User talk:Blandx

Peak oil
Hi Blandx. You removed graphs published by the EIA on US Peak Fracking and on US Peak Oil. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillJamesMN (talk • contribs) 02:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Blandx. I see that you have renominated Peak oil for WP:GAN. You have done a good work recently; however, the article does not meet GA criteria as the problems why the article was delisted are not solved yet. I recommend to see the article history (both the delisting discussions and the talk page archives). I also would lie to recommend to check this article against GA criteria. Beagel (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I will do as you suggest. Thanks. Blandx (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Two types of unconventional oil
Good work on the Peak oil article. One of the organizational problems I see with the article is that there are now essentially two sections on unconventional oil: "Definitions", and "Unconventional sources". However, these treat two different concepts of "unconventional" The "Definitions" section treats the new technologies to produce oil from wells, a type of "unconventional" that ten years from now may be wholly conventional. Many peak oil projections, such as Hubbert's, explicitly or implicitly included such future technological advances. The "Unconventional sources" section, on the other hand, treats unconventional sources that are mined or manufactured. This second type of unconventional, such as oil shale or mined oil sand, has usually been excluded from peak oil projections, but provides a possible supplement or replacement for oil pumped from wells. I think that the article needs to somehow clearly distinguish the two. What do you think? Plazak (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. Could I suggest that we use a single definition from a reliable source? This one's from "Understanding Unconventional Oils" (2012) by Deborah Gordon: "Unconventional oils are defined as those oils obtained by unconventional production techniques because they cannot be recovered through pumping in their natural state from an ordinary production well without being heated or diluted. The U.S. Department of Energy divides unconventional oil into four types: heavy oil, extra heavy oil, bitumen, and oil shale. Some analysts also include gas-to-liquids (GTL) processes for converting natural gas to oil and coal-to-liquids (CTL) processes for converting coal to oil in the unconventional oil category. These unconventional oil-processing techniques broaden the feedstock of unconventional oils to include unconventional natural gas, such as tight gas, shale gas, coal-bed methane, and methane hydrates." I could adjust both sections to be consistent. What do you think? Blandx (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Your source notes that different people have somewhat different definitions, which is good. However, I notice that tight oil, such as from the Eagleford or Bakken, is not included anywhere in the above definition. While I would agree with this, some people include these as unconventional oil, as does the Peak Oil article. Regards, Plazak (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What the article does not explain is why there is a discussion of conventional versus unconventional in an article on peak oil. This gets back to division of unconventionals into two types. First, every peak oil calculation, explicitly or implicitly, must have a definition of the types of oil in the model; often the author will include what he calls conventional, and exclude what he calls unconventional, although he may not use that exact term. Most peakers exclude oil not pumped from a well, although some are much more restrictive. A second class of things that people call unconventional are recent technological advancements which, although usually not excluded from peak predictions, have boosted production beyond what many had thought possible. Plazak (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. I don't think you can be selective about the types of oil to include, conventional or unconventional. In fact, I recently updated the page to include tight oil as this hadn't been done when the article was originally written. This older version was written by others which is probably contributing to the confusion. To get back to the topic, all liquids should be included, in my opinion, if they can be used for fuel or transport. The only exception I would make is natural gas liquids which are more of a chemical feedstock. Do you agree? Blandx (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It isn't really what I think, it's about what proponents of peak oil have included or excluded in their models. Unfortunately, many do not explicitly define exactly what they cover. Without such explicit definition, my assumption is that the prediction covers all petroleum and condensate produced from wellbores, because that is what is usually reported as production and reserves. All or nearly all of them seem to have excluded manufactured liquid fuels such as made from oil shale, coal, or natural gas (I'm not talking about LPG or LNG), or biofuels. Most probably excluded NGLs. I think that most have excluded Canadian oil sands, which are mined, although Venezuelan oil sands, because they are produced up wellbores, are usually included. Some, such as Campbell, have excluded deepwater and polar oil. In the case of tight oil, we hear a lot of excuses that it was not the fault of the peak predictions that they failed, because no one knew about the coming tight oil surge. In his first peak projection in 1956, Hubbert restricted it to oil recovery methods then in use. But by 1962, he was confident that future technologies were included in his curves, just as past technologies were. My own view is that unless a peak prediction specifically excludes unknown new tech advancements, the reader has to assume that the peak model includes them. Regards. Plazak (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This page is a community effort. I think you have some good points. So, please feel free to modify the page. Follow general Wikipedia principles, citing reliable sources with no original research and I think it would help the topic. I plan to work on it until it is as current as possible. That's where I will be focusing my efforts. Thanks for the discussion. Blandx (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You bring up some legitimate points about my edits. I'm a bit distracted now, and I don't have the time to dig onto the literature and address the deficiencies, but I don't want to get in the way of your good efforts to improve the article. Feel free to erase or modify any of my edits as you see fit, and we can address any remaining differences later. Regards. Plazak (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I will try to improve the logical flow and find some solid references. I'm happy to discuss if there are any areas of disagreement. Just let me know. Thanks. Blandx (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peak oil
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Peak oil you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peak oil
The article Peak oil you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Peak oil for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on Peak oil citations
Thanks so much for your recent work on the citations for the Peak Oil article to help it get to GA status.

Here, have a barnstar!

InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 03:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peak oil
The article Peak oil you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Peak oil for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK
Hello! Peak oil at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America1000 06:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello. Thanks for letting me know about the changes on the Peak Oil DYK nominations page. I was surprised to learn that ALT2 had been struck. I have challenged that decision. The last time I looked at the page, I thought it was decided. If the response to this is negative, I may make another nomination. I'll wait for a response first. Blandx (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Peak oil
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Edits of peak oil
Thank you for your recent edits of this article. The collective recent edits removed some -4,208 characters of text yet were almost all marked as "minor". Just FYI, please reserve that label for edits which do not remove large quantities of text but only make small changes to grammar, formatting, or other changes which do not affect the content or tone of an article. This is especially important if the text removed had been adequately referenced. Regards, Meclee (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I will avoid using the "minor" designation, and attempt to provide more detail in future. Many thanks. Blandx (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)