Talk:Peak oil/Archive 8

Outdated
I put outdated boxes on three sections, 'Oil field decline', 'timing', and 'oil prices'.

the Timing section uses a lot of references from between 2008 and 2014, and none from the last year, despite massive changes in production trends and oil prices in the last year or so. the oil price section neglects to mention any of the price drops in the last year, and the figure still shows the most recent price at ~$100, despite currently being around $45. The Oil Field decline section fails to mention the recent importance of hydraulic fracturing in increasing the production of oil fields, esp. in the USA. Anyone have the time to fix these problems? InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 11:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking at the page, and your comments have been noted. This article was neglected for along time, and I have been trying to update the page for months now. However, this is a community effort, and there are years of previous work here. Most of the figures have been updated. There are some sections which need work. If you have a problem with this section (and it could be improved), I strongly suggest you put the effort in to update it. In regard to your comments about the price drop in the last year, it is referred to in the Historical Oil Prices section "However, during all 2013 and 2014 the price crude oil has showed a relative stability, being between $100 and $110 per barrel, before dropping sharply in late 2014 to below $70." In addition, tight oil production and hydraulic fracturing are mentioned several times in the article due to recent edits; but, perhaps not in the section you mentioned.Blandx (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * First, I assume that the thesis was done in 2014, not 2104. Second, with all the dozens of peak oil predictions, why choose this one for DYK? Is it more notable, more interesting, or more likely to be accurate than any of the others?  The fact that it is a thesis suggests that the author is not well-known or very experienced in the field. Just wondering.  Plazak (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggested deletion of figure
I just wanted to suggest deleting the figure in the "Timing" section entitled "Conventional and unconventional oil production through 2013, compared with various models suggested by peak oil analysts." I find it very cryptic and not very informative. I will wait for possible responses - opinions welcome. Blandx (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Remove of "Article" section in further information section?
Recent edits have added some not-so-notable chaff to this section, and it contains some other questionably notable articles as well. This section should be only for the most notable articles published on the subject, However, I'm wondering if we should remove this section altogether as there seems very little way to curate it well. If an article has something notable to say, it should be linked in the main article space. Seriously... there is even a list of podcasts. this whole section needs a massive shortening and cleanup. There is already a massive further reading list of books and documentaries, and this article section is just likely to accumulate garbage over time. If no one objects in the next few days I'll delete the article and podcast section. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 00:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Critisism section, Past tense or present in the lede
We currently have a section "critisism" - I would prefer to have that integrated in the article, since such content should never be part of a separate section. It could be titled "economic view" since the mainstream in the actual business sees main limitations for oil availability "above ground", from availability of staff, expertise, technology, investment security, money till global warming. The oil question is about price and not the basic availability.

I doubt as well the validity of the following statement: Some observers, such as petroleum industry experts Kenneth S. Deffeyes and Matthew Simmons, 'predict' negative global economy implications following a post-peak production decline and oil price increase because of the high dependence of most modern industrial transport, agricultural, and industrial systems on the low cost and high availability of oil The point is, that a) real and active petroleum industry representatives did and do not buy into Peak Oil at all, take the quotes of Rühl and others. Basically we do not have any serious physical limitation (as long the sun will shine) for hydrocarbon availability per se, as kerogen is abundant and biomass is being replenished in amounts that are far beyound current human energy needs. b) The statements of Deffeyes and Matthew Simmons are being based on popular books, printed in 2005 when Peak Oil made big news and sold well on the book markets. This hype and its temporary role is not yet described properly. The predictions have been wrong, in case of Simmons - compare Simmons–Tierney bet - he would have lost money on the statement currently quoted in present tense. Polentarion Talk 17:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft: ''Around 2005 peak oil was a topic of various books and public debates world wide. Some observers, as authors Kenneth S. Deffeyes and Matthew Simmons, predicted negative global economy implications following a post-peak production decline and oil price increase in the nearest future. They feared an oncoming economic shock due to the high dependence of most modern industrial transport, agricultural, and industrial systems on the low cost and high availability of oil. Both Hubbert's original predictions for world production and the fear about a price shock proved premature. Already then, representatives of the Oil industry doubted the use of Peak Oil as a predictive tool. Along them, oil can be produced and extracted - if needed and paid for - by a wide range of sources and the main limitations for oil availability are being seen as "above ground", in the availability of staff, expertise, technology, investment security, money and last but not least in limitations set by global warming.''


