Talk:Peak oil

Comment moved from article to talk page

I may have found an error in this***. coveries made since then. Additionally, the reported 1.5 billion barrels (240×106 m3) of oil burned off by Iraqi soldiers in the First Persian Gulf War[55] are conspicuously missing from Kuwait's figures. ** I believe it should read ten to the ninth power. ** I'll need somebody to verify that however. — Preceding text originally posted on peak oil by Swan899 (talk⋅contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excirial (talk • contribs) 08:20, 30 May 2014‎ Excirial (UTC)

Negative spot prices

Or the greatest oversupply of oil in the history of mankind. Yet I read the article almost since the inception and for instance when oil hit $150/bbl that wae cause for POV pushing that the peak oil is finally here.

Should the economic growth section be removed or updated

I cannot see how to update it - can you update it?

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

Here are some sources which might help:

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-8654-0_5

https://www.iea.org/news/growth-in-global-oil-demand-is-set-to-slow-significantly-by-2028

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988323002773

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12053-018-9638-4?error=cookies_not_supported&code=c54bfb10-fed8-41bb-b86e-207c5f3bf153

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X14000443

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040162523003542

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0313592622001023

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/oil-and-gas/our-insights/peak-energy-peak-oil-and-the-rise-of-renewables-an-executives-guide-to-the-global-energy-system

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/23/peak-oil-bbc-shale-fracking-economy-recession

https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1146/4/4/41

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2021/06/the-future-of-oil-arezki-and-nysveen.htm

https://www.energy.gov/articles/economic-impact-oil-and-gas

https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/312441468197382126/pdf/104866-v1-REVISED-PUBLIC-Main-report.pdf 66.241.83.194 (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I glanced at the first and saw the date was 2008, also Guardian is 2013 and MDPI is probably an unreliable source, so sorry I am not going to read all that - could you update the section? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused about what you're after here. You seemed to be asking for guidance, and I provided 1) a book chapter to help frame the discussion, a 2023 article discussing the the issue from the IEA, a book-length publication from the IMF discussing the topic in 2021, a pamphlet from the US DOE discussing the importance of the oil industry in the US economy, multiple peer-reviewed research articles covering the topic from multiple perspectives, and some notable viewpoints from the media and business world. The fact that these are mostly from within the past 6 years, and include other references from 2016, 2014, 2013, 2012, should actually help support the notion that this is a notable topic. Please help us understand what you're after and maybe someone can point you in the right direction. 66.241.83.194 (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

OK as neither of us is willing to update the section I will leave it as it is for the moment and maybe later I will write here some detailed reasoning for why I think it should be deleted.

@TheFella03Are you a different person?Ifso whatdo youthink about this section? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes I am a different person.

I would have to say that oil is an important commodity for the function of the global economy. Everybody drives cars, etc. It shouldn't be removed, that would be removing critical information.

Was this section removed? I think it's still in the article. At worst, it should be rewritten. TheFella03 (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It was not removed or changed. I find economics very difficult. By the way the article Economics of climate change mitigation is also difficult to understand. I suspect the section was written when the concern was peak oil supply whereas nowadays most readers will be interested in peak oil demand.

@TheFella03: It seems to me that different economies will be affected very differently. For example I often write about Turkey because that is where I live. As we produce very little oil here I think that the more we can reduce demand for petrol, diesel etc the better it will be for our economy because it will reduce our import bill. But I don’t know how we could say anything general about peak oil and the global economy. So as the current section seems irrelevant to peak oil demand I suggest deleting it. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Re reordering yes the structure of the article could be improved somehow Chidgk1 (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I don't disagree that all countries are different. Globally though, it is an important energy source, especially for poorer nations that can't afford electrified transportation (or can't build electric railroads due to costs). Oil use is more significant for nations with less infrastructure, as electrification relies heavily on infrastructure (power lines, after all). TheFella03 (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Article Fixup

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

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

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

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

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

Although I don't disagree that many sections should go. Supposedly this article overlaps heavily with another article (link), therefore any repeat information should be removed, and we should just link to that article. TheFella03 (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

After a cursory glance through the edits, there are immediate edits I want to revert, but can't because there were too many interceding edits. Chidgk1, I see you come in here about once a year and do some clean-up (some of which I disagree with, some of which is good). Given how drastic the recent changes were, I propose we roll the recent article changes back and start over so that it's easier for us to make sure no babies get tossed out with the bathwater. 66.241.83.194 (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Good to see someone else interested. Pausing changes for as long as you need to check them. If any edit comments unclear please ask. Which intermediate edits cannot be undone? I may be able to undo them manually Chidgk1 (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah apologies. Honestly I just manually look at the edit before Chidgk1's recent ones to see what data might've gone missing. I think his more recent additions are fine though.

