Talk:Hubbert peak theory/Archive 5

message: So who archived away an active debate I was having with Ben? I have pasted back the latter part of what was being said Sandpiper 17:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored Archive

message: Editors here may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti. - Taxman Talk 02:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration 

message: I want to talk in abstracts here.  Don't mention the article until we agree on principles.  If a scientifc theory predicts X, and then X doesn't happen, does the theory count as an "obsolete scientific theory"?  Is it a valid defense to say, "Don't worry, its next prediction is sure to come true."? MrVoluntarist 04:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if X doesn't happen, but Y happens and you can explain X-Y with a sub-clause e, then you can use X with sub-clause e to reliable predict large phenomena on a global scale many years into the future. The important thing is to ensure that the next prediction is almost too dire to ignore, and to schedule it to come true somewhere between 20 - 60 years hence. (Shorter and you will live a large percentage of your life serving as the brunt of doomsayer jokes - too long, and people will simply not care - as in the case of carbon sequestering) Benjamin Gatti 20:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then if X doesn't have that sub-clause e, X is obsolete, while X with sub-clause e might not be, unless it's an all-purpose "out". Agree? MrVoluntarist 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The theory says that after the most accessible oil has been pumped out of the ground, the rate at which the remaining oil can be pumped out of the ground begins to decline.  At this point, the price of oil increases, and consumers are forced to use less and to look for alternatives.  The evidence indicates that this is what is happening now. Jkintree 15:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, given that non-existent oil is infinitely expensive to extract, the theory is necessarily true and requires no empirical observations.  It's not falsifiable, ergo, not a scientific theory. (I think you mis-stated what the theory says.) MrVoluntarist 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement that "non-existent oil is infinitely expensive to extract" is falsifiable.  If oil is non-existent, then it can not be found.  Stockholders get upset when companies continue to drill for oil without finding it.  After a point, even with higher prices, if oil can't be found, the drilling stops.  Extraction costs do not become infinitely expensive, they become zero. Jkintree 15:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falsification? 

message: I like this article because it omg confirms all my socialist theories.
Not me, I like it because it shows how its all bushs fault.
I like it because it condemns big business.
Not me, I like it because it expands my (censored).  Thanks to this article I have a (censored).  Thank you wikipedia. 
What?  That's crazy talk.  This article is about <booming voice> EMPIRICAL SCIENCE?  
I like this article because it is disrespectful to dirt, can't you see I'm serious? 
This article clearly deserves to be wikipedia article of the millenium.  
SUPPORT.  --Capsela 07:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Capsela on this, This article ought to have a permanent place on the front page until the world gets it through their thick skulls that oil is drying up. Benjamin Gatti 20:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. MrVoluntarist 03:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bestest article evar! 

message: Benjamin suggested possibly changing the title to Peak oil theory on the implications Afd. Do we want a debate on this. My initial reaction was its a good idea. Does anyone else have some feedback as I will only move it if there is consensus, SqueakBox 15:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hubbert presented production curves for coal and natural gas as well as for oil in his 1956 paper, so his theory really applies to all fossil fuels.  The way I found this article was by doing a Wikipedia search on "peak oil," so that connection is already established.  I would not block consensus if a number of people were strongly in favor of renaming this article to "Peak oil theory."  At this stage, I'd probably prefer to leave well enough alone, and not change it. Jkintree 16:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The benefit of changing this article to the less personal title is that it will justify the inclusion of contemporary views on the subject. As it is, I would object to more than a see also reference to modern peakniks. Benjamin Gatti 17:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: We have debated this before and their was no consensus to move the article.  I continue to feel this is the best place for the article. Johntex\talk 18:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that "Hubbert peak theory" is only a subset of "peak oil".  Shouldn't peak oil have a separate article, one that isn't confined in the predictions Hubbert made decades ago?  A lot of the criticisms on this talk page seems to be about Hubbert's predictions in particular being wrong, rather than the idea of peak oil occurring at some point being incorrect.  TastyCakes 02:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hubbert? peak

