Talk:Hubbert peak theory

The lengthy Athabasca discussion was archived to Talk:Hubbert_Peak/archive1 at 18:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This talk page was refactored 11:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC). Previous discussion preserved at Talk: Hubbert_Peak/archive2. -Jwanders 23:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Archived again 14:51, August 31, 2005 (UTC). Talk:Hubbert Peak/archive3 - Taxman ^Talk 14:51, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Archived once more at--get this--164kb! Talk:Hubbert Peak/archive4 Jeez, that lasted all of four months! --HereToHelp (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is incredibly absurd...

Let me try and explain this as clearly as possible, with a quick example:

Let's say there was an article on the Ptolemic geocentric model of the solar system.

The article would have tremendous detail on how Ptolemy thought up the geocentric, the intricacies of the mechanism of the geocentric model, other major historic figures involved in the geocentric model, and so on and on in great detail.

However, it would be incredibly absurd if it was not mentioned (perhaps just in passing!  :) ) that, yes, the Ptolemic geocentric model of the solar system has been utterly superceded!

We now come to a VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION: do you want the Wiki to be JUST A BLOG, i.e. a place where facts are presented in what can only be described as "stunningly favorable light" so as to perhaps make a political point (or, whatever the hell is going on here), or, should the Wiki present the actual factual reality of the world?

Which is it? Everyone reading this needs to CAREFULLY ASK THEMSELVES that question.

The utterly, totally, flabbergastingly overwhelming reality of Hubbert peak theory is that:

ONE. Hubbert was talking STRICTLY ABOUT ****light crude****

TWO. Everyone including Hubbert has always known that there are incomprehensibly vast reserves of various forms of low quality oil - TENS OF **THOUSANDS** of times more low quality oil forms than ****light crude****

THREE. In Hubbert's day, everyone dismissed the unimaginably vast quantities of low quality oil around, and was concerned only about ****light crude****

FOUR. Whether or not Hubbert was correrct is now (today, 2005) utterly irrelevant because the mind-bogglingly huge reserves of various forms of low quality oil are NOW IN PLAY.

Hence, the idea of not AT LEAST MENTIONING that the central reality of Hubbert peak theory is that it has been utterly superceded and is now a historical curiosity -- exactly like Ptolemy's Earth-centrered model of the solar system -- is incredibly, profoundly, silly.

You have to understand this is the CENTRAL REALITY of Hubbert peak thoery .. that it was an interesting historical curiosity from the days when only LIGHT crude mattered, and we couldn't access the TENS OF THOUSANDS of times MORE barrels laying around basically everwhere in low quality oil forms.

Please read the following:

"Humanity uses about 345 Quadrillion BTU of all types of fossil fuel each year (as of 2005). Oil shale deposits (for example) hold at least 10 million Quadrillion BTU. As 10 million divided by 345 is about 25,000, there are (at least) twenty-five thousand years supply of hydrocarbon fuels easily available at current consumption rates. However, traditionally (from 1900 through to say 1990), only conventional light crude oil was economic for petroleum production: using oil shale, oil sands, or other varieties would increase the final cost substantially, perhaps doubling or tripling the final price of gasoline.

Although underreported by the mainstream media, tremendous technological advances in the processing of low grades of oil (such as shale oil) from 1990 to present, and the enormous present multi-billion dollar investment in Alberta's tar sands, are soon to make the issue of the availability of ("conventional") crude oil irrelevant. However, 49 years ago, output of crude oil was a critical political and economic issue."

I typed those two paras out as an opening for the article to try and shake the article from the realm of "totally nutty gibberish" -- that is to say, as if someone, perhaps an Astrologer, was discussing Ptolemic theory in all seriousness, "not mentioning" the fact that the sun is now generally thought to be the middle of the solar system! -- into something more usuable and realistic.

I certainly encourage any and all to improve on or totally redo these paragraphs or do the same job altogether differently.

But at the moment, as it stands, this article is simply *nutty*.

I encourage anyone to try to work in to the article, the CENTRAL REALITY of Hubbert peak theory, to wit that Hubbert peak theory ONLY concerns ****light crude**** and ignores the staggeringly large reserves (ie, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TIMES BIGGER than all the world's light crude) of low quality forms of oil.

It is truly incredibly silly not to "mention" this!

As I say above ... "We now come to a VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION: do you want the Wiki to be JUST A BLOG, i.e. a place where facts are presented in what can only be described as "stunningly favorable light" so as to perhaps make a political point (or, whatever the hell is going on here), or, should the Wiki present the actual factual reality of the world?"

Reply ... with reply to reply

First, the "tens of thousand" more heavy oil than lightr crude is false. To get this figure, you probably included all organic content in the lithosphere, as if there was a remote chance to gzet anything usable from a 5 km deep shale with 1% of kerogen. You got confused "light oil", and "conventionnal oil". what you categorized as "low-grade oil" is, for a large part, not oil at all (kerogen).

Second, there is a important notion you ignored : net energy yeld. The vast majority of low grade fossil "fuels", like deep oil shale, would consume more energy to extract than they would give. Already, the Athabasca oil sands have a self-consumption of about 30% - that could be reduced to some 25% with advanced technology.

Reply: Dude. Trillions of barrels, times 70% (hell, let's say self-consumption is NINETY FIVE PERCENT.. ok?), so we'll say trillions of barrels times 5% is still ....... trillions of barrels. It's pretty simple stuff. Your point is pointless: no offense. I suggest, take a drive up to Alberta and see the state of the industry. If you are relying on mainstream media news, your viewpoint would be quite wrong. Regarding your comments on "environmental" concerns:

The small-sclae oil shale projects that were teste had a near-zero net energy yields - except in estonia, but the shales they used were among the richest known.

Third, extraction rate is as important as reserves. Non conventionnal oil (biodegraded oil, bitumen, oil heavier than water...) is very difficult to take out. Kerogen from shale is even worst. Even if these ressources are in the trillions of barrels, they won't provide much help if we can only get a few million barrels out per day.

Fourth, non-conventionnal has an high environmental cost. CO2 emeissions on a full-cycle basis (from well to end use) are much higher. There are other problems like the destruction of ecosystems (for open-pit production of both oil shale of oil sands), water use (especially for oil shale), water pollution, disposal of wastes (for oil shales)... These environmental costs would become catastrophic is non-conventional production was to be upscaled to the same range of output than current conventional production.

Reply: I'm not sure what the point here is. So, there is a practically unlimited amount of oil available -- you agree? -- but you're saying certain political decisions make it not possible to use that .. or? (Regarding CO2 and the current political fad for concern about "carbon emissions" .. so what? It is trivial to capture CO2 from any stack, at another small reduiction in self-consumption. Right? So .. what's the point here?)

The simple, trivial, stark reality is this article (as it stands currently) is *really, really dumb*. The trivial reality is that "peak oil" theory is simply redundant -- much as in the sense of my "Ptolemic system" example -- because it is trivial to get what can only be called practically unlimited amounts of petrol from oil sands, oil tars, etc.