I'd like to re-order the sections of this article too.

Also, do you all think this article is too long? TheFella03 (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheFella03

Yes I think the supply section is far too long. But I won’t be upset or argue if you undo or put back in anything you want as I am sure you will comment your changes to explain why. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah the supply section is way too long. I'll try to be reasonable with my changes. I won't try to undo things you may have added, but I may want to re-add things you removed.

I can already forsee that the predictions section should be rewritten probably, or fixed at least (again, overlapping information with another article). TheFella03 (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence now reads

Peak oil is the theorized point in time when the maximum rate of global oil production will occur, after which oil production will begin an irreversible decline.

I would prefer sometime like

The year of peak oil demand is when global demand for petroleum is highest.

based on modern sources such as https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/05/peak-crude-demand-is-fueling-anger-and-argument-in-the-world-of-oil.html

I think this would be better because:

1) It emphasizes demand which is the current meaning - the historic meaning about supply can be explained later

2) It is shorter and does not use difficult words like “theorized” and “irreversible” Chidgk1 (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

"Peak Oil Demand" is a different concept, this article is about "peak oil" (this concept is mainly about supply). In theory demand for oil is infinite, as everybody wants to drive some low MPG SUV, but can't afford it. (But I don't mean to start an argument about it here).

Of course I would want to add a section about peak oil demand in the 'demand' section of this article.

Also there is an easy English Wikipedia page so we don't need to simplify the language. It's not hard to read, I don't mean to offend you though. I added "theorized" since it hasn't really happened yet. "Irreversible" was a part of this article before I came here. TheFella03 (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I suspect the meaning of “peak oil” has changed since the article was written many years ago. But the people at WikiProject_Energy should know better than me so I will put a note on their talk page encouraging them to comment here and perhaps even improve the article too. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair. I do want to add "peak oil demand" in the oil demand section, so don't worry. TheFella03 (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

No response from energy project - I still think first sentence should be changed - by the way https://www.iea.org/reports/clean-energy-market-monitor-march-2024 says 2023 demand still less than pre-pandemic Chidgk1 (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

When should we remove the improve article tag?

I think we're almost done. By the way, please look over my changes to see if they're okay. I also tried to fix up citations a bit. I also tried to add more balance to the article and removed doomerism, and especially I removed outdated information. Some graphics are still old, but I am not that familiar with adding images to Wikipedia. The last thing I might want to add is some corrections to the supply section, but other than that I'm out of ideas. TheFella03 (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheFella03 Thanks for improving the article.

Re images if you can find what you need in Wikimedia Commons it is very easy to add here by clicking ‘+’ in the top row of icons in Visual Editor. Otherwise look in Our World in Data and upload to Wikimedia Commons. Any problems with images ask on my talk page or at help desk.

Re your main question I suggest you remove the tags and ask for wikipedia:Peer review so I and hopefully others can write some suggestions there. I still think the first sentence and the article should be more about demand so perhaps a peer review will show whether others agree or disagree. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chidgk1 Oh okay, thank you. TheFella03 (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Well before we ask for a peer review, I'd still like to fix up the article a bit more.

For transparency, I'd like to mention the parts I removed that were previously a part of the article. I'm using the December 25th edition to read what was there before everything got changed. I removed:

• The previous 2nd section, "Modeling global oil production"

As it was simply predictions, but it should actually be a section again. Hubbert linearization and such is what we could add.

• A minor subsection previously called "Anticipated production by major agencies"

More outdated prediction stuff.

• A section called "Control over supply"

Which included stuff about how the oil supply may be controlled politically, but honestly it was too much information for one article therefore I removed it. The text also already exists on other pages, the section talked about Nationalization of oil supplies & OPEC influence on supply.

• A long section on oil prices

Honestly, it is relevant, but it was literally too much info, as noted in the old maintenance tag of too much niche detail. It previously included information about the history of oil prices, and the 'effects of oil price,' which do have their own articles.

• Peakists

A short section on a supposed subculture of doomers. Doesn't really seem relevant to the main topic.

Otherwise, instead of removing, I tried to reword everything else. Though, I didn't touch some sections such as "Criticisms" (seems fine generally). TheFella03 (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

We should distinguish US oil production and world oil production

As of 2024, it has been recognized that conventional oil production has peaked around 2006.

Is it for the world or the US? Because it smells a little US defaultism here. Kristo Mefisto (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It's world. TheFella03 (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)