 * Other than the spelling error (critisism vs criticism), what you said suffers from what Wikipedia calls WP:Presentism. The peak oil theory really only applies to "conventional" oil. If you limit the definition of "oil" to "conventional oil" and ignore "non conventional oil" the peak oil theory still applies. Post 2008 oil crisis, North American oil production (most of the new global production comes from North America) rose dramatically because of changed economic conditions and new technology. A lot of "non-conventional" oil moved from the "non-recoverable" to the "recoverable" side of the books when oil prices exceeded $100/barrel and the technological goalposts were moved by technological advances. Virtually all of the "new" oil on the market these days is produced by hydraulic fracturing, steam assisted gravity drainage, or more efficient techniques in power shovel mining. It is what I call "finding oil in the laboratory" versus than finding oil in the ground. The peak of "conventional oil" hit in 2008, but non-conventional oil saved the day. The leftie-greenies are totally opposed to "fracking" as they call hydraulic fracturing, and "tar sands" and "dirty oil" as they call bitumen and extra-heavy oil, so if anybody had listened to them, yes, we would have had peak oil. But here we are with more oil than we know what to do with.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree on the most points with you but would like to avoid the political cloud. Dr. Rühl is neither left nor green, he's just serious and rational. Peak Oil is not - but it was a good show ten years ago. Polentarion Talk 19:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * After 6 months of working on this article I have taken the unprecedented decision to remove somebody's (Polentarion) edits. I have no intention of starting an edit war, so please let me explain my actions. From comments above, and on other pages, it is clear that Polentarion has a serious issue with this topic. Before discussing major changes on this page, Polentarion decided to make edits which I strongly believe to be not from a neutral point of view. In any case, the grammar is clumsy, and in some cases, does not make sense. From the 70 odd comments and edits he has made on various pages in the last 2 days (including on climate change), I would suggest he is a serial vandal. I strongly believe in presenting a balanced point of view on this page. There are numerous alternative arguments if you bother to look carefully. However, I don't believe these recent edits are acceptable. There is a way to go about presenting a balanced argument; these recent changes are not the way to do it. Please respect the work of other contributors and don't vandalize the page. Blandx (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I have announced my edits on 14 December 2015 and I waited for a feedback, which took place on 16 December 2015. Then I did some edits. You use strong wording about me as an author, without any reference to the facts rasied. That is far from being appropriate. The point with the current version is that presenting Deffeyes and Matthew Simmons as present point of view is not in line with basic sourcing. Neither is ignoring Rühl and other experts in the lede neutral. In so far, I ask to revert to the improved version. Polentarion Talk 11:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Apologies if I seemed heavy-handed; however, I believe your edits not to be neutral. Currently in the article, there are multiple references from individuals with alternative points of view. For example, Christoph Ruhl is given an 8 line quote. Are any Peak Oil proponents given such a lengthy quote anywhere in the article? Are Aleklett, Deffeyes and Simmons quoted at length anywhere in the article? No. The point of the article is to present the facts as they are from reliable sources. The article is not here to discredit the concept. Deffeyes and Simmons are mentioned as they raise the concern expressed by many that there may be serious implications were peak oil to occur. This is necessary to frame the argument. In terms of balance, the challenge of predicting peak production is mentioned not only in the "lede" but is discussed at length in the Peak Oil theory section. In addition, the "Oil Industry Representatives" mentions a number of other individuals who have expressed objections to the concept. There is also mention of unconventional sources, including "fracking", and their contribution to global supply. In summary, your recent edits placing one BP economist's opinions in the "lede" section do not present a balanced stance. I believe it was done to discredit the article and I do not support it. Blandx (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes you seemed but I appreciate the Apologies. I would like to improve the article here based on to observations: 1. Any sort of "critism section" is not helpful, not any really excellent article has one. 2: If you provide lengthy quotes Rühl and other opponents, give them a place in the lede as well. 3. Rühl is not about challenging predictions of peak oil production, he - as an economist - doubts the whole concept on a serious theoretical base. And his points have been fully confirmed since 4. the Article mentions Maugeris contributions about the historical aspects, but it doesnt use them. 5. Peak Oil has been a sort of hype around 2005, but its been much les of importance now. This historical role has to be described. Point is, I -as an earth scientist have reason to fully agree with Dr. Rühl, and I have introduced Rühls quote and Maugeris science article already during the hightime of the related fears in the German article, will say nearly a decade ago, when it was muuch more bold to do so.  Polentarion Talk 21:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I don't accept your logic. These are all you personal points of view. 1. Why is the "Criticism" section unhelpful? A good article will consider counter-arguments to be balanced. 2&3. If I have to put Ruhl in the lede, why wouldn't I put every other individual mentioned in the article there? Why isn't he there: because his contribution to the debate is minimal. Where are his studies? Where are his peer-reviewed articles? One interview is cited in the article. As I said, this is the opinion ( I stress opinion) of one economist paid by BP - hardly independent analysis. "His points have been fully confirmed" - Where? How?." Should he go in the lede - I entirely disagree. 4. Maugeri's mathematical models have been heavily criticized. 5. "Peak Oil has been a sort of hype around 2005, but its been much les of importance now." - really? On what basis are you making that statement? Again, this is an opinion; stick to facts and reliable sources. In summary, I haven't heard a single thing in your arguments that warrants putting Ruhl in the lede section. Blandx (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You base your points on a selective use of sources - which had been heard 2005 but are completely useless now. You refer to Deffeyes and Matthew Simmons as "petroleum industry experts" but leave out the actual expertise. A good article "is balanced", it doesnt need a "critism section" (garbage container) to balance. That said, the article is not balanced and ignores important sourcing. Polentarion Talk 15:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I did not write this section of the article. The article is a community effort, so your use of "you refer" is not correct. Secondly, both Deffeyes and Simmons have along list of contributions to this subject such as books, article, papers, speaking engagements, as can be seen from the links on their relevant Wikipedia pages. The link you had for Christoph Ruhl did not link to a Wikipedia page. As I asked previously, where is his list of books, peer-reviewed papers, speaking engagements etc.? Wikipedia is about reliable sources. You have provided only a link to one interview. Thirdly, when you say "which had been heard 2005 but are completely useless now" what does this mean? On the basis of what? Finally, unless you come up with reliable source to cite, such as peer-reviewed studies, that would justify placing Ruhl in the lede section, I would kindly ask that you cease this discussion. This section is not a forum for a debate on the topic. Perhaps a blog is more appropriate. Blandx (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

"Oil substitution," or "substitution for oil," by whatever name, in no way refutes peak oil It may be part of changing an originally-conceived sharper peak to a rolling peak (as do increased conservation efforts), but that doesn't refute the idea overall.