Regarding your "catastrophic" comment. Imagine the planet .. now picture the State of Colorado. Let's say, that ALL of Colorado (every square inch!) was turned in to a steel cube, and in return we had enough petrol to lasty for 10s of thousands of years. In what way would that be catastrophic?

I'm guessing that (no offense) you are basically an "environmentalist" and you are *fundamentally opposed* to petrol use. If so, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that ... that's a respectable and logical position. But you would be completely fooling yourself and peeing in the wind if you ignore enormous and simple realities, you know? Ignoriing that or trying to pretend it does not exist, would not help your cause at all you know?

Again -- the point here is, it is utterly crazy - madness - to have a long complex article with endless detail on the arcane points of Hubbert peak theory, and not "mentioning in passing" that it is utterly out of date and completely redundant. But hey -- the Wiki is what *you* make it. If you want it to be "bizarre" - it's your Wiki.

Using the value of 5.8 million BTU per barrel of oil, if there is a trillion barrels of oil equivalent in oil shale reserves, this would yield a total of 5.8 million trillion BTU. Where did you come up with the figure of 10 million quadrillion BTU for oil share reserves?

Even if the energy content of oil shale is as vast as you claim, saying it without describing the costs of developing those resources is absurd.

What are you referring to here? It doesn't make a lot of sense. Self-consumption (simply, the amount of "itself" you need to use to refine it down to usable petrol) for low-grade oils is down to say 30%. But let's say it was 50%. Or 80%. So what? 70% or even only 20% of a really large number is ... a really large number. ~~

Can you give us a source of information to validate the assertion that "Oil shale deposits (for example) hold at least 10 million Quadrillion BTU"? Jkintree 04:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Your "solar" example is very confused. Note that oil is TRIVIALLY recoverable...just grab a shovel, or in the case of conventional oil drill a hole. (Indeed, low grade oil mining is dead simple, you just get a big scoop and some trucks. It's like quarrying gravel.) In contrast solar energy is rather *difficult* to recover. once you do recover solar energy, it is a nice form of energy, "ready to wear" ... in contrast once you recover oil sands, you have to waste 30%, 50% or 70% on self-consupmtion.

Can you tell us how much oil has been produced from oil shale in the last ten years, to substantiate the claim that oil is trivially recoverable? Jkintree 15:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

One could also make the point that the solar radiation striking the surface of planet Earth is 757,700 quadrillion BTU per year (http://www.geocities.com/combusem/SOLAR.HTM), but unless there is an economical way to convert that solar energy into usable energy, it is not much help.

One could make that point, but it would be a bit silly.  :) Solar energy - hard to recover. Conventional oil, fairly easy to recover. Low grade oil forms ... exceedingly easy to recover. (However, 30%, 50%, 70% of your profit then -- after recovery -- goes straight down the drain in "self-consumption" to refine it down. However, 20% of the proifit of "a God-awful lot" is still "a darn lot," you see?)

Actually, if anything makes oil shale viable, it will be the peak in the world's production of conventional oil, and the resulting increase in prices paid for oil. This article on peak oil has a section "Alternatives to conventional oil" that contains a link to an article for "Alternative fuel," and that article contains a link to an article on oil shale. That's where the information you want to push belongs.

Ahhh ... so now we come to it. The "information I want to push" .. heh. Well, there you have it ... the WiKi. Lol.

Finally, M. King Hubbert did describe oil shale reserves in his 1956 paper, with oil shale accounting for about 10% of the fossil fuels initially present. He stated that oil shale reserves have barely begun to be developed. That observation is mostly correct to this date. Jkintree 02:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Restored Archive

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

---

Enter Causation / Correlation Confusion

The Diff [1]

If you read further up the article - it is claimed the "Production Peaked in 2004." Yes - I added the paragraph which translates a peak in production - to a peak in demand. Production and demand are linked. You suggest that demand will go up - what you mean I think, is that the number of people interested in buying oil at "today's" price would continue to grow. That is a simplistic view of demand. In fact, the price will go higher as the probability of future depletion becomes more certain - a transition which will in all liklyhood take place slowly, and at a rate controlled by the discount rate. Today we see Oil companies unmotivated to take on debt in order to increase refining production. This is a simple statement of market equilibrium, and strongly suggests that oil companies, realizing that their underground resource is not expanding, are content to sell their stock slowly into a high-demand market rather than to sell the entire stock as quickly as possible. In many respects, oil companies are like the ants stockpiling food for the winter (except they don't do that part) but nonetheless, they are sitting on a winter's store of oil. The politicians would like them to sing and dance and sell their oil fast and cheap; but being wise - they choose to store their fuel for the winter, and sell us no more than we really need. - good for them. And when they think the price will rise by more than the discount rate, they will hoard it - until the demand raises prices sufficiently to cover the loss of future revenue. This balancing act is continuous and includes market forces with the probability of future depletion in a stable free-market rational market. Hubbert's (and friends) proposition that market forces will be insufficient to smooth the transition to a post-oil economy is unsubstantiated. Benjamin Gatti 22:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

All scenarios about peak oil and its aftermath are unsubstantiated; it hasn't happened yet. The issue is, you felt compelled by your point of view to translate the article to say "the demand for oil peaked in 2004," which is clearly false. In spite of your fancy verbiage explaining why you wrote that, pushing POV translations is the kind of thing that diminishes the quality of the article.

You seem to think that proponents of the theory of peak oil are clueless about market forces. If you pay attention, you will notice that informed proponents do not say we are running out of oil. They say we are running out of cheap oil. The debate is over the timing, speed, and severity of the transition.

In your paragraph above, you stated that "the discount rate" is the factor that will control the rate of the transition. That sounds like a term from economics. A factor that other people are watching very closely is "the decline rate." After an oil field peaks, how quickly does the production decline? To the dismay of the United Kingdom, the decline rate in the North Sea is much higher than expected. If the decline rate at Cantarell and Burgan, and yes, at Ghawar, turn out to be higher than expected, the transition is likely to bumpy. We don't know. We're watching, and hopefully, practicing prudent risk management. Jkintree 18:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You've said a few things here that I want to agree with. We should put more emphasis on the "timing, speed, and severity of the transition" As you say. Hubbert's theory is far more than the obvious "someday we will run out of oil" It appears to me to be "when we run out of oil (which I predict will be X) we are going to run out fast and hard." Therefore we could run out of oil, and Hubbert could be wrong. Hubbert would be meaningful only if - in your terms, the decline rate is both a. steep and b. coincidental - that is most oil fields experiencing the decline simultaneously. We accept that he could be wrong about the dates - and still right about this decline thing.

