Talk:Hubbert peak theory

Athabasca Tar Sands

Hi. I reverted the page to force a discussion about Athabasca.

My contribution to the article was deleted for the reason that it was "redundant", "talked about before" and "didn't address the issues such as energy input and environmental impact" - or words to that effect.

Let me make my case:

1) The argument is not redundant because the Petroleum stores in Athabasca and Venezuela are twice as big as the Middle East oil fields. Their existence is very important to the application of Hubbert's Peak.

2) The argument was nowhere else to be found in that article.

3) If there are some major issues about extracting oil from those fields then it should have been added to the article rather than deleting everything that I had put there. The fact that a Canadian Oil company is making money out of Synthetic crude oil shows that the tar sands are a viable alternative source of petroleum.

4) Many peak oil websites have pages that discuss the effect of the tar sands and the pros and cons of exploiting it.

My personal opinion is that we should stop burning fossil fuels as soon as humanly possible. That doesn't mean I get rid of the Athabasca information just because I don't like the idea that people can get more hydrocarbons out of the ground.

One Salient Oversight 10:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One should be skeptical of information given by the oil company who owns the tar sands in question. GuloGuloGulo 18:54, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. However the tar sands are not owned by one oil company but by the province of Alberta.

I trust the oil company's ability to make money and to invest in what they see as profitable. Barring some grand over-arching conspiracy, there is no point in having an oil company lose money out of making synthetic crude oil from the tar sands. The fact that Greenpeace and other environmental groups have protested against the tar sand development is an indication that reasonably priced oil can be procured there.

One Salient Oversight 22:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry: One should be skeptical of information from a company that operates solely on the tar sands in question. GuloGuloGulo 07:59, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Reverted prior to discussion; wikipedia is not oil industry advertisement space

Firstly, the default prior to discussion should be the peak oil page -before- your edits where checked in since that is when the controversy started.

Secondly, I think you should create a new wikipedia topic "Athabasca Tar Sands" or "Oil shale" and link to that, though even a link wouldn't be that appropriate. The section you added to is titled "effects of a world peak" so you should see how it's rather inapplicable. And you still have failed to address the point that it takes more energy (oil) to extract oil from tar sands than is contain in the extracted oil. Nor have you mentioned the acres and acres of waste tar water that are spread out near these tar sands fields. Any significant increase in tar sands production would require more land area to dispose of this waste tar water than is available. Why are you, a wikipedia user, so concerned with this Athabasca tar sands field? Seems rather fishy.

Thirdly, if you are still unconvinced I recommend you should create a "Counter Peak Oil/Hubbert Peak" theories page and put whatever you want in that and create a link (such a link would be most appropriate). You could simply say on that page the peak will be delayed or less severe because of advances in efficiency in oil tar sands production. You were attempting to add info about the Athabasca tar sands to deflect the discussion and implications about the effects of a world peak in oil production. You shouldn't put info negating the implications of a theory inside the page or section that describes such implications especially when all you are saying is hey look I think we found more oil over here, that is what critisims pages are for.

I agree that a new article should be created that has more information on the tar sands. This anonymous user (please sign your posts with four tildes) makes a good point with "it takes more energy (oil) to extract oil from tar sands than is contain in the extracted oil." I seem to remember reading the same thing, I'll look for some kind of documentation. I disagree that the edits seem "fishy."

I am generally against a "Counter Peak Oil" theory page only because I think arguments from both sides should be included. I think the Athabasca tar sands merit mention in this article, as well as the arguments that it will not effect the world peak. You can put "info negating the implications of a theory" as long as the merit of such info is neutrally discussed. GuloGuloGulo 08:15, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Also note this athabasca tar sands location will, at best, produce 300,000 barrels of oil per day in 2010. As noted elsewhere the world currently consumes 82,000,000 barrels of oil per day. info. The rate of depletion of world oil reserves (which is the whole point of peak oil theory) signifantly and exponentially outpaces a 300,000 barrel increase

207.172.83.26 11:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I won't revert until this disagreement is solved. There already is an article on the Athabasca Tar Sands and Tar sands generally. Whatever the situation ends up being, the simple fact is that both the Alberta and Venezuela tar sands contain twice as much petroleum as the Middle East oil fields. That in itself has a Huge impact on the Hubbert peak calculations - if they can be exploited then they will add quite a few more decades to world oil demand. As far as the 300,000 barrels in 2010 argument - that can change if the oil industry invests massive amounts of capital into the area.

My contribution to this article does not attempt to disprove or criticise the Peak Oil theory shown by Hubbert's Peak. I personally believe that Hubbert's Peak is a sound mathematical and geological construct. However, the fact is that it is an equation. All I am doing is pointing out that if the petroleum reserves in the tar sands of Alberta and Venezuela are able to be exploited then this information needs to be added to the equation.

Let me put it in a crude mathematical way. Let's say that X equals the amount of oil reserves in the world minus Athabasca and Venezuela. If we include them, then the value of X is three times greater than it currently is. This information does not disprove or criticise, it just adds more theoretical data. The result of this information asserts that a significant delay in oil peaking is possible.

I have yet to be convinced about the "energy expended" vs "energy gained" assertion but I am happy for that to be placed in the article. Perhaps the entire Athabasca question needs a new section within the article? I don't think it deserves a separate page because the Athabasca question directly affects the application of Hubbert's peak in society.

My own personal feelings are that Athabasca will not be the panacea that many think, and that it totally ignores the whole global warming equation. It is too early to tell whether Athabasca will be viable or not - but we still need to include this in the article because of the impact it could have on the Hubbert Peak calculations.

And lastly, may I take issue with your allegations that I am affiliated with the oil industry and therefore using this article as a form of advertisement. I am a bit miffed that a) You didn't check to see if there was an Athabasca article on Wikipedia (which has recently been edited by myself), and b) You didn't check my user page and find out that I am actually moderately leftist in my political leanings. Your attitude towards me and my editing has not been helpful, but in the spirit of Wikilove I will be happy to discuss the differences of opinion with you in an honest and respectful manner, hoping that we can come to a consensus.

One Salient Oversight 23:52, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I will log in. 1) The fact that an Athabasca article already exists weakens your argument, why put in this article what is more appropriate elsewhere? 2!) The whole point of peak oil theory is the increasing energy inefficiency of extracting oil, the world will cease to utilize oil as a fuel/energy source long before the last drop is extracted from the ground (or from sand/tar). 3) You apparently didn't read the "info" URL I provided because it indicates this increase from 120,000 to 300,000 barrels a day is comming at a cost of $4,000,000,000 US.

I would support a brief mention of Athabasca as long as 1) the huge acreage of environmental impact is mentioned, 2) the energy inefficieny is mentioned again, and 3) further mention of the problem historically which is economists looking at the efficiency problems from a monetary rather than an energy perspective, they believe as the price of oil goes up it will stimulate more investment in oil, this can not be true if it takes one barrel of oil to extract one barrel, ie the first law of thermodynamics ("flat earth" economists literally believe/believed the market or economics violated the first law of thermodynamics).

Zen Master 03:51, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New Discussion Deserves Its Own Titled Header

OSO, I've put my comments inline inside your huge message Zen Master

I have now read the URL. Okay then. $4 Billion in investment to produce 300,000 barrels a day. That is, $4 Billion invested to produce at, say, $50US per barrel, means about $15 Million dollars per day. In a year that figure is $5.4 Billion. So what we have here is a total cost of $5 Billion over 5-6 years in order to produce oil that will gain then around $5 Billion per year. That to me is a profit-making investment.

The URL you gave also indicates that About $20 billion in projects are planned over the next decade to extract oil from the deposits.

I have no idea why you are arguing about this. Even your URL is against you. SO now let me answer your objections one by one.

1) The fact that an Athabasca article already exists weakens your argument, why put in this article what is more appropriate elsewhere?

In your very limited experience at Wikipedia (including arguing about whether Keira Knightley should be mentioned in the Natalie Portman article - yes I have checked your editing history) you obviously don't understand how things get run here. An article does exist that talks about the Athabasca tar sands - but it is an article that is factual and not dedicated to the whole peak oil thing. It does mention it, but the place where this is discussed is HERE IN THE HUBBERT'S PEAK ARTICLE.