And, claiming that Austrian economics can explain material resource levels in general as "subjective" without critiquing this criticism, is woeful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.201.20.139 (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of recent oil price movements
Since it is topical, I would like to modify the section on oil price to expand information on the price drop in the last year. I would like to include some figures and projections for the next year. I would also like discuss its economic implications and relevance to oil production. Does anyone have any suggestions, comments or objections?Blandx (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This looks important to explore in such a section: . 184.100.29.122 (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. I should expand a little. I believe that some discussion on the low price should be given to keep relevant. However, with over 150 years of oil price data, to focus on the last year would seem to place undue emphasis on recent events. It is also hard to see how the market will play out. In another 12 months the oil price may increase dramatically (or it may not). Conventional thinking says that prices will remain low for a prolonged period. Having said that, those same voices did not predict the 2014-15 drop. Production cuts or geopolitical events may also have a major unforeseen effect on the market. So, the significance of the price drop remains to be seen in the longer term. Therefore, I will discuss the price drop in this context. Further constructive comments are welcome. Blandx (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Did you have some sources in mind? This journal article gives yet another perspective. I agree with the sentiment that avoiding recentism is important. 184.100.9.154 (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's very useful. Blandx (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggested changes to Reserves section
I'd like to suggest a modification to the Reserves section. Currently there are three subheadings in this section. The first two discuss reserves; however, there is no discussion of reserves in the "Synthetic sources" subsection. Therefore, it might be more appropriate to move this to the "Unconventional sources" section. I'd also like to include a graph in that section which illustrates the contribution of tight oil to recent global production. Any comments on these suggested changes are welcome. Blandx (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Peak oil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/saudi.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131019162214/http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/182007167301.htm to http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/182007167301.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Worldwide Production Trends and Oil Field Decline subsections
I'd like to suggest some changes to these two subsections. They are both bulky, and the information is mostly outdated. For the first, "Worldwide Production Trends," I'd like to combine the two paragraphs, trim some of the outdated information, and improve the general logical flow. For the second subsection, "Oil Field Decline," I'd like to remove most of the last two paragraphs, and rearrange the remaining paragraphs. I don't think the last two add much, and the information is mostly outdated. Please let me now if you disagree, or have some alternative suggestions. Any help in keeping this page current would be greatly appreciated. Blandx (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Both edits would be an improvement. Regards.  Plazak (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have done it. It reads better, but I think maybe it needs more recent references about anticipated production from IEA and EIA. Blandx (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss intended edits on this page before making changes
I would like to stress that it is good practice to discuss any intended edits with other editors before you make changes, with the exception of minor edits. This is to ensure that the content is of a high quality, and discourse does not descend into conflict. Many thanks. Blandx (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, not exactly. Editors are free to contribute whatever they want as long as it can be sourced reliably, and are not required to discuss it on the talk page first. Only if it is likely to be contentious is it recommended that it be brought up on the talk page first. Please read WP:BOLD as your statement above strays very close into WP:OWNERSHIP territory.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My comments were made in the context of recent controversial edits that have been reverted a few times now. A third opinion was requested, who suggested engaging discussion with the other party on the Talk page. I think it is good practice to discuss edits before making them, and I have always done so. In the interests of avoiding an edit war, it is preferable when editing a controversial topic such as this. As for suggesting WP:OWNERSHIP, I don't think such comments are very helpful. I certainly do not own the page. Blandx (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You said to discuss "any intended edits, with the exception of minor edits" before making them. As this is a new section I could only conclude that you were using this as a general statement to all editors. The fact remains that your statement above is false and tantamount to telling people "clear it with me/us first", which is not how wikipedia works, per WP:BOLD. Read WP:BRD if you would like more context for how WP:BOLD and WP:CONSENSUS interact. The two options for a user are to either A) bring something up at the talk page and discuss it, then make a change based on consensus or B) may make a bold change, and if reverted, then bring it up at the talk page and discuss it. In no way are they required to discuss it at the talk page first (even if contentious). Edit warring obviously not allowed, so what you should have said is, "if you are reverted please bring it up at the talk page and don't re-revert it back to your change". I hope this clarifies what I mean, and why I thought your comment inappropriate.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Insertcleverphrasehere. You are no doubt absolutely correct. In reading WP:BRD that you referred to, perhaps I can see where some confusion has arisen. It says "if you advance a potential edit on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your edit." It seems to imply discussing first is a good idea, but I may have misunderstood. Thanks for bringing me up to speed.