message: There are a number of serious flaws in the "Has it occured" section that I believe require a complete rewrite or preferably deletion. As it stands the quality of the information hardly justifies its prominent placement.
First of all as others have pointed out there is an important distinction between light and heavy oil (even ignoring unconventional oil). Saudis are awash in heavy oil and there is no market evidence that their production is peaking. (Reliable predictive data is of course unavailable.) They were not able to meet world demand for light oil, but that happened in mid to late 2004, not 2005, and is completely unrelated to Katrina. To my knowledge the Saudis have never officially acknowledged the shortfall in light oil though it is widely known in the market. Finally, the fact that shortages have occurred does not necessarily imply that production has peaked for several reasons:
1) Temporary or political supply disruptions do not necessarily indicate a geophysical production peak (e.g. Katrina, Iraq).
2) Shortage involves both supply and demand, if demand is increasing (as it demonstrably is) supply can still be increasing (i.e. pre-peak) yet still precipitate an economic crisis.
3) Oil infrastructure takes time to develop, shortages can come about because of misforcasting or underinvestment as is demonstrably the case in the oil industry today (low prices in ~2000 discouraged investment).
Also the parenthetical comment about Saudi reserve estimates is worthless since reserves have nothing to do with current production. Of course the Saudis also have an incentive to hide their production capacity but since the article asserts that Saudis failed to deliver, that is completely irrelevant.
The natural gas info is also flawed in that it fails to mention enormous reserves discovered in Russia, LNG transport, stranded gas and other important factors.
I could go on, but IMHO the entire section has negative information content and should be axed. It could be rewritten to be factually correct but that would negate its conclusion and would no longer justify its prominent placement.
Some supporting info at this Wikipedia post by myself:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174311&cid=14514647
Sparohok 00:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All three of your points above are correct.  Whether global production greater than the current 84 million barrels per day can be achieved, or not, remains to be seen.  Given the declining rates of discovery of new oil fields, and the lag time of developing new oil fields, the critical piece for global peak might be the rate of decline in production from existing fields.  People are watching this very carefully.  No doubt, the current "Has it occurred" section is flawed.  Imperfect as it is, that section might still be worth maintaining.  jkintree (Sorry, I'm not signed in.) 208.190.209.67 17:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has ever suggested that the current consumption of oil exceeds the replacement rate - meaning that depletion, as with the sun itself, is a foregone conclusion. Hubbert's peak proposition goes beyond the inevitable and proposes a specific and falsifiable time line for depletion; in addition, Hubbert's attempts to write the obituary for cheap oil by stating that it ended because it reached zero energy return on energy invested (ZEROI)- again a falsifiable assertion. It appears to me that he was wrong on both counts: 1. The end was not when he said, and 2. the driving force to switch to alternatives appears to be more driven by a desire to end economic dependency on fanatical regimes, and (sadly secondarily) an interest to stem the production of greenhouse gases - again, a far cry from death by ZEROI. Benjamin Gatti 15:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. The "when" that is of concern to this article has to do with the "peak" not the "end" of oil production.  2. A desire to end dependence on fanatical regimes is rational.  The irony of the United States military occupation of Iraq is that oil exports from Iraq are lower today than they were before the United States invaded.  That is an example, as Hubbert said, of how political factors can influence the date of peak production. Jkintree 18:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jtree, granting even that Hubbert proposed that the date could be shifted by political events - Hubbert's core theory remains - that a. the peak of oil will be caused by depletion (per ZEROI), and b. this point will mark the 50% point of global supply, and c. the downward slope will largely reflect the upward slope. I would counter-propose that stronger evidence exists to predict that the peak of oil will be caused by voluntary reductions in consumption - driven by concerns over global warming and national independence, and for this reason will not signal any such half-way point, and again for this reason, will not mark the beginning of a downward slope to match the rate of rise. Benjamin Gatti 02:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: BG, are you saying ZEROI is misleading/incomplete or are you saying ZEROI is not currently in the top two impetuses for switching to alternative energy (and it should be)? zen master T 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zen, My understanding of Hubbert's theory is that He had a specific epiphany in the general field of petroleum reserves. His epiphany - and what marks his contribution as uniquely his - is the proposition that at some point it would take more energy to extract oil than the energy content of the oil extracted - or Zero net energy returned on energy invested (ZEROI). My rather low opinion of Hubbert's theory is based on the counter proposition that he was and is more wrong than right. Yes oil production peaked in the US close to the time he predicted - but not because it had experienced ZEROI - rather the US peak was driven by a force outside Hubbert's epiphany - it peaked because middle eastern oil was discovered which was lighter, sweeter, and or closer to the surface than US oil, and so much so that it was cheaper to import oil than to pump it locally. On the second point - which is the Global reserve, Hubbert is I suggest again more wrong than right as the drivers of fuel efficiency, alternative energy, and national oil production is not the threat of ZEROI, nor the reality of ZEROI, but rather the joint effect of concern about global warming on the left, and the more right-wing concern that paying radical states serves to entangle the US into intractable foreign conflicts. So I am saying the second - that Hubbert's epiphany (the point of ZEROI and the irrelevance of economic factors to rationalize the oil market due to the intractable nature of ZEROI) is not the prime mover for change; and that consequentially, a peak in production, even if and when it does occur, will not necessarily signal the beginning of a mirror-image downward slope of production, and will quite probably signal an increase in sustainable alternatives, and for that reason, there will be no inevitable downward slope, but merely a relative increase in the price signal for oil which reflect the environmental and security premiums which are currently being hidden by subsidization - after which many alternative energies will compete with oil for lowest cost of energy. Which is to suggest that oil will peak; but not for the reasons, nor in the manner Hubbert predicts, that the peak will be a good thing for the environment, for global stability, and for the economy, and that at present, the irrational reliance on Hubbert's predictions, based solely on a single prediction is, for me at least, more than a little disturbing - therefore I wish the article could deal with the subject with more critical science, and less subjective adherence to an ideology (even though I support many tenants of that ideology). Benjamin Gatti 02:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hubbert never equated the point of ZEROI with the point of peak production. Jkintree 03:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not in the same moment, but (IIRC) Hubbert viewed the fall of oil as being driven, not by market forces, but by a constitutional pattern of oil reserve behaviour under which the first half is light sweet crude, and the second half is more difficult and approaches the point of ZEROI. I get the sense that Hubbert is being associated here with any phenomenon or circumstance under which the production of oil ceases to rise at the same break neck pace. In short, there is a risk of Hubbert Peak becoming a euphemism for any stress on the oil supply - this is a farce. The oil supply may become stressed by any number of things which have nothing to do with Hubbert's epiphany. I have thrice named two. Benjamin Gatti 04:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think proponents of the theory of global warming are more hopeful that the peak in the world's production of oil will force people to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions than proponents of the theory of peak oil are hopeful that global warming will force people to reduce their consumption of oil.  United States presidents have been talking about reducing our dependence on imported oil for decades, but a higher percent of oil used in the United States is imported now than at any previous time.  We might agree that a number of factors are operating today to make us want to reduce our consumption of oil: rising prices, global warming, and political instability in the Middle East.  None of those factors takes away from the inexorable depletion of the world's aging oil fields.  The 84 million barrels per day of oil that we are getting out of the ground now may be the most we will ever get. The debate will end a year or two after the peak has occurred.  Jkintree 16:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It depends. It depends on the reason for the peaking. If oil peaks for the reasons proposed by Hubbert, then the downward slope would follow; however, if oil peaks for a combination of reasons which include voluntary or political influences, then the future availability of oil would not be well represented by Hubbert's theories. Since there are a great deal of influences on oil other than those contemplated by Hubbert, the shape of the peak is not an empirical certitude. You stated some strong points, but there are equally strong arguments that a rational market will send the appropriate price signals to trigger new exploration and conservation, and I for one, am confident that we can restructure our cities and habits for much more fuel efficient lifestyles when the time comes - this is hardly to advocate for waiting, but the reality remains that the result of a rapid decline in oil availability is not necessarily a calamity - thus I find the article to be a bit hyperbolic. Benjamin Gatti 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Has it occurred" needs work