You are incorrect in your assumption that I am a newbie to Wikipedia merely because I often post as an anonymous user (as you probably know IP address usage is not actually anonymous). Including the total reserves figures from these tar sands fields is completely illogical, it would create waste water fields larger than lake ontario which is infeasable, I will find other articles on that point. There is a limit to how quickly tar sands production can increase, I would argue they are increasing production at the fastest possible rate and that will still only produce just 300,000 barrels of oil in 2010. Would you agree that an increase of 180,000 barrels of oil per day (from 120,000 to 300,000) is insignificant compared to the 82,000,000 consumed per day, especially after factoring for depletion expected to be significantly greater than 300,000 barrels a day? An Athabasca tar sands mention should not take place until it can be established this field can have a rate of production increase anywhere approaching the rate of depletion decrease. Please address this point in your response. Peak Oil theory is explicitly about the impossibility of quick rate of increase solutions, all the "easy" oil to extract (easy from an energy efficiency perspective) has already been extracted. Zen Master

2!) The whole point of peak oil theory is the increasing energy inefficiency of extracting oil, the world will cease to utilize oil as a fuel/energy source long before the last drop is extracted from the ground (or from sand/tar).

As far as I know the whole point of the Hubbert's Peak article is to describe how a mathematical and geological formula can be applied to oil usage. Now I have already argued that the tar sands are important in the equation. Nothing you have said has disupted that.

I will say that including total reserve figures from these tar sands fields is illogical because it is impossible for them to ever extract all of it and to ever signifantly expand the rate of production to match the rate of depletion. If they can do it then good job, but the burden of proof is on them to prove they can do it or just do it. Zen Master

3) You apparently didn't read the "info" URL I provided because it indicates this increase from 120,000 to 300,000 barrels a day is comming at a cost of $4,000,000,000 US.

Already answered this one above. As far as your suggestions are concerned:

1) I am Not in favour of a brief mention. The tar sands question is important and it demands a detailed examination within the article. Since the tar sands do not disprove anything in the actual article, there is no reason for a separate article. 2) Energy inefficiency. This is fair enough. If the detailed examination goes ahead then it should be descriptive and neutral and contain good information.

3) economists looking at the efficiency problems from a monetary rather than an energy perspective, they believe as the price of oil goes up it will stimulate more investment in oil, this can not be true if it takes one barrel of oil to extract one barrel, ie the first law of thermodynamics. This is absolutely nonsensical. The monetary and energy perspectives are both dealt with through the pricing mechanism. The theoretical limit of using more than a barrel of oil of energy in order to extract it will be built into the price structure itself, thus making it economically stupid to do so.

Look here at the Athabasca Oil sands and Peak oil: http://www.peakoil.net/PeakOil.html and here about 2/3 of the way down the page http://www.oilempire.us/peakoilnews.html

So what am I wanting? I want the info on Athabasca back into the article and even expanded upon. If this can't be agreed upon then I suggest we get a mediator. Considering your editing history at Wikipedia - that is, both the lack of it and the sort of comments you have made when doing it (eg are you a natalie portman hater???) - I don't like your chances.

I think my chances are pretty good (whatever you mean by chances), calling me a newbie when I am not certainly doesn't increase your chances. While off topic to this discussion I will say the natalie portman hater comment was to the poster that put in an overtly trollish comparison between those two actresses (did you read what they had written?). My comment was about removing that comparison, note it has remained removed. Should we put a comparison between say Julia Roberts and Kirsten Dunst in Roberts' bio page just because they were in a movie together?

Let me spell it out for you, I try to remain as objective as possible inside the actual articles, but commentary is fair game in the changelog descriptions I believe (especially when explaining how someone else wasn't being objective). ~

Give my love to Harry, Joy and Amelia. One Salient Oversight 05:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea who harry joy and amelia are. If you honestly believe I am a friend of yours do a reverse lookup on my ip address and discover I'm from the USA. You are Australian I gather?

Zen Master 06:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another titled header to make it easy

Well let me be the first to offer an olive branch. I shouldn't have made the assumption that you were friend in Sydney - that assumption coloured my responses and made them more harder edged than I should have been. I realise that this might seem strange but Australian humour can be like this. I am more than happy to apologise for the hard edged tone. I think Wikipedia is good at helping people work things out in an adult way because of the community participation.

My assumption that you were a newbie is based upon the fact that your IP address history here at Wikipedia is fairly short and recent. As I looked through all your comments I noticed a definite abrasiveness about your summaries. I only mentioned the KL/NP thing because, personally, they do look alike and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not simply a bio. I would like the Natalie Portman article to eventually grow beyond 50kb of detailed information - just like I wish every article to get that big. (Note: A few years ago I originally thought that NP played both Padme and the Queen in Phantom Menace and that George Lucas was indulging in Digital mischief by having them together and talking to one another in scenes. Then I discovered that the Queen was played by Keira Knightley and I was surprised at how similar they look).

And before I go on about this subject may I indulge in a bit of Wikilove and commend you for your contribution to Kingdom Now theology. As you are no doubt aware I did change some of your edits but they were only minor and I left the external links in. I personally think it is a crackpot belief as well - but only because I know a bit about what the Bible actually teaches (and these crackpots don't).

So let me attempt to summarise your argument.

• Mention of the Athabasca Tar sands should only be brief and not detailed.
• A detailed summary is not required because of the following reasons:

1. Oil cannot be extracted quickly enough to match and exceed the current rate of depletion.
2. The potential for major extraction over the next decade or so is something that only the oil companies should prove and not for the article to theorise over.
3. That oil will only be extracted at 300k bpd by 2010, which is insignificant to the demand.
4. The energy required for oil extraction in the tar sands requires a significantly higher rate of energy use than what is currently used to extract oil from oil wells.
5. The environmental pollution would be catastrophic.

Now I respect your knowledge on this subject though I suspect that you may not have fully understood the arguments that I have made. So let's just start the process methodically and peacefully.

I would like you to first clarify your arguments that I have summarised above. Is my understanding correct? Can you please take that summary above and make it your own just so that I can understand you?

Secondly, I would like you to attempt to summarise my arguments.

All I am doing here is trying to make it clear what it is we are disagreeing about.

Thirdly, once we have done this, we should carefully examine and debate each of our respective points and try to convince each other with facts and reputable evidence. I am certainly willing to have my opinion changed by the use of facts - I certainly hope that you are as well.

And we must both remember that we are not debating over whether Hubbert's peak is true or not - it is irrelevant. What we are debating about is whether the oil reserves in the Athabasca Tar Sands and in Venezuela should warrant a detailed or brief mention in the article.

For what it's worth, I think that Hubbert is correct but I also think that the oil sands in Athabasca and Venezuela will postpone any major oil peak for a number of decades. If they are exploited they will cause environmental damage, not to mention increased Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

I hope we can work together on this.

One Salient Oversight 12:49, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, at least those 5 points plus the basic point about it not being relevant to begin with. As far as point 5, one key complaint regarding Atabasca production is the waste water pools that contain tar and other harmful chemicals, I've read they are already running out of acreage on where to store this stuff, so it's not just about enrivonmental catastrope, it's about infeasability. Kind of ironic the US public doesn't want to drill in the artic national wildlife refuge, but in theoretically more environmentally sensitive candada there are square miles upon square miles of waste water pools from tar sands oil production.

Also, any even brief tar sands info definitely should not be put inside the section titled "effects of a world peak", that section should exclusively discuss effects, additional supply possibilities can be mentioned elsewhere (though I disagree that they should be included at all). Any mention of tar sands fields should also mention the strip minning processes required to extract the oil, in addition to the waste water acreage point.

