Talk:Hubbert peak theory/Archive 2

message: I just did some grammatical and punctuation clean-up, but you may find my opinion useful since I knew very little about the Hubbert theory -- I just came here looking for more information about it after reading Exit Mundi's fun yet frightening bit on it.
The good thing about a heavy grammatical and punctuation clean-up is that it causes you to read very carefully the entry's structure and content.  I don't mean to offend anybody by what I'm about to say, but after such examiantion, I would like to respectively suggest that this article may need a bit more work than I'm willing to invest, with respect to a few points.
First, someone who knows this subject well needs to go through and start consolidating text together, removing duplication.  There is a lot of areas where stuff is talked about multiple times.  I am relatively certain hydrogen is introduced as an alternative several times within the article, for example.  And the "The Theory" subsection seems to repeat a <I>lot</I> of the information contained in the first couple of paragraphs.
Second, I'm concerned that the article overreaches.  Although the subjects it delves into are extremely fascinating, this strikes me a huge essay that does not solely deal with the Hubbert peak, but goes on to talk about the potential energy crisis, ways to solve the potential energy crisis, ways to live in a crisis-stricken world, and the accompanying social implications.  I would suggest that the large scope of the article means either that it needs to be split up into different entries (perhaps with a parent 'root' entry that joins them together), or that it needs to be renamed.
Finally, I'm concerned either that the article itself delves into POV, or that, at the very least, it sometimes falls victim to POV language.  A good example is, "Thermal depolymerization and biodiesel are interesting, since they provide energy in a form that can be easily be stored and used as transportation fuel."
So, anyway, that's an outsider's perspective, coming fresh to the article.  Hope it's useful to some of you.
WCityMike 02:31, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
:Agreed, the article ballooned in size relatively recently when the "alternatives to oil" section was added, probably also when the POV phrase crept in too, I will fix that.  There is a proposal on the table to move or vastly reduce the alternatives to oil section into a new article or appropriate pre-existing one. zen master 02:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Someone Else's General Comment

message: This chart is irrelevant/misleading
center|600px|Oil prices in 2003 and 2004
It has nothing to do with the Hubbert peak. It really has nothing to do with the long term price of oil.  If you plot the prices from 1973 to 2004, it looks really different.  Roadrunner 07:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please indicate what is wrong with it, what is misleading about it?  Zen Master 23:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart removal 

message: I'm not sure this is true:
: The Hubbert model most closely resembles the rate of fastest possible oil extraction, if demand is less than expected or supply is curtailed then actual production rates would not match the Hubbert peak model. Roadrunner 07:57, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That was added to clarify against the errant claim that the Hubbert model is "wrong", the model is accurate, the disagerements are over wildly varying production data fed into the model I believe.  Please cite recent claims by an "economist" that the hubbert peak model is flat out wrong?  The sentence was added to further explain how and why oil production on a global scale does not closely mirror the hubbert peak model.  Zen Master 23:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hubbert peak sentence needs clarification 

message: ZenMaster.  I've changed the first paragraphs with my references to cite that there is a controversy (including mentioning Colin Campbell who is one of the more forceful proponents of the Hubbert peak).  Can you go through and reference the claims in the rest of the article?  I've changed the first section to put the USGS World Petroleum Assessment as the "middle ground" with Campbell at one end and Lynch at the other, which I think is a fair description of the consensus among people in the field.  Roadrunner 02:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I cited a recent article by Lynch which he argues that the Hubbert model is just plain wrong. If you still don't think that he argues this, we can e-mail him and ask him what he believes.  Roadrunner 03:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please email him, I believe the recent 2004 fact that the Saudi Arabian oil fields have not be able to increase production has changed everything.  The URL you cite is pure criticism of Campbell, please cite a counter prediction of Lynch's.  In fact, the article you cite only talks about Campbells use of data, nowhere does he dispute the Hubbert model except to say the model doesn't have to be a curve, note: this article is titled "peak".  Also, "worthless" is rather POV don't you think?  Zen Master 04:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've put my references 

message: Any objections to renaming the article "peak oil" rather than "Hubbert peak".  The problem with the name Hubbert peak is that it refers to a particular model of peak oil which is not the only one out there.  One can reject the Hubbert model without rejecting the concept of peak oil, and one can also accept the Hubbert model as a model for a given oil field (as most geologists do in fact), without accepting peak oil. Roadrunner 19:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Another option is to split the article into "Peak oil" and "Hubbert theory".  Stuff having to do with the implications of running out of oil and alternatives etc can go into peak oil, hubbert's theory would just be specific and criticisms.  But for now I think one article is ok, what do others think? Zen Master 20:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename vs Split vs Status Quo