Actually, I have a favor to ask. I am quite time poor at present. I won't be able to edit the page for some time. I see you have significant knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and conflict resolution skills. I would encourage, and really appreciate it, if you could engage to resolve the edit conflict above. Many thanks. Blandx (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries mate, your intentions were good, and thats the important thing. I reviewed the above edit conflict as requested.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  12:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent modification of text and images
Dated May 8 there were a number of changes to the page by BillJamesMN that I think are unacceptable. Firstly, the changes were not discussed on the Talk page. Secondly, the images don't appear to be from a reliable source and actually appear to be the individual's own research. Some are marked "Jpods.com" which is a webpage of a personal pod transport company. I intend to give the person the option of removing it within a day. Blandx (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd really appreciate it if somebody would have a look at the edits on May 8 and provide some support on this. I believe the edits have been quite destructive as content has been removed as well as added. In my opinion it is close to vandalism. However, I am loathe to start an edit war. I can't wait much longer before acting. If it is left on the page for too long I think it could tarnish the reputation of the page. In my opinion, undoing all the edits on May 8 is entirely appropriate. Any advice is appreciated. Blandx (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it makes sense to discuss every edit, but these edits needed to be removed. Interesting issues raised, though they will need some good sorcing if they are to return to the article. The images themselves just won't do, and will likely get deleted once someone nominates them for deletion. 184.100.17.71 (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your sage counsel is very much appreciated. Blandx (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, on May 16, the individual who placed unacceptable images and text on the page, and had them removed, has decided now to put them back. I would like to avoid an edit war. So, I plan on leaving a message on his personal page asking him to remove them again. This is unlikely to result in success. If this leads to a dispute, I would appreciate if other editors could either remove the content if they believe it to be inappropriate, or leave a note of support on this page. Thanks. Blandx (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the graphs is from data published by the EIA.You can download the US and import data and recreate the graph. http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/weekly/crude.cfm#tabs-production-production . Flags are added to show the correlation between US Peak Oil in 1970 and increase in demand for foreign oil, and Federal debt. Another graph is from the EIA, modified to show the decreasing access to oil in Unit of Harm equal to the 1.2 mb/d decrease of the 1973 Oil Embargo. Life requires energy. Less energy, less life. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=25892 . Here is a summary of that EIA report http://seekingalpha.com/article/3970509-peak-fracking-1_3-2-times-1973-oil-embargo . The Syria data is also available at EIA https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis.cfm?iso=SYR . Syria's Peak Oil in 1995 and tipping point collapse in 2012 seems to point to what might be the recurring "Post-Oil Era" consequence. Saudi Arabia and China have both announced >$trillion "Post-oil Era" Funds http://seekingalpha.com/article/3972963-100-trillion-shift-just-time-just-case BillJamesMN (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 3O request one of you requested a third opinion on this dispute; however, the third opinion process requires the dispute to have been discussed thoroughly beforehand; this has not happened. Also, there are already more than two people involved here. I would suggest continuing the other editor to participate in this discussion, and remind everybody of the need to follow WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:DUE. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * User:BillJamesMN, I am afraid that without better citations, this looks to be WP:OR and WP:SYN. Unless you have established credentials as an expert in the field, your blog is not an appropriate reference. Please cite a WP:RS for "Unit of Harm" (I must confess that I had never heard of this unit), and for the connection between Syrian peak oil and civil war. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Blandx, Plazak I will put the links to the EIA data sources on the graphs. All three graphs are exact EIA published data. The current graphs on the page are out of date, fail to show Peak Fracking in June 2015. If you wish, the "Unit of Harm" label could be changed to "1.2 mb/d decrease experienced during the 1973 Oil Embargo" but this is pretty long. The Potato Famines of the 1840s were an energy collapse that resulted in a mass migration. Recommend reading the book "Collapse". There are mass migrations in nature seeking and/or avoiding energy depletions. The Syria's energy collapse and mass migration follow these well-established examples. Perhaps a new section should be added on indicators of the consequences of post-Peak-Oil energy collapses. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20060710/  BillJamesMN (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't add any of your own analysis (that's called "OR"). You have to find a source that a concensus of editors decided is reliable. I suggest looking for any source besides your blog which is drawing-the-conclusion/connecting-the-dots you are, and bringing them to this forum to discuss how they can fit into the article. Otherwise any discussion here is moot (and against the guidelines on talk-page usage). Also, be sure to remove any extra statements or reference to your blog in the graphs you create. That will just get them deleted (since it will be seen as OR and self-advertizement). 184.100.55.34 (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * REF: "You have to find a source that a concensus of editors decided is reliable." The SOURCE is the EIA. The SeekingAlpha articles are not a blog, but published articles at a respected publisher for investors. I will repost the graphs just referencing the source data as EIA. There was no effort to self-advertise, only to be held accountable for accurately reporting EIA data. The current graphs at the site are out of day. They do not reflect Peak Fracking or the loss of a million barrels per day of production. Awareness of Peak Oil is the entire purpose of talking about Peak Oil. BillJamesMN (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The statistics are not the issue. The issue is the connection made between statistics and events. Should you re-add essentially the same material to the article, it would likely be re-deleted as a violation of WP:SYN, unless there is a consensus otherwise on this talk page. Thanks.  Plazak (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Direct references to EIA data are provided. Replaced the out of date US Production and Import Chart with current EIA data. Lines are added and peaks labeled for clarity, not opinion. BillJamesMN (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Plazak You removed current EIA data for outdated charts without posting notes to this discussion as you instructed me to do. That is wrong, but I will not put more time into this. At some point in time, others will correct your bad behaviors. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus1&f=m. BillJamesMN (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting your “Unit of harm.” But you still need to cite a source for the figure of 1.2 MMBO/Day for the Arab oil embargo, and an explanation of what exactly it represents. But more importantly, you have not cited a source to the effect that this 1.2 MMBO/day is relevant to recent and projected decreases in US oil production. To my mind, the two situations are entirely different, but my opinion does not matter, as long as you can cite a WP:RS.

As to your graph of production, imports, and national debt, you have two vertical axes, neither one giving units, and three graph lines, with no indication as to which vertical axis they refer to. There is no obvious reason why national debt is on this graph. Perhaps you could cite a source as to the connection. You label the import surge of the late 1970s as “Extra energy required to retool for efficiency gains,” but again, no source is cited. The most recent peak in US production is labeled “Fracking”, but should more accurately labeled “Light tight oil,” because fraccing has been around since the late 1940s, and massive fraccing since the early 1970s. Without cited sources, both graphs violate WP:SYN. You protest that the data is from the USEIA. If you would just present undoctored EIA graphs, I don’t think that anyone would have a problem with them. Such things as comparisons to the Arab oil embargo, national debt, and oil wars are better handled in the text of the article, with proper citations. Plazak (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding to our comments on the Talk page. However, after reviewing your most recent edits, I must agree with Plazak. We believe there are major problems with the material which must be addressed.  Firstly, it was incorrect of you to remove the US export/import figure without first discussing it. This figure could easily have been updated with the most recent data. Secondly, you have recently removed the modification of the Lower 48 production data figure referring to “Units of Harm.” Thank you for doing so as there is no such thing, and the concept is unscientific. Instead, you now have included reference to the 1973 Oil Embargo. I agree with Plazak, I don’t understand the significance of this reference, or exactly what connection you are making here. In addition, this figure is nearly identical to the one directly below it except for the modifications which you have made. Thirdly, you added a second figure which is incorrect and inaccurate on many levels. It refers to “Oil Wars.” What is his exactly? If you are referring to the Gulf War (1990-1991) and the Iraq War (2003-2011), then these were not continuous conflicts as you have indicated, and they are not correctly referred to as “Oil Wars.” What are the two scales you have used on either side of the graphs? This is not indicated in the figure or the legend. What is “Extra energy required to re-tool for efficiency gains” in reference to? You say you are using EIA as a source, but I cannot find any reference to this in the EIA documents; quite frankly, I haven’t heard of this before. Why are you making a direct connection between US debt and oil? How can this be supported? I would suggest being more global in your outlook in any case. What are the arrows about? They make no sense. Finally, if you wish to make edits, please discuss them first on this page before you change the page. This page is not a blog and the content must be of a high quality with no original research. Thanks. Blandx (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that the policy guideline that was being ignored in this case was WP:SYNTHESIS in regards to the connection between US debt and oil. as discussed below, editors are not required to discuss edits first. However, it is recommended if they are likely to be contentious, and they should not be surprised if their bold edits are reverted (as above).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Review of above edit conflict as requested
The edit conflicts above basically boil down to the creation of three figures and the removal of one other by BillJamesMN.