Apparently your argument is the belief that Athabasca and other tar sands fields will offset any depletion in oil supply, however, you provided no numbers. In fact, the numbers I discovered: 300,000 barrels in 2010 in my opinion means Athabasca should not be mentioned at all on the peak oil page. Even if Athabasca can significantly increase production, the price of oil will have to remain high for it to be monetarily feasible, regardless of whether it's feasable from an energy perspective to begin with. And the paragraph you entered was way too verbose and really did sound like it came from the oil industry. At the bottom of your most recent post you continue to mention that Athabasca will offset any depletion, how is that possible with only 300,000 barrels of production in 2010? You claim to be interested in debate but you seem to be adding nothing but oil industry-esque PR rhetoric to this debate. There is another thing you/we haven't mentioned, the demand for oil is increasing even faster than depletion is decreasing, 300,000 additional barrels surely isn't going to handled growing demand from just China by 2010, let alone the rest of the world. Where is production for the expected increase of global oil demand going to come from, irregardless of depletion?

Perhaps you are saying the peak of global oil production will happen after 2010 so we have time for the tar sands fields to ramp up production by then? If you have any inside information please share it.

My summary abrasiveness happens when I perceive tricky trolls, corporate shills or whackos, if you ever find article content of mine that is not objective please let me know. I should also note my isp changed my ip address a couple of months ago, I've posted slightly more content under that old IP address. I would also think it wise that the volume of posts from a user should never be taken by wikipedia as evidence someone isn't a troll (or otherwise up to no good), checks and balances are good always.

Zen Master 14:32, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Despite my offer below I think I need to clarify the amount of oil we're talking about here.

Tar sands are sand deposits that are permeated with oil that is too thick to flow. These represent enormous energy reserves. For example, a single tar sand deposit in Alberta, Canada, the Athabasca tar sands, is estimated to contain more than 1.7 trillion barrels of oil, nearly equal to the world's entire estimated oil resource (oil already used plus oil in reserves and other oil). Canada presently extracts 20% of its daily oil needs from two tar sand deposits and at present usage rates has enough oil in these two deposits to fulfill their national energy needs for thousands of years. [1]

So while you're talking about the proposed 300,000 barrels per year made by oil companies, I'm talking about the 1.7 trillion barrels of oil that exist there - an amount that equals the amount of liquid oil reserves in the Middle East. What I'm arguing is that if oil continues to become more scarce, the tar sands may end up being a viable source of new petroleum if oil companies make massive investments there. The 300,000 barrel figure is what is currently planned. If oil companies make massive investments you may end up with a figure 10, 100 or 1000 times what is currently planned.

An anti Athabasca article can be found in this article of The Economist. This is a reputable economics magazine that nevertheless refuses to believe in Hubbert's Peak - and it is the factor that makes them dismiss Athabasca as uneconomic. If they did believe in Hubbert's Peak and did believe that oil is running out, then they would probably argue that Athabasca is a viable oil resource.

One Salient Oversight 23:38, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ASPO, a respected Peak Oil group that has been warning about Hubbert's Peak for years, talks about the Athabasca Tar Sands here. They make no judgement about whether the tar sands can be exploited or not - they just talk about the difficulties involved. One Salient Oversight 23:46, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Throwing this out there to make things as complicated as possible

What are your opinions on creating a separate article that deals solely and specifically with the implications of the Hubbert Peak? I think this article should deal mainly with the theory, and there should be a separate article dealing with how it relates to global energy consumption. Implications of Hubbert Peak is the title I suggested when I nominated it for Candidate of the Week : WP:COTW#Implications_of_Hubbert_Peak. GuloGuloGulo 20:17, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Surprisingly I feel very positive about this idea. I initially rejected the idea of a separate article because it was titled "criticisms of" or something like that but I never took the Blooms Taxonomy step of going into synthesis and working out your idea for myself. I think it is a very good idea and, to be honest, it would probably solve the disagreement I have with Zen Master about the issues above in a bloodless way. What do you reckon Zen? One Salient Oversight 23:11, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea. Here is the key point: potential new sources oil do not change the effects/implications of global oil depletion, they just delay the date and perhaps lessen the severity. The whole point of peak oil/Hubbert peak theory are the implications, it would be like an article on Einstein that didn't mention E = mc^2. The controversy with this page was never about the implications of the theory but with tangential information added to the wrong section by OSO. We could reformat the Hubbert peak page to include opposing viewpoints of the implications, I'd prefer that over a separate page. But how did the initial Athabasca PR verbosity controversy suddenly morph into a controversy over the implications of the theory? Non proven oil reserves are not exactly a counter viewpoint. It would make the most sense to put potential future sources of non conventional oil in a section that lists reasons why the peak in global oil production would be mitigated or delayed, I would support that. In any case Athabasca deserves little mention, and a skeptical mention at that with all the points I've mentioned above.

As far as OSO's continued mention of the oil reserves in Athabasca I will again say it comes down to the possible rate and efficiency of production, reserves are meaningless if you can't extract it or it's economically infeasible to do so. I would consider $4,000,000,000 to be a vast investment and that will only increase production by 180,000 barrels per day. Increasing production by an order of magnitude is patently infeasible for all the reasons I've listed above including waste water disposal and energy inefficiency, a two orders of magnitude increase of production may be required to offset the combined effects of global depletion and increased demand.

If you factor in the "cost" of the larger environmental impact from tar sands oil production over conventional oil production, tar sands oil production may not make any sense at all. It's potentially an order of magnitude or higher environmental impact while at best doubling the rate of production, society should be aware of these trade offs or decisions oil companies are making. Zen Master 04:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As for "how did the initial Athabasca PR verbosity controversy suddenly morph into a controversy over the implications of the theory," I didn't mean to pose that the idea is a solution to that controversy, only that we might want to consider making a separate article before we get heavily into the global applications of the theory. I can agree to a reformatting as an alternative to a separate article. GuloGuloGulo 04:25, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry Zen Master but I think you're being quite unreasonable about this discussion. All you have done is state that my position is untenable and that all the evidence that I have come up with is merely "non proven". Moreover I think you haven't even tried to engage with my viewpoint or treat my points with any respect. You have refused to take as believable all the external links that I have provided for you and treated their content with some form of intellectual respect. I therefore feel compelled to ask an outsider to come in and arbitrate our discussion here. I will wait for your response before doing so. One Salient Oversight 09:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Where and How? You repeatedly end your argument with statements that are basically, "there is oil in Athabasca and everything will be ok so don't worry about peak oil". I have shown with numbers this is not the case for at least 6 years and likely beyond that, what other parts of your argument are left to discuss? Could you point by point refute my most recent post above for my benefit? I am not saying your argument is wrong for all time, just the burden of proof is currently against it and it's mostly out of place on any peak oil theory page. This discussion would make more sense on the Athabasca page, as that page makes much more tenuous claims about Athabasca containing 1/3rd of the world's oil reserve which is simply not true (Athabasca currently is responsible for 0.1463415% [120,000/82,000,000] of daily global oil production, how is that noteworthy?). There was a link on the Athabasca page that was basically a 1 paragraph oil company press release, this is your evidence? And that page didn't include pertinent info from that URL that made Athabasca look slightly less promising using oil company PR even.

I've suggested many different ways of reformatting the page to address various concerns and deal with content out of place issues, I've also been reasonable about finding a compromise on the page despite my attacks on your argument. But apparently you are now demanding the page your way and only your way or else? Getting an arbitrator is one way of going about a solution, bring it on. When the arbitrator arrives I am going to bring the Athabasca Tar Sands page into this controversy as that page is simply wishful thinking and patently false. I will wait to hear from this arbitrator and/or GuloGuloGulo again before I make an entry outlining the expanded controversy on the Athabasca talk page.

Why don't you compose and post a possible replacement text in this space and we can go over it on a specific sentence by sentence basis? I can do that and you can comment if you would like? Zen Master 12:20, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Before you can move to mediation, much less arbitration, you need to attempt to settle the dispute: at first between each other, and then with a third party. I am not on the mediation committee (and we're not to that step yet anyway), and I cannot make binding decisions regarding the article. I would be more than happy, however, to act as a neutral third-party, if One Salient Oversight agrees to it. GuloGuloGulo 07:17, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

We've tried together G3. I am very happy for you to act as a neutral third party. I have posted a formal mediation request. One Salient Oversight 07:50, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understood my post, OSO. I am not a member of the mediation committee, and therefore will not be the one to mediate the dispute (if it's ever even accepted). The preliminary steps of dispute resolution have not been attempted, and those steps are prerequisites to mediation. This move towards mediation is premature. GuloGuloGulo 18:53, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

G3 and other third parties, I'd appreciate your initial opinion on this controversy now especially if you believe I am out of line logically or have been disrespectful to OSO?

