Talk:Predicting the timing of peak oil

IEA report

NJGW, please do not garble the original information, which is as follows :

"In its December 14, 2007 report, the International Energy Agency stated that world oil production in November 2007 had risen again to 86.5 Mb/d ; the agency concludes to a 2007 average of 85.7 Mb/d (+1.1% over 2006), and considers a 2008 further demand increase to 87.8 Mb/d (+2.5%)."

Yes, I saw that. It talks about demand, not supply. You posted in the wrong article. This article is about predictions of supply shortages. Also, you might have noticed this is a monthly report. They also publish a different report twice a year which better indicates their predictions of market trends (vs. the discussion of seasonal peaks and vallies which this report is concerned with). NJGW (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have any evidence against this agency, please source it.--Environnement2100 (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, did you not notice where they say that 50kb/day is more than 180kb/day? NJGW (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe start a new sub-section titled International Energy Agency Reports, or a fashion thereof? Jim (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. NJGW (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the added sentence addresses the said topic, i.e. "Has it happened already". You also can add a new section for IEA, but this sentence belongs there.--Environnement2100 (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not that's true is debatable, however, in case you didn't notice the statements are still in the "Has it happened already" section. They only have their own subsection because the source may have reliability issues, as mentioned. Also, the IEA report section discusses their medium term report, which is a better indicator of trends than the monthly report you are referencing. Also, I made a perfectly good wikified version of the reference, so please use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NJGW (talk • contribs) 15:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

NJGW, stop destroying sourced information, quote :

In November 2007, world oil production had risen again to 86.5 Mb/d, leading to a 2007 average of 85.7 Mb/d (+1.1% over 2006), and EIA plans on a 2.2 Mb/d increase in 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Environnement2100 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How is moving a sentence to its correct section vandalism? Please refrain from unconstructive comments. NJGW (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I replied to your request here. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

To quote ~a (user • talk: "Firstly, this is a content dispute. Please discontinue labeling the content dispute with incorrect label of "vandalism"." So if there's no other argument that I've vandalized anything, I'm going to move this content to the above section and delete this section in a few days. NJGW (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

For why it is important to look at medium and long term reports vs. monthly reports, go to the IEA's website and look at the graphs there. You can see that Q3-2006 world oil supply is higher than any Q after that, so the whole paragraph really isn't adding anything to the debate.

Also, you will notice that demand is what is going up according to IEA, and that is what I'm trying to get across here: there is confusion in this contentious sentence over whether demand or supply is being described. Please double check the report, look at the graphs, and reread the sentence carefully before this "edit war" goes any further. NJGW (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, the said sentence is concerned by the said paragraph : it has to be there, as it answers directly the title of the paragraph. So no, it must not be moved away : editor NJGW wants to hide it away. For a second thing, editor NJGW is lying, because there are two different sentences concerned now :

• one is referring to the IEA, an international agency
• the other one refers to the EIA/DoE, a national US agency. Both agencies provide concurring figures, though not exactly the same.

Editor NJGW is trying to destroy/put away both references, obviously because he is not happy with the figures provided by both agencies. NJGW should not choose what is good and what is not : these references are totally authentic and relevant.--Environnement2100 (talk) 06:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before, sometimes it seems you don't read what is written, Environnement2100. There is an EIA section, but it's in another part of the article and unconnected with the edits we're discussing. Also, you clearly haven't read the source you're using because it doesn't make any point about peak oil. In fact, if you look at the graphs on their webpage, you'll see a peak in production in the Q3 of 2006! just like some of the other sources suggest. The subsection was created to hold both the Medium and short term IEA reports as they could be seen as an answer to the other sources, but read what they actually say and you can see they're really not. The medium report could be moved to the section below about undulating plateaus, but the short-term report doesn't add anything to this article. It discusses DEMAND and SEASONAL supply changes. NJGW (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Environnement2100, I urge you to read this, which is the most current fully available monthly report (the other 57 pages of the report). There you can see more of what I'm talking about. In the December 2007 report, they show average supply in Q3 2006 as the highest, and in fact had revised up their estimates of Q's 1-4 of 2006 supply. Also, some of their numbers don't seem to add up: how does 51.25mb/d (the high predicted output of non-OPEC in 2008) plus 31.1mb/d (November '07 OPEC output) add up to 86.5mb/d (November world oil supply)? Answer: it doesn't. As they say in their report, there is some accounting juggling going on in a gain in refinery capacity (processing stored oil), so to really know what production is you have dig in the report. As is already stated in the article, the only way to accurately figure out when peak oil production happens is to look back in time. That probably means looking 2-5 years back in time. NJGW (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Page needs Update

