This article was nominated for deletion on 13 February 2023. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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%) [1]."
Maybe start a new sub-section titled International Energy Agency Reports, or a fashion thereof? Jim ( talk) 20:40, 18 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) [2], and EIA plans on a 2.2 Mb/d increase in 2008 [3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Environnement2100 ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 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)
References
For a current topic (i.e. predicted to have just passed or be within the next 8 years), this article is badly out of date with most date about 5 years old, (pre dating the global recession) and has almost no recent data. Not my area of expertise, but does this warrant flagging the article as being out of date?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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production currently lists it as 3.22mbd. The graphic at http://en.wikipedia.org/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)
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)
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)
This article was nominated for merging with Peak Oil on 9 January 2023. The result of the discussion ( permanent link) was Don't merge. |
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)
This article was nominated for deletion on 13 February 2023. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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%) [1]."
Maybe start a new sub-section titled International Energy Agency Reports, or a fashion thereof? Jim ( talk) 20:40, 18 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) [2], and EIA plans on a 2.2 Mb/d increase in 2008 [3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Environnement2100 ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 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)
References
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production currently lists it as 3.22mbd. The graphic at http://en.wikipedia.org/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)
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)
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)
This article was nominated for merging with Peak Oil on 9 January 2023. The result of the discussion ( permanent link) was Don't merge. |
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)