OSO, could you point out what exactly I've been unreasonable about, the only thing I can think it might be is not wanting the page split in two? I am all for arbitration, what exactly are you trying to "win" here OSO? Short of arbitration, how else would you like to go about resolving this dispute, you seem to be inclined for arbitration and only arbitration now? For my benefit could you please refute my most recent points, especially the point about how an oil field that produces .1463% of the world's oil is noteworthy? You never answered the question why potential future sources of non-conventional oil should be included in the peak oil theory page, and definitely under a section titled "effects of a world peak" -- you've said you believe the mathematics behind peak oil theory is real but Athabasca has lots of oil -- that just means the peak and the effects would be delayed, do you agree? So is the essence of our disagreement whether Athabasca's oil deposits should be fully counted as a proven reserve of oil or not? Let's discuss the essence of our disagreement?

There are people that believe peak oil is happening now, doubled Athabasca output by 2010 would still be a drop in the bucket of global oil production, less than .5%. Loss of global oil production due to depletion could be significantly greater than .5% of world oil supply if depletion begins in earnest before 2010, do you agree with these numbers/conclusion? Zen Master 11:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OSO, Is That You Cleaning Up The Page?

dsl-203-113-210-57.QLD.netspace.net.au (203.113.210.57) just made some ok clean ups to the peak oil page and I was wondering if that was you One Salient Opinion? Zen Master 13:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nah. Not me.One Salient Oversight 07:16, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Map of Tar Sands

This should help our discussion a wee bit.

New Discussion, New Header

Okay. Let's just start in a simple manner.

1. The Athabasca tar sands contain 1/3 of the world's oil.
2. While the current prediction is an increase of 300k bpd, that this could increase a thousandfold if oil companies invest hugely in the area.
3. At current oil price levels, that investment in unconventional sources of petroleum become economically viable.
4. Oil companies are out to make money first and foremost.
5. The price of oil will skyrocket as supply becomes thinner.
6. Therefore, as oil gets pricier, investment in Athabasca will increase substantially in order to produce enough oil to meet demand.
7. This increase in oil availability affects the equation of Hubbert's peak by pushing the peak into the future.

To answer your questions:
For my benefit could you please refute my most recent points, especially the point about how an oil field that produces .1463% of the world's oil is noteworthy?
As I have said, I am not talking about current production, but potential future production. You use the figure .1463% of production. I use the figure 33% of known supply. You have said that the proposed increase will only be to 300,00 barrels. I have been arguing that if the oil price skyrockets then oil companies will be falling over each other to invest not $4 billion but more likely $400 billion or even more into Athabasca.

you've said you believe the mathamatics behind peak oil theory is real but Athabasca has lots of oil -- that just means the peak and the effects would be delayed, do you agree?
Yes I do. Now look at what I inserted into the article:

Approximately two-thirds of the world's petroleum is held in oil sands, which are located in North-Eastern Canada and Venezuela. These oil reserves are expensive to extract, but will become more viable if oil prices rise too high. Their proximity to the United States - the world's largest oil consumer - could arguably remove some of the "risk premium" that the market adds to oil that is sourced from the Middle East, not to mention reduced transportations costs. Many experts have argued that when the existence of these Tar sands is added to the Peak Oil calculation, a crippling oil shortage is postponed for a number of decades. Any advantage that these reserves bring, however, cannot be brought to bear until the required infrastructure is developed. In 2004, Oil extraction from the Canadian Tar sands produced 750,000 barrels of Crude Oil per day - a very small percentage of the global total, but proof that it is viable.

The section of the article deals with "Effects of a world peak". My contribution is pointing out that IF the tar sands can be exploited, then the effects can be delayed.

So is the essence of our disagreement whether Athabasca's oil deposits should be fully counted as a proven reserve of oil or not?
Yes. One of them.

There are people that believe peak oil is happening now, doubled Athabasca output by 2010 would still be a drop in the bucket of global oil production, less than .5%.
It probably is happening now. What I envisage is between 30-40% of world oil production being sourced from Athabasca within the next 20 years. I am envisaging a huge increase of oil production from Athabasca to exploit the oil there, which matches the current conventional oil reserves.

You repeatedly end your argument with statements that are basically, "there is oil in Athabasca and everything will be ok so don't worry about peak oil".
I do not do anything of the sort. That is your interpretation of what I am saying. Read again what I inserted into the article and you will see that I say 'a crippling oil shortage is postponed for a number of decades.' That is not the same as saying that things are okay.

If I was to paraphrase what you're saying it is: "The end of the world is nigh", whereas I am saying "The end of the world will happen in 20-30 years". And you respond by saying "By not agreeing with me you prove that you don't believe the world will end". Invisible Pink Unicorns seem be occuring here.

I am not saying your argument is wrong for all time, just the burden of proof is currently against it and it's mostly out of place on any peak oil theory page.

Burden of proof. I have given you a number of external links that seem to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there are huge oil reserves in Athabasca. That to me is burden of proof. YOU have yet to give me any external links that DISPROVE this assertion. I assert something and give links to prove it. You assert something and have no links to prove it.

As for it being out of place... The Hubbert peak article discusses the potential end of suburbia as we know it. It is saying that IF oil is peaking NOW then there is something to worry about NOW. By inserting the Athabasca information it is saying that IF oil is peaking NOW then we DO have some oil that CAN delay the peak for a while. That is why it is not out of place.

This discussion would make more sense on the Athabasca page, as that page makes much more tenuous claims about Athabasca containing 1/3rd of the world's oil reserve which is simply not true

For crying out loud LOOK at the ECONOMIST external link that I gave you above. Go into Google and type in "Athabasca" + "known Oil reserves" and you will get evidence. I dare you. I double dare you. You see I really get annoyed because it appears as though you haven't even tried to look up the facts yourself. I present you with facts that I have seen on multiple web pages (some of them run by peak-oil believers) and then you refuse to believe them by not even having the common decency to see if the facts are true for yourself. You speak of Athabasca as NOT having 1/3 of the world's known oil reserves. You assert that it "is simply not true". Yet if you actually did the search and found out the truth you would realise that you were wrong. Your behaviour here really seems troll-like because you don't want to be wrong. I AM happy to be proved wrong. Look here where I made an argument, was proved wrong, and changed my mind.

I've also been reasonable about finding a compromise on the page despite my attacks on your argument.
It is obviously my opinion that you have not.

But apparently you are now demanding the page your way and only your way or else?
Okrent's Law states 'The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true'

I'm very happy for mediation to occur. I'm tired of this. I keep feeling as though you are enjoying the whole shemozzle and that you are a troll.

If I were a decent human being and discovered that I was THIS HUGELY WRONG on a point I was arguing about, I would swallow humble pie and admit my mistake. And because I do think I am a decent human being, those who I do prove wrong in this regard will be treated well. I WILL NOT HOLD THIS AGAINST YOU IN ANY WAY. It is my nature to forgive. I do not indulge in schaudenfreude.

One Salient Oversight 12:52, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I do not accept as fact and consider it extremely disputed your statement that Athabasca contains 1/3rd of the world's oil, it is by no means a proven oil reserve. You honestly trust the Economist to be fair and balanced on this issue? Here are a few URLs for you to visit: [2] [3] [4] [5]

The point of peak oil theory is the increasing inefficiency of extracting oil from non conventional sources (all the easy to extract oil is gone). Athabasca is not a significant source of oil for the foreseable future in my opinion and at best deserves a one sentence mention in a different section on the peak oil theory page (I would support it if this sentence was something to the effect of "Athabasca may be the significant/dominant source of oil in 15-20 years" though any mention of Athabasca should also be skeptical given it's current limited rate of production).