message: This is a problem. Please either use inline citations, footnote citations, but not both! See Wikipedia:Footnote. And certainly not footnote citations without a link! Ref tags even work better. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: Is oilempire.us, run by Mark Rabinowitz, considered to be a reliable source? I noticed that it is not used as a reference or even an external link. It has been used as a reference for Gatekeeper (politics), but to appears to be a single-person website with fringe concepts. -Will Beback 21:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have met Mark Robinowitz (not "Rabinowitz", btw) several times and consider him to be logical in his reasoning.  He has strong opinions about geopolitics and I know some in the 9/11 Truth Movement who consider him argumentative before inclusive, but I do find that he backs up his opinions with logic (and lots of sourcing), has a large body of knowledge, and is rather prolific in his writing.  Though oilempire.us is a one man shop (as far as I know) Mark's work has also appeared on the website From The Wilderness. Kaimiddleton 02:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not Credible. The Writing style is conclusory and unqualified. Amounts to a blog and original research. Feel free to make use of the research if it is worth quoting independently; however, both "oilempire.us sez this", or "this is true (see oilempire)" would be original research. (Plus the guy uses bright colors to make his point. Think about it - if you need colors to distract the reader, you aren't selling logic, you're competing with Las Vegas) Benjamin Gatti 05:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oilempire.us 

message: Hi everyone. The section on the USGS World Petroleum Assessment (2000) was rife with errors, and I have mangled it to more closely reflect the facts. You must be more careful about distinguishing between "reserves" and "resources". 
The most important point is that the USGS 2000 Assessment does not estimate future discoveries, production or reserve levels. Here it is from the horse's mouth:
"Note that the geology-based Seventh Approximation does not attempt to predict volumes of conventional resources that will actually be discovered in a given assessment time frame. To do so would require full knowledge of future petroleum economics, exploration technology, and exploration effort at the assessment-unit level. Rather, the Seventh Approximation estimates volumes of conventional resources having the potential to be discovered in the stated time frame." (From the "Assessment Methodology" section of the 2000 report.)
In other words, the report is strictly concerned with discoverable oil resources in the ground, not the rate at which that oil will actually be discovered or added to reserves in the future.
This sentence is plain false:"A year 2000 USGS study of world-wide oil reserves predicted a possible peak in oil production around the year 2037."
The 2000 study concerned undiscovered resources and reserve growth, as well as current reserves, and has nothing whatsoever to say about future production or peak oil, as you can verify yourself by reading it.
The final paragraph is particularly bad. It begins with a charge against the USGS, presents evidence showing the DOE-EIA is guilty, and then convicts the USGS. I deleted the parts treating the USGS for that reason.
The first line of the USGS section states: "The United States Geological Survey estimates  that there are enough petroleum reserves to continue current production rates for 50 to 100 years." This is very misleading. In the 2000 Assessment, the USGS gives total reserves of oil+NGL worldwide as 959 Gb. That's about 31 years, not 50 or 100. The article uses the word "reserves" incorrectly.
-- by JayDee562
:Good points, please adjust the article. I've always though that section was wrong and that nothing in the source it supposedly referred to supported the claims there. That's all that's needed to update it, so again, please do. - Taxman Talk 23:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views of USGS 2000 are incorrect 

message: I tagged this article for cleanup due to the fact that the entire article needs to better incorporate Campbell´s newly published paper asserting that the peak was reached back in December of 2005.
:Er... to publish a paper about something that allegedly happened in December '05, you would need to start the paper after then.  If you think it was given the time it deserved in writing it, and then went through peer review in the short time since then ... think again. And even if somehow already has, I wouldn't trust a paper alleging a peak based on waiting < 2 months. MrVoluntarist 14:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged for Cleanup

message: Sentences beginning with "many argue", "few would disagree", and "it is clear" are weasly. (no signature)
The "weaslyness" has been fixed by someone, and the result seems an improvement.
* Some minor corrections:
: "With crude-oil prices currently well-above $35 per gallon" - number can't be right. 
: Removal of bad link to synthetic oil projects by someone - a better link is to this speech by an official of the European Union.  However, this does not indicate large projects underway; rather, it's the announcement of the beginning of an alliance announced yesterday to talk about the problem. Might deserve a mention in synthetic fuel, rather than here.
* In general, I'd suggest that material on oil alternatives be moved out to the article for the respective alternative.  Then we can have a section on alternatives, consisting primarily of links to other articles.  This will reduce the clutter and tighten the focus of this important article.
--Nagle 19:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasly

message: Gee, what a great frikkin time to be a 20 year old tryin to plan out his life. Every decision I make, I have to take into account the very realistic possibility of our current economy and society collapsing and either reverting to the 18th or 19th century or going into chaos. I don't really know what the heck everyone is arguing about, but I really am trying to look for somewhere to disucss how to deal with this issue of Peak Oil. I've never been that concerned about my future until I read into this and I dont know what the heck to do. I mean, with peak oil a very big possibility that will happen very soon, it completely alters alot of my goals and career plans. To tell you the truth, I'm even more upset that our governments dont give a crap and just ignore it so that the corporations and their friends in government office get richer. Seriously, our only chance is if everyone wakes up and starts changing things within our society and government. What better place than here, what better than time now. 69.156.88.98 01:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deep into my Greek Tragedy-cum-Comedy phase, I think it's amusing when information-sheltered people worry their heads off about commodity scarcities (such events historically always being the "mothers of invention") at the expense of worrying about getting their hapless heads chopped off by various & sundry Aztec/Thugee death-cults-reborn presently flood-filling their way across the globe.--Mike18xx 22:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: don't let your assumption that peak oil is imminent alter major decisions in your life.  A "why finish college, we're all gonna die!" attitude doesn't help anyone.  TastyCakes 17:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know what to do if such a crisis ever came like this but I dont think it will come as people predict (rarely anything in our history does). Will there be a great reduction in the use of automobiles ?, yes. Only the select few will be able to have vehicles that run completely on gasoline or have more than one or two cars. I think what oil can be afforded will be reserved for air travel/transport and integral areas that oil replacements cant currently be found such as in food and pharmaceutical transportation and production, emergency services and manufacturing. As long as we are able to keep enough electricity flowing , we can lessen our dependance on oil and rely on more on other sources until we are able to reach a point of reliance on renweable energy like fusion (or whatever else is invented in the next 100 years).
Wow, I must have been out of town when the humourectomy salesman came knocking. Jon 03:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck do I do ? 

message: I do agree that Abiotic Oil should be included in the article. However, it should by no means be included where User:Mike18xx keeps placing it. It has got a place under critique, but it cannot be considered a main part of the article, only an arbitrary critique of the theory as such - if it even is that. Some of the abiotic crowd seem to think that the regeneration rate is incredibly low, and then it does not make any difference. Here, the most vivid criticism from a very small group of geologists who believe in the abiotic theory (which makes the group even smaller) is taken in as it is commonplace, which is wrong both within the abiotic group and within the larger group of geologists. --Jakob mark 09:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: General observations: 1. In Wikipedia, one should not have to hit Page Down half a dozen times to discover that there exists a "Critique" section two screen-heights tall. 2. The *merits* of the criticism are less relevant than the fact that they do exist. 3. I've linked the Critique section from the same location where you removed/moved my added sentence of yesterday. 4. Yes, I'd treat *evolution* exactly the same way, even though I consider "Creationists"/"intelligent-design" proponants to be brain-dead cretins.--Mike18xx 22:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just thought that it seemed a bit strange that the only critique discussed in the first section was the abiotic one, since that is not the mainstream of the critique of Peak Oil either. I like the way it is done now, where the three main types of criticism is incorporated into a small section in the introduction. And just to clarify, I didn't change anything in the article. Sorry if I didn't express myself clearly yesterday. --Jakob mark 01:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abiotic oil again 

message: There seems to be quite a bit of discussion that is outside the scope of this article. Why not take it to wikireason: peak oil?? The perfect place for the issues brought up here and keep this discussion focused on the merits of the article and how to improve it. H0riz0n
:Ahhh! My clever plan to neuter the credibility of Wikipedia gains momentum! Soon there will be *hundreds* of websites with "Wiki-" in their titles siphoning off search-engine hits which formally went to Wikipedia, and nose-diving she will go in the Google page rankings. Within a year, the mere mention of "Wiki-"(anything) as a credible source at a social gathering will be met with gut-clutching spasms of hysterical laughter. --Mike18xx 05:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever.
Becoming somewhat alarmed after reading this article, I have gone ahead and started the peak oil debate on Wikireason. -- Beland 21:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New [[Wikireason]] Debate Wiki 

message: The date which ASPO predicts for peak oil is not consistently reported.  Has it changed its position? -- Beland 21:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-contradiction 

message: Oil just hit $75/barrel today.  Peak oil is probably here.  When the Saudis admit that Ghawar has peaked, we're definitely there.  Cantarell Field and Burgan Field peaked last year.  Peak oil may be a historical article soon.  --John Nagle 18:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because oil hits a new high doesn't mean peak oil is here, especially since it appears to be caused by political disruptions in Iran and Nigeria, just like all the past price jumps.  I think the argument that the peak won't be reached until at least 2010 is fairly strong, although I'm sure plenty around here would bite my head off for that.. TastyCakes 07:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oil just hit $75/barrel 

message: I did a few things, trying not to alter any of the data, especially in the topic paragraphs.
* Removed some nasty commas from the first paragraph.
* On the outset (first para) made it clear it was contoversial; I'm a fan, but the cricitism is heated.
* Removed a few wikilinks that info-cluttered the topic paras, as well as redundant ones, etc.
* Merged some paras without keeping them too long.
In other words: made it shorter and more readable.
The things I removed were either implied or redundant.
Lastly, I added the theory header above the Has it Happened? header, since it makes more sense (to me) to display theory first.
I think I'm going to go on with this, if there aren't too many complaints about this change. Please tell me any POV issues; I'm only trying to make this more accessible.
Sorry my initial summary was weird; accidentally submitted wrong article, tried fixing it with new one. Skol 17:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format Changes 

message: How does the abiotic theory account for the decades-old peak in the global rate of oil discoveries? Jkintree 19:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fossil theory says it takes millions of years for oil to form.  For practical purposes in contemporary civilization, this makes petroleum a finite resource, which is well supported by the decades-old peak in the global rate of oil discoveries.  The fossil/finite theory is also supported by the pattern repeated at thousands of oil fields of discovery, ramp up of production to peak, then decline in production.  What does the abiotic theory say about the speed of oil generation?  If it is too slow to meet contemporary demand for oil, or to affect the peak in global oil production, why introduce the topic into this article? Jkintree 15:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The abiotic oil article indicates that total abiotic oil discovered worldwide to date is about eight barrels.  Total.  It's some hydrocarbon guck that doesn't seem to have a biological origin. This is more of a geological curiosity than an energy source.  If there were much abiotic oil around, more of it would probably have been discovered by now.  --John Nagle 05:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  abiotic theory 

message: Is this true?  "30 gigabarrels of oil per year (1.74 X 10^17 BTU) can be replaced with 17 Palo Verde NGS (3 X 10^12 kw-hr per year = 1 X 10^16 BTU) sized nuclear plants."  That makes replacing oil seem trivial.  Is it correct?  I know we use 30 gigabarrels of oil per year.  And I know that Palo Verde NGS generates 3 gigawatt-hr per year. 71.209.214.60 21:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops.  I found the mistake.  It's 17,000 PVNGS plants.  Is that right? 71.209.214.60 21:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  3 gigawatt-hr per year is 3 x 10^9, not 3 x 10^12. By the way, it's a mark of a good scientist to spot one's own mistakes, and to correct them as soon as possible.  Well done.  Jkintree 15:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's still not right.  It's not 3 gigawatt-hr per year (which is a wierd unit, anyway). A 1 megawatt generator on a truck (a standard Caterpillar product) will put out about that much energy in a year.  Typical nuclear plants are around a gigawatt, a thousand times bigger.  That's roughly 3 X 10^12 watt-hours per year, or 3 terawatt-hours per year, for a typical plant.  --John Nagle 05:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Depends on your definition of "screwed".  There may be severe economic pain in the process of adjusting to having much more expensive oil (if that indeed happens); a nasty, extended recession is a distinct possibility.  But the idea promulgated by some twits that we're going back to the Middle Ages is about as sensible as the idiots that thought that the Y2K problem would do the same.  Regardless, it's pretty much always better to live in a Western country with loads of wealth and resorces.  --Robert Merkel 05:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and a massive military. — goethean ॐ 14:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuclear replacement

message: The article currently reads: Campbell argues that the USGS estimates are methodologically flawed (although he himself has admitted that he doesn't understand their methodology).
The real problem with this is that it by all probability stems from peakoildebunked, and what he really states is that he is not an expert in probability theory - there is a very far reach from not being an expert to not understanding the gist of it. So, one can state that he himself does not claim to be an expert on the USGS methodology, but claims that it builds on premises which he understand and contest. The peakoildebunked statement is built upon this quote:  and the JD statement can be read here: . So, unless anyone objects strongly (and qualified), I will rewrite the paranthesis to: (although he does not claim to be an expert in probability theory) --Jakob mark 15:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Campbell "understanding" 

message: The November, 2002 issue of the ASPO newsletter contains a feature article about oil production in the United States (http://www.peakoil.ie/downloads/newsletters/newsletter23_200211.pdf).  A graph on page 6 of that issue shows U.S. oil production peaking at 1971.  That graph also shows the plateau in production that occurred around 1977 when production at Prudhoe Bay in Alaska began.  The graph shows total U.S. production resuming its decline in 1988 when production at Prudhoe Bay peaked.  Another plateau in U.S. production started in the 1990s when offshore production in the Gulf of Mexico began.  Total production, as shown in that graph, is expected to resume its decline as production in the Gulf peaks.  In order for U.S. production to increase again, the reserves in  Alaska and off-shore areas, that have been protected up to now, would have to be much greater than the reserves that have already been depleted.  Can anyone provide a reference that would document the size of the reserves that might remain in ANWR and offshore?  Jkintree 16:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted something earlier about ANWR. The USGS estimates offer something like a 3:1 range (there hasn't been enough drilling to really size the field) but the consensus is that ANWR is smaller than Prudhoe Bay.  Offshore Southern California is nearly exhausted; there's been drilling there since the 1920s.  Offshore Florida, nobody knows, because there's been no drilling, but it's reasonable to assume that the geology is similar to offshore Mississippi and Alabama.  Cuba is now adding offshore wells, and they have a few billion barrels, higher than previously anticipated.  Offshore platforms in the North Atlantic portion of the hurricane zone are going to be difficult and expensive, but it can be done.  Hopefully without too many big oil spills. --John Nagle 17:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: the USGS also had a "consensus" that no oil would be found ... in Texas! MrVoluntarist 14:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How much oil has been found in Texas in the last 30 years? Jkintree 15:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How many drilling permits have been granted? MrVoluntarist 17:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Reserves 

message: Having read most of the above, I am startled to find only one instance of the word "crime" in the discussion.  First, I am not willing to debate the existance or lack of existanfce of a "peak oil".  That is for you guys to do.  But recent events (in the 70s and now in 2006) have me convinced that oil is a big problem.  It seems to me that when oil runs out (if it does), crime will become rampant.  What else could happen when so many people are competing for such vital resources?  Street crime!  A fight to the death over a gallon of gas.  Already in Texas we are seeing cases where trucks are parked over storage tanks at service stations and several thousand gallons are stolen at a time.  Parking your car on the street or driveway would be risking theft of your gasoline by street punks armed with syphons.  Who will come to the aid of a victim if the police cars are out of gas?  Will crime reign?  Where will life be best?  Will it be in the US with its extreme reliance on gasoline?  Or will life be better in Brazil, with its reliance on home-grown alcohol-based fuels and little or no use for middle eastern oil?  Why would the US not plan for the worst case senario and not immediately start to build its own ethanol-based infrastucture and sugar-cane crops for alcohol production?  Why are we in such love with middle eastern oil?  Why risk our children's lives by not planning for the worst?  Will our population decline with the decline in oil?  How can our population not decline without resources to support our life-style?  Can you imagine sharing half-a-tank of fuel with your neighbor?  How about 3/4 of a tank with your neighbor?  Will Americans learn how to walk on freeways?  What are the alternatives?  It seems to me that the act of buying fuels from outside the US is counterproductive for national security reasons as well as national economic reasons.  Why should we risk it?  Why not develop our own alternatives now?  Imagine parking your car and having a dozen wild youths decend on your fuel tank each armed with a syphon hoses.  What are you going to do?  Shoot them?  Will the laws need to be rewritten?  Should fuel theft be an automatic death sentence?  Or should it be a free-for-all?  Catch if catch can?  People will no longer be stealing cars, but stealing fuel.  I suspect that cars will be abandoned along the road to such an extent that they will be "free" to anyone with enough money to fuel them.  The automobile industry will become a thing of the past and there with it goes more than 10% of American jobs.  Plan for the worst?  Nah?  We will just keep on going...until we crash and burn.  Those Brazilians don't know beans about economics.
:I'm sorry, is this just idle banter or do you actually want that stuff in the article?  To me a lot of it is too speculative to put in the article, but if you just want to chat about it, wikipedia isn't supposed to be the place to do that. TastyCakes 20:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a soap box, and it's not the place to plan survival in a mad max style world, either.  And it seems pretty naiive to think you can change the world by talking about it on wikipedia.  Especially when it's mostly speculation on your part.  TastyCakes 04:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crime In the Streets

message: from the french version,it says that the table below sujest that the reservers are at least 45% overestimated,because the reservers are taken in to acount for the voting in opec,and you can have credit at beter condition's.If it don't exist anywear in the english version i'm traslating his coresponding text(and some one from you tranlates my inglish tordes english)
Déclarations de réserves avec augmentations suspectes (en milliards de barils) d'après Colin Campbell, SunWorld, 1995	Déclarations de réserves avec augmentations suspectes (en milliards de barils) d'après Colin Campbell, SunWorld, 1995	Déclarations de réserves avec augmentations suspectes (en milliards de barils) d'après Colin Campbell, SunWorld, 1995	Déclarations de réserves avec augmentations suspectes (en milliards de barils) d'après Colin Campbell, SunWorld, 1995	Déclarations de réserves avec augmentations suspectes (en milliards de barils) d'après Colin Campbell, SunWorld, 1995	Déclarations de réserves avec augmentations suspectes (en milliards de barils) d'après Colin Campbell, SunWorld, 1995	Déclarations de réserves avec augmentations suspectes (en milliards de barils) d'après Colin Campbell, SunWorld, 1995	Déclarations de réserves avec augmentations suspectes (en milliards de barils) d'après Colin Campbell, SunWorld, 1995
Année                                                                                                                	Abou Dhabi                                                                                                           	Doubaï                                                                                                               	Iran                                                                                                                 	Irak                                                                                                                 	Koweit                                                                                                               	Arabie saoudite                                                                                                      	Venezuela
1980                                                                                                                 	28,00                                                                                                                	1,40                                                                                                                 	58,00                                                                                                                	31,00                                                                                                                	65,40                                                                                                                	163,35                                                                                                               	17,87
1981                                                                                                                 	29,00                                                                                                                	1,40                                                                                                                 	57,50                                                                                                                	30,00                                                                                                                	65,90                                                                                                                	165,00                                                                                                               	17,95
1982                                                                                                                 	30,60                                                                                                                	1,27                                                                                                                 	57,00                                                                                                                	29,70                                                                                                                	64,48                                                                                                                	164,60                                                                                                               	20,30
1983                                                                                                                 	30,51                                                                                                                	1,44                                                                                                                 	55,31                                                                                                                	41,00                                                                                                                	64,23                                                                                                                	162,40                                                                                                               	21,50
1984                                                                                                                 	30,40                                                                                                                	1,44                                                                                                                 	51,00                                                                                                                	43,00                                                                                                                	63,90                                                                                                                	166,00                                                                                                               	24,85
1985                                                                                                                 	30,50                                                                                                                	1,44                                                                                                                 	48,50                                                                                                                	44,50                                                                                                                	90,00                                                                                                                	169,00                                                                                                               	25,85
1986                                                                                                                 	31,00                                                                                                                	1,40                                                                                                                 	47,88                                                                                                                	44,11                                                                                                                	89,77                                                                                                                	168,80                                                                                                               	25,59
1987                                                                                                                 	31,00                                                                                                                	1,35                                                                                                                 	48,80                                                                                                                	47,10                                                                                                                	91,92                                                                                                                	166,57                                                                                                               	25,00
1988                                                                                                                 	92,21                                                                                                                	4,00                                                                                                                 	92,85                                                                                                                	100,00                                                                                                               	91,92                                                                                                                	166,98                                                                                                               	56,30
1989                                                                                                                 	92,20                                                                                                                	4,00                                                                                                                 	92,85                                                                                                                	100,00                                                                                                               	91,92                                                                                                                	169,97                                                                                                               	58,08
1990                                                                                                                 	92,20                                                                                                                	4,00                                                                                                                 	93,00                                                                                                                	100,00                                                                                                               	95,00                                                                                                                	258,00                                                                                                               	59,00
1991                                                                                                                 	92,20                                                                                                                	4,00                                                                                                                 	93,00                                                                                                                	100,00                                                                                                               	94,00                                                                                                                	258,00                                                                                                               	59,00
1992                                                                                                                 	92,20                                                                                                                	4,00                                                                                                                 	93,00                                                                                                                	100,00                                                                                                               	94,00                                                                                                                	258,00                                                                                                               	62,70
2004                                                                                                                 	92,20                                                                                                                	4,00                                                                                                                 	132,00                                                                                                               	115,00                                                                                                               	99,00                                                                                                                	259,00                                                                                                               	78,00
Le total des réserves déclarées est de 701 milliards de barils, dont 317,54 douteux.
--Ruber chiken 01:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  opec reservers overestimated 

