Peak oil is the belief that the peak level of oil production has been reached, or will be reached soon. After the peak has been reached, supply will be increasingly restricted, and the supply-demand balance will lead to dramatically increasing prices, as the declining reserves struggle to meet demand.

In April 2005 China surpassed Japan as the second largest world consumer of petroleum (behind the U.S. of course).

Peak oil and climate change[edit | edit source]

Note that peak oil is not the same as peak energy.[1] The solutions to the two problems have much in common, but are not exactly the same, as oil is not the only major influence on climate change.

Other implications of peak oil[edit | edit source]

  • Solving the problem by moving to biofuels can be expected to create competition between food crops and fuel crops, making life harder for the global poor.

Notes[edit | edit source]

  1. George Monbiot points out there are many decades of coal remaining, especially with potential new technologies. George Monbiot on Peak Oil and Transition Towns, 10 Apr 2007.

See also[edit | edit source]

External links[edit | edit source]

Discussion[View | Edit]

Hey, all:

The intro to this topic needs serious revision. Peak Oil is not a "belief". There is no mechanism or process involving faith involved. Peak Oil is the calculated determination that the petroleum resources of a given area are finite, reach a peak of production, and then decline. Peak Oil was first developed by petroleum geologist M. King Hubbert in the 1950s and presented against great opposition and even ridicule. He calculated Peak Oil for the USA for the early 1970s, which then happened. He calculated Peak Oil for the state of Texas USA to occur in the early 1980s, which it then experienced. Peak Oil has been calculated and then realized for other many producing areas. The calculation of reserves and production takes on a bell-shaped distribution curve, and this same bell-shaped curve has been applied after the fact to other petroleum producers, and found to be a very close match. Nowhere in any of this is there "belief" or faith. Hubbert's work has been rightfully vindicated.

The same peak calculations can be and have been applied to other extracted resources such as natural gas, coal, and Uranium. If the calculations used have the same rigor as those used by Hubbert, they also will be spot on target.

Global Peak Oil is not controversial, except for the professional marketeers and naysayers in the Carbon extraction industry. The science is cut and dried, then it has to be assailed by a bunch of self-serving, red-faced, know-nothings. Just as in Hubbert's case, they can't disprove the facts, so they resort to ridicule and the most fallacious arguments, and distractions. Millions spent on marketing to justify billions in profits.

At the very least, please let's clean up this page, so it reflects science, and not belief and marketing.

David Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! 0043 CDT 10 Aug 2008

Hey David,
Great points. Sorry for the article as it stands. All the articles that are categorized only as Category:Technology are slated to be deleted or fixed. These articles came from an old merger. They were great for their purpose at that time, but are of inappropriate tone and accuracy for us now.
This would be a great first article for you to fix up with your comments. While doing so, do not worry about formatting, but please be careful with unnecessary in technical description politics. People will see your edits and help if there are some problems.
I am glad you are finding some of our worst articles. These definitely need to be fixed. In addition, those articles without categories are also usually quite poor.
Keep up the great work, --Lonny 02:47, 10 August 2008 (PDT)
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.