discuss
Is this article hubberts biography,or is it about hubbert theory?What is the official definition for hubbert theory?The hubbert method is ,sadly ,aplied for renewables too.--Pixel ;-) 17:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposal for "Hubbert peak for Renewable resources" 

message: I'd just like to remind everyone that it is important, when citing sources, to actually make sure they contain the same statement that you are using them as a source for.
I just [removed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hubbert_peak_theory&diff=76766392&oldid=76762036] the highlighted sentence in the following paragraph:
:In 1974, Hubbert projected that global oil production would peak in 1995 "if current trends continue"  (i.e., 2% growth in consumption per year) http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/growth/.
This suggests that the "current trends" Hubbert bases his (wrong) prediction on consist exclusively of a sustained exponential growth in "consumption" (virtually the same as production for oil, last I heard).  Not only does this flatly contradict the idea of a peak, it also contradicts Hubbert's methodology of looking at historic data to make a prediction.  Let's see what the source says:
:It is my understanding that the present hearings pertain primarily to the bill H.R. 11343, ``A bill to provide for the establishment of a comprehensive energy conservation program in order to regulate the national rate of growth of energy use, to establish a Council on Energy Policy, and for other purposes. In Sec. 7(a) of this bill it is stipulated that one of the duties of such a Council shall be ``to develop and transmit to the President and to the Congress ... a comprehensive report setting forth the proposed legislation it deems necessary to achieve a maximum rate of growth in energy consumption of 2 per centum per year [Italics added].
*the word "maximum" is important
*it's not about oil.  It's about energy consumption, including nuclear fuels and renewables.  It is about limiting how much energy people consume, not about how much oil is produced.  It simply does not apply to the problem at hand.
(By the way, I also think it's interesting that Hubbert actually corrects another speaker to claim the US production peak was in 1970, not 1971 (the date in the article), and that he's back-pedalling about the possibility the 1971 peak might yet again be reached.  He also makes economic statements that are flat-out ridiculous (see technocracy).  That the interest rate would have to be the same as the real rate of economic growth to avoid inflation is nonsense;  it's based on the assumption that all money is earning interest, while reserve deposits and cash are clearly not.)
So, please be careful.  Hubbert based his wrong prediction on the historical data available to him, which already included the first oil crisis.  That cannot just be reduced to a 2% p.a. number.
RandomP 11:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing sources 

message: The encyclopedia of earth, a non-GFDL (that means we can't copy and paste their articles) encyclopedia focussing on geology, is online, and has an article mentioning Hubbert.
There are some factual inaccuracies, of course, but I really like the way they call Hubbert's "theory" a "curve-fitting technique".
Quite definitely, EOE will have to be one of the future sources of this article and related ones, though.
RandomP 23:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EOE