First, : This figure is an annotated version of a copy pasted version of this graph with anotations noting how many 'oil embaro units'. The first problem is that the figure seems to have been made without permission, so this may be a copyright infringement issue as well, though I am not sure. In any case, equating the forecasted decrease in production with units of 1.2mb/d is blatant WP:SYNTHESIS and original research in the sense that BillJamesMN is trying to make a point that was not implied by the data in the EIA report.

Second, the is original research, the data contained within this graph is accurate, but the implications that the graph attempts to make are blatant original research and unsupported by any sources provided by BillJamesMN.

Third, the is the worst of all, the most blatant of blatant original research, as well as betraying BillJamesMN's WP:NPOV, the graph is annotated with "Life requires energy, oil is finite, life powered by oil is terminal". Inappropriate on so many levels.

Fourth, the removal of and replacement with graph #2 above is basically inappropriate because graph #2 is inappropriate as a replacement.

BillJamesMN then decided to get into an edit war when the graphs were removed, restoring the material twice (with minor changes) without taking it to the talk page as requested by other editors and giving no justification for the additions in any edit summaries. The reference to his own blog as a source is not ok, as this is not a reliable source.

In summary, the figures are not appropriate for inclusion in the article, BillJamesMN was attempting to push POV, and did not listen to other editors suggestion that he discuss the changes on the talk page following the reversion of his additions. I would suggest that BillJamesMN consider either listening to other editors suggestions, and discussing proposed additions or else moving to another topic. Behaviour such as that shown here is likely to result in a topic ban or similar if it continues.

As discussed below, the bold addition of material to the article without discussion on the talk page is not a problem, however, when that material is inappropriate due to a violation of policy and is reverted by other editors, the correct response is to discuss it at the talk page rather than getting into an edit war. InsertCleverPhraseHere  12:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Excellent breakdown of the situation. I suggest only one tweak to what you said. Instead of "when that material is inappropriate due to a violation of policy and is reverted by other editors, the correct response is to discuss it at the talk page" I would suggest "when that material is reverted by other editors, the correct response is to discuss it at the talk page". 184.100.55.34 (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct of course.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Peak oil moved out 100years or more
Peak oil has probably moved out a hundred years or more.

Why does the Hubbert page say his model accurately forecasted peak oil? Why does this page use weasel language and call his inaccurate forecasts premature? I thought this was supposed to be a NPOV encyclopedic resource? This page is not neutral- an optimistic guess above is 100yrs out or further why does the article consider optimistic is 2020? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

new peak oil graphs?
Any modern graphs that show peak oil? Akuma809 (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Extraction or production
Talking about oil "production" is inaccurate and could be misleading, given that oil is not produced, but extracted. On the other hand, "production" is a commonly used term. That being said, "extraction" is also a commonly used term, as exemplified by the title of the article Extraction of petroleum which is linked to from the first sentence of this article, and by some authors, for example William R. Catton, Jr. in Overshoot, who actually criticizes the use of "production" as a way of fooling ourselves. Therefore I suggest changing the term "production" for "extraction". Any thoughts? Support? Objections? --Felipe (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Production" is an established term of art used in that industry, though "yield rate" or "extraction rate" might be less likely to be misinterpreted. List_of_countries_by_oil_production cites several refs using "production", which does have the merit of contrasting clearly with "consumption". It gets rather less clear in oil sands operations: with intermediate stages of separation (bitumen from sand) and upgrading (synthetic crude from bitumen) the quantities at each stage are different. LeadSongDog come howl!  15:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Felipe is obviously knowledgeable on the subject, and brings up several good points:
 * Production” is inaccurate. Answer: Natural petroleum is certainly not produced in the sense of being manufactured, but I just looked up the definition of “produce” online, and down the list (admittedly the 3rd listed meaning of the word) I found:
 * “show or provide (something) for consideration, inspection, or use.”
 * Examples: "he produced a sheet of paper from his pocket" and "no evidence was produced"
 * Petroleum production is within this meaning.
 * “Production” is misleading. Answer: I have never heard anyone being mislead into believing that the oil companies are manufacturing petroleum. Lacking actual examples, I must consider this a Straw man argument.
 * “Extraction” is also commonly used. Answer: A quick review of usage indicates that “extraction” seems to be mostly used in the context of field processes of getting the stuff out of the ground, while “production” is almost always used when describing the statistics of quantities and rates produced/extracted. “produced” and “production” is commonly used to describe statistical data by the USGS:
 * https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3051/
 * British government:
 * https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604064/Oil.pdf
 * International Energy Agency
 * http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyOilTrends.pdf
 * I certainly don’t want to ban the term “extraction”, but I found it a bit jarring to see it completely replace “production” in statistical contexts, where I am accustomed to seeing “production.” Regards. Plazak (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I also support using "extraction" over "production". --Fixuture (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Needs section on "Great examples of scare mongering"
In the 1990's, you could not go to a web site and discuss music or other trivial subjects without a constant barrage of "Stop and read this about the end of the world due to Peak Oil !" articles.

Now, in the 21st Century, we are more concerned with stopping all oil production, rather than concern about it running out.