You are not saying peak oil will happen in 20-30 years if you put Athabasca info inside the effects section, it belongs elsewhere. Potential sources of oil do not belong in the section that deals with the effects of an absence of oil, there is a section above that deals with potential new sources of oil (we should split this up further along this line). A delay does not change the implication of what would happen to society if we were to run out of oil. The end would be nigh if we were to run of oil and that section lists the ways in which it could be nigh, however the list of reasons why it won't happen should put elsewhere.

This is the first time I recall you mentioning an estimated delay in peak oil because of Athabasca, please note the section higher up on the Hubbert Peak page that deals with predicted dates of the peak?

The way you wrote your initial pro Athabasca paragraph did not stress the IF of it being possible. Do you agree with that assessment?

It probably is happening now. What I envisage is between 30-40% of world oil production being sourced from Athabasca within the next 20 years. I am envisaging a huge increase of oil production from Athabasca to exploit the oil there, which matches the current conventional oil reserves.

How can this be possible if oil production from Athabasca will only have doubled 5 years from now? In the 15 years after 2010 you honestly believe Athabasca can go from .35% of world production to as high as 40%, a two orders of magnitude increase in production? I find such a position to be untenable. Is your backyard available to store waste tar water? The largest conventional sources of oil (oil wells) take at least 25-40 years to ramp up production on -- tar sands oil extraction is significantly more difficult than that I believe.

If peak oil is happening now then we don't have 20 years to wait for Athabasca production to ramp up, where are we going to get oil between now and then?

Zen Master 13:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposed Solution Sentence

I realize this may be far less than what One Salient Oversight may want, but here is the paraphrasing of my proposed solution sentence, the points it should convey and my reasoning on why it shouldn't be more than this.

A one or two sentence mention of Athabasca in a more appropriate section on the Hubbert Peak page (the section that deals with either non conventional sources of oil, or the section that discusses various predictions on the date of peak) that touches on the promising potential of extracting a significant portion of future oil from the huge tar sands deposit, plus, mentioning the skeptical nature of that happening given either the current limited rate of production and/or the large envrionment impact should be a fair compromise I believe. Any mention larger than that would definitely have to mention the larger enrvironmental impact of tar sands oil production among other things I believe (stuff more applicably put on another page, like the Athabasca page or the generic tar sands page). A link to the Athabasca page from Hubbert Peak may make the most sense regardless if one isn't there currently.

Hopefully this dispute can now be resolved quickly. Absent a counter proposal from OSO I believe we are just going to continue to agree to disagree about what is best for the Hubbert Peak page. A third party/admin should just decide so we can all move on and spend our time more constructively adding info to and cleaning other articles.

Zen Master 18:08, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zen Master's sources examined closely

Zen-master, you have referred me to four peak oil websites. I have examined each one using an advanced Google search, looking for the word “Athabasca” and I will now present to you their information in summary form.

www.peakoil.org -
Your search - Athabasca site:www.peakoil.org - did not match any documents.

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/laherrere/ibc.htm
A new oil shock will increase the production of non-conventional resources as EOR, heavy oil of Orinocco and tar sands Athabasca which are not yet reported as reserves.
For the nonconventional known resources:, their reserves are said to be higher than for undiscovered conventional oil, but there are few reliable publications:

oil- -heavy oil Orinocco Venezuela

tar sands Athabasca Canada

both huge resources, but only selected good zones which need many infrastructures (a plant compared to a wellhead for conventional)

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/tarsands/
According to Petroleum Economist, "Although tar sands occur in more than 70 countries, the bulk is found in Canada in four regions: Athabasca, Wabasca, Cold Lake, Peace River; together covering an area of some 77,000 km2".(1) In fact, the reserve considered to be technically recoverable is estimated at 280-300 Gb (billions of barrels), larger than the Saudi Arabia oil reserves estimated at 240 Gb. The total reserves for Alberta, including oil not recoverable using current technology, are estimated at 1,700-2,500 Gb.

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/youngquist/altenergy.htm
At present about 500,000 barrels a day are recovered from the Athabasca oil sands of Alberta. To increase this 10-fold to 5 million barrels a day would be a very large task, with severe environmental limitations. This must be put in the perspective of the 76 million barrels of oil the world now consumes daily. Other similar oil deposits have the same problems of scale and net energy recovery. In total, oil sands and heavy oil can replace conventional oil only to a small degree. Canada's domestic needs for oil, with its growing population and increasing industrialization, will likely soon absorb all the additional oil which can be produced from oil sands and heavy oil with no surplus to export.

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/laherrere/HEClong.pdf
mentions about 175gb of reserves from Athabasca

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/laherrere/Copenhagen2003.doc
Usually the reported reserves are conventional, despite that conventional has no agreed definition. Colin Campbell excludes heavy oil (with a limit of 17 °API, when heavy was defined as under 20 °API in AAPG studies 25)), polar fields, deepwater (limit 500 m), EOR. In my file combining and correcting several databases to obtain a backdated mean, I exclude only Athabasca and Orinoco reserves that are both extra-heavy oils, which means heavier than water, having no water-oil contact, since USGS defines unconventional as continuous water type. Athabasca tarsands have a similar density as Orinoco but as the temperature of the reservoir is 40 °C colder, the viscosity is more than a hundred times higher and it is defined as bitumen because it does not flow.

http://www.peakoil.net/iwood2003/ppt/CupcicPresentation.pdf
Considerable Potential Reserves : # 500 to 1000 Gb
equivalent to 50-100% of worldwide conventional oil reserves
mainly (80%) in extra heavy oil, tar sands and bitumens
mainly (80%) in North and South America
less than 1% produced or under active development
Huge Untapped Resources in Orinoco and Athabasca
Tar Sands & Bitumen
Oil in place: 1,300 Gb
(EUB estimates)

http://www.peakoil.net/PeakOil.html
Bob Williams: “The peak-oil debate is getting more polarized and more rancorous—and, especially noteworthy, more politicized. So here's an immodest prediction: The peak-oil debate will be the Next Big Thing. The story with legs. The overarching theme that will resonate throughout the oil and gas industry for decades to come. It will be propelled forward in the public consciousness not only by serious debate within the industry itself but also on the political hustings and by antioil forces who can't seem to pry Americans out of their sport utility vehicles even as war rages in the Middle East and Chicken Little lies sacrificed on the Kyoto altar. Iraq and Saudi Arabia will figure largely in that debate. So will Russia and the Caspian. And Orinoco oil and Athabasca tar sands. And reserves accounting and transparency. And alternate energy viability.

http://www.peakoil.net/Newspapers/20040105FTPlanNowForAWorldWithoutOil.doc
These calculations place the coming oil crunch some time between 2010 and 2015, perhaps earlier. The reserves in the world's super-giant and giant oilfields are dwindling at an average rate of 4-6 per cent a year. No more big frontier regions remain to be explored except the north and south poles. The production of non-conventional crude oil has already been initiated at enormous cost in Venezuela's Orinoco belt and Canada's Athabasca tar sands and ultra-deep waters. Yet no major primary energy alternative can replace oil and gas in the short-to-medium term.

http://www.peakoil.net/iwood2003/abstracts/FrancoisCupcic.html Extra heavy oil from the Orinoco belt in Venezuela and bitumen from the Athabasca oil sands in Alberta (Canada) represent the largest remaining resources of non-conventional oil in the world. If they could be produced economically with recovery factors comparable to those currently obtained with conventional oil, they would represent as much reserves as those commonly acknowledged for conventional oil.

http://www.peakoil.net/iwood2003/ProgrammeBooklet.doc
(Same quote from previous source)

http://www.peakoil.net/iwood2003/abstracts/ABSTRACTS.doc
(Same quote from previous source)


To all who examine these documents for mediation and/or arbitration. I have presented before you an easily reproducable test whereby I examined each and every external link provided for me by Zen master in order to find out information about the Athabasca Tar sands. If you do the advanced Google search for yourself you will get exactly the same amount of information that I have shown here.

I have made the assertion that the Athabasca tar sands contain approximately 1/3 of the world's known petroleum deposits. Zen master has been adament in saying that this assertion is incorrect. I have provided him with external links that show this to be the generally held case. He has, in turn, provided me with external links to make the point that this is not generally held.

