Talk:Hubbert peak theory

From formulasearchengine
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:ArticleHistory Template:Environment Template:WikiProject Energy Template:Archive box

"at a given techonological extraction level..."

Hubbert's concepts ** OF COURSE ** relate to a given technological level of production.

You must understand that ANY carbon source can be converted to oil. To help you clarify your thoughts, imagine if our planet ONLY had coal deposits, and no varieties of "liquid" oil. {Aside: of course you realize that conventional "liquid" oil underground is not actually "a pool of liquid" sitting there underground, that we slurp up with a straw?}

Again .. imagine if our planet ONLY had coal deposits, and no varieties of "liquid" oil. In this thought experiment, people would have worked out how to convert coal to petrol for cars. (Which is quite easy.) In the thought experiment, everything Hubbert wrote, Hubbert would have wrote about "coal." People would just refer to coal as a "petrol source" and that would be the only possible petrol source.

The most fundamental, basic mode of the oil industry is that the "entire paradigm" of how oil is gotten, changes very dramatically every few decades.

References please; this is news to me. --Whitepaw 19:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, in the extreme, ANY source of carbon whatsoever can be (really, fairly easily) converted in to oil. (Recall that, indeed, almost all engine oil now is totally synthetic.)

References please; I've never heard of this before, and it would make all concerns about CO2 emissions irrelevant if it were true. --Whitepaw 19:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised you're contesting this: even right here in this so-called "encyclopedia" are articles explaining this, such as the section on coal liquefaction from the article on coal. There are other carbonaceous substances which can similarly yield liquid (or gaseous) fuels, so anon 81... is basically correct here.
I'm also puzzled by your comment about CO2 emissions: do you think that they only come from petroleum extracted from the ground? Burning anything releases this greenhouse gas. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I do know of coal liquification, but even the article you linked to makes it clear it's nowhere near being the source of "almost all" the oil we use. The reasoning for my CO2 comment is that if it's "totally synthetic" then it will take as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as it puts back in when it is burned, just like biofuels, which I believe are currently a minority source of fuel oil. I realise now that this is a bit of a silly argument, but I had biofuels in mind when I made it. --Whitepaw 10:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Getting a little off-topic here, but whatever. First of all, where do you get the odd idea that burning synthetic fuel takes CO2 out of the atmosphere? Maybe I'm missing something here, but that simply doesn't compute to me. The other thing is to beware of the extreme hype ("bullshit" would be a much more apt description) swirling around the promotion of biofuels. It's very far from certain that these would be anywhere near "carbon neutral", taking into account the energy inputs required to grow crops for one thing, not to mention the green "opportunity cost" of burning any fuel compared to the alternative (conservation). Not to mention the potentially extreme problems caused by taking arable land out of food production in favor of fuel, essentially taking bread out of people's mouths to put gas in the tanks of other folks' SUVs. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think there is "one pool of oil" underneath with a certain Number Of Oil Molecules -- that is absurdist.

This whole article is in danger of falling apart due some of the bizarre comments made.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)


Making Gasoline from Carbon Dioxide Technology Review Apr. 25, 2007

Chemists have shown that it is possible to use solar energy, paired with the right catalyst, to convert carbon dioxide into a raw material for making a wide range of products, including plastics and ... [1]

Here is a link to the article itself (from Technology Review). The article describes converting CO2 into carbon monoxide, not exactly an earthshaking accomplishment. And I guess I must have missed any humor in that article ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Critique of Critiques

I must take an issue with the way Campbell and ASPO are described. The section makes it appear as if they are just making random forecasts and then try and hide it. There is no way Campbell could have predicted the rapid rise in Russian oil production, a result of political rather than geological factors that did influence production rates but may not influence URR. As he got new data he revised his forecasts acordingly.

Campbell first declared Peak in 1990. His prediction for 2005 oil production in that article was approximately 35 MBO/D. After he had been wrong for a decade, he used nearly identical information to reforecast and hoped people hadn't noticed his initial bad estimates. He has just been making random forecasts.

Also, this article deals with Hubert's peak, not Campbell's prediction. It's analogous to saying Global warming was a hoax because 2012 predictions did not come to pass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet another new oil technology

"Israel to produce synthetic oil from low quality shale at $17 "

"Shahal estimated that the company's Negev Desert facility would begin full-scale production in three to four years, while other countries with oil shale deposits will need five to six years to reach production.

Oil shale is limestone rock that contains hydrocarbons, or fossil fuels -- about 20 percent of the amount of energy found in coal. Using the rock as a raw material and coating it with bitumen, a residue of the crude oil refining process, the company can produce natural gas, fuel, electricity, or a combination of the three.

Older technologies squeezed the hydrocarbon material out of the rock, with extremely high pressure and at high temperatures. According to Professor Ze'ev Aizenshtat, an oil shale expert, the Hom Tov process is more environmentally friendly than other /methods of converting oil shale into energy. It also allows for more flexibility in the kind of fuel produced, produces less waste and operates at lower temperatures than other methods.

Though the production process may be more environmentally friendly, the end product is still a fossil fuel, similar in quality to a high-grade diesel when in liquid form."

New addtions to the talk page are placed on the bottom, not the top.
You are absolutely incorrect. Important new chat should definitely go at the top. Note that "definitive sounding" comments on wikipedia are, in a word - silly-sounding. The whole point og Wikipedia is that it develops organically. If you think you have "the" answers, even to matters of style, you may be better to stick to, eg, academia where you can get a Qualification and then Tell People What To Do.
No, in fact, there is a convention ..
That "convention" is nothing more than the common phenomenon of "wiki busybodies" humourously typing out some words on wikipedia, and then stating that it is a "convention." The fundamental tension on Wikipedia is between people USING WIKIPEDIA as it is meant to be used, and "wiki busybodies" who spend their time stating that things they and their three friends happen to think is a "convention"
to place all new topics at the bottom of a talk page: WP:TALK#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages. If you want to change this, bring it up on the talk page of WP:TALK, not here. Also, you may want to sign your posts by using four tildes: ~~~~. --TeaDrinker 15:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
New technologies such as this are frequently touted, but most often do not pan out.
Uh .. pretty straightforwrad question .. have you ever been to Alberta, Canada? That's a straightforward question, written in English. Presumably, you understand the question, since it is fairly clear. Answer is ...?
The concept "new technologies in the oil industry do not pan out" ... is almost incomprehensible. Offshore, deep water, ultra deep, angle drilling, directional, .. typing out examples is almost silly; the Oil Industry must be about THE leading human example of an unlimited frenzy of (staggeringly successful) major technological paradigm changes.
I'll wait until it has been demonstrated successfully until giving it any weight. Skyemoor 12:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
"DEMONSTRATED SUCCESSFULLY" ........ ??????????????????????????????????