So, it's a great example of "Your pet cause does not justify interrupting everything".

There should be a section in the article stating this. 162.205.217.211 (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Peak Oil : a serious scam
In the beginning of the Eighties, the US oil companies lost a large amount of crude oil assets : At that time, the oil reserves of these two countries were nr 1 and 2 worldwide. This equalled to an accounting catastrophe for these companies, as they have to include their oil reserves in their statements ; these reserves suddenly dwindled to near zero.
 * they got kicked out of Iran by Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979; the subsequent Iran hostage crisis left little hope of a come back
 * they got bought out from Saudi Arabia, Aramco becoming Saudi Aramco

For a few years, the oil market was simply crazy ; oil was very expensive, and oil companies made so much money selling a suddenly rare oil that no shareholder was complaining. Then the USSR crumbled, but to the dismay of the US, the Russian oil industry was first to recoup and there was no way to get hold of it; no luck there. Worse than that, Russia started pouring oil on the market and prices fell. The old problem of non-existant crude oil reserves surfaced again : US oil companies were in no situation to conquer fields in hostile countries, and shareholders decided en masse that oil companies were very overpriced.

So the US oil companies reacted on several fronts. For one thing, they advised the US gov to take hold of available countries, such as Irak, or reserves, like the Caspian Sea, by securing the southern corridor, namely Afghanistan, in the mid-nineties, through the PNAC lobbying. Second, they launched a cheap image campaign in the US, searching to impress the US citizen by telling them there were no more reserves. Mind you, that was true of their accounting reserves, not of the world reserves. That is why they dug out this Peak Oil fable, to frighten Joe Public, which in turn would ease a toughened operation abroad.

Ten years later, when Irak was secured and accounting reserves started building up again with home tight oil, the lobbying was no longer necessary, most "Peak Oil" advocates ceased to be paid for voicing the fable, and merely disappeared, which explains why noone is speaking in favor of this fable nowadays.Environnement2100 (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Peak oil reached in 2015?
Increase Iraq at war not real just to get more credits and USA 2016 with decrease like China, Mexico, Nigeria, Angola, Colombia, India, Egypt, Vietnam, Peru, Denmark, Brunei, South Sudan, Australia, Argentina & Others. Venezuela reserves also not real like polar and shale oil . Positive more reserve Brazil so again until 2030 but decline before and more expensive etc. Meaning peak oil is low since in practice by gas... replaceable until 2025-2030 with gas peak. Atomic energy never goes out and changed already peak oil also gas substitution etc. less new findings like true for gas.

The cold northern hemisphere shows reality demand/supply price oil can't be talked down like effect war, terror&embargo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.251.227 (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The Critique from "The Peak Oil Scare and the Coming Oil Flood"
In 2016, Praeger published Michael Lynch's "The Peak Oil Scare and the Coming Oil Flood," which covered not just oil supply economics and forecasting, but a history of modern peak oil theory and an analysis of the theories and arguments behind them. He characterized them as falling into two categories, mathematical modeling and concerns about specific challenges facing the industry. The mathematical models are show to be invalid. In particular, the claim that the so-called Hubbert Curve allows one to use historical production data for an area (nation, region, or the world) to estimate the ultimate recoverable resource and predict the pattern of future production is not supported by any theory but is curve-fitting, that is, assuming a given pattern is determined by physical factors in this case geology. Production trends are assumed fixed and extrapolated to an end point. However, most countries do not follow a Hubbert Curve and production trends often change with new fiscal terms or changes in technology. Similarly, the use of 'creaming curves,' representing the trend in discovery sizes for a region is based on the assumption that geology determines the sequence of discovery size. This is often used by geologists for a given basin, but not for geologically heterogenous regions. The best example of the method's failure can be seen in the display of creaming curves for the Middle East. Discovery size dropped sharply in the 1970s, making it appear as if the region had nearly no more oil to be found, but the smaller size represented a shift from exploration in oil rich countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia to countries like Oman and Syria, where the fields were much smaller. Specific challenges faced by the industry--depletion of oil fields, rising costs, and resource nationalism, for example--are shown to be common in the history of the industry and represent not insurmountable obstacles but simply indications of the need for resources (drilling, investment and so forth) to be overcome. Ultimately, the peak oil claims are shown to be part of a long line of neo-Malthusian fears of impending resource scarcity that have time and again proved to be invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCLynchMIT (talk • contribs) 21:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Peak crude oil per capita.


This picture was removed from article. The reasons were not English and no source. Sours described at Summary. Russian on the picture is the only problem? Should I ask source about English version?Pernambucto (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that aftershock.news is not a reliable source. Retimuko (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Attempted description of change in emphasis of "peak oil"
I added the following to the lede:
 * Peak oil occurs when the cost of oil extraction exceeds the price consumers will pay. Most early analyses concentrated on increasing costs of extraction and assumed that demand would drive costs higher. More recent analyses concentrate on drop in demand as alternatives to oil become more economical.

Basically, much of this article dates from the older model that we will "run out of extractable oil" (peak supply, ever-increasing prices suppressing demand). More recent analyses appear to concentrate more on "Shifting away from oil is getting cheaper and is necessary to mitigate global warming" (peak demand, flat or decreasing prices suppressing extraction). These are almost but not quite opposite meanings, and the article get confusing in places because of this.

I think it's clear that peak extraction will occur when the cost of extraction of the costliest oil exceeds the price it sells for. This is grossly oversimplified, but must be fundamentally true. This re-statement reflect both the supply side and the demand side. So here are my questions about the article:
 * Is my sentence in the lede appropriate? can an expert please rephrase and add a proper reference?
 * Can the rest of the article be modified in detail to reflect which statements reflect which meaning of "peak oil", or should we instead separate the article into two parts?