My research, shown above, proves beyond any reasonable doubt, that the links Zen-master provided, contain no information whatsoever, implicit or explicit, that disproves my argument. Moreover, they contain explicit information that supports my case that the Athabasca tar sands do contain approximately 1/3 of known oil reserves.

I have done the research, you may check on it yourselves to test my honesty in this matter.

Because I am correct in my information about Athabasca, I believe that information about this oil deposit be included in the Hubbert Peak article because of its implications in how a potential oil shortage can be delayed by the exploitation of this oil deposit.

To not include this information in the Hubbert Peak article will be, ironically enough, one very salient oversight.

I rest my case.

One Salient Oversight 12:22, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OSO, thanks for the info. But are you reading what you quoted above? I see now we are having a disagreement over language. The pages you quote above do not use the phrase "oil reserve" to describe Athabasca they use "oil deposit" or "potential reserve" (coincidentally I fixed such nomenclature problems on the Athabasca and tar sands pages yesterday). I've never claimed Athabaca does not have significant potential, but it does not currently have 1/3 of known world oil reserves, it is estimated to have 1/3 of known deposits of oil, very big difference. You did use "deposit" in something you wrote above but in the actual articles you've used the word "reserve" I believe, this is one of the biggest problems I have.

Still, what is the revelance of Athabasca on the peak oil page and the placement within the effects section? There are more appropriate sections on the page for both non conventional oil sources and an estimated date prediction section.

How much of Athabasca's oil is exported outside of Canada? That is a key question (see quotation from your citation reproduced below).

One site I found indicated the 500,000 barrels of oil per day was a total for all of canadien tar sands production, not just Athabasca. [6] Regardless, even 500,000/82,000,000 is still a drop in the bucket.

If Athabasca deserves a mention or significant mention on the peak oil page then wouldn't the largest conventional oil fields in Saudi Arabia also deserve a mention (slippery slope to where it's all not applicable)? The rate the largest oil field depletes would have the most significant impact on global depletion wouldn't it? I don't see why Athabasca needs a mention longer than say, "Athabasca may be able to delay peak oil for a significant period of time if tar sands production can increase exponentially" in an appropriate section on the Hubbert Peak page.

Also note this sentence quoted from your above post, "In total, oil sands and heavy oil can replace conventional oil only to a small degree. Canada's domestic needs for oil, with its growing population and increasing industrialization, will likely soon absorb all the additional oil which can be produced from oil sands and heavy oil with no surplus to export." FYI, this is what you used as evidence for your argument.

I would be ok with it if the one sentence mention of Athabasca says it has 1/3rd of world oil deposits or non-proven oil reserve as long as the current limited production and environmental impact point is mentioned. To keep the sentence short we could just say 1/3rd deposits and add there may be challenges for tar sands production to exponentially increase production levels for various reasons with a link to the athabasca or tar sands pages, I'd be fine with that. What do you think OSO? Zen Master 13:10, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OSOs reading comprehension challenged

Not the best heading to use when attempting to solve a dispute with another person. I'm choosing to let it go and not get angry about it.

You are correct in your recent postings that I was using deposit and reserve as a synonymous term.

If I understand rightly now, a petroleum deposit could be defined as a discovery of petroleum that has yet to be expolited.

A petroleum reserve could be defined as a deposit that has been exploited but has a lot of petroleum yet to be removed.

All my postings above made the assumption that you were denying the claim that the Athbasca deposit is equal in size to the Middle Eastern Reserves.

So I'm glad that we've been able to sort that out.

However.

There is still the issue of whether or not it is possible that the Athabasca deposit can be exploited via massive oil company investment in the next 10-20 years. When I said above that I "envisage" this possibility, I was making the assumption that if oil does begin to peak, then it would be very likely that the Athabasca deposit would be considered a new and important place to exploit petroleum. If that happens then, I think we would agree, that the peak would be delayed - which is what my addition to the article was pointing out.

Can you understand that I am talking about what could happen at Athabasca? I'm trying to understand where you're coming from because one of your central arguments revolves around the 500,000 barrel figure you keep mentioning. If you look at the map link directed from this talk page you will see that the Athabasca Tar sands are located in an area the size of Ireland. The current oil companies are mining in less than 1% of the area. If there is a huge influx of investment, it is possible that over 50% of the area will be mined. The outcome of this would be a figure greater than the 500,000 you mention. Much of the Tar sands have been left alone and are, I believe, not under any oil company juristiction. I'll talk about the environmental impact stuff shortly - just hold onto the idea that more much more oil could be exploited here.

As it stands, Hubbert's Peak is a theory that is yet to be widely held. I personally believe in it, but there are some (such as the makers of The End of Suburbia) who believe that its short-term implications are staggering. The effects of Hubbert's Peak, if it is true, would possibly result in population changes, economic recession or a Malthusian Catastrophe - these are mentioned in the article. As the section of the effects continues, it mentions market solutions and the possibility of alternative power.

My section on the Athabasca tar sands that we are debating about is, I think, very relevant to the "Effects of a World Peak" section. It points out that, while oil reserves are dropping, there is an oil deposit in Canada that is very large and could, in fact, be exploited. If it is exploited, then it would certainly add a few decades to the peak. I think this is a very important point to make because people who will be searching for information about Hubberts peak need to have clear and truthful information at their disposal.

Okay, as for my quotes above that you have commented about.

Also note this sentence quoted from your above post, "In total, oil sands and heavy oil can replace conventional oil only to a small degree. Canada's domestic needs for oil, with its growing population and increasing industrialization, will likely soon absorb all the additional oil which can be produced from oil sands and heavy oil with no surplus to export." FYI, this is what you used as evidence for your argument.

I was actually aware of it and I thought you might jump on it.

Remember that I am talking here about the possibility of Athabasca. The quote you mention does not deny the size of the Oil deposit - which of course was what I was trying to prove. What the quote talks about is its belief that, while the oil at Athabasca is huge, it is unlikely to be able to replace conventional oil. I agree that this is what it is saying. However, if you look at all the other quotes from the pro-peak oil sites that you gave me, you will see that they do see Athabasca as a potential source of future oil supplies. So, on the one hand you have a bunch of peak-oilers who think that Athabasca is a pipe dream, and on the other hand you have another bunch of peak-oilers who think that Athabasca can be exploited and delay the peak for some time.

So it is not the fact that Athabasca will solve the oil crisis that is being discussed here - it is the possibility that it could. Regardless of whether Athabasca turns out to be a pipe-dream or not is not the issue. At this present moment in time the potential is there, and it is such a huge potential variable in the Hubbert Peak calculation that it needs to be mentioned.

With regards to the use of Deposit and Reserve

The fact that I was unable to see the difference between these two ideas is proof that others may find the same problem. As I pointed out, to me the terms reserve and deposit were the same thing. If someone else comes to the Hubbert Peak page with this idea in mind they will probably come away with the idea that not much oil exists in Athabasca. I want them to realise that there is a Huge amount of oil there that is yet to be exploited. I'm not saying that we stop using reserve and use deposit, or the other way around, but that when the phrase "non-proven oil reserves" is used, it doesn't convey the idea that Athabasca may not have much oil.

Environmental Impact

The oil companies are talking about In situ mining which I described in the Tar sands page. While strip mining results in large pools of horrible water, in situ places the waste water underground where the bitumen was - it would be replacing the bitumen with the waste water. In situ would be used when there is too much surface soil that needs to be dug through. This is, by no means, an entirely "clean" process. While I am adament in having the more detailed mention of Athabasca that I am arguing about, I would certainly be happy for a more complete addition to it that points out the potential environmental damage.

One Salient Oversight who is at a keyboard that can't sign four tildes.

Response Header

"...OSOs reading comprehension challenged. Not the best heading to use when attempting to solve a dispute with another person. I'm choosing to let it go and not get angry about it." I titled my post that way because your argument does not make logical sense to me, you seem like a logical person so the only other explanation is a misread. You agree Athabasca only has potential yet you want to focus on the mere fact it has a large deposit and not mention the significant challenges of exponentially increasing tar sands oil production? This does not compute.