New CERA report (2006)

Peak Oil Theory faulty: CERA report Nov. 16, 2006 In contrast to a widely discussed theory that world oil production will soon reach a peak and go into sharp decline, a new report by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) finds that the remaining global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels -- three times as large as the 1.2 trillion barrels estimated by the theory's proponents...

- Yeah, but that report bases the 3.74 trillion barrel estimate on the ability to extract oil shale and sand oil, both of which are currently not worth the return on energy invested into the extraction process. duh.

--- "not worth the return on energy invested into the extraction process" -- what does that mean? Are you living in 1970? oil shale and sand oil is making a fortune and being used in cars now - massively. Are you in the oil industry? If you are __so__ uninformed, what are you doing on this page?

Economic Impact

"It is unlikely that the actual peak in global oil production will be a direct catalyst of global economic decline. Instead, economic turbulence could be precipitated by the realization of the financial and investment world that "peak oil" (and natural gas) is either imminent or has already occurred."

Not exactly sure what this means, but it seems to imply that if the financial and investment world understand that peak is happening or has happened that they will obviate any economic decline. This has no cite and is contradicted by the relevant studies (Hirsch, etc), but I'll listen to rationale before revertingSkyemoor 20:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

Our Implications section is too vague. Sustained slowing in the growth of oil finds and higher prices are already causing more of a reaction than this section discusses. This section should read more like a laundry list of implications. 13:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Oil Prices due to unstable oil producing countries?

This may be a sign of increasing demand having started to outstrip supply or it may just be that the various geopolitical forces in t"he regions where oil is produced are limiting the available supply. One other explanation for the rising oil prices is that it has been a sign of too much paper money and not too little oil. In this view, dramatically higher prices of all commodities and real estate indicates rising inflation. Political instability in oil producing nations has also been claimed to be increasing oil prices. Significant or potentially significant oil exporting nations suffering from social upheaval or war include Sudan, Iraq, Nigeria, Chad, Ecuador, Azerbaijan and Mexico."

I removed this as it was simply speculation. Anyone have a list of oil producing countries that are (or were for any length of time) stable democracies? Skyemoor 12:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

List of exporting even somewhat stable democracies - I'm going to guess Canada, Norway, Venezuala (having survived US backed cout attempt), Angola (having survived US, USSR backed 27 years long civil war) and Algeria (just now trying to grab some oil profits for itself [2] and maybe inviting foreign backed cout as a result). For most of the world the peak oil that matters is the United States production. 14:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
US production peaked in the seventies, this is why the oil embargo was able to have such a large impact on the economy of the US; it was unable to increase production to control the price of oil. The peak that matters to the world is the world peak. Also, countries that are stable exporters includes Russia and mexico - they aren't democracies, but they do have representative governments. See:Chart of exports and production of oil by nation.Christopher 19:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
(Yes I know American oil production has already peaked.) America is using 1 in 4 barrels of world production. If America stopped using oil the world peak would move out by 25% (okay technically put it on a different curve). Do you really think American oil interests weren't mixed up in Mexican general election 2006 controversies? 02:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
cantrell, the largest oil field in mexico (3rd or 2nd largest in the world) is now probably in permanent rapid decline, with the average decline per year predicted to be a massive 14% for the next few years (possibly even the foreseeable future) 02:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Peak Oil Spreadsheet

After reading Kunstlers book 'The Long Emergency' in which he stated that it will take 37 years to deplete known petroleum reserves, considering estimated reserves and assuming no growth, I wanted to know what those numbers would look like if current growth(~3%) was considered, so I made a spreadsheet to calculate the graph and used the Malthusian model of population growth to do the computations. The model can also be used to determine the amount of remaining reserves after the peak as well, as long as it is told the rate of depletion. I'm telling you this because you might be intersted in seeing it. This might qualify as OR, but I'm not sure, and in any case, if any editors are interested, I will upload it. If you are just curious what my results were, I found that if we grow 4% every year, reserves will be exhausted in 2027, 3%:2029, 2%:2031. Christopher 21:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Malthusian model?Isn't this the same as hubbert method?I mean,it's axacly the same equation.Your graph looks like wich line in the graph of this section Hubbert peak theory#Implications of a world peak.--Pixel ;-) 22:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

My differential equations textbook refers to the equation as created by Thomas Malthus and it is actually designed for population growth on a small scale on a small time period but it works for this too. The graphs that I produced were of remaining reserves, not of production. I chose not to model the production because I have no way to predict the rate at which production will decline after the peak, or when the peak would occur(I would be very iterested to learn why the organisations that have curves on that graph chose the values that they did). I do however know how much petroleum reserves the planet is predicted to have, how much we produce now, and about how much we need to grow in order to keep our economy stable. So this is a model that shows how long we can use petroleum the way we do now before we run out. The model can graph post peak production, but I don't have predicted values to give the model. Hubbert's model seems to predict that growth after the peak will be the opposite of growth before the peak, but I haven't come up with a way to satisfyingly graph an unknown peak year in a spreadsheet.Christopher 02:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm interested in seeing the spreadsheet. I don't think it should be considered OR unless you say reserves WILL be depleted at a given rate. Basic math is not original research. Johntex\talk 02:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright then. You may find a copy here; you will need openoffice to play with it. Christopher 06:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The equation was recycled a zilion times in many fields.Basicly hubberts aplies the mathus equation,and asumes that trends will continiu .to learn why the organisations,it's a bunch of jerks,ther models don't worth a damm,they basicly say,technology will save us.The descoveries of new fields have almost complitly flatened.I would like to see that graph to understand exacly what you did.--Pixel ;-) 19:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"Metals" section probably should go

The section on other mineral resources describes a different problem. Deffeyes makes this clear. Metals are found widely but at varying concentrations; the big issue with metals is how low-grade an ore can you process economically. Oil is found only in specific kinds of geographical formations; four conditions have to exist for an oil reservoir. Either you find it or you don't. If you do find it, extraction is usually profitable. But there are many low-grade metallic ore sources that are known but uneconomic. Thus, discovery drives the oil business, while the cost of extraction technology drives metals mining.