Thanks. -Arch dude (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Confusion about "conventional" oil versus "tight" oil
Before 2006, it's clear that tight oil was considered unconventional. Some time between 2006 and 2014, "tight" oil became a mainstream production technique, and it's not clear (to me, at least) that most of the statements in the article about "unconventional" oil are relevant to "tight" oil. My qusetins are: -Arch dude (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is "tight" oil still unconventinal?
 * should the article somehow be changed to address this?


 * See Tight oil for more information.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Individual reassessment

 * Transclusion follows the template, but appears above this comment.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

This page's right to exist on wikipedia
Okay, maybe this page has the right to exist, purely based on what was said by prominent figures who made predictions for the future, but then in the past. Okay fine. If that's the only mention on this topic within this wikipedia article, I would be content and happy. And of course, it is worth a mention maybe, as these people weren't completely wrong in predicting relatively more simple (less global) things. Whether that's foresight or coincidence might be up for debate, but clearly these figures were capable of joining these discussions as they had arguments to reckon with. So far I have respect for their work and models. But then they tried to apply their forecasting models on a larger scale, where global/worldly supply, demand and politics plays a role. Where they ignored world economics and world politics, their forecasts may not have been entirely right. This is even evident from this very wikipedia article itself, at least -- if you have carefully read it and if you have a very critical mindset. And that's where there is a problem with this article: As a casual/average (lazy) reader, oh no, it is damn hard to conclude this side from this article, as every paragraph is worded in a way that this 'peak oil' will be real at some point, it is inevitable and it is 'just a matter of time'. It is extremely biassed and based on ancient (outdated) sources. Of course, then it even goes as far to make a distinction between light crude oil and 'tight' oil, and THEN compare it against the predicted values of the past in order to defend its points. Excuse me, I don't think anyone knew about this tight oil at the moment these predictions were made. And even so, I don't think anyone knew the economical outcome if these 'tight' oil reserves were technically possible and politically allowed to be extracted and how it would affect their predictions. And what's next? If you look at the history of this wikipedia article, there used to be only a mention of light crude oil versus the heavy tar sand oil in Canada, as it was only known up until then. Now with the introduction of 'tight' oil, the wording of this entire article has merely changed to: "Peak oil still exists, as predicted, just delayed by 'so-and-so'", where 'so-and-so' currently fits 'tight oil' the best, exactly as the bias sees fit. Whatever (from now on) is discovered between light crude and tight oil, or even what will be discovered between tight oil and heavy tar sand oil that might be economically feasible to extract, will simply be inserted in the 'so-and-so' placeholder of this quackery text, if this bias is allowed to proceed. Better would be to rewrite large parts of this article, avoid outdated sources and include actual relevant new information... Yes sorry, but maybe it is time to start a very objective project from here on out: How about rewriting large parts of this article, with the knowledge of today (july/august 2020) in mind, without involving ancient/outdated sources (besides serving a historic footnote maybe), with the current trends in mind, with current anti-fossil-fuel projects/plans in mind (including those outside the United States), with the uncertainty factor of undiscovered oil reserves between light and tight in mind, or even undiscovered oil reserves between tight and 'tar sand' in mind, or even undiscovered oil reserves even HEAVIER than tar sands in mind, with graphs showing actual supply and demand ONLY after 2015 (yes please thank you very much) and with an honest starting/closing statement about the uncertainties involved and some honesty about the wrong predictions of the past. Anything older than 2015 should merely be a historic footnote of this article, and no longer be relevant to the main story. And honestly, in my oppinion, most important is to bring the message: We have no clue what's going to happen, predictions in the past were WRONG and didn't keep all involved factors in mind, and the following projects are trying to get humanity off the fossil fuel dependency, complicating things even more... Also recent additions in the variety of oil for supply has made the peak oil demand extremely unpredictable. THAT would be an honest story... Thank you. 80.127.228.46 (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * If you have reliable sources it would be great if you could edit the article - 3 minute how to video here Chidgk1 (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed with both of the above, as matters of fact & constructive editing, but it's worth addressing the internal tensions of this OP; there are two: (1) the current-state quality of an article & and the need to have an article are unrelated (if they were related, then would be no articles); (2) Especially if we say that classical "peak oil" theory is no longer salient (having gone the way of "peak rubber") then: this article should primarily discuss the history of the idea. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCRYSTAL, but it covers notable predictions, or classes of predictions (and how they influenced historical debate & thinking). Anyway, best just improve it, rather than WP:TNT. --Wragge (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Evidence-based fact
Hello. The article clearly states in the text that "According to the International Energy Agency, production of conventional crude oil (as then defined) peaked in 2006, with an all-time maximum of 70 million barrels per day". As the source is reliable and the information important, could we add in the introduction that "According to the International Energy Agency, production of conventional crude oil peaked in 2006"?

83.228.251.98 (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC).


 * Feel free to go ahead and edit - maybe don't need "according to ..." in the lead (intro) as IEA is reliable source Chidgk1 (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Who's Hubbel in the attatched wordings？
"The original bell curve concept of Hubbel related to individual fields or areas of extraction. Hubbel identified a slower decline of depletion, which depends on the geological properties primarily, in comparison to a steeper increase in extraction volumes. " ThomasYehYeh (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging Predicting the timing of peak oil into Peak oil because after that it will be more likely someone (possibly me) will delete at least a little of the duplication and garbage Chidgk1 (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose. I think that both articles are extremely related, but the prediction article is already well developed enough. Peak Oil after an article merger would have massively undue weight placed on the prediction of its time, and a separate article enables further elaboration while nullifying fears of undue weight on Peak Oil.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 22:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what you mean by “well developed” but I think the prediction article has some stuff which should be deleted such as 2 paras on ‘Abiogenesis’. The advantage of merging before deleting such stuff is that if I delete something which should not have been deleted it is easier for other editors to notice and undo. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say that Abiogenesis, though not a theory I personally subscribe to, deserves some sort of mention. If there is still any substantial minority who hold an opinion (or such opinion is historically significant), we should give it a mention, and it's evident to me that Abiogenesis has enough supporters to meet such threshold through both its own article and for a small mention here; it's related enough.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 16:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per InvadingInvader. -- Treetoes023 (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by “well developed” please? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The articles have different info and don't overlap that much, for example Predicting the timing of peak oil offers several charts that the other does not. Both articles are pretty long and the policy with long articles is to break them in smaller ones. However, if there are sections that are similar then the similar sections should be trimmed and kept only in one. Threevian (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