The flip side - is that oil speculation - for all its cost - involves a lot of people paying attention to this problem, researching the problem, and doing their best to determine the future availability of oil. It seems to me that if the future cost of oil is likley to beat the discount rate - that would be a hold signal, and would trigger hording - but only to a point. The point being that the price would rise until it waas once again more profitable to sell the oilt now at todays lower price, than to hold the oil and sell it later at tomorrow's higher price. That calculation is used by every business, even if it is not fully calculated - hotels know they can charge more for friday night, vacation homes know they can charge more during the summer, plywood salesmen know they can get a higher price during a hurricane. Ticket scalpers know they can sell tickets at a higher price if their team has a winning season. All of these businesses set the "daily price" by considering the potential value if they hold onto their stock until the value goes up. Quite likely, if the value is going up faster than the value of time (the discount rate) then it makes sense to hold onto reserves. Thus - the present price of oil includes the speculation that tomorrow's price could be higher, and as a consequence, future depletion will, as soon as it is known to exist, have a smooth effect on the price, and trigger a transformation from an oil race (and that's what we have) to a conservation race.

The "oil race" is a race by industrialized nations to acquire technologies and economic scale by consuming energy at the fastest rate they can afford. The US and Chinese both see energy consuption as a way of gaining critical mass for their economies - necessary to fund a war machine, necessary to develop technologies for building defense technologies etc ... Allowing the Chinese to over-consume us on energy would mean allowing them to overtake us in military matters as well. Consequentially - the "Oil Race" is a race to the bottom in which both sides are trying to bankrupt the other sooner (In this case bankrupcy means come to the end of their resources). From a balance of power standpoint, oil is irrelevent - so long as we get more benefit from it while it exists than do our competitors. If the only concern was ensuring the military dominance of the US, it would be rational to overconsume oil - because the depletion, when it does hit - would bankrupt poor countries first - ensuring the dominance of the lone superpower. I think this is why the President puts an emphasis on "energy intensity" or some double-speak word which means that rich nations have the right to consume more energy. In short - we are being more efficient if we use x energy to produce Y groos national product - but Kenya is less efficient because they use more energy per GNP - even though on a per person basis - they use far less energy than we do.

Proponents of peak oil (as you describe it) are suggesting that the market will fail to properly predict the future price of oil until it is so late, that society will be forced to adapt to a large change in oil prices over an inadequate period of time. It's not that they are clueless - but that they activelt believe the market is clueless. There is a natural conflict and inherent distrust between economists and peak oil theorists. Benjamin Gatti 18:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes distrust is healthy. Consider the investment banker, Matthew Simmons, who has brokered oil exploration and development deals worth $billions. His distrust of assurances that Saudi Arabia can increase production as needed led him to personally study reports from petroleum engineers in order to write his own book, _Twilight in the Desert_, that was published a few months ago.

I'd like to bring our attention back to this Wikipedia article. We've debated and re-debated some of these points until it feels like we are masterdebating. In my opinion, the article is good enough to be designated a Wikipedea Featured Article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles. Many people have contributed in many ways to make it so. However, one requirement for a Featured Article is that it has stabilized. Can we put this article to rest? Instead of mass, wholesale revisions from this point on, can we be more precise and polished? Jkintree 17:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well hello again ben. You seem a little hard on governments arguing that they have an aim of increasing oil consumption. This seems firstly to imply a good deal more power and influence for governments than they arguably possess, but secondly to ignore the generally accepted driving mechanism of the economy. People want a better life, more of anything which makes the days go by more merrily. That is what pushes up demand for everything, and at root oil usage. Putting it the other way about seems rather a conspiracy theory. The argument is interesting, but the ideological punchline seems a bit doubtfull Sandpiper 20:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sandpiper. I think you have tough skin - good for you. The "Oil Race" theory I believe you refer to is an analysis of oil using game theory. Under GT, you devise a stategy to improve your personal odds - relative to your competitors - which are often at odds with a strategy for maximizing the result for everyone. Let's say we ran the world under a benevolent dictator - which might be persuaded that the best thing to do is to conserve - perhaps by raising the price of oil to avoid wasteful expenditures. In a competitive environment however, the strongest economy can use its advantage to attract a disporportionate amount of oil - thereby crippling the competitors ability to catch up. When the oil is gone, everyone experiences an increase in the cost of energy - across the board - and is therefore a competition neutral event. I'm not suggesting that the race is strategic or planned, but rather instinctive, and driven by the self-interested nature of democracy. Note that many politicians believe we should raise fuel taxes to discourage commuting and pollution - but in the same breath would move heaven and earth to "keep gas prices down" in the face of market pressure. That is the dicotemy which exposes nature of the "oil race". Every politician is going to secure as much of the oil at the lowest price for their constituency - regardless of the long term consequences. Democracies don't contemplate long term realities. Benjamin Gatti 06:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

yes, but you said it: people personally want to 'keep gas prices down'. That is the driving force, not that everyone has some brilliant idea to bankrupt neighbouring countries. Politicians might have some idea like that, but frankly it is liable to conflict with the publics own self-interest aims. Running a car which only uses half as much petrol per mile is inherently a personal saving irrespective of the absolute price. Now, quite what Mr Bush was trying to achieve with his recent foray into the world oil business defeats me. Sandpiper 11:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that I could demonstrate the "oil race" is real if I could show that democracies are capable of conserving (and fighting the tragedy of the commons against popular selfishness) when it comes to resources which do not have competative advantage. I'm thinking perhaps the way we run the Federal Reserve - ie somewhat disconnected from the voting booth - and with great emphasis on real economic theory (Note that Michael Brownie was not installed at the reserve) and on the long term viability of the economy. If we ran energy policy like the Reserve - with an emphasis on long term viability in both pollution and energy reliability, would a chairman be able to counter public selfishness in favor of a smooth transition to a more sustainable energy economy? I think so. The "oil race" doesn't involve "bankrupting" other countries at great expense. the "oil war" turns on the recognition that if we were to "raise interest rates" - ie. to encourage conservation of oil by increasing the effective price, then our economy would slow down relative to other countries - unless the inccrease is universal. Depletion will have a universal effect on energy prices. Self-restraint is univeral in its benefit (less pollution, longer access to oil) - but singular in its cost (slow down economy, increase cost of production). This is the classic dillema of the "tragedy of the commons", and is the driving force of the "oil race". This concen was addressed (imperfectly perhaps) in the Kyoto treaty, and the fact that the US was unwilling to participate strongly suggests a preferance for winning the oil race over the alternative "unilateral" conservation. Winning the oil race means that one's economy arrives at the point of depletion better prepared to deal with an economic slowdown than its competitors - generally by burning oil faster to growing the economy, the technology, the educated base, and every other aspects of an economy as quickly as possible - ignoring the implicit tradeoff of burning luxury oil now (A Hummer is luxury consumption of oil) vs. having necessity oil later. I would say we are in an oil race, and that we should adopt an attitude towards energy similar to the Fed, that is instead of lampooning Congressmen who have from time to time changed their enthusiasm for energy taxes as "flip-floppers" - we should view controlling the cost of energy as part of a strategy - like Greenspan, who was never been called a flip-flopper for voting to raise interest rates before voting to lower them. In other words, we should see energy policy as less of a conflict of agendas (less pollution v. more jobs) and more a matter of optimizing the energy economy by careful moves up and down with strategic reserve (and taxes). And since there will never be a "popular" time to store oil by raising gas prices, we should have an independant chair of energy - preferable one which can survive partisan shifts - like Greenspan. Benjamin Gatti 15:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I fancy I do not accept your premise, lodged in the middle of that somewhere. You argue that increasing the cost of oil would inevitably cause a slowing of the economy, so no country would deliberately inflict this upon itself. This ignores the fact that taxes on oil already exist, as do taxes on other things. It is perfectly possible to maintain the same level of taxation overall, but switch the burden from one area to another. So reduce corporation tax, but increase oil tax. Companies have the same amount to invest, but a bigger incentive to save oil. Sandpiper 17:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This is where our different countries bring different perspectives. Here in the US, when Katrina caused an uptick in the price of oil, even the left-wing of the left party (Ted Kennedy) went running to the microphone to explain how they would lower the price of oil, NG and blamed the President for failing to do more to lower the price of oil. The fact is I believe, that our democracy will not tolerate unnecessary increases in energy prices. Now to England, not only is the price of oil high due to taxes, but the cost of using the oil is high by way of city entry fees. It's hard to reconcile these two realities. In England, you have a democracy which accepts high energy taxes, while even the left in the US opposes these higher prices. England places a high value on cooperating with the European Union, the EU does not have oil to speak of, and its socialistic societies benefit from increased utilization of mass transit, much of which is electric. Its industries include alternatives to oil - so there are jobs in Europe which benefit from high energy prices. The fact is that we are two countries addicted to different things. The US is addicted to cheap energy, because it has planned its cities for cheap energy, Europe on the other hand is more energy efficient, and addicted for the same reasons to minimizing traffic, increasing pedestrian/ metro use. Raising the cost of oil in the US would cause a need to re-plan cities, and would be problematic during the transition. It would cause a great deal of capital to be diverted from globally competitive industries to internal redevelopment. I believe the United States would lose forward momentum relative to other countries were it to impose a self-restraint policy on energy. As a democracy, we are unwilling, and I suspect it is an unpopular prospect as a military power as well. Burning up the oil until no other country can take advantage of a self-imposed handicap appears to be the default plan. Benjamin Gatti 16:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Implications section is flawed