So metals are a different problem. Here's a quick summary of the copper situation. --John Nagle 17:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If Hubbert applied his theory to metal extraction, then I think it should stay. The section should not however, be any larger than it is now. Christopher 19:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, "oil section" should go too.--Pixel ;-) 20:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
What you describe does happen with oil, and it is contained within the peak theory. "Oil" is a large area of the liquid portion of a graph of the full spectrum of hydrocarbon development, and "sweet light crude" is the most profitable, easiest to extract part. Heavy (more viscous), sour (sulfuric) crude is a bit lower on the totem pole, followed by gas condensates, extra heavy oil / bitumen (known as "oil sands"), coal to liquids, and finally kerogens ("oil shale"). There's more than enough hydrocarbon 'fossil' fuel to fuel our current economies for the next thousand years in the earth's crust, it's a matter of actually getting it out, having it in an economically usable condition. The ONLY way that it's unlike mineral deposits is that when you're using hydrocarbons as energy to harvest more hydrocarbons, you have a definitive baseline - a Return On Invested Energy of 1. Below that, it's pointless to harvest more. In a situation where you're looking for oil as a chemical feedstock or for convenience purposes, and the energy used to harvest it isn't derived from oil (imagine France using electric[ultimately nuclear] machines to harvest oil shales for jet fuel), then ROIE isn't a valid measurement, and it's purely an economic decision how low quality a hydrocarbon you want to refine.

Investors have no problem with Hubbert's reasoning applied to silver [3]:

First off, “Hubbert's Peak,” although generally used as synonym for ‘Peak Oil,’ can also apply to the production rate of metals. Any metal, like oil, is a non-renewable, absolutely exhaustible resource that exists in limited amounts of exploitable ore at high enough grades in the ground. The production rate over time of any metal, like that of oil, follows a bell-shaped curve, where the highest point is called Hubbert’s Peak. This is in honour of geologist M. King Hubbert, who first formalized this concept in 1949, although the best explanation might be in his 1976 paper. 04:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Any metal, like oil, is a non-renewable, absolutely exhaustible resource that exists in limited amounts of exploitable ore at high enough grades in the ground." What is a high enough grade depends on the price, technology, etc. It is continously decreasing. There is even talk of mining uranium from seawater in the future (uranium mining is only a small part of the cost of nuclear electricity)! If oil (or any other resource) is to be used as an energy source, EROIE matters, but for metals, phosphates, energy vectors (like hydrogen) and even oil used to make chemicals, it doesn't (although energy use still matters because it affects the cost, and most of these don't even produce energy). 13:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hubbert is referring to the peak of high grade ore - "rock containing an abnormally high concentration of a given metal". Whether or not you can mine sea water is not relevant to a peak in high grade ore production. Please keep in mind that his page is about Hubbert's theory of resources peaking not whether or not we can substitute for high grade ore with filtering the world in the quest for overall sustainability. Incidentally EROIE is misplaced for oil - production of nuclear, wind or solar energy is long since been cheaper - just you can't use it for your car.
Then the article should mention that it applies to ores of a given grade (ie. >0.1% gold in ore) rather than the existence of the metal itself, which is simply converted (ie. the iron is always there, it's just turned from some ore in the ground into a steel beam). 16:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a good point and I have done my best to add clarification in the article. It would be better if everyone could agree on grade standards for any resource being considered. This would greatly simplify discussion. If you think the lack of such standards makes Hubbert theory too ambiguous you should add that point to the critique section. 16:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Peopol,i simply want to remind you that this is not a forum.Ther's not a particular grade,a shift in prise of that magnitude is a disruption for the model,you simply shift too an other curve.Plus you forget recycling.I think that for most metal recycling is alredy in the rage of 20-30%,and for example gold,it's almost 100%,for centuries,the gold of the mayas,the jues,the romans,are styl in some ones safe.--Pixel ;-) 18:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


"More generally, the supply of oil may be somewhat elastic in both the short term and the long term. Higher prices may encourage greater production and the use of more expensive extraction approaches. Over time, the current higher oil prices may well cause increased investment. However, absent added reserves or alternative sources, this may only delay the peak, rather than eliminating the peak altogether, and accelerate the depletion of reserves."

This paragraph doesn't seem to critique anything and is not sourced. 11:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Still, seems to me as pretty obvious maths. I'm sure it will be easy to find a source for that paragraph...


Revision as of 13:06, 6 October 2006 (edit) (Talk) (→Articles - remove some spam links)

The articles removed were not spam; what criteria were you using for removal? Skyemoor 14:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Article going downhill

Compare the current article with the version from a month ago. Was it better thirty days ago? Should we revert all the way back to there? --John Nagle 18:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree the article is deteriorating. However, WP policy is fairly clear that reverting to a much earlier version, throwing away all intermediate edits (including typo fixes, updated URLs etc.) is not the way to go. If you want to propose this seriously, please go through the history since then, and create the article you'd like to see this one replaced by on a talk or user page. We can then try to find consensus on reverting to it.
I'm not going to add another long list of criticism. I'll just look into my crystal bowl and predict that at the current rate, the article will quickly turn into yet another peak oil fan page, along the lines of "Hubbert was a scientist. He used Complicated Science That You Don't Need To Understand (but we'll slap in a couple of formulas to scare off the unscientific) to prove that oil will run out soon. <include 50 pages of recent news cherry-picked to be as panic-inducing as possible, mixed with some dire predictions>. <downplay criticism to appear to be about minor details>."
I'm just waiting for the mystic statements (the one about the peak being after half the cumulative oil production) to reappear, along with more credit to Hubbert for "correctly" predicting things he actually got wrong.
RandomP 12:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should make a list of the things he actually go wrong, with supporting analyses. Skyemoor 02:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
We aim to please - I've removed this unsourced apologia

However, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, global oil consumption actually dropped (due to the shift to energy efficient cars, the shift to electricity and natural gas for heating, etc), then rebounded to a lower level of growth in the mid 1980s (see graphics on right). The shift to reduced consumption in these areas meant that the projection assumptions were not realized and, hence, oil production did not peak in 1995.

as a olive branch of good intentions.
This paragraph is supported, at a minimum, by the article's consumption graphs. The other points are prima facie. OTOH, You haven't provided a list of things he actually got wrong. Skyemoor 10:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
However my interest Hubbert peak theory is more because its our only shot at predicting peak oil than any pretense of it being a sophisticated predictive model. What model are you advocating that is better? 03:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

After some research I have come to the conclusion that the unsourced description of Hubbert's curve:

The standard Hubbert curve is a real-valued function of one real variable; in order to apply it to the real world, scales have to be chosen, one for time and one for oil production, based on the observed data. They are usually given implicitly by specifying the integral of the Hubbert curve, the ultimate total oil production Q, with a unit of billions of barrels, and the initial growth rate asymptotically reached for very early times, a, often expressed in percent per year.

Hubbert also proposed a method for determining the values for Q and a based on empirical data, by considering the ratio of production at a given time and cumulative production to that point as a function not of time but of the cumulative production itself; if production followed a Hubbert curve, this function would have the form , a straight line. Thus, by considering the best linear fit to the function actually observed, estimates for a and Q can be obtained.

maybe wrong. In particular Cavallo [4] claims it is a function of three degrees of freedom instead of two. As Cavallo is a supporter of a near peak I have no reason to doubt him. If there are no objections I will replace the overreaching description of Hubbert's method with one that admits he used some guess work and incorporated knowledge of the potential discovery peak (which we need much more info on). DodgeTheBullet 15:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article is incomplete and not correctly structured. In my opinion, from the start the Hubbert theory should be presented in a larger context: Peak Fossil Fuels → Peak Oil → Hubbert Theory. I also disagree that Hubbert`s Peak equals Peak Oil, the Hubbert method is based on a curve fitting approach which is one approach among many others to predict future supply. (Sfoucher 15:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)).

Coal Liquefaction

I think the article needs to say something about the viability of this. Sylvain1972 19:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

See Synthetic fuel for that, mentioned under "alternative sources". --John Nagle 18:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Some redundant sentences

Alternatives are energy sources other than conventional oil and natural gas which can be used instead in one or more applications, such as:

  • a prime energy source to generate electricity
  • a transportation fuel
  • for space heating
  • for water heating
  • an ingredient in plastics, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and fertilizers
  • a lubricant in industrial machinery and manufacturing.

This is taking up a lot of space and is not clarifying anything about Hubbert peak theory or mitigation of a peak. 05:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Opinions on the effects of Hubbert's peak, and the subsequent terminal decline of global oil production, range from predictions that the market economy will develop alternatives to oil and decrease oil dependence in modern economies, to doomsday scenarios of global economic meltdown and societal collapse. 20:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem with world oil production numbers

This is from Wikipedia:

"Production in Q2 2006 was 85.1 Mbbl/d..."

And this is from a reuters news article: [5]

"Energy Information Administration data showed world supply of crude oil has declined to 83.98 million barrels per day in the second quarter..." Richard Cane 15:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The IEA also adds in biofuels, though not in a way that is yet clear or unambiguous. Skyemoor 16:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
That would explain the difference. Perhaps this information should be added to the article in order to avoid confusion. Richard Cane 19:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
We technically haven't received the official Q3 report, this one's only an estimate. And normally a month or two after the official report is out lately, they've revised it downward. You are right, we need to do something to explain. Will mull over and tackle later this week. Skyemoor 18:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
From the IEA report: "Difficulties in collecting biofuel data are also apparent. It is much easier to collect ethanol and biodiesel supply than to capture the demand side of the equation. Further, there is very little information on stocks. The US Energy Information Administration has been very open about the difficulties of reporting US data, but the same problems apply elsewhere - does gasoline or diesel demand from a non-OECD country include or exclude biofuels? Ethanol blending takes place at terminals rather than refineries, so its inclusion in primary stocks data is unclear." Skyemoor 02:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
A second problem that is often overlooked when including biofules and some other 'other liquids' is that a significant amount of oil or gas is used in their production, which has already been counted. Eg from the canadian tar sands it takes 0.4 Mcf of natural gas to produce one barrel of synthetic crude oil , but that gas is also counted under gas production. 01:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Back into the breach (Intro section)

Alright, so I reread the intro section (I wrote some of it originally months ago), and I still didn't think that it read well, so I made more changes to it in a way that I hope is an improvement. I only added one sentence, but I reworked how the paragraphs are structured. If anyone's bored, please review. SparhawkWiki 15:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


A lot of this stuff seems to be decades out of date. For example the Stern report out last month says//

Far from running out of oil, it said, we are still awash with it. Taking all fossil fuels together — oil, gas and coal — the world has so far used 2,700 billion barrels of oil equivalent. The amount of oil, gas and coal left in the ground is at least 40,000 billion barrels, with at least seven billion barrels of that economically recoverable. On unchanged polices, demand for energy will be some 4,700 billion barrels over the next half-century. Oil demand will be 1,800 billion barrels, and that amount, according to the report, is economically recoverable as long as oil remains above $30 a barrel.