"...the issue of whether or not it is possible that the Athabasca deposit can be exploited via massive oil company investment in the next 10-20 years". Monetary investment is only the beginning of the challenge in extracting oil from tar sands, have you read the entire Hubbert Peak page? Note the point about how for it to make any sense at all you have to be able to recover more energy than is used in the various extraction processes. Energy efficiency should be the focus in the article not monetary investment facts. Conventional oil has a much higher ratio of extracted energy over energy used in the recovery processes, why do you want to give Athabasca a free pass on this point?

The difference in nomenclature between reserve and deposit is the essense of the issue, reserve means it can be counted on to have oil extracted from it, deposit means just that, it's sitting in the ground but who knows if we can ever extract a significant percentage of it. Perhaps we should define the differences between oil reserve and oil deposit as so inside the page so there is no confusion?

"...As it stands, Hubbert's Peak is a theory that is yet to be widely held." This is simply not true, Hubbert Peak theory is widely held, it's the when and the how that are in debate. And the existance of Athabasca or any other new source of oil in no way disproves Hubbert Peak theory (which is what you seem to keep insinuating), it would only be a delay. The First law of thermodynamics means there can be no denying there is ultimately a finite fossil fuel reserve on planet earth. IF, we run out of oil here are some of the things that happen is what should be discussed in the effects section, promising sources of non conventional oil are best put elsewhere, why do you disagree with a logical formatting such as this?

You agree Athabasca has to prove itself so please indicate why you have problems with the language in the proposed sentence I want to use that says just that? The key caveat word in my mind is to be skeptical on the point that Athabasca must increase production exponentially to be a factor. Extracting oil is far easier from conventional oil sources and it takes them 30+ years to exponentially increase, so why do you seemingly give Athabasca a free pass on the logistics and efficiency of actually extracting oil? It's at least twice as difficult/inefficient to extract oil from tar sands yet one would think it was twice as easy from the paragraph you wrote, that is simply wrong.

Here is a quotation indicating how you are missing the point in my opinion, "My section on the Athabasca tar sands that we are debating about is, I think, very relevant to the 'Effects of a World Peak' section. It points out that, while oil reserves are dropping, there is an oil deposit in Canada that is very large and could, in fact, be exploited, then it would certainly add a few decades to the peak" Please note this quotation already on the page (I wrote it myself), "Others believe in a 'market solution' to an oil supply crisis, believing that the rise in oil prices will stimulate investment in oil replacement technologies and/or more efficient oil extraction technologies". I've already captured the point you want to capture on the page. Why get into endless specifics at the wrong place when I've already covered the point generally.

Wouldn't this Venezuelan Orinoco tar sands site deserve equal mention to Athabasca given its equivalent size? Where does this end? A detailed Athabasca mention is more logically put elsewhere.

Zen Master 07:17, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OSO response header

Okay Zen, let's try to work these things out.

• • Energy usage vs energy gain

Do you think that the energy used to extract oil at Athabasca is greater than the energy that is extracted? This seems to be your tacit assumption. It is my assumption that the energy used in the extraction process will be less than the energy extracted.

What do I base this assumption on? Pure economics. At Athabasca at this moment there are trucks and machinery and buildings that use energy in different forms: coal/gas/nuclear based electricity that is powering the machinery and buildings; oil that powers the trucks. And then we have to factor in the energy used to build and transport the trucks and machinery and so on. All these expenses add up. And yet, for some reason, Syncrude and the other two oil companies have decided to create this synthetic crude oil and sell it on the open market. There is no way they can do this if they did not hope to make money out of it.

It is my belief that the energy usage vs energy gain situation will be born out through the economics of it all. In other words, IF an energy extraction technique is greater than the energy that is actually extracted, then this will translate into either financial loss for the company involved, or a reaction by the marketplace against such high prices (they won't want to buy it).

Now I can't prove the assertion above without some more detailed research. However we could probably both agree, barring some very obvious information that I have missed, that, at this point in time, we cannot make any firm assumption that the extraction energy is greater than the extracted energy. It might be, but no one knows. The opposite is also true - I might be very wrong and the extraction energy IS greater than the extracted energy. But without clear information either way we can't make any biased assertion.

Yet we must remember that it is possible that Athabasca could be exploited and that the energy used is less than the energy gained. That in itself is reason for inclusion in the article.

Unless you can find clear, unambiguous evidence that the extraction energy is greater than extracted energy, you won't convince me.

• • The widely held view of Hubbert's Peak

Let me explain myself further on this point. If you take a poll on society, would 50.0001% of people hold the view that Hubbert's peak is correct? If so then the belief is widely held. If the poll results in 49.9999%, then it is not widely held. As it stands I would guestimate that less than 5% of the world population believe in Hubbert's peak... if that. Obviously we have to ignore those who wouldn't know this and more basic things (ie 80% of the world's population), but even in the Western world you would not find Politicians, Radio Commentators, Newspaper editors etc jumping up and down and screaming "emergency... we're going to run out of oil". Again let me refer you to The Economist magazine. This magazine is an internationally renowned news and economics magazine that has publically refuted the idea that the world is running out of oil. This doesn't mean they're right - I think they're very wrong (along with other things like supporting the war on Iraq... but let's not go THERE!). But what it does indicate is that some very powerful and influential people are yet to be convinced.

• • And the existance of Athabasca or any other new source of oil in no way disproves Hubbert Peak theory (which is what you seem to keep insinuating), it would only be a delay

Look Zen you've got to be very clear about what you're saying here. Which part of my argument indicates that I am trying to disprove Hubbert's Peak? Please quote me, freely. What have I actually said that shows that I am trying to disprove it?

I have maintained all along that the existance of Athabasca and Orinoco in no way disprove Hubbert. In fact, I have said so explicitly above. You have said that "it would only be a delay" - yes, we are in agreement here. I have said this! If Athabasca and Orinoco are able to be exploited then all this would do is push the peak ahead a few decades. I've said this! It's all there above! How many times do you want me to say "I believe in Hubbert's Peak"

• • The First law of thermodynamics means there can be no denying there is ultimately a finite fossil fuel reserve on planet earth. IF, we run out of oil here are some of the things that happen is what should be discussed in the effects section, promising sources of non conventional oil are best put elsewhere, why do you disagree with a logical formatting such as this?

What is going to happen if we begin to run out of oil? That to me is what the section is about. The article is predicting all sorts of horrible things to occur - and it should because it will probably happen. But exactly when will oil run out. Will it run out like in your petrol tank? One day the world is happily running along and then the next day everything stops because there is no more oil? Of course not - most Peak oil people would argue that the running out of oil will take a long time. The whole point of a "Peak" is that oil consumption will gradually become more scarce. It is the timeframe that is important in the discussion of the effects. It's not so much that bad things will happen, its the idea that bad things will happen over a period of time - that idea MUST be included in the article

What Athabasca does is add a variable to the equation. It is basically saying "If tar sands can be exploited then the effects will be drawn out over a longer period".

• • You agree Athabasca has to prove itself so please indicate why you have problems with the language in the proposed sentence I want to use that says just that? The key caveat word in my mind is to be skeptical on the point that Athabasca must increase production exponentially to be a factor. Extracting oil is far easier from conventional oil sources and it takes them 30+ years to exponentially increase, so why do you seemingly give Athabasca a free pass on the logistics and efficiency of actually extracting oil?

I totally agree that an exponential increase in oil production from Athabasca is required. What I am pointing out, however, is that it is possible. You mention that 30+ years above as proof. I think this is spurious logic. You've assumed that because it took conventional oil 30+ years for exponential production then it will take longer for tar sands. The question is... why did it take them 30+ years for exponential oil production? You seem to assume that it is due to technology and geology - that the conventional oil extraction process is a scientific given. I don't think that is a logical thing to assume. We're talking here about the Middle East, mostly. A bunch of nations that have repressive and corrupt governments and uneducated workers. It could be that oil extraction levels were affected by things like red tape, inefficient oil well designs, political and religious revolutions... and so on. It's also affected by market demands. 30+ years ago there was less demand for oil than there is now - mainly because there were less people driving cars on planet earth. Since that time, more people have been driving more cars, which leads to growing demand, which leads to Oil producers sinking new wells to gain the riches of selling oil to a willing planet. THAT to me is the reason why oil production has increased exponentially - not because conventional oil extraction is restricted by some geological and scientific barrier.