The section on implications really should be done by an economist, or at least someone with some training in economics. Certainly, if oil production peaks, the price of the commodity will increase provided that peoples' demand remains constant [or increases]. But prices communicate information very well, and peoples' behavior will certainly adjust to the new market conditions to avoid a loss of wealth.

For instance, we waste a lot of energy: when energy becomes more expensive, we can avoid a loss in wealth by changing our behavior. Currently, prices don't compell us to conserve. They will if or when gas hits $5 a gallon and heating bills double (or triple). Such a state of affairs would hurt us only in the short run. In the long run, investment will adjust as people/firms seek to capitalize on what the marketplace is unable to provide in quantities that people prefer.

If we can't have a more valid implications section, let's excise it from the article.

Well said. Benjamin Gatti 05:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Not sure I completely agree. You seem to be assuming rational behaviour on the part of consumers, whereas we often buy goods and services on the basis of irrational choices (cigarette, anyone?). The result of this is inelastic demand for goods and services to which people have some sort of emotional attachment or addiction - that is, if gas prices go up by 1000%, consumption may only drop 10%. The big increase in gas prices in the UK in the 1990s caused protests - but gas consumption and miles driven by car drivers continued to increase. Indeed, the trend in the UK is now towards large and inefficient 4 wheel drive vehicles. Exile 14:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny, When I was in Egypt, Kiev, Slovenia, Slovakia, Budapest, Warsaw, I noticed a lot of walking going on (including me). When I tried to walk across the street in a Southern US State, I found it was unreasonably dangerous (something about a bridge, no sidewalk, and rather hurried drivers with large vehicles and trailers). So yes - the trend will take time, possibly even require the rebuilding of pedestrian-oriented communities and services, but it will happen, anecdotal superstitions notwithstanding. Benjamin Gatti 03:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Exile said: "Not sure I completely agree. You seem to be assuming rational behaviour on the part of consumers, whereas we often buy goods and services on the basis of irrational choices (cigarette, anyone?)..."

I don't mean to be captious, but this statement betrays a misunderstanding about rational choice. Economists view choices from a value-neutral vantage point. That is, they take peoples underlying valutaions/preferences as given and then postulate that their choices befit 'rational behavior'. [as an aside, it seems like Exile is confusing rational choices with wise choices]. An economist would accept the cigarette smoker's preference/valuation for a cigarette to be whatever it is, then whatever choice the smoker makes would be seen as rational, given the value they confer upon the cig. I realize this may sound silly, but it is the upshot of making economics a value-free (ie, facts only) science, like physics or chemistry. Gary Becker (Nobel Prize in 92) has shown that drug addicts make choices rationally (physical addiction causes them to confer enormous value on that next 'hit' - so their choice appears to be irrational, but actually is not when their preferences are revealed) and Steve Levitt has shown that criminal behavior conforms to rational choice. There are some critiques of the rational choice model, but they are yet outliers to the field and may yet be integrated. Richard Thaler is a behavioral economist whose work focuses on anomalies to rational choice theory.

The upshot of all this is that there are reams and reams of epirical data (both experimental, where conditions are controlled, and real-world observational data) that show that peoples' choices are influenced by the incentives they face, and that their choices conform to rational choice theory. In controlled conditions (where variables are streamlined) the model predicts peoples' choices very well. Now, it could be that there is something special about energy consumption choices, but I would need to see an argument.

In the short run, if gas prices went up 1000%, Exile is obviously right, the inelasticity of demand for gas would mean that the quantity demanded would not shrink at a proportional rate. However, if gas were $25/gallon [$2.50x10=$25], I know I would drive a lot less... In the short run, I would buy a bus pass, in the medium run I would buy a tiny, uber-fuel efficient car, and in the long run I would sell the car and buy an apt/home that is within walking distance to work, schools, entertainment, et al... Nevertheless, there may be lots of people who still own Hummers and drive them; there may yet be trends toward conspicuous consumption. But in the main, the quantity demanded will fall and in the long run we'll see everyone and his brother coming to market with substitutes for expensive energy options.

Of course, the government could artificially raise the price of gas or create some variety of incentives regime that would expedite investment into substitutes. I think it would be great public policy, provided they choose options that minimize dead weight loss.