“There is enough fossil fuel in the ground to meet world consumption demand at reasonable cost until at least 2050,” the report said.// Probably the 600 page report merits its own article? --BozMo talk 15:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

2050 is only 43 years away - I could easily still be alive then (I'll be 91). And this assumes a fairly smooth transfer from oil to coal for transportation and chemicals. It still doesn't negate the likelihood of peak oil production happening in say the next 20 years. And think of this - 2050 is when this OPTIMISTIC view says we will run out of commercially exploitable oil and coal. That is, unless some genius thinks up an alternative energy source, that will be that. Of course, the reality is that the price of oil and coal would rise, bringing more marginal energy sources into play (whether less accessible fossil fuels or nuclear and renewables), and forcing rationing by price, but in the meantime the economy would have to make major adjustments as energy becomes more expensive. Exile 16:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

PS - try this. Set up a spreadsheet with years from 1900 on the y axis. Then set consumption of a resource at 1 unit in 1900 and apply a 2% annual growth rate. Create another column with the cumulative usage of the resource. If we have 1,000 units of the resource available we run out in the year 2053. And yet this year we will only have used 37% of the resource! Also, oil will only be economically usable as fuel as long as less energy is used extracting, transporting and refining it than it contains. After this it will be a luxury item that we will only be able to use for high-value products such as chemicals. At this point consumption will drop - and remaining reserves will probably last us a long time.

Exile 14:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It has its own page - Stern Review and you are quoting this article I guess - [6].DodgeTheBullet 15:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope but a similar BBC one. However the figures conflict with the ones in this article: heance call for update --BozMo talk 13:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The complaint above seems to be that there is so much fossil fuel left that a peak in production is decades (or centuries) away. The real problem, as pointed out by the Hirsch Report, is that a shift to extraction of oil from coal will require a massive infrastructure shift that will take decades; if the peak occurs before then, which most petrogeologists predict, then the economic impacts will be unavoidable. But don't take my word for it; please read the Hirsch report. Skyemoor 13:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The intro

Has become highly technical and confusing. Since "peak oil" redirects here and since "peak oil" may be the more common search phrase I think the into should address the general ideas in a broad way in terms of how it is understood in the broader cultural context.

Something like: Peak Oil is a theory that explains how the world's rate of production of oil will eventually stop increasing (more oil has been produced every year) and eventually start decreasing. The debate about peak oil centers around the question of when the decrease in yearly production will occur (rather than if it will occur) Some people such as so-and-so suggest that it has already occurred and the decline will begin in only a few years. Others project...etc. --futurebird 15:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just move

"Peak Oil" as a proper noun, or Hubbert's peak applied more generally, refers to a singular event in history: the peak of the entire planet's oil production. After Peak Oil, according to the Hubbert Peak Theory, the rate of oil production on Earth will enter a terminal decline.

up closer to the top. DodgeTheBullet 01:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

peak oil vs hubert peak theory

one thing the introduction misses out on is the idea that any finite resource (of which oil is one) must have a(tleast one) peak. At t=0 you start producing it, t=final you have used it all up and you stop producing it - therefore there must be a peak, and as such this argument isn't about the existence of a peak, its about a peak within in the next -1 to 10 years (yes i mean -1, some people predict end of 2005 as the peak). The hubbert peak theory is based off the idea of exponentially increasing exploitation of a decreasing fixed size resource. this leads to a symetric bell curve with a single peak. Obviously this assumes maximum extraction rates, which ignores political aspects (70's oil emargo, current rise of FSU production) which no geologically based model can cover, however (as this article notes) the long term trends will be geologically limited.

re: reserve growth - when reserve growth is included i believe (can't find the reference) that the peak (which this article is about) does not move significantly, only the tail is extended. even with reserve growth, the ammount of oil extracted can not exceed 100% of what is there (current amount that is possible to extract is 30-60%, depending on the field (i think)) so reserve growth of 3% of oil in place can only extend the amount of extractable oil from any single oil field for 10-20 years. some comments above may be currently classed as OR because i can't find the references.

is this the appropriate place to discuss Hubert linearisation? ( the idea that plotting current production(p)/cumulative production (q) vs q gives a straight line w/ the intercept being the URR (ultimate recoverable reserves) )

Andrew 03:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have started an article on the | "Hubbert linearization",(Sfoucher 18:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)).

Graphic needs fixing.

Half-way down through the article, the is misaligned, and is overlapping text. I am new to Wikipedia and don't know how to fix this. Hopefully someone will see my comment here and make note of it. 00:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Are you using the Firefox browser on a Macintosh? I see the problem when I use Firefox, but not when I use Safari. The problem probably lies in your browser, not in Wikipedia. Just so you know, when a technical problem like this appears, simply report it at Bugzilla. It's easy! If you follow the link and do a search for this problem, you will discover that your symptom has now been reported many times. They are working on it. — Aetheling 01:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Reconciling Peak oil with Global Warming

Having read and reread the article and several others on the subject, it seems to me that total fossil fuel use is predicted to reach a peak some time in the first half of this century. Having read many models on global warming almost all are prefaced with a phrase along the lines "if we do nothing then" CO2 output will grow exponentially (usually up till 2100)

The two theories are clearly contradictory

Now I realise that both models have uncertainty, and therefore it will depend on your assumptions which will tend to dominate, but as both seem to cover roughly the same time period and the same subject of fossil energy use, I am perplexed that two such contradictory theories can co-exist without commenting on the other.

I tried to put a short section to link peak oil into this one on global warming Suggested insertion unfortunately, this appears to be some type of heresy and I was attacked quite vitriolicly in a very POV way.

