Talk:Resource
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles.. |
| Start | rated as start-Class on the assessment scale |
| Mid | rated as mid-importance on the importance scale |
 |
This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles. |
| Start | rated as start-Class on the assessment scale |
| Mid | rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale |
[edit] Requested move
This page is a good start to cover the facts which are applicable to resources in general. Therefore the confusing (types and developments) should go. Inwind (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- This page has been moved from "Resource (types and developments)" to Resource as the result of a move proposal listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dekimasuよ! 07:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reserve vs resource. Importance
In Norwegian, both in economy and ecology, we distinguishes between “ressurs” (resource) and “reserve” (reserve) for non-renewable resources.
“Ressurs” (resource) is the total resources of the actual item – actual plus potential resources in terms of the article.
“Reserve” (reserve) is the known part of the resource that at the given moment also is economically exploitable. This means of course that the mount of reserves not are fixed, as abiotic resources are, reserves varies with prospecting, extraction and production costs and prices of the product.
For non-renewable resources (fossil fuels, minerals e.g.) on often use the R/P-rate (reserve by production per period) which gives the number of periods the reserve will last, prices, production costs and resources fixed.
Does one not have the same terminology in English, or should this article be amended with the definitions above?
I mean that the importance of the term in ecology is "mid" (or may be "high"). For environmental and economical issues, I mean it is very important and should be rated high. That it is rated "mid" in economy, maybe reflects that economists seems to forget that, basically, the economy is dependent of natural resources? But it may ned more depth first, may be?
Carl S. Bj (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