Is an economist likely to perform an energy return on energy invested analysis? I agree prices will (hopefully) compell people to conserve but there is the added concern that after the peak society will have to become increasingly efficient year after year with less and less resouces to accomplish that task, right? zen master T 03:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough - your concern is the rate of depletion relative to the rate at which an unguided economy can react. Two points:

1. There is a futures market and speculation, and while some want to get rid of oil speculation, It is in fact the canary in the coalmine. Speculators are paid to keep a close eye on potential threats to the steady supply of a commodity and inform the market to conserve while providing the means to effect a smooth transition by raising the alarm (er price) based on a collective observation. Market intelligence is far superior to any single person (think Stalin and corn).
2. We already know how to live more efficiently, 9/10th of the world does this every day, and I believe the US will do it better than anyone else, when the time comes. When we are ready to use trains, then trains will have enough riders to justify their existence. We have the tracks, we only need to melt down our inefficient cars and build efficient trains. Benjamin Gatti 03:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought speculators were paid to make money by exploiting changes in a market, including creating artificial changes where this will be finacially beneficial to themselves. I suspect that transport will be a minor issue. How much energy is spent on on transporting people, and how much on building new cars, new washing machines, new whatever? People can walk, but how do they feel about having the same washing machine for their entire life? Sandpiper 11:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose some of them commit crimes to win (not unlike any other bbusiness) - but yes, fundamentally Speculators exists to give markets an early warning system, and to require markets to consider future availability of their resources. Any business which thinks it is getting taken by speculators is welcome to join the speculative markets. But you can't very well fund retirement and pension plans without a futures market. Cheers, Benjamin Gatti 22:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Jevon Paradox (not)

Where will we get energy from if the speculators say there is less and less coming down the pipe? Doesn't it require energy to build more efficient transportation to save energy? Can the rate of increased efficiency keep pace with the rate of depletion/energy loss? What of the Jevon's paradox? Isn't agriculture heavily dependent on fossil fuel production? I suppose a key question is at what point (if at all) will we have less energy than is required to provide the bare necessities of life for everyone? If it takes more than one barrel of oil worth of energy to extract, refine, and transport one barrel of oil then oil becomes useless as an energy source, right? And this is true regardless of the price of oil? Can alternative sources make up the difference? zen master T 04:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

No - wrong. Oil is more valuable as an energy source than the sum of its energy because you can't put a wind turbine under the hood of a camaro. - But it doesn't matter. We are not going to run out of energy so quickly that we won't have the energy to manufacturer energy efficient trains. We may have to conserve. I could see WWII style ration cards, lines, and high prices - followed quickly by a spike in bicycle thefts, resolving quickly in the insularization of the economy. It will, in sort be cheaper to bake bread in neighborhoods (as they do in Kiev) than for every individual to drive their armoured personnel carrier (what a hummer is) to the county vűnderbox center to buy daily essentials. We will relearn the pathos of the tune: "My baby takes the morning train..." While I appreciate the fact that we really should ration depletable energy - and provide only renewable energy at market cost to optimize the transition, I have great faith that we will be able to navigate the worst-case transition as well. Benjamin Gatti

Jevon's Paradox applies to increased efficiency - not to increased scarcity. You dis-serve Jevon by raising his thesis in this discussion. Jevon was observing that improvements in efficiency of consumable goods would lower the price and encourage consumption. (For which he gets a named paradox?) Scarcity will not lower the price - nor will it encourage consumption. It will, as it always does, trigger innovation to solve a problem. There could be some non-linearity during the transition - meaning that a shift to trains could lower demand for oil, causing a resurgence of interest in cars, which in turn will raise ... etc, but I expect depletion to induce a trend toward increased adoption of high efficiency transport. Benjamin Gatti 05:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think Jevon's paradox is relevant because it's important to realize increased efficiency alone may not solve the problem. Are you saying that in your estimation alternative modes of transportation and alternative energy sources are sufficient to offset oil depletion? How calamitous might this transition be? zen master T 05:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I have lived about a year in low-energy countries (Ukraine, Egypt, Hungary) and I can say that the prospect of a low energy existence in western countries is not frightful. In many ways our over consumption of energy is a cause of our problems - take obesity and depression for starts. Obesity is obvious, but with walking comes community and I believe some relief from the loneliness of an insular existence. Jevon doesn't deal with scarcity - he deals with lowering the price. Remember price is the key informer of the market. In Jevon's example, conservation is associated with negative price signals - which trigger consumption. In theory, depletion will trigger a price hike, followed by conservation, resulting in a moderate increase in price signals. Such will not encourage consumption. This is bonehead supply/demand economics. Conservation and Alt Energy are not likely to support the same levels of over consumption, but let's be honest - wind turbines are being built with less subsidy than nuclear plants, and nukes are part of the cheap energy reality. So we can and do have sources of energy which while they may not be fully competitive, are nonetheless, so closely competitive that the effect of losing one and coming to depend on the other is trivial. It's like losing GM, and having to depend on Hyundai. There's a difference, but far closer to a matter of preference than a calamity. Benjamin Gatti 06:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's say a new model of light bulb is twice as efficient as the old one, yet if the price of electricity remains the same people will just use twice as many or one for twice as long, that is basically Jevon's paradox, right? People have to live close enough to work to be able to walk there? What about agriculture? So the post peak environment is not as impossibly bad as far as efficiency increase and alternative energy sources research goes as some websites I've read led me to believe? How much over-consumption is there in the USA currently and how much of that can be fixed by lifestyle choice changes? zen master T 06:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

When you lower the price of a valuable commodity, people will consume more. Depletion however does not lower the price of a commodity. When the price of a commodity goes up, people will conserve, when you have forced conservation, Jevon's paradox doesn't apply, because people are already consuming at the rate they can afford. Forced conservation will result in a form of efficiency immune to Jevons. Consequentially, this isn't the right place to contemplate JP, it simply doesn't apply. In the meantime, we should appreciate the Jevons effect because it prepares us for scarcity. Planes which get better gas mileage will lessen the impact of oil scarcity, as will LED light bulbs, and everything else, thus we shouldn't view Jevon' paradox as a barrier to conservation, but rather as a tool to transition from an energy-intensive economy to a less intensive future. Benjamin Gatti 16:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it a mistake to think of energy in terms of price? Jevon's paradox is an efficiency paradox. WWII style rationing and bread lines might not be good. zen master T 18:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Consumers think in terms of price. And price will drive conservation. How much money will I save if I install a solar water heater on the roof? Given the price of energy - and the price of a heater - I save X. Raise the price and I save far more. Perhaps your (other) point is that raising the price of energy will also raise the price of conservation technologies, and here I think you are mistaken. Energy is a minor component of the cost of most US goods. Bread lines are fine if the market has the freedom to react to strong demand with more investment in meeting the demand. The reason you had unmitigated lines in the USSR is that the market was decoupled from demand. Very dangerous. Rationing can be very good. The alternative it to allow the rich to waste resources while the poor don't have access to essential resources. In the worst case, Barbara Streisand could buy all the water she needed to keep her grass green, but her gardener couldn't afford fresh water for his family to drink. Rationing protects the poor by preventing the rich from creating scarcity by waste. Benjamin Gatti 19:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Only consumers living hand to mouth and short on cash really think in terms of price, right? I agree rationing is very good given scarcity and to avoid waste but I wonder about the political and other changes necessary to get to that point? Explain market being decoupled from demand and how is that dangerous? So you think the focus of future efforts will be almost exclusively on conservation and not on ramping up alternative energy sources? zen master T 20:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. Every Business, and every household makes some calculation on satisfing their needs at the lowest cost. Homebuilders will have a tangible advantage in the market if they respond to rising energy costs by the includion of more expensive conservation options. There are BTW plenty of options for reducing the amount of energy consumed - all of which have a price, and all of which are increasingly profitable as the price of energy goes up. More and more used Hummer salesmen will go into solar water heater installation as the price of energy goes up. Price will marshal a coordination and coherent transition to a more efficient existence, which will render todays lifestyle more expensive; however, it will usher in a new lifestyle which is increasingly more attractive and less expensive at the same time.