message: I removed most of what you added because it was way too verbose, redundant to what was in the article below and was written in essay form (you said "generally agreed" like 5 times in the section supposed to be listing criticisms).  I believe I have very concisely captured some good points you made, if I missed anything, or for any other reason, feel free to create a new "Criticisms of Hubbert peak" article or you could perhaps create an article detailing Lynch's arguments against hubbert peak theory.  But generally, such verbosity severely detracts from overall article quality.  zen master 05:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  To anon IP that posted huge criticisms content 

message: The section Alternatives to oil overlaps with Current State and Goals under Energy development. It has been proposed there that Alternatives to oil be moved there as it is the more general discussion. I would be in favor of that since it would tidy this article up a lot as well as removing reduncancy and possible contradiction on the same topic by having a single place for this info. Amadeust 21:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the sections should entirely move, but the current entries can be substantially edited down for size. zen master 21:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Here's my take.  Controversial topics tend to generate the energy upon which Wikipedia is built.  Therefore this article gets a lot of good development and effort.  From that perspective, it is great that all this content has been developed here.  Unfortunately, this is a rather out-of-the-way place for all that good information.  Energy development, on the other extreme, is a boring article that gets very little effort and attention.  But it is exactly the kind article to be someday a Featured Article.  I think it would be an ingenious exploitation of the Wikipedia's model to let developement occur at these controversial places, and then cheerfully move it occasionally to less controversial and more visible places.  Who knows, maybe the boring articles will become interesting enough to get some attention.  Of course discussions of energy alternatives are marginally ancillary to Hubbart's Peak.  Any of them that are highly advanced and commendable, I say let's move!  Tom - Talk 22:23, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
I would be in favor of everything from 'alternatives to conventional oil' down being moved somewhere else. It really would help clean up the article and keep it more tightly focused on Hubbart's Peak. You could definitely put in a link to the new article so that people can still find it. Matthias5 23:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternatives to oil migration?

message: Round One of Voting and Nominations
Which name do you prefer? Vote for the one you like, or suggest another. New suggestions should be added below number six in order. Individuals can change their preference or vote until one week from December 18, 17:10 UTC. In this way, new suggestions can be voted for. If no clear winner emerges, a second round of voting will be held. Please add a name and time stamp (using --~~~~) to your vote. Vote using either a number or name, whatever way you prefer.
# Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations
# Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy Related Development
# Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy Development
# Wikipedia:WikiProject Sustainable Development
# Wikipedia:WikiProject Sustainable Energy Development
# Wikipedia:WikiProject Kardashevian Development
# Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy
X. None of the Above/More information on why this new project is needed
----
* 1 --Ctrl_buildtalk  17:11, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Project Name

message: Having read a bit about peak oil lately, one of the most potentially frightening implications would be its effect on agriculture. Namely the world's population has grown so large over the past 50 years because of the "green revolution" brought on by industrial agriculture has dramatically increased crop yields and productivity. Unfortunately industrial agriculture is heavilly reliant upon oil for making pesticides, fertilisers etc and for machinery and transport.
Thus some people are predicting that industrial agriculture could collapse when oil shortages begin to bite, and this could lead to mass food shortages and starvation, if ways are not found to maintain high levels of food production.
Currently the article barely touches upon this subject, which IMO is one of the most important implications. G-Man 20:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Peak Oil and agriculture

message: I'm eager to help contribute to this article, but with the amount of discussion going on here and talk of creating a comprehensive new project on the subject, haven't wanted to do anything that might not actually be helpful.  What I think should happen is that most of the stuff currently under Hubbert Peak should be rewritten and moved to [[Peak Oil], and replaced with a much shorter article explaining Hubbert Peak's in general (that is, a model for production and depletion of any resource).  Once that's complete, both pages could easily be incorporated into a larger Engergy and Sustainability project. -Jwanders 08:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I proposed something very similiar to that previously but ended up deferring to the will of the group (or I decided status quo isn't so bad since peak oil and hubbert peak are extremely related to one another).  We can redebate about making that change completely separate from what the [sustainable] energy development project is doing. zen master 09:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Peak Oil]] and [[Hubbert Peak]]

message: :Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF