Talk:Peak oil/Archive 6

Article is far too long
At 143kb, this article is far too long, making it difficult to read and navigate comfortably, so I've added a "too long" tag. The article definitely needs to be less than 100k and closer to 80k would be better. More use of WP:Summary style, where material is split to sub-articles, leaving a summary here, would really help. Also some sections need to be trimmed, eg., See also, External links, and Further information. Johnfos (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please take into account that a lot of information such as references and comments do not count to that number therefore real length is much smaller. Also, please ensure that you fully integrate the material you are removing to the main articles. It's not like, 'I can read something similar elsewhere -> remove'. Please transfer all references and update the information there. 1exec1 (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The main text of the pdf-version is a little longer than 16 pages. That should be ok. I therefore removed the template.--Victor Eremita (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've looked over your recent changes and found some deficiencies:


 * | revision 1: the material here was better than in the [] article. This mostly includes the dates and some references that should be transferred/updated.


 * | revision 2: Hirsch report should definitely be at least mentioned.


 * Please correct these problems or I'll revert these changes at some time. Excluding that, you edits were really good. Thanks!1exec1 (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Hirsch Report is linked and discussed at Peak oil... I think the article is a bit cleaner and easier to read now. Johnfos (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like peak oil happened in 2005
Actual production figures from the US DOE are out through 2009.. World oil production peaked in 2005. Deffeyes has published "When Oil Peaked",, which is an "I told you so" book. --John Nagle (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it's possible that oil has peaked, but we can't say for sure yet. Oil production has sometimes decreased for several years before and then continued rising again, as can also be seen in your list: E.g. the 1979 "peak" stood for 16 years until being surpassed. And the 2008 figure is only marginally below that for 2005... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, too early to say if production decreased because countries were physically unable to produce as much (which is what people usually mean when they say peak oil) or if demand shrank and production was shut in accordingly. Also keep in mind that the measurements are not perfect, in some parts of the world they are rather rough approximations.  I'd say being 1.6% off the peak quite possibly falls within the error bar of the calculations.  TastyCakes (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge of Hubbert curve into Peak Oil
Hubberts 1956 paper in broad and length dealt with global peaking. I therefore assume the various articles about local peaks and the Hubbert Curve as such should me merged with global. One should not try to suggest that Hubberst peak was only a local issue. Bakulan (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC) PS I inserted the Merge tags for Hubbert curve and Hubbert peak theory.Bakulan (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose – These are quite different articles. Peak oil is about what is actually happening in the physical world to our ability to draw more oil as oil stocks are progressively run down. The Hubbert curve is about the conceptual problem of fitting a mathematical model to phenomenon like this. For example, the Hubbert curve can also be applied to peak water and peak fish. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and we should not say "This concept is derived from the Hubbert curve", just as we would not say "the concept of gravity is derived from" Newton's equation or Einstein's theory. Fourtildas (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is also the length issue to consider. At 112 kilobytes long this article really needs to be shortened, not expanded. Johnfos (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Epipelagic. Seems to me that it might be appropriate to merge Hubbert curve into Hubbert peak theory, though. --FormerIP (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose It seems to me that the Hubbert-like 'peaking' of several key resources are going to be defining factors of our world in the next 30 - 50 years. These articles are part of a growth area in WP, both in their importance and in the amount of material that will be published. Restricting the number of articles is counter-productive. --Nigelj (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Hubbert Curve is a statistical distribution applicable to any depleting resource Casey (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the very reasons listed above, these articles were originally split from one article into several. Having several articles allows each article to go into specific detail.  The level of detail in the Hubbert curve article is not helpful for the average person just beginning to research Peak oil (the geologic/economic/social/political issues), and visa versa for those wanting to learn more about the curve itself (statistical/mathematical questions).134.10.123.106 (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hubberts 1956 paper was about Peak oil, coal and gas world wide and in the US. So it beliongs here and nowhere else. It was however no big theory. To print a growth curve on logarithmic paper is no major theoretical breakthrough. Hubberts was of opinion that there was enough oil coal and gas left till the buildup of nuclear would equalize the decline of oil. This has been left out of the Peak Oil article so far. The Peak Oil article is far from telling real wold issues. Wether we hava peak now or in 2030, wether its a peak or a plateau or still beyond a max is still under debate. Insofar to have three lengthy and overburdened articles where one short would be sufficient. Bakulan (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

'The oil conunDRUM'
In the last week I have twice reverted an addition by WebHubTel. The point being made is obscure enough, but the citation is to an ISBN number that does not exist on Google Book Search, Amazon.com, WorldCat etc. It is easy enough to find, by Googling the title, a blogger saying, "I synthesized the last several years of blog content and placed it into The Oil ConunDRUM".. There is a link to 750 pages of these blog posts on Google Docs, but this neither satisfies WP:SELFPUBLISH ("Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published") nor WP:V ("Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"). Which of the 750 pages of this blogger's opinions are we meant to look at? Is he a recognized expert in this field? I can't tell from WebHubTel's text whether he thinks he's disproved Hubbert peak theory, or verified it, but surely if he has made a significant contribution to the world's understanding of Peak Oil, someone somewhere must have published something about his writings in a fact-checked source. Also per WP:V, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material", so it is up to WebHubTel to explain what he is trying to do here before adding this stuff back again. I see WebHubTel has also added the same text and reference to Hubbert peak theory, which I hadn't been watching. --Nigelj (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Peak Oil entry has a figure front and center showing all the models of oil depletion. This was contributed by Sam Foucher and only published on the TOD blog, and so includes my Oil Shock Model. So the blatant hypocrisy is that they show an "unpublished" figure from a blog, which they should complain about, yet refuse to link to a book that contains the sole source information for a critical portion of this graph. If you want to see what professional geologists say about the lack of information on Peak Oil, please read this link from today by Rockman and RockyMtnGuy http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7410#comment-762791. BTW, I paid for an ISBN number through Bowker; it's guaranteed unique and provides the best way to track editions. WebHubTel (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Prognosticism is not encyclopedic
In the first few paragraphs, I find the language includes: "...believe the high dependence of ... ...Predictions vary greatly as to what exactly... ...If political and ... Optimistic estimations...

Beliefs, by definition, cannot be verifiable.

If whatever this sloshy and original research article is about cannot be reduced to unequivocal and encyclopedic assertions, I propose this text be dropped and pointed to Hubbert's Peak Theory - which is how theories are and ought to be advertised. Benjamin Gatti (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The topic is "sloshy" because the hard data from which more sound predication could be made is hidden from the public by OPEC for economic and political reasons. It is also impossible to predict precisely how our economic system will handle the shock predicted by Hubbert's theory.  Anyway, documenting estimations and predictions based on a sound and demonstrated theory certainly makes this article about an increasingly talked-about topic encyclopedic. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 20:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic to the subject being interesting, but can it not be written in an active voice? and if not - why not?

Example: Peak Oil Theory describes the discipline of predicting a point in the future after which the production of oil will intractably decline. Notable schools of thought on this subject hold variously that the decline of oil will reflect the prior rate of growth (Hubbert peak), or that future means of extraction will increase the profitable yield (whomever); (for it's own part, Wikipedia has no view on the matter...) Let me suggest that absent some calibrated neutrality, one runs a similar risk to other "end of the world as we know it predictions. Benjamin Gatti (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is rated GA, and was reviewed by a number of uninvolved editors along the way. I find it hard to believe that they would have overlooked such an issue.  Seems to me very well referenced and well within the bounds of RS/V/N.  I do not agree with your claim that Wikipedia is contributing any views on the matter.  Even CERA and various oil companies/oil producing nations are outwardly concerned.  You seem to want to skew the article away from consensus.  If you have references to cite which suggest otherwise, please state them.  50.34.27.22 (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We seem to be past the prognostication period. The highest year of world oil production  (including oil shale) was 2005, and it's been downhill since then.. We have figures for years through 2009; the 2010 figures will become available in July 2011. Let's revisit this in July.  --John Nagle (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Actual Public Policy &sect;
A public policy section or separate article seems appropriate at this point as the peak has either occurred or will within less than a decade according to current text. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Also looking in the general space of Hubbert theory articles, I'm not seeing the techniques for extraction factor fully applied although the last &para; of this article's Oil field decline &sect; seems to imply that these could radically affect when the actual peak occurs although the base theory is applicable to the total volume in the earth's crust. Does this mean that given a new price and extraction technique level, ignoring FTM any other consideration, that the peak could therefore be pushed considerably in the future? Or is it the case as I think the text currently conveys that a hard limit has been reached or shortly will? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Novels
I added more novels to the list and the self-published ones were removed because they were "non-notable". I disagree that self-publication has anything to do with notability. Indeed, one of the books, After the Crash by Caryl Johnston, seems pretty notable to me since it was the first US peak oil novel published by anybody. I don't see why Crossing the Blue by Holly Jean Buck is any more or less notable than any of the other novels. I found all the novels I added at this site that reviews peak oil books: http://www.seattleoil.com/essays-research/book-reviews/ 98.203.137.168 (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of removing this section. It is getting very long without adding to the article.  Kind of reads like an advertisement for these books.  173.10.73.233 (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with removal of popular culture material. There's enough reality here. --John Nagle (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I support removal of that section also. Not notable IMO. 1exec1 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Each notable fictional book about peak oil can have its own Wikipedia article and be listed at List of environmental books and be categorized in Category:Environmental fiction books.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Peak car
There is a connected / possibly ameliorating phenomenon : "Peak car". See e.g. http://www.rudi.net/node/22123, http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/04/peak-car-transport-driving  Would a short mention in the article be worthwhile, together with electric cars etc ? Morten7an (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Dubious
The statement in question reads: "Another example of positive feedback in the oil market can be found in Export Land Models(sic) of oil exporting nations, where rising global prices and higher export revenue in exporting nations can lead to higher local consumption as their increased export revenue is spent, and therefore less oil production for export in a post peak production situation." However, the Export Land Model states that an exporting nation's internal demand will cause exports to fall. It does not state that higher global prices will cause higher internal demand. 206.188.32.1 (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Simmons–Tierney bet in See also
I removed the entry Simmons–Tierney bet from the See also section (subsection prediction) because this section has been way too big in the past, is still pretty big, and the link is not directly related to peak oil. In fact, the subsection on prediction is all about the prediction of oil reserves, and the Simmons–Tierney bet is just about the prediction of oil prices. The link was replaced by the same user who placed it there to begin with.

I propose that the link be removed. In fact, I believe it should be removed for the duration of this discussion per wp:BRD. Comments please. 206.188.43.65 (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Didn't get a responce, so I reverted per wp:BRD. John was active on his talk page so I know he got the message.  206.188.43.65 (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Peak Oil - is it Reality TV ?
It is quite interesting that the so-called Peak Oil theory is so precise, it cannot predict when it happens ; it cannot even witness the Peak when it happens. The theory has been around for so long, one might think that an indicator would have been issued - but no, nothing. Desperation that the subject might disappear afterwards ? Absence of knowledge of what an indicator is/is for ? In any case, it has the taste of mere incompetence - or is it reality-TV ?--Environnement2100 (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC) PS: when one looks hard, one can find these pieces : ‘Reserves’ as a leading indicator to future mineral production and SUMMARY DISCUSSIONS ON PEAK OIL Is that worth mentioning ?--Environnement2100 (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Your opening remarks are extremely unclear (google translate?), but I assume you are suggesting that there is a problem with the theory's predictions. On its face, this is an unfair statement as the predictions are made by various models, not by the "Peak Oil Theory".  Though this discussion topic is not about the article we're now discussing, I will say that these models are limited by the input data used.  Given the extreme complexity in calculating reserve and production numbers (the many factors are constantly changing and hard to accurately  quantify), it's not surprising that there have been many differing predictions over the years.  Detection of the peak similarly difficult, but the "indicator" is very simple: production never rises over some historic high.  If you have sources which discuss these issues, perhaps Predicting the timing of peak oil can be expanded.


 * As for the two articles you linked to, the first one is behind a paywall for me but looks outside the scope of this article. The second looks interesting and could easily be used to bulk up the section mentioning the Hirsch report, which has been gradually gutted over time.  This is the "beef" of Peak oil theory (the "why we should care"), and it's sad that it gets hidden by so many pages of (important) data.  There are many governmental and semi-governmental task forces out there which have published similar conclusions and recommendations.  174.28.159.219 (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the incompetence of the poster trivializes the valid point that was intended. If Peak Oil is valid science, then why is it always presented in a way that makes it look like manic raving? This article appears to be little more than a bullying attempt to legitimize an argument by piling a weight of words on a weak foundation of statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Its incorrect presentation boils down to exactly that: Incorrect presentation. Talk shows of any political background are no basis of characterizing the legitimacy of... well, anything. (I assume that's where you've heard it characterized like that, that's about the only place nowadays with the raw ignorance to do so) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.131.251 (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Platinumshore
User Platinumshore continues to re-add and edit material which has been left uncited for months. They have been asked for citations several times now and have ignored these requests (removing the citation requests with no explanation was not adequate). They have also used commercial websites and wikis as references, which are violations of wp:rs. This is a GA article, and requires a high level of quality control to remain GA. Please help maintain this level of quality by closely monitoring all edits, not just those made by IPs. 173.10.73.233 (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Platinum, discussion threads on websites are not acceptable for citing economic theory here. Please restrict your edits here to verifiable information about peak oil.  Please explain here if this is still unclear.  206.188.60.1 (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is getting extremely ridiculous. Platinum, either enter into discussion here in some way, or stop this insertion of what appears to be your personal theory about the export land model.  I'm ready to delete the whole section as you have not added to the veracity or encyclopedic nature of this section since first requested in January.  173.10.73.233 (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The section Platinum introduced in January has been deleted because the issues with it have not been addressed, despite six months of requests to do so. There are limits to patience.  If Platinum would like to cooperate within the standards of Wikipedia sourcing, then this is the place to start.  24.143.90.21 (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion could use some focus on the issues at stake. Also, I'd like to suggest that all parties involved in this discussion use locatable user names rather than anon IPs—its unclear at first glance whether one looks at a choir or a soloist here. Just a thought. Malljaja (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a soloist. Try validating the section's claims on the ELM through the sources provided.  Try validating anything other than that Jeff Rubin said higher oil prices equals higher manufacturing costs (though nothing about how this raises the price of oil).  24.143.90.21 (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would greatly appreciate a response to the above. Otherwise I would assume that you agree that the section lacks proper sourcing and the issues raised repeatedly since January have not been addressed.  206.188.32.1 (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting for someone (anyone) to give a good reference which aggrees with Platinums thesis that high oil prices can cause higher oil prices. There are many things which cause higher oil prices, but I haven't seen anything presented which suggests that a proper positive feedback loop is at play.  Also, I would appreciate other people helping to remove clearly poor sourcing and clearly improper behavior (ie removing CN tags).  206.188.43.65 (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Reverted again. Azimuth project is not RS.  This is clear, but I will hold anyone's hand through an explanation if they ask.  The rest is unsourced.  Playtime is coming to an end for Platinum.  This long drawn out joke is old and annoying.  If there is no one who will defend Platinum's edits, then I plan on removing all the statements which have been lacking sources for the past 6 months.  I have asked for those sources over and over again with absolutely no response.  24.216.240.41 (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you specify which parts you're considering to revert? Export land model by itself is enough notable to be included into Wikipedia (there are several papers and presentations about it in conferences). That said, the conclusions that oil price would increase as a direct result of local consumption, although being obvious, are of course unfounded.1exec1 (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been marking the uncited statements for the past six months (and each time Platinum removes the requests for citations without discussion or providing citation). Export Land is already discussed in another section.  Please check out the section and see if there is anything you think is worth keeping.  BTW, the conclusion in question isn't that "oil price would increase as a direct result of local consumption", rather that 'local consumption would rise because of higher oil prices' (see "Dubious" section below).  It's very weird to me that no one else has read this closely over the past six months.  24.216.240.41 (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

1exec1, this is the text I propose to remove: "The elasticity of OECD oil demand to rising prices is a function of many feedback mechanisms, some which are negative like fuel substitution, increased efficiency and conservation which re-enforce lower demand, and others which can result in positive feedback where higher prices can lead to higher oil demand.[citation needed] For example, Canadian economist Jeff Rubin has stated that higher oil prices will likely lead to higher freight shipping costs which will lead in turn to more manufacturing industry moving back to OECD countries (re-localisation of manufacturing production) for economic advantage.[148] As OECD industrial manufacturing production requires energy, and petrochemical inputs, this positive feedback mechanism of re-localisation of manufacturing production would therefore be positive for OECD oil demand.[citation needed] The following graph reference shows a break down in US oil usage, a member of the OECD, where approx. 23% of oil usage is for industrial usage. [149] Another example of positive feedback in the oil market can be found in Export Land Models of oil exporting nations, where rising global prices and higher export revenue in exporting nations can lead to higher local consumption as their increased export revenue is spent,[dubious – discuss] and therefore less oil production for export in a post peak production situation.[citation needed]"

"Economic research carried out by the International Monetary fund gives an overall oil price demand elasticity figure of -0.025 short term and -0.093 long term.[150][jargon]"

It appears to me to be a hoax addition, or some sort of OR. 24.216.240.41 (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that it should be rewritten instead. The main problem in this paragraph is not the strength of arguments, but poor quality of writing that results in those arguments being used to base weird opinions. I propose the following version:
 * "Canadian economist Jeff Rubin has stated that high oil prices will likely result in increased consumption in developed countries. Higher oil prices would lead to increased freighting costs and consequently, the manufacturing industry would move back to the developed countries since freight costs would outweigh economic advantage of developing countries."
 * "Petroleum geologist Jeffrey Brown has suggested in his Export Land Model theory that high oil prices would result into exports of oil producers shrinking much more rapidly post-peak than it was growing before. He asserted that as the producer countries would spend the oil revenue, the local oil consumption would increase even when overall oil production decreases, hence the increasingly shrinking exports."1exec1 (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

1exec1, you hit the nail on the head. This debate has less to do with erroneous, unverifiable content, and all to do with poor syntax and wording standing in the way of logical deduction. Your new phrasing is a reasonable extraction of the disputed content.Malljaja (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm glad this is now a debate instead of just me beating my head against a wall. Thank you 1exec1 for reading the section and rewriting it.  I feel like your version is substantially different from what was origionally written, which is to say it sounds like something we could probably find sourcing for.  I'm wondering though whether we need a rehash of ELM, given that the article already holds the text "The Export Land Model states that after peak oil petroleum exporting countries will be forced to reduce their exports more quickly than their production decreases because of internal demand growth. Countries that rely on imported petroleum will therefore be affected earlier and more dramatically than exporting countries.[120] Mexico is already in this situation. Internal consumption grew by 5.9% in 2006 in the five biggest exporting countries, and their exports declined by over 3%. It was estimated that by 2010 internal demand would decrease worldwide exports by 2,500,000 barrels per day (397,000 m3/d).[121]'"  Perhaps it makes sence to combine these two versions under the section Possible effects and consequences of peak oil, as the section Platinum was editing was called Effects of rising oil prices.


 * As for your rewrite "Jeff Rubin has stated that high oil prices will likely result in increased consumption in developed countries"; I'm having trouble finding evidence for that wording. Could you pointout the time in the video in which he states that, or else to some other source for that wording (another source would of course be preferable to a youtube video).  I believe the original wording of "... higher oil prices will likely lead to higher freight shipping costs" is more accurate.  206.188.43.65 (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The idea is that relocation of factories would result in increases of consumption in developed countries and decreases of consumption in developing countries and in freight sector, hence the net effect would be decrease of the world consumption. I haven't yet looked for an exact reference for that, but I think it should be pretty straightforward to find one. Regarding the export land model, we have two almost identical versions in two sections, so we can remove ELM mention in Effects of rising oil prices altogether (I haven't noticed it earlier). 1exec1 (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that such an increase in consumption would be temporary, and relatively small. This isn't exactly "increased consumption" as it is a "bump in consumption" (followed by a decline as shipping decreases).  In either case, those who vetted this article to be GA were very hard nosed about each statement in the article being meticulously sourced.  206.188.55.235 (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't clear enough. The global consumption of course would effectively decrease, as you say. However, we are talking only about OECD countries, which would use more oil as the factories would be relocalized there.1exec1 (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Live data - worldometers.info ?
Can anyone guess how reliable worldometers.info is ? "Days to the end of oil" = 15,489 "If consumed at current rates" That's obviously the most naive assumption possible, but 45 years is an interesting figure ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

EIA 2010 Release
The EIA finally released total energy numbers for 2010. This should be reviewed, and the findings should be integrated into this article, since it should have an impact.207.219.70.254 (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

OPEC July Update
In July, OPEC reported that Venezuela had more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, which previously had been the number one reserve nation (for an example article about this, see, but there are many). Assuming at least a lot of this oil can be drilled, and that in a time of crises nations would drill it themselves, or give money to Venezuela to drill, doesn't this discount peak oil? This is a massive up-rating in world reserves. 207.219.70.254 (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pravda is your best source? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea sorry about that.. okay how about ? It was the first result when I did a weird search.. I figured everyone else would just find a better one. 207.219.70.254 (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * These vast reserves in Venezuela are not crude oil, but tar sands/heavy oil/bitumen. It is very hard to extract, needs a lot of capital investments and the output is similar. Basically, Venezuela reserves are very similar to the Alberta tar sands in Canada - impressing numbers, but low real output.1exec1 (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Venezuela heavy oil is not bitumen, and is not like the tar-sands of the Athabasca. It has the potential for as much output as Venezuela chooses to invest, which is similar to the Athabasca. And because of its resource size, once that investment is made, it can be produced into the next century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.135.178 (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Endless oil?
What about new discoveries like Jack?


 * According to BP in 2006 the world consumed 83.7 million barrels per day. 15 billion divided by 83.7 million is about 180, so Jack is a 6 month supply for the world, assuming the oil in Jack could be extracted quickly enough and no increases in consumption occur.  Some newer estimates suggest it may only provide enough oil for the world for 2.4 to 5 days.

Weren't other predictions about our oil supplies wrong in the past?


 * The Hubbert peak theory has proved accurate for modeling the extraction history of mineral resources in specific regions. Also, virtually every type of scientific prediction has improved over time, so this is a rhetorical argument.


 * Hubbert bell shaped curves have specifically NOT worked in a majority of the worlds oil producing regions. It also has not worked in the US with natural gas, as unconventionals repeaked the country some 40 years after the Hubbert declared peak in the early 70's. According to Hubbert, the US should be making approx 6 TCF a year right now, and instead is making 20+.

ABC's 20/20 report from 2006 says we have endless oil.


 * That's a video about tar sands. It says we're running out of cheap, clean oil, and that if we include tar sands we have 100 years left.  Their expert also said $500/bbl oil isn't out of the question.


 * $500 oil isn't out of the question, any more than $100 oil was when it was predicted..during reserve studies in the late 1970's. Certainly easy oil began disappearing by about 1901, and cheap oil in real dollars disappeared in about 1969, and has been trending upwards since. Fortunately, the US per capita is using much less than then, and these increased efficiencies will continue.

The IEA's Oil Market Report shows that global oil production has increased x% in the last x months, and shows no sign of slowing down.


 * The IEA does not define "production" the same way as most Peak oil literature. They conflate the concept of "production" with "supply".  They never mention what total production is, so one has to do some foot work to put the numbers together.  To them, supply "Comprises crude oil, condensates, NGLs, oil from non-conventional sources and other sources of supply", and includes gains in refinery capacity (processing stored oil).  In other places, they actually include ethanol and other biofuels in supply!


 * Peak oil "literature" is primarily near religious dogma written by social commentators who are trying to scare people into their favorite powerdown or please become Amish scenarios. American consumers, and others, don't care what they put in their gas tanks as long as it works, so its origin from condensates or heavy oil is irrelevant as long as it comes in various grades of gasoline and distillates.

Nine barrels being used, one barrel being found?
Is this true?
 * Yes. Actually about 7.6. In 2005 we consumed 30 billion barrels per year and the discovery rate approached 4 billion barrels of crude oil per year.  This is crude oil though; quantifying unconventional discoveries is problematic.


 * UPDATE: In 2008, oil consumption had risen to 32 billion barrels per year.  The discovery rate dropped to around 3.6 bbls per year.  32 bbls / 3.6 bbls = 9


 * Yergin has correctly quantified the change in "discovered oil" versus consumed oil during the past few years, and his estimate is that 1.6 barrels have been discovered versus 1.0 consumed. Those confusing new field with discoveries with all discoveries do so specifically to activate previously mentioned scare scenarios, and have been getting this wrong since Colin Campbell forgot to include these types of discoveries and declared peak oil. In 1989. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.135.178 (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is James Howard Kunstler here?
Because he examines oil from the demand side, rather than the supply side which most economists and oil men consider. This is important.

Featured article status?
See Featured article criteria. Need to fix all "citation needed"'s and make sure all references fit proper format (cite web, cite journal, cite book, cite news, etc.). See WP:EIW for citation tools (such as Google scholar cite) to make this easier to do.

Abiotic oil
This article is not for discussing the merits of the Abiogenic petroleum origin hypothesis. Given that the prevailing view among geologists and petroleum engineers is that abiotic oil does not exist in any significant amounts, abiotic oil as a source of petroleum is a fringe hypothesis. It gets a fair mention in the appropriate section per the undue weight policy, and this text does not need to be expanded unless scientific consensus changes.

Hubbert 1956 on Peak Oil, Inconveniences Ignored and Article Errors
Hubbert predicted that U.S. "conventional" oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. Hubbert assumed 150-200 billion of U.S. conventional total recoverable. The U.S. passed 200 billion conventional in 2010. Hubbert acknowledges that 150-200 billion total U.S. conventional is predicated upon his fixed recovery rate assumption (33%) and that his curve's symmetry is likely incorrect as a result (page 24). The article highlights Hubbert's correct prediction of a 1965-1970 peak (although his paper says 1965 was likely and that 1970, the 200 billion integral, represented an upper limit case) but fails to acknowledge that he was wrong on the integral of total production.

This article fails to cite Hubbert's qualifications to symmetry and his prediction of likely asymmetry due to an increased recovery rate during the decline. The implications of this asymmetry are important as Malthusian peak oil ideology and junk science requires a rapid decline of the depleting resource so that substitutions cannot occur. Symmetry also sits behind a priori ideological proclamations that oil's rapid rise in production is predictive of and even casual to its rapid decline. Hubbert's figure 12 for Ohio conventional crude oil and figure 13 for Illinois conventional crude oil are asymmetrical. Hubbert's explanation of Illinois asymmetrical production focuses on technological waves. Hubbert predicts a future third wave for Illinois crude oil production (page 11-12). Hubbert's 150-200 billion estimate was for all U.S. on- and off- shore (page 16). He missed on his offshore estimates (20 billion, page 16) not realizing off-shelf reserves and basically only extending onshore fields to their likely offshore shape.

On page 19, he cites 1,000-2,500 billion as the recoverable unconventional U.S. oil shale. Hubbert also acknowledges 300-500 billion in Canadian tar sand bitumen and 800 billion, mostly Venezuelan, of unconventional ultra-heavy. Forgetting shale kerogen, these two unconventionals roughly match Hubbert's global estimate of conventional crude oil of 1250 billion barrels (figure 15). Hubbert clearly states that his 1250 billion for conventional globally is predicated on what is "producible by present (1956) methods".

On page 14, Hubbert acknowledges that his analysis excludes natural gas plant liquids (NGPL). The U.S. produces 2 million barrels per day of NGPLs which are a substitute for conventional oil as well as 250,000 barrels per day of blenders comprised of other hydrocarbons, often derived from natural gas, and ethers. U.S. wet natural gas reserves are rising rapidly and NGPL future production is expected to climb to 3 million barrels per day by 2035. On page 27, Hubbert foresees the substitution of conventional oil with other fossil fuels (unconventional oil along with gaseous and solid hydrocarbons). Hubbert concludes with an advocacy of nuclear (fissionable) power and draws an asymmetrical Hubbert Curve for this resource along side his famous symmetrical figure 21 for conventional U.S. oil. This figure 27 shows nuclear matching the 1970 peak conventional oil's energy in 2025 (page 27).

Hubbert makes an enlightened observation (page 4) that fossil fuels represent captured solar energy accumulated over 500 million years and that its natural replacement rate in our time frames is inconsequential. What he does not consider is the development of synthetic processes which accelerate and parallel this natural, long-time scale. Today this is known generally as biosynthfuels inclusive of the alternate alcohols (importantly in the future - cellulosic ethanol and biomass pyrolysis). Also, Hubbert did not foresee plug-in electric vehicles which would create a de facto coal and nuclear for oil substitution. The world is not going to run out of natural and synthetic liquid and compressed gas hydrocarbon and liquid alcohol fuels anytime soon. Hubbert was generally correct that the world will significantly deplete conventional crude oil in our lifetimes. But there is no economic collapse resulting as substitutes are already occurring as Hubbert partly foresaw. Peak oil’s implications are often exaggerated by ignoring substitutes and using narrow definitions of petroleum, i.e., conventional crude oil.

Take note too of petroleum consumption figures that often cite refined products consumed (an example - ). The graph in the article titled, incorrectly, "Oil Consumption - Thousands of Barrels per Day" derives its data from an old 2006 EIA table which measures finished products. An updated version of this table through 2010 and which breaks out the consumed finished products can be found at this citation. Using refined products consumed and calling that crude oil consumed is erroneous. Finished products consumed include among other things reformulated gasoline and therefore includes the entirety of the ethanol refinery inputs, blenders, and some biofuels that are used as a refinery input. Likewise the graph in the article titled "Top Consuming Countries" is taken directly from EIA and also shows consumed finished products in millions of barrels per day. Note that this EIA produced graph does not use the term "crude oil" consumed. The article does not explain that when the EIA says "petroleum" consumed they mean finished petroleum products inclusive of feedstocks not derived from crude oil - including renewables. The additional problem with using finished products consumed and calling it crude oil consumed is that it ignores expansion of the liquids as crude's specific gravity is reduced into refined products. The result is "refinery gains" which added 1 million barrels per day to U.S. domestic supply, apples-to-apples.

The graph titled "2004 U.S. government predictions for oil production other than in OPEC and the former Soviet Union" is dated, irrelevant, and represents gross data cherry picking in support of an a priori outcome. Its predictions for the seven years out through 2010 are also wrong. It should be removed from the article as it adds nothing. The section on synthetics is horrible, missing entire lines of technological development and is badly dated. The whole article reads with a biased sense of advocacy. That the article got a merit badge is laughable and the article should be reassessed, assuming "Geography and places good articles" is not simply some kind of Wiki political correctness to create false authoritativeness. Students interested in serious research should refrain from treating this article as reliable. 7o62x39 (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)7o62x39


 * Your close reading of the article is appreciated, however right now it's difficult to parse out the many issues you have raised. Please help us work together by breaking your issues up into sections so they can be addressed more effeciently, and then providing wp:V sourcing with some concrete suggested changes.  Also, it would be helpful if you were to explain exactly how a given (graph/statement/section) is worng rather than just stating the fact.  206.188.43.65 (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

conventional production, oh yeah I remember, just after learning to read and write they told me all about how oil was formed where when and the tectonic plate theory was oh so established science (that is a joke BTW, established science). Look we cannot live on raw food and we can grow so much fuel to cook it and so much food the question is where is the balance. To suggest oil will spit out of the ground to feed 7 billion carnivorousness beasts all the way to the death of the Sun strikes me as unlikely 81.109.247.189 (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is all the data 5 years old?
The first graph in particular includes some very tangible predictions about what was going to happen in the last 5 years. I don't understand why the article hasn't been updated; how hard can it be to plot historical global oil production up to 2010, on a zeroed axis? I don't know where to get the data personally but surely somebody does. What I'm talking about should really be the primary graph in this article and it would presumably falsify many of the predictions mentioned above; I don't understand why the article is so out of date. Anyway, can somebody fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.74.69 (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Current oil production is 88 million barrels/day, the section "Timing of peak oil" where it talks about an all time high of 73 million barrels a day in 2005 looks like it need to be revised imho. - e1618978

http://omrpublic.iea.org/


 * No, the current crude oil production is less than 74mbd and never was higher than 76mbd. See . BTW, these graphs over there are quite nice, it'd be great to have them here, especially since they are licensed under CC-BY-SA.1exec1 (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

go back and look at the first graph on the page you linked to - 86 million barrels a day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.83.126 (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That comment is total junk
Not sure how my learned friend could have failed to spot the 150 plus references, most external. perhaps it was a different article he meant to comment on. Plenty more rigour here than much of wikipedia! Peak Oil modelling is hardly news to those in the know. Sure, newcomers to the topic often get waylaid worrying about the exact date of peak, prediction of which depends on accurate data that is generally held commercially sensitive (and some subtelties of definition such as averaging production over what period). For example geological survey results, and decline data etc are generally not available from oil companies until long after they are no longer important, if ever. However, this should not detract from the obvious observation that there will be a peak (maybe happened already, if not then sooner or later) being self-evident. A classic Junk Comment I think.

Mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.207.29.2 (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is complete junk science
This article does few or any reputable references to scientific articles discussing peak oil. Take for example this paragragh:

"As countries develop, industry and higher living standards drive up energy use, most often of oil. Thriving economies such as China and India are quickly becoming large oil consumers.[23] China has seen oil consumption grow by 8% yearly since 2002, doubling from 1996-2006.[21] In 2008, auto sales in China were expected to grow by as much as 15-20%, resulting in part from economic growth rates of over 10% for 5 years in a row.[24]"

That's fine, but the point of Wikipedia is to articulate the opinions of experts in the area, not present NEW research. This is presenting NEW research in support of Peak Oil. For instance, this would be valid if you said "Dr. X, and expert in [some field], asserted in a peer review journal that..." but it doesn't. I contains dozens of unsupported assertions and ramblimgs.

Without a serious rewrite, I'm going to nominate this article for deletion. 109.144.242.56 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC).

Nice try oil man. Keep the article intact. It's full of sources. Your vile attempts for propaganda don't work here. Back in Fox News. --Athinker (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

When peak oil for the US was declared to be 3 years in the future by USGS geologist David White....in 1919, it was not junk science. Peak oil has been with us for a long time and its advocates would rather we hear only about the most current peak, or the most current information, or are just too lazy to research the topic properly. Peak oil updates on this Wiki have been lagging because oil didn't peak in 2005, only some oil peaked in 2005, and trying to limit the conversation to only this oil is done by design. A consumer or gasoline does not care if it came from conventional crude, heavy crude, Athabasca tar sands or unicorn farts, as long as it says regular/midgrade/premium on the pump handle, and works, it simply doesn't matter. Those trying to limit the conversation to some small subset are simultaneously running away from the obvious,condensates make great gasoline. And you can make synthetic crude all day long from all sorts of things, thereby negating the entire peak argument by allowing for the manufacturing of crude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.232.33 (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that there are alternative sources of synthetic crude oil and refined petroleum products. It still makes sense to talk about a peak in the extraction of the specific geological resource, crude oil. Additionally, peak conventional oil has important policy and economic implications regardless of the available sources of synthetic crude and their potential reserves. Once production of conventional crude flattens out and starts to decline, unless demand also declines, the price of oil must as a matter of necessity rises to the price at which the extraction or manufacture of unconventional oil is profitable. Since this price is markedly higher than the historic inflation-adjusted price of conventional crude, it essentially spells the end of the era of cheap energy. --Steve D (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm in my final year of studying for a PhD in Mathematical Finance, specializing in Commodities. I have also made several thousand wikipedia edits over the years. Based on everything I've read from all opinions, I'd say the article is currently well written and fair. WillSmith (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm in my 30th year of petroleum engineering now, specializing in oil and gas drilling, completing, hydraulically fracturing, and producing wells. After having read all the opinions, it sounds to me like breathless speculation, wild conjecture, random conspiracy claims, and recycled fantasies no different from the LAST time it was claimed we were running out of oil. There is utter nonsense in the very first paragraph of this wiki (well production rates do not resemble a bell shaped curve for starters) and it basically goes downhill from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.224.225 (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oil men will hide the truth of the death of their industry. --94.69.50.6 (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Peak oil is an interesting industry factoid, certainly no one confuses it with the death of an industry. Those who argue that peak oil is the same as peak price (something Hubbert never claimed, and has been invented to cover up for other peak consequences which didn't materialize) don't appear to realize that high prices tend to invigorate the industry, certainly they don't kill it.


 * You want proof? Themselves "confirm" they will drop prices due to extra supply and they prove powerless to do it. --94.69.50.6 (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Another equation
this youtube video by Albert A. Bartlett has an equation at 4:36 which differs from others here. its called the "Expiration Time or "T sub E", of a non-renewable resource whose rate of consumption is growing steadily". I think its highly relevant to all of the articles on peak resource use and limits to growth. If anyone else thinks his equation is relevant, can they transcribe it? the math is beyond me, and i cant reconstruct it from the image on screen.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"As things stand, however, only 15% of those reserves are currently exploitable, a good part of that off the coasts of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas." I found this on the criticism section. I don't know much about Wikipedia protocol, but is it really a legitimate move to attempt a refutation right after this? (without a citation, no less!) -Kid who don't know nothing 'bout Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.248.116 (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Intriguing if true
Someone made a cartoon asserting that not only is Peak Oil real, but so is Peak Everything Else. It would be interesting to see how verifiable the information in it is. The cartoon may have been an Occupy byproduct, but it does seem to articulate the Malthusian/ Peak Oil argument pretty well. 198.151.130.62 (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also Creative Commons licensed. Which is interesting from a Wikimedia POV. 198.151.130.62 (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Positive aspects of peak oil
I have removed this statement from this subsection of the page as it is a misinterpretation of what Jim Hansen says.

"Many such critics reason that if the price of oil rises high enough, the use of alternative clean fuels could help control pollution from fossil fuel use, and mitigate global warming".

Mrfebruary (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You have to dig a little deeper to get it:
 * "If conventional oil production peaks within the next few decades, it may have a large effect on future atmospheric CO2 and climate change, depending upon subsequent energy choices. ... we show that it is feasible to keep atmospheric CO2 from exceeding about 450 ppm by 2100, provided that emissions from coal, unconventional fossil fuels, and land use are constrained. ... It is also important to "stretch" conventional oil reserves via energy conservation and efficiency, thus averting strong pressures to extract liquid fuels from coal or unconventional fossil fuels while clean technologies are being developed for the era "beyond fossil fuels". We argue that a rising price on carbon emissions is needed to discourage conversion of the vast fossil resources into usable reserves, and to keep CO2 beneath the 450 ppm ceiling."
 * I recommend replacing it in some form. 50.47.93.116 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats really the question, isn't it? In what form? Hansen certainly does not say peak oil has positive effects. Hansen's testimony isn't really about peak oil. It describes 'energy choices' which would 'keep atmospheric CO2 from exceeding about 450 ppm' - or mitigation of climate change. Mrfebruary (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Disposable energy
In the Effects of rising oil prices section there is a paragraph about Disposable Energy. As far as I can tell this is original research - a Google search for the term Disposable Energy yields only two relevant pages: the Wikipedia article and a blog post, both by the same author. However, I'd appreciate a second opinion before deleting it. —Stephen Morley (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems like original research to me. There are no independent citations on it.  Rlsheehan (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with both your comments. Mrfebruary (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete 50.47.93.116 (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Now deleted Mrfebruary (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just deleted the 'Disposable energy' paragraph a second time.Mrfebruary (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed link
I propose this link : http://wiksa.free.fr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.164.61.183 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 26 June 2009

It's not in english. I guess we can delete this section. 46.115.43.87 (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

recent developments
RIP: Peak Oil - we won't be running out any time soon: The idea that seized the imaginations of the bien pensant chattering classes in the Noughties – "Peak Oil" – is no longer relevant. So says the commodities team at Citigroup, and policy-makers would be wise to examine the trends they've identified. --tickle me 12:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Those who can not find at least 4 major flaws with this source should probably not edit this article. 50.54.236.233 (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * that should go for those who don't bother to substantiate, too. Allegations don't cut it, here. --tickle me 21:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't feel the need to prove myself. I just think a sound understanding of the oil industry's terminology, as well as of basic statistical analysis, is extremely important to anyone interested in editing the content of this article.  But if you're curious, I'll start you off:
 * Issue #1 (the easiest one to spot): consider the source. 50.54.237.29 (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this isn't a useful source. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but only the opinions recognised experts and especially notable commentators are suitable for inclusion in WP. --FormerIP (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I still would not call that a substantiation. 78.55.244.221 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just in case someone decides to add the Citigroup analysis to the article: a related report has been issued by Barclays nearly at the same time. It came to the opposite conclusion. I think if we decide to include one, then the other should be covered too. 1exec1 (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Exec, I'm confused. Were you of the opinion that the Citigroup "article" (see the bottom of the pdf) is in any way in compliance with wp:RS?  50.54.237.29 (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WE cant prove "gravity" either- its just the current theory we believe to be correct at the moment- it doesn't stop us from talking about it and explaining what we THINK is happening.... Cilstr (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Go check the latest oil production figures at eia.gov, there is plenty of proof right there. Fracking and tight oil is revolutionizing the industry. This article is a joke, yet another Malthusian catastrophe that won't be happening for the forseeable future. Periander6 (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't know that revolutionizing is quite the right characterization considering how long hydraulic fracturing has been going on, and how long tight oil and gas has been produced in the US. But peak oilers remanfacturing yet another excuse to proclaim a Malthusin catastrophy is pretty normal, if you are familiar with the breed. This article has my vote for deletion, it has major factual errors which masquerade as real information to peak oilers (related to oil and gas production particulars), the definition of oil has never changed (only what liquids are quantified by reporting agencies, which is entirely a different issue), and certainly there isn't a word about all the past predictions of peak oil in various locales spanning at least a century. Without the historical perspective on how many times these same ideas have been trotted out and recycled for a new generation, someone might think these claims are new and give them more credibility now then, say, the same claims made a century ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.179.32 (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Economically viable oil.
This article mentions total reserves but does not mention anything about what is economically viable. For example on another article on the tar sands it is mentioned that 10% is economically viable. I think that any discussion of peak oil must consider cost of extraction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.245.20 (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Economically viable" is not a scientific term. Expense makes no difference to peak oil. This is simply a calculated estimation of how much oil remains no matter its type. Cost of extraction fluctuates enormously depending on whether the oil is underground or underwater, in a stable country or a war-torn country, in an OPEC country or otherwise and so on.

Vision Insider (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, Vision Insider, "Expense makes no difference to peak oil" is one of the most absurd statements I've ever read. Peak Oil has nothing to do with how much oil is left in the ground. The theory is entirely about peak rate of extraction, and economic viability is a central consideration in determining extraction rates. There's more than enough petroleum left in the ground to DOUBLE the present world production rate. The problem is that will never happen precisely because it's not economically viable to do so. Economic viability is most definitely a key aspect of understanding the Peak Oil thesis, and I agree with "unsigned" that it warrants discussion in the article. ErikTownsend (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hubbert explicitly used oil left in the ground as part of his calculation, so certainly you can't claim it has nothing to do with the topic if Hubbert himself was involved doing exactly that. The theory has morphed from its origins to something quite a bit different as expected peak oils have come and gone and the modern gang of happy McDoomsters continue to play kick the can with their predictions. I don't even think Hubbert ever used the word "price" in his geologically based idea in 1956, that is more modernists trying to escape their original bad calls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.205.67.67 (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Newer Source
The grafic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GrowingGap.jpg is very interessting, but unfortunately not up to date (it stops somewhere like 1997). Does anyone have an idea where to get a more up-to-date source for the past discovery of oil? The production numbers should be easy to add to the grafic. 46.115.43.87 (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Try The status of conventional world oil reserves—Hype or cause for concern? Owen et al, Energy Policy 38 (2010) 4743–4749 for starters. There's a more updated graph there with 3 sources listed. 50.47.87.117 (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Peak Oil - Only valid for existing oil fields, each one considered in itself
Peak Oil is now only discussed in terms of single oil fields (only) and that given production by pressure, then peak oil for this oil field is calculated. Yes? 109.189.231.248 (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.192.218 (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Every graph in this article is out of date
Some by a long way. Please can someone try to update the important ones? --99of9 (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's vote number two for more recent data. Most graphs show data nearly a decade old; some even including extensions of predictions that simply didn't even happen. To me, this seems pointless for an article outlining recent trends and their possible future developments. Please update or remove? 83.81.14.100 (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Some update seems essential, since the article is at risk of being extremely misleading with the current data. Maybe the best approach is to flag the article as inaccurate. Tsh (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

May be worth developing a section or spinoff article on "history of petroleum depletion concerns"


Such a section or article would make for interesting reading, and it would help with the issue identified in the previous Talk thread (above). What do we do with graphs that are 10 or 20 years old and whose modeling predictions didn't turn out? One answer is "just delete them", but a better answer is, "move them from current peak oil coverage to the 'history' section/article." This preserves for readers a record of what was predicted over the years, what was halfway accurate, what was theoretically oversimplified (thus flawed), and so on.

I lack time to help develop this right now, but it is a good project for Wikipedia to pursue. By the way, here is an "Um, guys, I've noticed something disconcerting" moment from 1918. (See linked Commons file.) It was written when world crude oil production had reached—cue the Dr. Evil voice—one million barrels of oil per day. — ¾-10 16:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * History of peak oil scare mongering might be a better title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.192.218 (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It may feel cool to act cynical about it like that, but it's glib. My reference to Dr. Evil wasn't meant to be mocking in any way, although I just realized that maybe it could be taken that way. The "one million" figure simply triggered a free association in the back of my mind with "notions of one million being a gargantuan number when in another context it isn't"). But I wasn't poking fun at the man in the 1918 article. Just because petroleum hasn't gotten painfully expensive yet doesn't mean it will never happen. Clearly some people got the timing of their predictions premature; but I don't see any smart money on betting that it'll never happen. The best we can hope is that our renewables industries will pick up the slack in few enough decades that we can draw down petroleum demand gradually, rather than crashing like addicts in withdrawal. The former will probably happen, I suspect, as prices slowly exert chronic pressure. But it couldn't happen if no one ever made any preparation toward it. — ¾-10 02:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Such a section is a good idea, for it would put current projections into historical context, and show the difficulty of predicting resource peaks. Plazak (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Timing of Peak Oil - US Joint Forces Command
The Timing of Peak Oil section begins with an overlong quote from a US military study. But if you check the cited online source, you see that: 1) the study did not make an independent estimate of oil production, but instead used the IEA study cited directly below in the Wikipedia article; 2) the military study made no prediction of the timing of peak oil. Given these facts, is there any good reason to include the US Joint Forces Command study? Plazak (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably not. The IEA study will be sufficient. Beagel (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I propose to add the following section distinguishing Peak Oil from Peak Cheap Oil
PCO is an important concept and has even started to get some traction in the mainstream news lately. I think this article needs a subsection distinguishing PO from PCO. I propose the following: ErikTownsend (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

[suggested text moved from here to the article by ErikTownsend]

Whereas no comments or objections have been voiced, I have moved the section I wrote distinguishing PO vs. PCO from the talk page to the main article. ErikTownsend (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you are moving a little too fast Erik. Your suggestion was up for less than 48 hours, and this page gets less traffic than it used to.


 * The distinction you raise is an important one, though it may still need to be further refined (for example, it may be better to speak of ease of extraction or resources used to extract/refine rather than cost; and what defines "easy" or "cheap"?). Also, you did not add any citations to your section, which in-of-itself will cause the article to loose it's GA status.


 * I suggest you move the section to Talk:Peak oil/sandbox and invite folks to edit it there (you can wipe what you find there from 2008). There's no hurry to insert the section.  66.235.23.31 (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, this change was up more than 48 hrs before being moved to the main article. I forgot to "sign" the first comment, and later returned to add the signature and timestamp, hence the apparent time window discrepancy.


 * I admit to being a novice on Wikipedia protocol, but I still fail to comprehend the "moving too fast" allegation. Is there some reason to delay an update to an article for more than 48 hrs? If so, what's the guideline? 72 hrs? 96? 2 weeks? Can you provide a reference to a wikipedia policy that says I was supposed to wait longer? This is not a sarcastic quip... I sincerely don't know the rule on this, and welcome edification. But frankly, if - as you say yourself - this page gets less traffic than it used to, what's the downside to simply inserting the new section directly in the main article and allowing others to improve it from there? Again, I'm not being sarcastic - just baffled to comprehend the basis of your objection and seeking edification.


 * As to "it may be better to speak of ease of extraction or resources used to extract/refine rather than cost; and what defines "easy" or "cheap"?", I think you are missing the point. The distinction is relevant to those who are evaluating the ECONOMIC impacts of PO. What defines "cheap" is lower prices. More specifically, the sustainable ability to produce oil at prices consistent with long-term historical norms. I didn't say anything about "easy". The point is we're not going back to $20/bbl crude oil, because the marginal cost of new supply is higher, and there is no apparent future source of supply that can be economically viable to produce at anything close to historically "normal" oil prices.


 * The economic impacts of peak oil is not a definition of peak oil. People can evaluate all the oil price and cost impacts they wish, just as they did during the global peak oil in 1979. It has nothing to do with peak oil in the sense of maximum oil extraction followed by terminal decline. Historical norms have nothing to do with it either, otherwise the historically high prices right around the end of the American Civili War would be relevant in the conversation, and obviously they are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.205.67.67 (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Nobody has suggested that economic impacts of PO is a definition of PO. But the economic impacts are obviously of interest in an encyclopedia article about PO. The social and geopolitical result of PO is likely (according to Janszen and others who support the PCO thesis) to occur as a result of PCO, before PO even has a chance to fully occur, in the sense of a true global production peak. In short, your argument is specious and irrelevant, not to mention unsigned. ErikTownsend (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to have forgotten to sign your comment. Having made the same mistake myself, I can't very well complain about that, but if you want me to seriously consider your objection, please sign any future response.


 * I see no reason to remove the section from the main article, but as I've said, I'm a novice on Wikipedia editing etiquette, and welcome enlightenment through SIGNED comments. For now, I'll leave the section in the main article because I think it adds value there. I certainly welcome and encourage others who are concerned with the lack of citations to add them, or to improve on any other imperfections that might exist. ErikTownsend (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This PCO section needs to have citations and links added. (It's weak without those.) Hillbillygirl (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The PCO section was removed without discussion (not cool) by user Dialectric. I have reversed the edit and will contact Dialectric thru his/her talk page to find out why they removed the section without following protocol of proposing the change on the talk page first. ErikTownsend (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * All unreferenced content on wikipedia is subject to challenge and removal. The PCO section has been on this page for months without any citations, and as such, removal is a valid course of action. I explained my edit in my edit summary. If you would like to add reliable sources which justify the section's inclusion, go ahead. As long it is unsourced, I do not believe that the section belongs in the article, and the term appears to be a WP:neologism that has little traction in reliable sources. Dialectric (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * True, but you didn't "challenge and remove". You just removed, with zero discussion on this page. Not cool. The assertion that this is a neologism is absurd. I have no agenda to promote the term, and PCO most definitely is a profoundly important distinction that is critical to understand if one is to fully grasp the economic impications of Peak Oil. But that said, your observation that citations and references are needed is legitimate, and I'll look into adding them. ErikTownsend (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Rather than 'a profound distinction', the concept of 'peak cheap oil' seems to me to be too arbitrary to be useful. Whereas peak oil is an immutable concept - the total amount of oil left which can be potentially extracted from the ground- 'peak cheap oil' adds a layer of arbitrary economic effects and assumptions. Focusing on one of these, from the unreferenced section, it appears that PCO equates unconventional extraction with 'expensive' oil. This is a flawed assumption. Unconventional extraction methods are not inherently more expensive than traditional methods. Economies of scale come into play here, and a widely employed 'unconventional' method could certainly fall below the arbitrary $50/barrel marker used in the section. (Some estimates for hydraulic fracturing are currently around $55/barrel). Another issue is that oil production does not occur in a legal vacuum, but rather under regulatory frameworks which significantly impact the price; these frameworks have the potential to change significantly over time, and in changing, impact the costs of extraction. Dialectric (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that PCO really doesn't appear to be a neologism. Peak Oil is a view that focuses on the economics of extracting oil _supplies_ (based as it is on geology and extraction engineering), but Peak Cheap Oil extends the same analysis to also include the impact of consequent _demand_ fluctuations. In other words, while a Peak Oil theory may predict a smoothly increasing price of oil (based on a single fixed supply/price curve) as reservoirs are gradually depleted, the PCO thesis predicts intermittent, and increasingly abrupt, swings in price as the impact of different extraction-cost thresholds are reached and absorbed by the broader economy (thus taking into account both supply/price and demand/price curves). This is equally appropriate regardless of any specific cost of any given unconventional extraction technique (eg hydraulic fracturing), any economy of scale, or any changes in legal or regulatory frameworks (the details of which are all pretty much irrelevant to the PCO thesis). In fact, the specific _nature_ of a given marginal demand threshold is not really relevant at all. All that is needed for the theory to be applicable is that such demand thresholds exist in some form, which even a cursory glance at historical demand/price data validates pretty clearly. The fact that legal and regulatory barriers may be loosened to counteract increasing oil costs is not evidence _against_ the importance of PCO, but is in fact one of the mechanisms by which PCO manifests itself, distinct from PO theory. These are precisely some of the ways in which an economy or society can create the temporary downward price swings that a simplistic PO theory would not predict, even while the underlying price floor shifts to reflect reduced remaining oil stocks. Astonas (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for weighing in Atonas. I agree that simplistic PO theory is not an accurate indicator or predictor of market conditions, and that an analysis that takes demand into account would be more neuanced. This article should certainly include some discussion of the oil market and the limitations of PO theory, and your point about price swings is relevant, but I don't think the term PCO is a necessary or useful encapsulation of these ideas. You write that 'the PCO thesis predicts intermittent, and increasingly abrupt, swings in price' but the section on PCO currently in the article does not discuss the price swings you mention at all, and instead focuses on extraction costs. Could you point me to a source which discusses PCO in terms of price swings? Or one that shows that these swings are increasingly abrupt? My sense is that 1970s oil shocks involved similarly extreme price swings.Dialectric (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Dialectric, your own statement "Whereas peak oil is an immutable concept - the total amount of oil left which can be potentially extracted from the ground..." above reveals that you completely misunderstand the PO concept - never mind the PCO concepts. Respectfully, I wonder if you'd do better to READ these articles than to EDIT them! For the record, PO is all about extraction RATES. It has nothing to do with how much oil is left in the ground.


 * Your comments do correctly reveal that the PCO section as currently written doesn't go nearly far enough to explain the distinction and why it's important. Astonas' comments here on the talk page were more complete in some respects than my first pass on the PCO section. Astonas, since you clearly understand the subject matter, I encourage you to improve on my first pass and improve the section. Dialectric, with all due respect, it's clear you don't understand any of the concepts here, and are anything but expert on the subject matter. Your criticism that no references or citations were provided is legitimate, but I suggest you limit your participation in this process to JUST being the self-appointed citation cop, and leave the task of editing the article itself to people who understand the subject matter. ErikTownsend (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * My description of PO was incorrect. I will correct it presently, and it is tangential to my argument. Rather than focus on my editing style, I suggest a focus on finding citations. I have removed the PCO section again as original research; it is still uncited, and I have not been able to find the term used in any scholarly articles. If you wish to re-add the section, please add citations to reliable sources.Dialectric (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * ErikTownsend, please just provide the cites. Once you do, you can re-add your section, and this whole argument will go away. Also, I suggest that any Peak Cheap Oil section be placed in the existing section on effect of peak oil on oil prices. Thanks.  Plazak (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have some citations I can go through to find the best canonical links, both for the ultimate origin of the term, and for the history of the theory itself. I also will pull together some revisions to the suggested text, which I agree isn't yet as clear as it might be.  Unfortunately, my schedule today is pretty packed, and I still need to separate out some proprietary information and references from related information that is in the public domain, so give me a few days.


 * Finding the best origin citations here is also complicated by the fact that while the theory is clearly now gaining broad traction in many circles, including the academy, its origin in an investing context provides sparser-than-usual citation possibilities in the peer-reviewed literature. One can't simply do a web-of-knowledge search and look at the first reference, since that certainly isn't where the theory first developed.  It's been used for years in the business press, for example.


 * I'd rather get this right the first time round. As was mentioned above, there isn't a huge need to rush anything.  We can all stay calm and civil, and together create the best answer.  Astonas (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Essay in The Atlantik of Charles C. Mann

 * Mai 2013 What If We Never Run Out of Oil? New technology and a little-known energy source suggest that fossil fuels may not be finite. This would be a miracle—and a nightmare. Charles C. Mann Apr 24 2013 The Atlantic needs some involvement here, great source and article. Serten (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

We have already run out of cheap fossil fuel

 * Contrary to the opinion of Charles Mann fossil fuels are finite. The Ghawar deposits were a 350 mile diameter sea of light crude oil located in the Eastern Region of Saudi Arabia that you could run through a Gas Oil Sedimentation Tank (GOST) and tap out a bucket to run your pickup. I watched it go on rinse cycle as I helped design and build Hawtah to develop the oil and gas of the southern fields down in the Rub al Khali where temperatures are routinely 130 degrees and you need to fill the trucks bringing potable water to mix concrete with ice and send them out at night just to pour pumping station foundations.


 * All the light sweet crude is gone now and what we are presently going after isn't even shale oil or bitumen like heavy crude its tar sands. The Canadian tar sands running from Alberta down to the Teapot Dome formations in the Western United States are left over from the Tethys sea and are not only finite, they use almost as much energy to refine and re-mediate as they produce. We saw what happened to the deep sea drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore drilling in the North Sea and off Brazil have resulted in some of the most horrific blowouts and "kicks" ever seen with casualties running in the hundreds of lives per instance.


 * The reason that deep sea drilling is so dangerous is basic physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowout_%28well_drilling%29. Knowing when the kick is going to occur and controlling the mud gets harder as you get farther down and closer to the oil because you run into gas pockets where the pressure changes suddenly and your feedback comes as a gusher of the drilling mud closely followed by gas and oil which explodes causing a fire. Blowout preventers aren't always triggered by operators because they can kill the well locking its drill bit in place with heavy mud just as you are about to reap its profits. Fracking for natural gas is causing people to set their tap water on fire just to show how its destroying our fresh water aquifers. The Saudis destroyed theirs decades ago and now depend on desalination plants for drinking water.


 * Best estimates are that energy companies routinely overstate both their provable resources and projected resources by about 50%. In addition to having already run out of light sweet crude oil we are running out of so called clean coal (coal that has a lower sulfer content) and natural gas.


 * Methane hydrates may be present off of continental shelves but since the Methane Hydrate Act was signed by Clinton in 2000, they have proven both difficult to tap into productively, and environmentally dangerous as their release due to climate change is already causing greenhouse gases to pass their tipping point and become irremediable.


 * The charts and graphs in this article are perhaps five years out of date but in 2014 the IPCC is going to report that climate change is accelerating at an accelerating rate. Climate mediation is going to mean some dirty fuels that are high in carbon and other polutants can't be used. As World demand increases and World supply decreases there is pressure to get any kind of fossil fuel anywhere we can regardless of environmental damage so as to keep prices low, but already we see prices going back up steeply to pre 2008 levels.


 * Bottom line we are already panicking both in the industry and politically and the results are not good 12.187.95.93 (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)