To explain: When more people drop out of the car market, and enter the mass tansit market, mass transit will have the ridership required to be omnipresent. A 5 minutes wait at the bus line is nearly equivelent to a limosine level of service. That is less expensive and more convienent than a vehicle-intensive life-style, and not at all objectionable (to say nothing of more healthy). Benjamin Gatti 22:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review

You asked for comments. My first observation is that someone seems to have inserted a paragraph into the introduction saying that oil production peaked in 2004. This is downright confusing, because it has not been integrated properly and the narrative is switching between a view the peak has happened, and one where it has not yet happened. Secondly, the later sections indicate some controversy over whether this has indeed happened. Probably the current presentation is ok, provided it is integrated properly, presenting this line of argument that it may have happened already, but irrespective it must happen sometime.

I had a sense of reading the same information over again as I read down the page. Perhaps either have a smaller introduction, or knock out some of the repetition from later sections.

I think perhaps 'alternatives to conventional oil' should come before 'implications of a world peak'. A section on conclusions always comes after presentation of evidence. At the moment, the 'implications' section is rather pessimistic and feels unbalanced towards the assumption of a disaster. The article does not seem to present proof that there will be such a disaster. If 'alternatives' is introduced first, that might be helpful in balancing out 'implications', since I presume there would be no disaster at all if someone comes up with workable alternatives, and this could then more easily be discussed. This is, I think, the main answer made by people who do not believe there will be such a disaster. Historically, something has always turned up when man has been faced with a resource crisis. Implications should include more discussion of the role of alternatives; if alternatives become widespread before the peak of oil production ever becomes significant, the outcome is merely a smooth switch from one to the other.

The 'alternatives' section is way too small. I know it has a main article, but so does 'implications'. It is not reasonable to dwell on bad consequences but dismiss possible salvation in one paragraph.

I didnt understand some of the critique, exactly how did increasing extractable oil levels from 22% to 35% only increase supply by one year, simple maths suggests that this has increased available oil by 50%, and the discussion suggests that should be many years supply.

Has anyone mentioned pollution and the current world scare story (whether justified, or not) of Global Warming? This seems to be a driving force currently for restricting consumption and therefore both staving off peak of production, and encouraging growth of alternatives. Encouraging them before market economics would do so.

Difficult times lie ahead, Harry and everything is about to change. Sorry, I seem to have become a Harry Potter obsessive. However, that does seem to be what this article is saying, but I am not certain this is correct. Sandpiper 19:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps your point is that when the reduction in oil use comes - it may as likely be for reasons other than simply running out. Hubbert missed the first conservation movement - and the error has been discounted as a minor deviation in an otherwise perfect theory. Now we have anther reason - global warming - to reduce oil consumption, and so the depletion-only argument get sidelined again. I would suggest that no one is arguing that oil reserves are endless - just that the oil economy is more complicated than EROEI-ists allow. That, and an Encyclopedia shouldn't play lucy goosey. Benjamin Gatti

I think that final reference must be an Americanism, because I don't understand it at all. Global warming is still just one of those social factors. It might cause a big turning point in fuel consumption, but it may yet just be another blip. I remember being at school in the dark because there was no fuel for the power stations. Probably affected my development. Sandpiper 09:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Lucy Goosey is the children's character who gets hit on the head by a falling acorn, and spends the rest of the story getting her friends to believe "the sky is falling". It is a reference to irrational pessimism. Benjamin Gatti

Ah, I remember the story, but couldn't tell you the name of a goose... though come to think about it, wasn't there something about chicken little? Where's my aesop's fables? Sandpiper 18:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Now you're catching on. Mother Goose BTW was a serious commentator during the last "print-a-newspaper-go-to-jail" period (middle English). Yes - I'm suggesting the calamity portions of this article are a fairly tale. Oil Depletion is real, so BTW is Solar burn-out, bird-flu, asteroid impact, global warming, and a host of other diabolic threats to life as we know it. In the end, however, the market will respond to depletion properly and provide a smooth transition to the next energy economy (which in my opinion will be better, not worse than the oil economy). SO the doom and gloom here is farcical, laughable, and should be presented in the third person rather than as the opinion of the wikipedia. Benjamin Gatti 23:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Did the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy ever reach America? There was a character with very adaptable genes, so much so that it might mutate into something entirely different so it could more easily reach across the table, but then would be entirely unable to eat what it had just picked up. (something like that). Evolution works by random changes which cause short-term gains. But in the long term, can lead to extinction of a species because the changes no longer allow it to survive when general conditions change. I fancy that 'market forces' act in rather the same way. The market responds to current trends, not future ones. The evolutionary success of the human species has been because we do ignore the current market conditions and anticipate future changes. Sandpiper 18:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

In the end, however, the market will respond to depletion properly and provide a smooth transition to the next energy economy . Would you like to elaborate, which other energy economy is this?. The reason we havn't moved to any other source of energy already is because all of the alternatives are inferior to oil, either in terms of energy density, abundance, ease of use or price, unless you know any better?. It appears that oil is something of a one off in terms of its versatillity. Also your faith in the market ignores the fact that it would require large quantities of oil and fossil fuels to create any alternative energy system, and hence waiting until after the peak to begin any transition would inevitably make the task considerably more difficult, a fact that market forces do not take into consideration. G-Man 21:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Conservation will be the key contributer. Big Box stores will convert to neighborhood shops (again). Employers will be motivated by cost to integrate housing into their campus plans. Cities will build work/live sectors. More food will be prepared professionally in local cafes. Energy costs will increase, but the cost of living will not. It could in fact go down, as cars become unnecessary and irrelevent. Trains become the dominant mode of transportation, and the value of a property goes up rather than down with proximity to a train track. Local business, which have a travel advantage will do better than regional companies with a employee/efficiency advantage - thuse jobs will increase. Walking to work, school, shop and restaraunt will be the healthy and pleasant norm. small shops will benefit from foot traffic. neighbors will see each other more often and develop deeper relationships, mental health costs will go down, as will obesity, diabetes etc ... Benjamin Gatti 18:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Reference Sub-Divisions

Could someone please explain to me on what basis people are classified as "Voices" or as "Informed?" First, I don't even know what voices really means. Informed is pretty vague too. Further, the division between members of both groups seem rather arbitrary to me. For example, why is it that a former U.S. Senator who's now part of the United Nations Foundation (Wirth) thought to be more informed than a current U.S. Representative who is also a scientist (Bartlett)? Or a prof at MIT (sure, it's Chomsky, big whoop) more informed than a prof at Antioch College?

Voices:

• Pat Murphy - Professor, Antioch College, Community Service, Ohio
• Roscoe Bartlett - Scientist, U.S. Representative, Maryland, [14]

Informed

• Noam Chomsky - Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology [16]
• Timothy E. Wirth - United Nations Foundation, Former U.S. Senator [17]

If there is good reason for this division that I'm just not seeing, I suggest this be clarified in the article. If there is not, I'd recommend removing these categories. --BadLeprechaun 09:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The external links to google news in those sections do not work as intended. Also, in the Critique section, a ratio measured in years is probably wrong - ratios are unitless. Rtdrury 10:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

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

Falsification?

I want to talk in abstracts here. Don't mention the article until we agree on principles. If a scientifc theory predicts X, and then X doesn't happen, does the theory count as an "obsolete scientific theory"? Is it a valid defense to say, "Don't worry, its next prediction is sure to come true."? MrVoluntarist 04:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think if X doesn't happen, but Y happens and you can explain X-Y with a sub-clause e, then you can use X with sub-clause e to reliable predict large phenomena on a global scale many years into the future. The important thing is to ensure that the next prediction is almost too dire to ignore, and to schedule it to come true somewhere between 20 - 60 years hence. (Shorter and you will live a large percentage of your life serving as the brunt of doomsayer jokes - too long, and people will simply not care - as in the case of carbon sequestering) Benjamin Gatti 20:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Then if X doesn't have that sub-clause e, X is obsolete, while X with sub-clause e might not be, unless it's an all-purpose "out". Agree? MrVoluntarist 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone home? MrVoluntarist 04:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing, what exactly is the "peak theory" saying (yes, I read the article). Is it saying that because oil is finite in supply, that one day people will either shift to something else, stop using it, or it will run out? Well, taking conservation of energy as valid, okay, sure, but that's not a "theory", it's true by definition. If that's the "theory", then it needs to say when it's going to happen, and if it doesn't, buh-bye, it's obsolete. You can't just keep shifting your prediction. That's not how science works. I think it's eminently fair to say this is an "obsolete scientific theory". MrVoluntarist 04:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The theory says that after the most accessible oil has been pumped out of the ground, the rate at which the remaining oil can be pumped out of the ground begins to decline. At this point, the price of oil increases, and consumers are forced to use less and to look for alternatives. The evidence indicates that this is what is happening now. Jkintree 15:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, given that non-existent oil is infinitely expensive to extract, the theory is necessarily true and requires no empirical observations. It's not falsifiable, ergo, not a scientific theory. (I think you mis-stated what the theory says.) MrVoluntarist 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The statement that "non-existent oil is infinitely expensive to extract" is falsifiable. If oil is non-existent, then it can not be found. Stockholders get upset when companies continue to drill for oil without finding it. After a point, even with higher prices, if oil can't be found, the drilling stops. Extraction costs do not become infinitely expensive, they become zero. Jkintree 15:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Jkintree, SqueakBox 15:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

bestest article evar!

I like this article because it omg confirms all my socialist theories.

Not me, I like it because it shows how its all bushs fault.

I like it because it condemns big business.

Not me, I like it because it expands my (censored). Thanks to this article I have a (censored). Thank you wikipedia.

What? That's crazy talk. This article is about <booming voice> EMPIRICAL SCIENCE?

I like this article because it is disrespectful to dirt, can't you see I'm serious?

This article clearly deserves to be wikipedia article of the millenium.

SUPPORT. --Capsela 07:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I like the article and I hate socialism and big government. Big business is great when it doesn't have a monopoly. If this stuff pans out socialist attitudes are going to be a big problem and could represent the destruction of modern civilisation as the politically correct refuse to change their support the lazy and incompetent beliefs and force us all down the path of destruction, SqueakBox 15:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I support Capsela on this, This article ought to have a permanent place on the front page until the world gets it through their thick skulls that oil is drying up. Benjamin Gatti 20:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. MrVoluntarist 03:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well that is as may be, I am not arguing the importance of the theory but how on earth does the theory justify socialist politics? To me it justifies capitalist politics and is an utter negation of socialism, SqueakBox 15:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hubbert? peak

Benjamin suggested possibly changing the title to Peak oil theory on the implications Afd. Do we want a debate on this. My initial reaction was its a good idea. Does anyone else have some feedback as I will only move it if there is consensus, SqueakBox 15:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hubbert presented production curves for coal and natural gas as well as for oil in his 1956 paper, so his theory really applies to all fossil fuels. The way I found this article was by doing a Wikipedia search on "peak oil," so that connection is already established. I would not block consensus if a number of people were strongly in favor of renaming this article to "Peak oil theory." At this stage, I'd probably prefer to leave well enough alone, and not change it. Jkintree 16:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The benefit of changing this article to the less personal title is that it will justify the inclusion of contemporary views on the subject. As it is, I would object to more than a see also reference to modern peakniks. Benjamin Gatti 17:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

We have debated this before and their was no consensus to move the article. I continue to feel this is the best place for the article. Johntex\^talk 18:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"Has it occurred" needs work

There are a number of serious flaws in the "Has it occured" section that I believe require a complete rewrite or preferably deletion. As it stands the quality of the information hardly justifies its prominent placement.

First of all as others have pointed out there is an important distinction between light and heavy oil (even ignoring unconventional oil). Saudis are awash in heavy oil and there is no market evidence that their production is peaking. (Reliable predictive data is of course unavailable.) They were not able to meet world demand for light oil, but that happened in mid to late 2004, not 2005, and is completely unrelated to Katrina. To my knowledge the Saudis have never officially acknowledged the shortfall in light oil though it is widely known in the market. Finally, the fact that shortages have occurred does not necessarily imply that production has peaked for several reasons:

1) Temporary or political supply disruptions do not necessarily indicate a geophysical production peak (e.g. Katrina, Iraq).

2) Shortage involves both supply and demand, if demand is increasing (as it demonstrably is) supply can still be increasing (i.e. pre-peak) yet still precipitate an economic crisis.

3) Oil infrastructure takes time to develop, shortages can come about because of misforcasting or underinvestment as is demonstrably the case in the oil industry today (low prices in ~2000 discouraged investment).

Also the parenthetical comment about Saudi reserve estimates is worthless since reserves have nothing to do with current production. Of course the Saudis also have an incentive to hide their production capacity but since the article asserts that Saudis failed to deliver, that is completely irrelevant.

The natural gas info is also flawed in that it fails to mention enormous reserves discovered in Russia, LNG transport, stranded gas and other important factors.

I could go on, but IMHO the entire section has negative information content and should be axed. It could be rewritten to be factually correct but that would negate its conclusion and would no longer justify its prominent placement.