I'm posting this here because I would like to see some debate on the subject, and an attempt on both sides to reconcile their theory with the other.LordsReform 17:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. Similar comments re global dimming

I'm not clear on what you mean by debate on the subject. The talk page is not the place to debate the validity of a new theory. If you can find notable advocates for your assertion that declines in oil/carbon reserves will mitigate the current warming trend, we should discuss those. If there are no such advocates, you should consider submission to a refereed journal. An encyclopedia is not a place to present original research (see WP:OR, which encompasses new conclusions drawn from established sources, as well as entirely new data). The same points were made last time this was brought up: Talk:Global_warming#Peak_Oil. --TeaDrinker 18:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
TeaDrinker, the debate is whether editors of wikipedia should allow two contradictory entries to comment on the same subject without giving the "other side". It may be that they are not contradictory, (but given the response on global warming discussion this appears to be unlikely), but if so, lets hear the evidence and I'll leave it there. But, if they are contradictory then it seems to be wikipedia policy that at the very least both articles should refer to the other - something I have tried to do without success!
The question really comes down to whether they are contradictory!
for the sake of debate is it possible to find out what we agree on? Do you agree that: 1. Global warming is largely caused by CO2. 2. CO2 is largely derived from burning fossil fuel 3. Fossil fuels are limited absolutely by the total amount of fossil fuel. 4. Fossil fuels are practically limited by the quantity of energy-economically recoverable fossil fuel. 5. That "if we do nothing", CO2 output will be limited by practically recoverable fossil fuels. 6. Assumming that runaway effects such as frozen methane reserves don't come into play, then global warming is practically limited by peak fossil fuel/ fossil fuel availability.
Therefore, is the main issue the relative assessment of practically accessible fossil fuel and whether this means that peak fossil fuel is reached before or after "catastrophic" global warming? LordsReform 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
For targets like stabilization at 2x preindustrial CO2 (an often discussed goal), fossil fuel use needs to peak circa 2035 [7]. Oil use can be expected to peak before then, but coal certainly won't. Even though oil is currently ~40% of all energy, only ~40% of that is used in transportation. The other 60% of that oil is going towards fixed power generation and other processes where coal (or natural gas) would be a suitable alternative. If you have credible sources saying that there aren't enough fossil fuels to create a global warming problem, then please provide them, but I believe every credible person who looks at the problem concludes that significant global warming will occur well before fossil fuel scarcity imposes a fundemental limit. Dragons flight 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Dragons flight - good post. The credible source is the wikipedia peak oil entry itself which gives a peak output for coal around 2030-60! "Gregson Vaux has analyzed the expected peak in U.S. coal production (the world’s largest reserves of coal) and predicted peak coal taking place sometime between 2032 and 2060, with earlier dates more likely if coal is used as a partial substitute for plateauing or declining global oil supplies and North American natural gas supplies [2] [3]."
The basis of all global warming models is a predicted usage of fossil fuels. Depending on the model, they then predict various temperature rises. Many of the optimistic models for fossil fuel use, seem to follow an (approximately) similar upward then downward curve to that of peak oil/gas/coal. From experience of renewable energy targets in the UK, my own analysis is that practically, politicians are highly constrained over the percentage of CO2 reduction that they are practically capable of bringing in. So, using a "hand waving argument", it appears to me that the limit is practically fixed at the availability of fossil fuels rather than any political action. By comparing peak-fossil fuel curves with global warming curves, the closest parallel to peak fossil fuel which is given as peaking in 2030-60 is your doubling of CO2 which I believe is something close to a scenario for a 2-3degrees temperature rise. I'm very unhappy with this hand waving argument, but I'm afraid it is the best I've seen - Surely some global warming climatoligist must have taken any of the peak fossil fuel curves and done the analysis?LordsReform 19:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Info for peak oil experts Just to make it clear, various fossil fuels produce different quantities of CO2, so although similar the curves will differ as coal (higher CO2) takes over from gas and oil. Also global warming CO2 is clearly affected by total fossil fuel consumption, whereas peak oil, etc. is fuel supplied. A major difference in analysis comes from fuels such as oil tars where the energy of extraction is high (>100% according to many). This provides another source of discrepancy, because many climate models are not based on economic resources but all available resources whether economic or not. LordsReform 20:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I find the point about peak oil interesting, however if no one has, in a scientifically reputable sense, pointed out the conflict you describe between peak oil and global warming, then Wikipedia should not be the one to do it. Trying to reconcil all the percieved inconsistancies in theories would make Wikipedia into a scientific debating society, not an encyclopedia. Until there is notable mention of such a conflict, there is no conflict for Wikipedia to report on. --TeaDrinker 21:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I found this from the New Scientist magazine which touches on the subject [8]. Is this of any help? G-Man * 22:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Well done, that looks like exactly the sort of reference which was needed. I will add the MSc, which seems to be the research on which the New Scientist's quoted proponents made their claim: in English. We need to determine the notability of this view (I think an entire section is clear undue weight for a single MSc and a popular press article). Further thoughts? --TeaDrinker 22:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
G-Man, that is fantastic - and I really appreciate the link! 22:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
TeaDrinker - can I suggest the following as a criteria for an entry on global warming - enough text to explain to a casual reading what "peak oil" refers to together with a link - more than that ought to be unnecessary because peak oil does go into quite enough detail. The problem is that it was originally put in by Mike haseler in the "other issues" as a short section, but was repeatedly being pulled without discussion. I fear any other link is likely to be treated the same because even the section I put in with good references and nothing controversial was getting pulled rather than discussed. If you've got an idea to get a useable reference without having to back it up with a lot of detail please do let me know! 22:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Great, once you have one link others start to follow. Here is another paper on same subject Energy and climate change : discussing two opposite evolutions Article published in Journal de Physique - proceedings, volume 121, January 2005

The unlikely aspect of the extreme scenarios does not dismiss the climate change problem, as some possible "modified medium scenarios", with an energy consumption or population that would not rise as quickly as assumed, but that would call massively on coal after oil becomes expensive, still bear a very significant menace, in the sense that they still lead to a couple degrees increase in the known simulations

Gloat: I was saying "about 2-3degrees", nice to see above is saying "couple degrees". Great minds think alike - and fools seldom differ! 23:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this flies as an idea. Peak oil (the symmetric bell curve) depends completely on sticking to a single fuel and a single technology. Each new fuel (gas, tar sands) and recovery method (secondary, tertiary) adds additional bells on the RHS of the curve which aggregates to a completely asymetric shape. I vote we write a separate article on the depletion of the world's hydrocarbon reserves and keep this one for the life of a field type discussion. --BozMo talk 14:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I've found this article bridging the gap between peak oil and global warming activism which is probably worth a read for all involved. G-Man * 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Gregson Vaux's Peak Coal

I removed:

More recently, Gregson Vaux has analyzed the expected peak in U.S. coal production. His data suggests a peak taking place sometime between 2032 and 2060, with earlier dates more likely if coal is used as a partial substitute for plateauing or declining global oil supplies and North American natural gas supplies [9][10] Regarding whether the estimates may be 'optimistic' or 'pessimistic', Vaux adds that "The majority of the calculations were conducted at Carnegie Mellon University in the Fall Semester of 2003 before the severity of the gas crisis had become obvious. It is possible that gas consumption in the U.S. will not remain flat but will actually decline; in this case, the coal peak will come sooner."