For a current topic (i.e. predicted to have just passed or be within the next 8 years), this article is badly out of date with most date about 5 years old, (pre dating the global recession) and has almost no recent data. Not my area of expertise, but does this warrant flagging the article as being out of date? Tsh (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, Peak Oil didn't happen, hasn't happened, and most authoritative experts (like the IEA) don't see it happening in the immediate future. Fracking has changed the outlook significantly. As a result, pretty much everything in this article is dated, misleading or just plain wrong. Periander6 (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Including failed past predictions highlights the difficulty of predicting peaks, and so deserve a place in this article. Perhaps failed predictions should have their own section. Plazak (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Correctly?

This is the first sentence:

M. King Hubbert, who devised the peak theory, correctly predicted in 1956 that oil production would peak in the United States between 1965 and 1970.

Yet, the first subhead is titled: "Peak oil production—has it happened already?" This, to me, is contradictory. If it happened in the late 1960s, how could it have possibly happened in December, 2005? Later in the article, the IEA says it happened in 2006. A later listing of countries show that the only nation that peaked before the 1970s was Japan, with most not peaking until the 1980s or later.

With all these contradictions, how can Hubbert's prediction be "correct"? Leobold1 (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is correct. The total production for the USA peaked in 1970, while the combined oil production for the whole world is thought to have peaked in 2006. It will not be possible to exactly pinpoint the peak in production until a few years after the peak, as there is variation on a monthly and yearly basis. That is why one source estimates 2005, while the other estimates 2006. 86.169.61.64 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I missed "United States". Thank you. You may now return to your scheduled arguement. Leobold1 (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How can Hubbert's prediction for the US be correct if the graph of actual US production shows a large increase over the last 10 or so years? The article is self-contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thammer302 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Ccst20090608.png

(copied from Dodgethebullet's talk page)

Hi, your image File:Ccst20090608.png has some issues that need to be addressed before it can be used in an article. It is poorly sourced (no way to verify the data set), poorly named (we should know exactly what the image is of just from the title) and too big (it should be possible to get the general idea from the 200px thumbnail). Can you fix these issues before using the image in articles? NJGW (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately pointing to another place on the internet that the image is being used doesn't solve the issues with the image. There is still no way to verify the raw data, the file name is still in violation of MOS (it should state very clearly what the image is of), the image being replaced is a different (and better) visualization of the data, and 800px is not acceptable for an image in an article. Have a look at WP:IUP and wp:IMAGE#Using images for more info. NJGW (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between mine and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Crude_NGPL_IEAtotal_1960-2004.png? If you want to clean up all pictures to meet such high standards go ahead - it applies to the overwhelmingly biased in favor of no peak images already in place in this article also. And while you are at it do you mind helping fix an article that makes it seem like peak oil could not possibly be now when half the world's experts are saying it may have already happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DodgeTheBullet (talk • contribs) 16:13, 14 June 2009

Differences between Ccst20090608.png and File:Crude_NGPL_IEAtotal_1960-2004.png:

1. One is the subject of this discussion, the other is not
2. One has a title that allows a person to quickly discern the content, the other does not
3. One gives a direct link to the original data set, the other does not
4. One is easy to read in thumbnail form, the other is not, even at 500px
5. They cover very different information

Please read the links I posted above, and don't reinsert the image saying that things with the image have been "fixed" when the image is 100% the same. NJGW (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Question of consistency
2. I can certainly rename it Crude_Condensate_total_20090608.png
3. I can link the same EIA data that File:Crude_NGPL_IEAtotal_1960-2004.png does. The rest of Crude_NGPL_IEAtotal says it comes from "Other tables" which would not be findable from that link by anyone but the author.
4. I don't find the Crude_NGPL_IEAtotal easy to read and it is 5 years out of date.
5. They cover exactly the same information - it's just unrecognizable in Crude_NGPL_IEAtotal's out of date tiny thumbnail form.

Would renaming and linking to EIA data be sufficient? I have read the links you provided and hope that the 300px limit was not meant to prevent an article from conveying accurate information. I don't know how to delete the old file but I have added http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Crude_Condensate_Total20090608.png which links to the IEA data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DodgeTheBullet (talk • contribs) 01:03, 25 June 2009

The issue is not CrudeNGPLIEAtotal1960-2004... that's not the file you keep replacing. The issue is that you are replacing a different file which is better visualization of a different issue with a file that is a poor visualization at the given resolution. Forgetting all the other issues with the image (several of which still remain), why are you replacing image:Hubbert world 2004.png?! One place to start before you reply is wp:BRD, as that gives you the procedure for making changes which have been challenged. I put in the request for the original to be deleted. NJGW (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, you need a source for "After 2010 the resulting annual production decline rate increases to 3.4% as OPEC production is unable to offset cumulative non-OPEC declines," the oildrum statement which is the centerpiece of this image. 3.4% is not discussed in the text here, so if fails wp:OI. NJGW (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Algeria ..request for info and to add it to Individual Nations section?

Back in 2005 David Strahan http://www.lastoilshock.com/map.html listed 2005 Algerian production as 2.01 for 2005 and predicted peak in 2009 at 2.09 Does anyone have figures for 2008, 2009 and (when early 2011 is here) also for 2010? Did it (seem to) peak? What year, what level? And besides answering here, could someone with the info add it, and a listing for Algeria, under the list of countries in the "peak oil for individual nations" section? thanks. --Harel (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Production

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production currently lists it as 3.22mbd. The graphic at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Canadian_Oil_Production_1960_to_2020.png which this article (predicting the timing of peak oil) includes near the very end, needs updating..just some color change is all that's needed to update "historical" versus "forecast" since the 2010 level is very close to what the forecast had been, in this case ..the graphic's red "historical" part ends around 2004 as it stands, and should be moved to 2010 or 2009 (assuming 3.22mbd listed on other Wikipedia page is correct) --Harel (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Caption on graph

Is this graph onshore conventional oil production for the lower 48 states? If so, the caption should be edited. I'll be happy to do it just verify for me here.Phmoreno (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Figure: adjusted net oil production considering investments

As far as I can see, the top chart is sourced appropriately. The lower chart appears to have been calculated using a home-made calculation which takes the cost of oil field exploration and development, divides by the cost per barrel of oil, and subtracts the result from the oil production figure to give an 'adjusted net' figure of oil production. This really will not do. If the oil exploration specialists successfully negotiate a big increase in pay one year, the 'adjusted net' figure will go down as the cost of oilfield exploration will go up. No- more pay for someone does not mean a lower net oil production figure. If I've misunderstood the calculation, somebody please correct me, but if not, this figure is clearly inappropriate. Gravuritas (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Peak oil for individual nations

The list with the same name in the article is listed alphabetically. I'm wondering, however, if it might not be better to organise it chronologically by year of peak oil production (perhaps even with the year listed first, then the country), to make the list easier to parse. What do others think about this? DeemDeem52 (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)