message: I've just briefly looked at Hubbert's paper, and while it does contain interesting bits, what's conspicuously absent is any justification for the Hubbert curve, though references to papers that might describe it are present.
In particular, no justification is given in that paper for the bell shape of the curve, as opposed to a rise-then-crash-to-zero sawtooth shape or any of various other possibilities, with the exception of an underlying assumption that the total production curve be continuously differentiable.  References that explain this assumption of Hubbert's, and the underlying mathematical model, would be greatly appreciated.
Interesting bits (with notes doubly-indented)
*(after p. 25, too lazy to look it up now) "On the basis of the present estimates of petroleum and natural gas, it appears the culmination of world production of these products should occur within about half a century"
::Hubbert treats natural gas, petroleum, oil shales, and tar sands separately.  For purposes of evaluating this prediction, therefore, "oil" gained from processing oil shales must not be counted as petroleum.
*p. 25 "the maximum that appears likely while allowing for the necessary period of prolonged decline"
::I cannot find a statement that explains why this decline should be necessary.
*p. 21 "Utilizing the method of extrapolation described earlier"
::Am I blind?  He just plain did not describe a method of extrapolation.
Assumptions about energy reserves:
*petroleum/natgas (Hubbert treats the two as linked):
**world, land: 610 billon barrels (p. 15)
**world, offshore: 400 billion barrels (p. 15)
**US, land: 150 billion barrels (p. 16)
**US, offshore: 20 billion barrels (p. 16)
**Mideast, land: 375 billion barrels, "which can only be regarded as a rough order-of-magnitude figure" (p. 15)
**world, total: 1250 billion barrels (p. 16)
*oil shales and tar sands
**US, "oil obtainable from oil shales": 1000 billion barrels (p. 18)
**Athabaska tar sands: "still not accurately known, but current estimates range from about 300 to 500 billion barrels of oil) (p. 20)
**US tar sands: "only about 1 billion barrels of oil, with a few billion barrels more obtainable from the less minable deposits"
**world, tar sands: "as an educated guess" 800 billion barrels (p. 20)
I believe these are all on the low end.
Again, the paper contains no explicit reference to the Hubbert curve, though it appears to use it implicitly.
Can anyone help me out here?
We claim that Hubbert's curve is based on a mathematical theory, and the reference contains nothing whatsoever of the sort.
I quote liberally from one of the sources of the Hubbert curve article:
:In 1974, he presented several production curves for both the World and the United States, but was somewhat reticent in explaining the mathematical basis of his work. He referred to a bell-shaped curve, of which the most commonly used are the Normal or Gauss curve, and also to the derivative of the logistic curve (Bartlett 1999), but he gave no equations. 
I haven't read all of that article yet, but the claim
:Hubbert, a geophysicist, created a mathematical model of oil extraction which predicted that the cumulative amount of oil extracted over time would follow a logistic curve, which follows a bell-shaped pattern now known as the Hubbert curve. The theory implies that the predicted rate of oil extraction at any given time would be given by the derivative of the logistic curve at that time.
is unsourced.  I'm doubting it, unless suitable references are supplied.
RandomP 02:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better references?  Quick summary/review of the Hubbert paper. 

message: (Redundant with last post, but posted separately for ease of discussion.)
I'm totally going out on a limb here, but I'm asking for sources for and threatening significant rewrite of the following section:
:Hubbert, a geophysicist, created a mathematical model of oil extraction which predicted that the cumulative amount of oil extracted over time would follow a logistic curve, which follows a bell-shaped pattern now known as the Hubbert curve. The theory implies that the predicted rate of oil extraction at any given time would be given by the derivative of the logistic curve at that time.
I know of no evidence that if such a mathematical model exists, it can be attributed to Hubbert.
Furthermore, I haven't yet found such a mathematical model.
Third, and most importantly, if such a model indeed exists, it needs to be put into the article.  The statement that total oil produced would follow a logistic curve seems highly unintuitive;  it would translate, roughly, to "any barrel of oil that has ever been produced will, every 1/r years, randomly choose another barrel of oil to produce;  if that chosen barrel has already been produced, nothing happens;  otherwise, there will be one more barrel of oil produced".
That seems odd.  It seems particularly odd if the value of 1/r, measured in years, isn't supplied.  Can any experts jump in here?
RandomP 02:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for central claim? 