Some supporting info at this Wikipedia post by myself: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174311&cid=14514647 Sparohok 00:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

All three of your points above are correct. Whether global production greater than the current 84 million barrels per day can be achieved, or not, remains to be seen. Given the declining rates of discovery of new oil fields, and the lag time of developing new oil fields, the critical piece for global peak might be the rate of decline in production from existing fields. People are watching this very carefully. No doubt, the current "Has it occurred" section is flawed. Imperfect as it is, that section might still be worth maintaining. jkintree (Sorry, I'm not signed in.) 208.190.209.67 17:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No one has ever suggested that the current consumption of oil exceeds the replacement rate - meaning that depletion, as with the sun itself, is a foregone conclusion. Hubbert's peak proposition goes beyond the inevitable and proposes a specific and falsifiable time line for depletion; in addition, Hubbert's attempts to write the obituary for cheap oil by stating that it ended because it reached zero energy return on energy invested (ZEROI)- again a falsifiable assertion. It appears to me that he was wrong on both counts: 1. The end was not when he said, and 2. the driving force to switch to alternatives appears to be more driven by a desire to end economic dependency on fanatical regimes, and (sadly secondarily) an interest to stem the production of greenhouse gases - again, a far cry from death by ZEROI. Benjamin Gatti 15:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

1. The "when" that is of concern to this article has to do with the "peak" not the "end" of oil production. 2. A desire to end dependence on fanatical regimes is rational. The irony of the United States military occupation of Iraq is that oil exports from Iraq are lower today than they were before the United States invaded. That is an example, as Hubbert said, of how political factors can influence the date of peak production. Jkintree 18:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Jtree, granting even that Hubbert proposed that the date could be shifted by political events - Hubbert's core theory remains - that a. the peak of oil will be caused by depletion (per ZEROI), and b. this point will mark the 50% point of global supply, and c. the downward slope will largely reflect the upward slope. I would counter-propose that stronger evidence exists to predict that the peak of oil will be caused by voluntary reductions in consumption - driven by concerns over global warming and national independence, and for this reason will not signal any such half-way point, and again for this reason, will not mark the beginning of a downward slope to match the rate of rise. Benjamin Gatti 02:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

BG, are you saying ZEROI is misleading/incomplete or are you saying ZEROI is not currently in the top two impetuses for switching to alternative energy (and it should be)? zen master T 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Zen, My understanding of Hubbert's theory is that He had a specific epiphany in the general field of petroleum reserves. His epiphany - and what marks his contribution as uniquely his - is the proposition that at some point it would take more energy to extract oil than the energy content of the oil extracted - or Zero net energy returned on energy invested (ZEROI). My rather low opinion of Hubbert's theory is based on the counter proposition that he was and is more wrong than right. Yes oil production peaked in the US close to the time he predicted - but not because it had experienced ZEROI - rather the US peak was driven by a force outside Hubbert's epiphany - it peaked because middle eastern oil was discovered which was lighter, sweeter, and or closer to the surface than US oil, and so much so that it was cheaper to import oil than to pump it locally. On the second point - which is the Global reserve, Hubbert is I suggest again more wrong than right as the drivers of fuel efficiency, alternative energy, and national oil production is not the threat of ZEROI, nor the reality of ZEROI, but rather the joint effect of concern about global warming on the left, and the more right-wing concern that paying radical states serves to entangle the US into intractable foreign conflicts. So I am saying the second - that Hubbert's epiphany (the point of ZEROI and the irrelevance of economic factors to rationalize the oil market due to the intractable nature of ZEROI) is not the prime mover for change; and that consequentially, a peak in production, even if and when it does occur, will not necessarily signal the beginning of a mirror-image downward slope of production, and will quite probably signal an increase in sustainable alternatives, and for that reason, there will be no inevitable downward slope, but merely a relative increase in the price signal for oil which reflect the environmental and security premiums which are currently being hidden by subsidization - after which many alternative energies will compete with oil for lowest cost of energy. Which is to suggest that oil will peak; but not for the reasons, nor in the manner Hubbert predicts, that the peak will be a good thing for the environment, for global stability, and for the economy, and that at present, the irrational reliance on Hubbert's predictions, based solely on a single prediction is, for me at least, more than a little disturbing - therefore I wish the article could deal with the subject with more critical science, and less subjective adherence to an ideology (even though I support many tenants of that ideology). Benjamin Gatti 02:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hubbert never equated the point of ZEROI with the point of peak production. Jkintree 03:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not in the same moment, but (IIRC) Hubbert viewed the fall of oil as being driven, not by market forces, but by a constitutional pattern of oil reserve behaviour under which the first half is light sweet crude, and the second half is more difficult and approaches the point of ZEROI. I get the sense that Hubbert is being associated here with any phenomenon or circumstance under which the production of oil ceases to rise at the same break neck pace. In short, there is a risk of Hubbert Peak becoming a euphemism for any stress on the oil supply - this is a farce. The oil supply may become stressed by any number of things which have nothing to do with Hubbert's epiphany. I have thrice named two. Benjamin Gatti 04:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think proponents of the theory of global warming are more hopeful that the peak in the world's production of oil will force people to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions than proponents of the theory of peak oil are hopeful that global warming will force people to reduce their consumption of oil. United States presidents have been talking about reducing our dependence on imported oil for decades, but a higher percent of oil used in the United States is imported now than at any previous time. We might agree that a number of factors are operating today to make us want to reduce our consumption of oil: rising prices, global warming, and political instability in the Middle East. None of those factors takes away from the inexorable depletion of the world's aging oil fields. The 84 million barrels per day of oil that we are getting out of the ground now may be the most we will ever get. The debate will end a year or two after the peak has occurred. Jkintree 16:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It depends. It depends on the reason for the peaking. If oil peaks for the reasons proposed by Hubbert, then the downward slope would follow; however, if oil peaks for a combination of reasons which include voluntary or political influences, then the future availability of oil would not be well represented by Hubbert's theories. Since there are a great deal of influences on oil other than those contemplated by Hubbert, the shape of the peak is not an empirical certitude. You stated some strong points, but there are equally strong arguments that a rational market will send the appropriate price signals to trigger new exploration and conservation, and I for one, am confident that we can restructure our cities and habits for much more fuel efficient lifestyles when the time comes - this is hardly to advocate for waiting, but the reality remains that the result of a rapid decline in oil availability is not necessarily a calamity - thus I find the article to be a bit hyperbolic. Benjamin Gatti 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

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

Oilempire.us

Is oilempire.us, run by Mark Rabinowitz, considered to be a reliable source? I noticed that it is not used as a reference or even an external link. It has been used as a reference for Gatekeeper (politics), but to appears to be a single-person website with fringe concepts. -Will Beback 21:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have met Mark Robinowitz (not "Rabinowitz", btw) several times and consider him to be logical in his reasoning. He has strong opinions about geopolitics and I know some in the 9/11 Truth Movement who consider him argumentative before inclusive, but I do find that he backs up his opinions with logic (and lots of sourcing), has a large body of knowledge, and is rather prolific in his writing. Though oilempire.us is a one man shop (as far as I know) Mark's work has also appeared on the website From The Wilderness. Kaimiddleton 02:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Not Credible. The Writing style is conclusory and unqualified. Amounts to a blog and original research. Feel free to make use of the research if it is worth quoting independently; however, both "oilempire.us sez this", or "this is true (see oilempire)" would be original research. (Plus the guy uses bright colors to make his point. Think about it - if you need colors to distract the reader, you aren't selling logic, you're competing with Las Vegas) Benjamin Gatti 05:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)