Initially I did so about a week ago, and now again today. There are several reasons. First Mr. Vaux is not a scientist. His terminal degree is a masters (according to his own website) and he has no scientific publications whatsoever in the Web of Science. Secondly, the references are to A) Google Groups and B) "From the Wilderness", a newsy website that he copublishes. And lastly, his analysis is just terrible. I can't imagine any scientist looking at the poor fit in his figure 6 (end of page) and being willing to assert anything about peak coal. See also WP:V, WP:RS. Dragons flight 07:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Decouple Hubbert Peak theory from Peak Oil

I propose that the Hubbert Peak Theory be decoupled from Peak oil and they they put in 2 seperate pages. A lot of items on the page like economic effects and alternatives are really unrelated from the theory itself which includes the math. The economic effects are the effects of Peak Oil not Hubbert's theory.

Paullb 03:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. And the intro is inherently biased because of it. In the 1956 paper sited Hubbert also provided a description for what the age of oil was to be used for, as well as what the solution was, and neither of those points are mentioned.

The bias becomes obvious when economic consequences of Peak are discussed and Kuntsler, a ex rolling stone columnist is held up as a sited referenced, but Mike Lynch, an actual economist, is relegated to some sort of 5th page dissenter.

If you are going to have someone commenting on economic consequences ( Hubbert didn't in the original sited work ) then you sure better reference an economist instead of someone known for works of fiction and predictions on how Y2K was going to end the world, and appears to continue the same theme on to the next subject which lends itself to a natural predisposition. Hardly objective, and quite obvious when reading the intro.

How about we get rid of the intro altogether? This is too complicated of a subject to describe in a paragraph without mangling.DodgeTheBullet 07:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This article will always be horrible quality as long as it tries to singularly cover a wide family of viewpoints and scientific assertions. I think it might even be appropriate to cover "The peak oil movement" as a social discussion, covering the various camps and the ways in which they differ on Peak Oil issues, seperate from a historical discussion of M. King Hubbert, his theories, hubbert linearization, modern updates based on his work, and how his predictions have panned out over the years. 10:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with putting Hubbert Peak Theory and Peak Oil in two different pages. The Peak Oil page can then indeed cover the "peak oil movement". 12:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree on decoupling. Peak oil has moved past Hubbert's work. Publicus 13:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Third the motion. Someone got smoking fingers to type this one up? A showing of the new articles would go a long way toward determining if they are viable.

This looks interesting

According to this link oil production in Saudi Arabia fell by 8% during 2006. G-Man * 20:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Saudi production has fallen some 4 or 5 times in the modern era. Do you have a link for these production curtailments as well?

What about Oil Discovery?

I can't believe there is no section about oil discovery which is a big part of the "Peak Oil" theory. I may start a new section. (Sfoucher 15:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

Good idea. But don't forget to factor in reserve growth, it is currently larger than discovery rates, has been quantified by the USGS as such, and is in effect "discovery" but of a different stripe.

POLL: Should Peak oil be split from Hubbert peak theory

Please put your thoughts down in bold either, I support or I oppose. Just trying to get a sense of the views on this. Thanks Publicus 13:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


  1. I support. Hubbert peak theory can now be viewed as one of a series of theories related to Peak oil. Peak oil as an issue has moved past Hubbert's original work. Publicus 13:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support --Chriswaterguy talk 23:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. I support. Peak Oil indeed encompasses far more than the Hubbert peak theory alone. In the current one page configuration you are dissapointed when looking for possible consequences and solutions to Peak Oil. Seahorsy 10:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support, based on the response to my comments by Publicus. While the series of theories are fundamentally based on Hubbert's work, there are many other aspects of peak oil that do not rightfully fall under Hubbert's theory. --Skyemoor 11:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. Whoever separates the article into two, remember to make reference to the Hubbert article at the start of Peak Oil article. Also, if a separation is made, it would be a good time to clean up, wholesale, some of the riffraff that has accumulated recently. There are whole sections of the article where it is merely a list of barely related facts and sentences. The article should be able to be read smoothly from start to finish as if written by a single author. If new sections or paragraphs appear that don't meet the standard, revise the section or delete it if it's hopeless. Don't tolerate the spaghetti approach. With that said, I'm going on a minor rampage. Mexeno1 12:38, 27 April 2007. (UTC)
  6. Support Keep this article to show how Hubbert came up with his formula, etc and create the Peak Oil article for all that that entails. Mincan 05:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)



Thanks for this discussion, Publicus. Before I decide, I have a couple of questions I'd like to get your thoughts on. Hubbert is considered the Father of Peak Oil (though he wasn't the first); which other notable series of theories do you refer to that are not primarily based on Hubbert's theory? Why do you believe they warrant separation? And if another article is needed, should it be named Peak Oil, or something more encyclopedic, such as "Global Maximum Petroleum Production" with Peak Oil redirected to it? Thanks, --Skyemoor 14:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good questions. Here's my thoughts:

  • First, I would say that Hubbert's theory introduced the concept of a petroleum peak specifically to the area of petroleum geology. Since his work, other petroleum geologists (Deffeyes, etc) have done work based in part on what Hubbert presented, but with their own distinct influences and assumptions.
  • Second, peak oil has moved into another area that Hubbert never really focused on, that of the investment/business side of peak oil. For example, one of the big peak oilers, Matthew Simmons, is an investment banker who has focused on how to handle investing in what he views as a soon-to-be peak oil world.
  • Third, the biggest peak oil area that Hubbert certainly never focused on are the social effects of a peak oil world. This is the more commonly known aspects of peak oil and would include people like Kunstler, Heinberg, and all the others who write about what could happen in a world with less cheap oil.
  • Finally, the last reason for my belief that there should be a split between Hubbert peak theory and peak oil is the split between Darwin and evolution. The analogy may not be a perfect one, but from my perspective it appears that Hubbert launched the idea of a peak in petroleum production and many, many people since him have taken his work and expanded it many different directions.