• • It's at least twice as difficult/inefficient to extract oil from tar sands yet one would think it was twice as easy from the paragraph you wrote, that is simply wrong.

Show me the proof that it is twice as difficult and inefficient. The fact that oil companies are making lots of money from Athabasca synthetic crude is enough for me to think that it is viable.

• • Here is a quotation indicating how you are missing the point in my opinion, "My section on the Athabasca tar sands that we are debating about is, I think, very relevant to the 'Effects of a World Peak' section. It points out that, while oil reserves are dropping, there is an oil deposit in Canada that is very large and could, in fact, be exploited, then it would certainly add a few decades to the peak" Please note this quotation already on the page (I wrote it myself), "Others believe in a 'market solution' to an oil supply crisis, believing that the rise in oil prices will stimulate investment in oil replacement technologies and/or more efficient oil extraction technologies". I've already captured the point you want to capture on the page. Why get into endless specifics at the wrong place when I've already covered the point generally.

Because it offers more detail and specific information that what you wrote. I don't like having brief articles on wikipedia. I want them to contain as much relevant information as is reasonably possible. I hope that the Hubbert's Peak article will grow in content and quality to be around 4-5 times the size it is now. Why? Because it is all good information to have.

And Athabasca gives people a concrete example of what is going on. I want people around the world to read the Hubberts Peak article on the Wikipedia page and to be armed with as much objective and truthful information as possible. That's why we need to give them the example of Athabasca - because it gives them facts. Remember, all those peak oil links that I gave above took Athabasca into serious consideration. They did not ignore it, they did not say "those are just deposits and not reserves". No, they have taken it on board and they see Athabasca as a very important factor in the effects of Hubbert's Peak. Like you and me (yes me too) they are not sure about whether it is viable or not - but it is certainly not off their radar screens.

• • Wouldn't this Venezuelan Orinoco tar sands site deserve equal mention to Athabasca given its equivalent size? Where does this end? A detailed Athabasca mention is more logically put elsewhere.

Because I am a major shareholder in Syncrude and I don't want people to invest in Venezuela. C'mon, this is a bit of a silly argument isn't it. Do you want me to edit the entire talk page so I can add "and Orinoco" to everything? Everything that I have been arguing has been so that the tar sands in both Athabasca and Orinoco are taken into consideration. There is absolutely no need to have one section of the article dedicated to Athabasca and another section dedicated to Orinoco because they are essentially arguing the same thing. Was this final comment of yours a serious one? Because if it is then I think you may be not understanding much of my argument at all.

What to do now?

I'm going to email someone at ASPO and get an opinion on this. One reason why I wanted a mediator was so that other people could come in and give their opinion rather than just you and me duking it out. To be honest I would be far more inclined to trust the opinions and beliefs of others on this matter than simply debating them with you.

It might be good if you told me what your interest is in Hubbert's Peak? Are you an environmental scientist? Which country are you from? What areas did you study? What is your current job?

My interest in Hubbert's Peak: A friend (the one I confused you with) emails me one day and says that we're all going to run out of oil. I have debated all sorts of things with him and assured him that this was not the case. He persisted and gave me the peak oil websites. I went to them and also read the Wikipedia article. After initially disagreeing with him I began to see his point. My own basic mathematical research involved dividing current known oil reserves by annual consumption... and coming up with a 40-year figure. I had previously been assuming that oil reserves would last 100+ years and so this figure cam as a shock. I then realised that 40 years was too optimistic because consumption rose every year. That convinced me that Hubbert's peak is probably true.

Area of Study: BA in English Literature and Modern History.

Where am I from?: Newcastle, Australia - where we export millions of tonnes of coal to the world so they can put more CO2 in the air.

Job: Was a training officer for disabled people but halfway through our argument I was laid off. Currently unemployed.

One Salient Oversight 11:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Email to ASPO

To: aleklett@tsl.uu.se
Subject: Wikipedia article on Hubbert's Peak
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:12:55 +1000
Dear sir,

I would very much appreciate your input and opinion about the article on Hubbert's Peak at Wikipedia.

The address is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_Peak

Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia where anyone can write and edit articles. It currently has over 373500 articles in English, and over 1 million articles in all languages. It is quickly growing into the internet's most important websites for gaining objective and factual information, and is currently the internet's 237th most popular website. If you type "Hubbert Peak" into Google, you will naturally get the ASPO website as the first listed. The Wikipedia article makes it in at number 7 - on the first page. The Wikipedia article that I am currently working on is therefore one of the internet's most popular sites for information about this subject.

Unfortunately, I am having a dispute with another contributor about whether to include detailed information on the Athabasca and Orinoco Tar sands in the article. The section under dispute in the article is as follows:

"Approximately two-thirds of the world's petroleum is held in oil sands, which are located in North-Eastern Canada and Venezuela. These oil reserves are expensive to extract, but will become more viable if oil prices rise too high. Their proximity to the United States - the world's largest oil consumer - could arguably remove some of the "risk premium" that the market adds to oil that is sourced from the Middle East, not to mention reduced transportations costs. Many experts have argued that when the existence of these Tar sands is added to the Peak Oil calculation, a crippling oil shortage is postponed for a number of decades. Any advantage that these reserves bring, however, cannot be brought to bear until the required infrastructure is developed. In 2004, Oil extraction from the Canadian Tar sands produced 750,000 barrels of Crude Oil per day - a very small percentage of the global total, but proof that it is viable."

That section was written by myself. Another contributor removed it and claimed that it was not necessary to include it.

By the way, this contributor pointed out to me my error in calling these "reserves" when I should have called them "Deposits". I agreed with him about this.

If you wish to read our argument, which I think would be very painful, go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hubbert_Peak

It is my contention that the Wikipedia article should contain some information about Athabasca and Orinoco, simply as a means of describing some of the issues involved. The other contributor wishes to put in a more brief mention of "other non-conventional oil sources".

Both I and the other contributor believe in Hubbert's Peak, but I am of the belief that Athabasca and Orinoco will delay the effects for a number of decades, while he does not.

Can you please give us both advice as to how we should approach this issue? Our debate has been quite heated. Given the importance of the Wikipedia in the Google search, it is also in ASPO's interest to help us in this.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Cameron (User:One Salient Oversight)

Yet Another Response Header

"...Because it offers more detail and specific information that what you wrote. I don't like having brief articles on wikipedia. I want them to contain as much relevant information as is reasonably possible. I hope that the Hubbert's Peak article will grow in content and quality to be around 4-5 times the size it is now. Why? Because it is all good information to have."

I agree with this point except when it comes to being redundant information inappropriately placed. Why duplicate information that is going to be in three+ places the hubbert peak, athabasca, and tar sands page? As the USA learned in 1973 and to a lesser extent 1979 bad things happen to the economy when there is less oil. I have faith in geologists to get the job done if possible (not initially taking into account environmental impacts), I do not have faith in most economists or MBAs.

The effects of what would happen were we to run out of oil are exactly what should go in the effects section, if you want to put a 2 sentence mention of Athabasca in the date or non conventional oil sections taking into account the caveats above feel free to do so. Or, you could create a small section above the effects section titled "factors that may delay global peak" or some such, that would be fine as long as it wasn't verbose Athabasca PR. Athabasca should receive the same level of detail as all other non conventional energy and renewable energy sources, note solar and wind power etc each get a one sentence mention and note their neutral point of view and note that one sentence mention is for that source IN TOTAL, tar sands itself should get the one sentence mention, not just athabasca, should we mention the largest wind farms??? Athabaca should just be listed as the most promising tar sands site in the one sentence mention of tar sands generally, that would be fair compared to all counter points on the page. Another factor that should be addressed is the significantly increased environmental damage, where are they going to get all this water for the order of magnitude increase of in situ technique production?

I have another proposal, why don't we create a "non-conventional oil" page and you can put mostly whatever you want in there including your glee at the potential of Athabasca? We can sprinkle links to that and all the other articles in hubbert peak.

Zen Master 12:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)