“Hypothetical”?
Should hypothetical be removed? It's inevitable that there will be a high point of oil production, and saying it's hypothetical isn't correct. FinnSoThin (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * yes do it Chidgk1 (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I did it Sitekm2972 (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Article Fixup
I appreciate the work Chidgk1 but I think you're deleting some important sections. Obviously more than anything they should be rewritten, but still.

For instance I think the part on population shouldn't have been removed, just updated to reflect that now most likely the population is going to peak sooner than people thought in the past.

Also the 'coal liquification' or 'gas to liquids' part shouldn't have been removed, that's an important technology that is an alternative to oil extraction.

Additionally the part on agriculture and lifestyle-changes shouldn't have been removed but rewritten.

Also the charts shouldn't be removed but updated. TheFella03 (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Although I don't disagree that many sections should go. Supposedly this article overlaps heavily with another article (link), therefore any repeat information should be removed, and we should just link to that article. TheFella03 (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * After a cursory glance through the edits, there are immediate edits I want to revert, but can't because there were too many interceding edits. Chidgk1, I see you come in here about once a year and do some clean-up (some of which I disagree with, some of which is good). Given how drastic the recent changes were, I propose we roll the recent article changes back and start over so that it's easier for us to make sure no babies get tossed out with the bathwater. 66.241.83.194 (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Good to see someone else interested. Pausing changes for as long as you need to check them. If any edit comments unclear please ask. Which intermediate edits cannot be undone? I may be able to undo them manually Chidgk1 (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah apologies. Honestly I just manually look at the edit before Chidgk1's recent ones to see what data might've gone missing. I think his more recent additions are fine though.
 * I'd like to re-order the sections of this article too.
 * Also, do you all think this article is too long? TheFella03 (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @TheFella03
 * Yes I think the supply section is far too long. But I won’t be upset or argue if you undo or put back in anything you want as I am sure you will comment your changes to explain why. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah the supply section is way too long. I'll try to be reasonable with my changes. I won't try to undo things you may have added, but I may want to re-add things you removed.
 * I can already forsee that the predictions section should be rewritten probably, or fixed at least (again, overlapping information with another article). TheFella03 (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Should the economic growth section be removed or updated
I cannot see how to update it - can you update it?

If not I think it should be removed Chidgk1 (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Here are some sources which might help:
 * https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-8654-0_5
 * https://www.iea.org/news/growth-in-global-oil-demand-is-set-to-slow-significantly-by-2028
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988323002773
 * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12053-018-9638-4?error=cookies_not_supported&code=c54bfb10-fed8-41bb-b86e-207c5f3bf153
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X14000443
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040162523003542
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0313592622001023
 * https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/oil-and-gas/our-insights/peak-energy-peak-oil-and-the-rise-of-renewables-an-executives-guide-to-the-global-energy-system
 * https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/23/peak-oil-bbc-shale-fracking-economy-recession
 * https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1146/4/4/41
 * https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2021/06/the-future-of-oil-arezki-and-nysveen.htm
 * https://www.energy.gov/articles/economic-impact-oil-and-gas
 * https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/312441468197382126/pdf/104866-v1-REVISED-PUBLIC-Main-report.pdf 66.241.83.194 (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I glanced at the first and saw the date was 2008, also Guardian is 2013 and MDPI is probably an unreliable source, so sorry I am not going to read all that - could you update the section? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm confused about what you're after here. You seemed to be asking for guidance, and I provided 1) a book chapter to help frame the discussion, a 2023 article discussing the the issue from the IEA, a book-length publication from the IMF discussing the topic in 2021, a pamphlet from the US DOE discussing the importance of the oil industry in the US economy, multiple peer-reviewed research articles covering the topic from multiple perspectives, and some notable viewpoints from the media and business world. The fact that these are mostly from within the past 6 years, and include other references from 2016, 2014, 2013, 2012, should actually help support the notion that this is a notable topic. Please help us understand what you're after and maybe someone can point you in the right direction. 66.241.83.194 (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK as neither of us is willing to update the section I will leave it as it is for the moment and maybe later I will write here some detailed reasoning for why I think it should be deleted.
 * @TheFella03Are you a different person?Ifso whatdo youthink about this section? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I am a different person.
 * I would have to say that oil is an important commodity for the function of the global economy. Everybody drives cars, etc. It shouldn't be removed, that would be removing critical information.
 * Was this section removed? I think it's still in the article. At worst, it should be rewritten. TheFella03 (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It was not removed or changed. I find economics very difficult. By the way the article Economics of climate change mitigation is also difficult to understand. I suspect the section was written when the concern was peak oil supply whereas nowadays most readers will be interested in peak oil demand.
 * It seems to me that different economies will be affected very differently. For example I often write about Turkey because that is where I live. As we produce very little oil here I think that the more we can reduce demand for petrol, diesel etc the better it will be for our economy because it will reduce our import bill. But I don’t know how we could say anything general about peak oil and the global economy. So as the current section seems irrelevant to peak oil demand I suggest deleting it. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Re reordering yes the structure of the article could be improved somehow Chidgk1 (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't disagree that all countries are different. Globally though, it is an important energy source, especially for poorer nations that can't afford electrified transportation (or can't build electric railroads due to costs). Oil use is more significant for nations with less infrastructure, as electrification relies heavily on infrastructure (power lines, after all). TheFella03 (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)