message: Please archive this talk page, so we can start over.  Thanks.  --John Nagle 18:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to archive again 

message: Okay, I've found the paper.  I've read it with three questions in mind, and here are, as far as I can tell, Hubbert's answers:
*Symmetry of the production curve:  "[The] statement that all of my curves are symmetric is not entirely correct.  [...] If such curves [i.e. production curves] are also approximately symmetrical it is only because their data make them so." (p 138, in the transcript of the discussion following Hubbert's talk).
*Peak oil vs "plateau oil": Is there anything in Hubbert's theory which precludes the possibility of a bell curve with a very wide top?  I haven't been able to find an argument against it in Hubbert's paper.
*Justification for use of the logistic curve: If dQ/dt is chosen to be a polynomial in Q, the lowest possible degree for this polynomial is 2, resulting in the logistic curve.
So I guess I'm taking out the "mathematical model" claims?
RandomP 05:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hubbert's 1982 paper 

message: Some new figures on "conventional oil" have been added, but the definition of "conventional oil" seems nonstandard.  Oil from wells in deep water is considered conventional oil; it doesn't require upgrading.  It just comes from a place that's hard to reach, which, in the oil industry, is considered a normal part of life.   Oil sands, oil shale, and other "heavy bottoms"  that are a notch above asphalt are considered nonconventional oil; they need processing before you even have  crude oil. --John Nagle 16:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that definitions of conventional and nonconventional oil are nonstandard, and that it is reasonable to consider deep water oil as conventional oil.  The numbers for oil production in 2004, in the article's section on Peak Production, came from the adjoining ASPO graph.  I think the ASPO uses those definitions because Hubbert in his 1956 paper did not include deep water oil in his estimates for global oil reserves.  Jkintree 16:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conventional oil" 

message: i tranlated from the french wikipedia.It needs a lot of atention for spelling and syntax.--Ruber chiken 20:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it needs attention.  If you clean this up, I'd suggest going back to the French original, which reads better.  The data in the table needs sources.  Incidentally, the French article for Hubbert's peak has the mathematical derivation worked out. --John Nagle 20:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I did some cleanup. That data needs work. The table gives values though 2004, but the cited source is dated 1995.  So I put on a "Verify" tag; we need a source for it.  Inflation of reserve numbers by OPEC countries is well known, but we need to have solid sources for the actual numbers. I removed the "conclusions" after the table, because the translation needed so much work. Someone might want to clean that up off-line and put it back.  I'd suggest starting from the French text.  --John Nagle 21:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this all probably belongs in Oil reserves.--John Nagle 00:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to ask that  stop making edits for a day or so.  The article is now barely readable and will require considerable work by others to repair.  This user has made 17 edits today, and almost all of them contain errors in spelling and grammar, errors this user seems to expect that others will fix.  That can be done, but it takes time. Thanks. --John Nagle 00:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you should edit the French Wikipedia instead, then.  We can get others to do translations if needed.  Thanks.   --John Nagle 16:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspicious official estimates 

message: I'm removing the following from the opening paragraph
:Also, because of population growth, the rate of oil production per capita peaked in the 1970s. 
Brief reasoning, in the hope to prevent it being readded right away:
*it's unsourced
*it's ambiguous (was this a local "peak", or a global (think "forever") peak as the context seems to suggest)
*in the latter meaning, it's untrue:  world oil production per capita is quite a bit higher now than it was in the 1970s, by my back-of-the-envelope calculation
*"because of population growth" seems odd.  was population growth a new thing in the 1970s?  World population has population growth at about 2% p.a. for the 70s, and oil production probably did keep up with that to the first oil crisis).
The statement needs a source, and someone needs to explain the discrepancy in data if it does turn out to be true.
RandomP 18:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a figure illustrating that point on , figures 2, 3 and 4, but personally I don't like the figures with too many pictures, and I'm not crazy about the Olduvai theory (nor dieoff.orf) either. Besides, the reference to the BP report no longer seems to be working. But the fact about the per capita oil/energy consumption peak in 1979 is trivial. I think the best way to go around this would be to collect data for population size and oil production seperately and make a graph from this. --Jakob mark 21:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing statement 

message: The Hubbert curve, according to that article, is a specific curve (or a family of similar curves), that given by the equation described there.
Hubbert, at various points, suggested different curves, never quite settling down on the Hubbert curve until that not-very-convincing 1982 paper.
I'd be okay with removing all reference to the Hubbert curve, but at this point, calling anything that is not a Hubbert curve one is likely to cause significant confusion.
So I'm reverting back, but feel free to come up with a better description.
RandomP 11:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P(t) = a\frac{1 + m e^{-t/\tau}}{1 + n e^{-t/\tau}} \!
as i said,huberts paper,make,no concessions to the no iniciated.--Ruber chiken 03:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The Hubbert curve, named after the geophysicist M. King Hubbert, is the derivative of the logistic function.
Please fix the Hubbert curve article before describing as a Hubbert curve something that is plainly not.
If you don't want to do that, I'm available for mediation, though I do not really see why it is necessary:  all I did was replace a claim that is inconsistent with one that is not.  If and when the old claim can be made consistent, it can be put back.
Please do not revert this further.  See WP:DR for other options you have at this point.
RandomP 12:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not every curve Hubbert drew is a [[Hubbert curve]]