As far as the final name, I really don't have an opinion on that right now, other than to say that the most common name used to discuss this topic is peak oil, more scientific or encyclopedic names might result in confusion. Publicus 17:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation: you have provided sufficient justification, hence I support the move. --Skyemoor 11:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Another question. From what you say in response to Skyemoor seems this split would basically require editing the introduction, move over Hubbert's theory section and replace with main article link and the introduction to Longterm, and maybe a few minor edits to Criticism and others. Otherwise the current page would be mostly unaffected except for having changed its name to Peak Oil. Is this correct? If so I am marginally in favor - its the right thing to do technically but a lot of work for not much return.DodgeTheBullet 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It will be far clearer as two articles, dealing with closely related yet different concepts. And there's potentially more return as each article develops further. --Chriswaterguy talk 23:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, as I mentioned above all those effects of peak oil would move from Hubbert's specific theory on petroleum peak to a peak oil page devoted to discussing aspects of peak oil such as finances, social changes, agriculture, etc. So from a content perspective, the theory of a petroleum peak would stay with Hubbert peak theory, while everything that could be effected by Hubbert's theory could move to the peak oil page. Also, as other editor's add more theories on peak oil, hopefully the differing opinions of petroleum peaks could get their own articles as well, to cover those other scientists influenced by or disagreeing with Hubbert. Publicus 18:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Note that Hubbert discussed peaks on a wide range of resources. [11] --Skyemoor 10:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

POLL results

Let's split 'em up. No one seemed to have any problems with it, so here we go. I'll start moving some things over. Publicus 18:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Split ongoing

I've moved several whole sections over, the split was actually easier than I thought. I'm sure I've missed some of the more detailed items, but hopefully the new Peak oil article is taking shape. One thought, how much crossover should we have on the two articles in the "see also" section? I just copied Hubbert's "see also" to peak oil without any changes, but some of the articles probably don't need to be on both pages. Publicus 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Difficulty of a reliable external assessment

I added a new section about the difficulty to validate Hubbert's model with external data. I created this as a new section but it might also be a subsection of the "Criticism" section. Comments welcome. - Fils du Soleil 00:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Further splitting?

Although Hubbert peak theory and peak oil are now separate, this article remains a good length, and its scope still extends beyond the 'pure' theory. There may be a case for spinning off a couple of other sections to create a series of related smaller articles. For example, if the 'peak oil' article is addressing the world peak, "Peak oil production in the United States" might make a separate article too. "Mitigation of peak oil" also looks possible - it isn't part of the core theory, but is important to forecasting using the theory, and to the US and world peaks, for example... Gralo 14:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as far as the length of the article goes, it's well within norms. Stripped of an article's references, infoboxes/templates/images or any other wikimarkup, it is considered ideal to have an article under 35k and acceptable to let weighty topics grow to 50-60k. However, even without stripping away the markup, this article is still under at 36,753 bytes. Don't have an opinion on the other points, although I would encourage you to keep some applied examples for illustrations sake, but as far as WP:LENGTH goes, y'all are doing just fine. MrZaiustalk 15:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Peak oil" concept applies only to some resources

Someone put in a statement that the "peak oil" concept applies to mineral resources generally. That's not correct. Read Deffeys, who explains the geology. The issue with oil is that it's only found in specific geological formations, with cap rock above and trap rock below. Either you find an oil pool or you don't. With many other mineral resources, there's a broad range of concentrations, so with more effort and energy, more of some resource can be extracted from lower grade ores, and the lower grade ores are more abundant. Iron is like that, as are most of the metals.

This is a key concept to understand. It's why spending more money on extracting oil doesn't produce that much more oil. --John Nagle (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oil Imports

Oil imports by country

The oil imports map I've pasted here is obviously absolute imports, not net exports, as shown by the fact that Canada and Britain (both net exporters in the CIA factbook, given as the data source) are shown as significant importers. I find this misleading and think the map should be changed or removed... TastyCakes (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably an old version. You should ask the author to update it, or else update it yourself. NJGW (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of making a map where it shows both exporting and importing countries, exporting in different shades of green and importing in different shades of red. I think that'll be useful for this article and others. TastyCakes (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Peak gas

According to the article, peak gas occurred (take your pick) in 2001, 2003, and 2007. These sort of contradictory statements make a laughingstock of Wikipedia. Plazak (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a look now. I took out a bunch of chaff and reordered the section
Much better, but we still have two predictions that gas will peak in the future, contradicted by one statement that gas peaked way back in 2001. Plazak (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
It's OK to have those types of inconsistencies, but what we really need is a definitive source saying if gas did peak yet. The whole article needs to be written better, so feel free to dive in if you feel like it. Just be sure to accurately represent the sources and follow wp:UNDUE. NJGW (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Although likely impractical to add those back, actually one of the most useful aspects of life education anybody can have is learning via experience how often superficially reputable sources are contradictory BS, as that is the first step towards critical thought. Most young adults are way too trusting. If sufficiently blatant contradictions in Wikipedia taught some otherwise, then Wikipedia particularly benefited them, giving them a bit of a real education. (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Logistic curve in Hubbert's works

The article says, quote:

"he later used the Hubbert curve, the derivative of the logistic curve[citation needed], for estimating future production using past observed discoveries"

This sentence is not sourced ; the terms "logistic curve" do not seem to appear in MK Hubbert's works ; can anyone provide a source ? Otherwise this should modified accordingly. TIA, --Environnement2100 (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hubbert didn't give away too much about his methods in 1956, but the logistic curve is what fits his work best.[12] Also, we're not married to 1956 here. Hubbert style projections are logistic distributions. It's better if you read-up or ask questions first before stirring up hornets nests all over the place. (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)