Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

[mos6507]

Predictably, Lynch is at it again. However, this time he isn't in the New York Times. Anyone think this will get syndicated upstream?

You have to love Lynch's Palin-style sloganeering. Should "we are running into oil, not running out of oil." be the new "drill, baby, drill"?

You've got to love Lynch's stomping grounds. I'm practically blinded by anti-green and anti-liberal bias there.

[deMolay]

http://seekingalpha.com/article/172676- ... oil-supply

[KevO]

and this will be the fourth thread I've merged into the original that's now about 15 pages long....

The search 'module is inactive' or so it says

[kpeavey]

Dr. Colin J. Campbell responds to the Guardian
55.9 Kb PDF File

[shortonsense]

Dr. Colin J. Campbell responds to the Guardian
55.9 Kb PDF File

Oh he really needs to do better than that. And he's really, REALLY the wrong guy to be responding.

[pstarr]

Dr. Colin J. Campbell responds to the Guardian
55.9 Kb PDF File

Oh he really needs to do better than that. And he's really, REALLY the wrong guy to be responding.

Why? He certainly is more qualified than you, for instance.

Just for the record: how would you respond?

[shortonsense]

Dr. Colin J. Campbell responds to the Guardian
55.9 Kb PDF File

Oh he really needs to do better than that. And he's really, REALLY the wrong guy to be responding.

Why? He certainly is more qualified than you, for instance.

Just for the record: how would you respond?

I don't know that random claims of bias require a response. For years the IEA has been pretty heavily bashed in the peaker community, as soon as someone claims to step forward with some mysterious claim of bias without much in the way of particulars, its like Christmas time in Peakerville.

Not a single thought or measure of other reasons why someone would time their claims of bias so perfectly to interfere with the official release of the 2010 Outlook, just because it agree's with a preconceived notion it goes down hook, line and sinker.

And Colin is NOT the right guy to issue any kind of response. Let the Aleklett carry the flag, as he has, his baggage quotient is way lower.

[pstarr]

Dr. Colin J. Campbell responds to the Guardian
55.9 Kb PDF File

Oh he really needs to do better than that. And he's really, REALLY the wrong guy to be responding.

Why? He certainly is more qualified than you, for instance.

Just for the record: how would you respond?

I don't know that random claims of bias require a response. For years the IEA has been pretty heavily bashed in the peaker community, as soon as someone claims to step forward with some mysterious claim of bias without much in the way of particulars, its like Christmas time in Peakerville.

Not a single thought or measure of other reasons why someone would time their claims of bias so perfectly to interfere with the official release of the 2010 Outlook, just because it agree's with a preconceived notion it goes down hook, line and sinker.

And Colin is NOT the right guy to issue any kind of response. Let the Aleklett carry the flag, as he has, his baggage quotient is way lower.

Easy to criticize but how would you respond?

[shortonsense]

And Colin is NOT the right guy to issue any kind of response. Let the Aleklett carry the flag, as he has, his baggage quotient is way lower.

Easy to criticize but how would you respond?

It doesn't deserve the dignity of a response. Disgruntled employee's are common everywhere, if they had specifics we would have heard them already. General and mysterious disparaging comments aren't worth responding to.

Statement: "Oh! The Boogy Man Americans Influenced Us!"

Q: "How did they do that?"

A: "Well, they pay for 25% of our budget!!"

Q: "And what does that have to do with missing oil reserves?"

A: "It doesn't, it just means we don't like Americans so it must be their fault!"

Like I said, it goes nowhere, they haven't said anything of value. No claims of Johnny PencilPusher being asked to alter models, double reserves, just some speculation on the motives of someone else....and they aren't claimed to be mind readers in the article, are they?

[kpeavey]

edited to preserve thread integrity

[shortonsense]

Hey Shorty, how about you just answer pstarr's question, without being petty.

I already did. It doesn't deserve a response. And I wasn't being petty...maybe I am confused as to why NOT responding to possible disgruntled people is not deemed a valid response?

Its an unfounded accusation at this point, the implications of which have been spun pretty heavily around here. Reading the article and ignoring those who want to read some redemption of their favorite piece of the peaker movement into it, it strikes me as nothing more than some sort of internal disagreement, the specifics of which don't appear to be presented yet, so these people decided to time their comments to achieve maximum irritation with zero information to substantiate their claims, and apply it against those who they probably won't be working with next year.

It doesn't deserve a response. If someone asked the head IEA honcho about it, if I were him I'd shrug and tell the asker to go hunt down the people and ask them. In other words, no response.

[pstarr]

Hey Shorty, how about you just answer pstarr's question, without being petty.

My simple question requires careful analysis etc. and would drag Shorty into a world he does not want to visit. So he will dance around prettily

[shortonsense]

Hey Shorty, how about you just answer pstarr's question, without being petty.

My simple question requires careful analysis etc. and would drag Shorty into a world he does not want to visit. So he will dance around prettily

Hey, you want to discuss the particulars of peak oil, or the IEA in particular, or the minimum amount of information released in the Guardian article, or what it may or may not mean, I'm all for it.

But if I'm an IEA spokesperson, and sent out in front of the camera's to announce the particulars of the newest IEA report, and I get asked Pstarr's question, I don't answer the question, I don't lend credence to the report in any way whatsoever.

Now, if we are talking about what a peak-centric response should be, like Colin's report except someone with more credibility, I recommended Aleklett to bash the IEA based on what little is known from the original report, mostly because I think he has more credibility than Colin.

My opinion on IEA forecasts is pretty well known, I think they are pretty much a joke, so getting excited about them, pro or con, doesn't strike me as a productive exercise.

[pstarr]

Hey Shorty, how about you just answer pstarr's question, without being petty.

My simple question requires careful analysis etc. and would drag Shorty into a world he does not want to visit. So he will dance around prettily

Hey, you want to discuss the particulars of peak oil, or the IEA in particular, or the minimum amount of information released in the Guardian article, or what it may or may not mean, I'm all for it.

But if I'm an IEA spokesperson, and sent out in front of the camera's to announce the particulars of the newest IEA report, and I get asked Pstarr's question, I don't answer the question, I don't lend credence to the report in any way whatsoever.

Now, if we are talking about what a peak-centric response should be, like Colin's report except someone with more credibility, I recommended Aleklett to bash the IEA based on what little is known from the original report, mostly because I think he has more credibility than Colin.

My opinion on IEA forecasts is pretty well known, I think they are pretty much a joke, so getting excited about them, pro or con, doesn't strike me as a productive exercise.

Campbell's analysis please?

Or are you still dancing with yourself?

"When there's no-one else in sight
In the crowded lonely night
Well I wait so long
For my love vibration
And I'm dancing with myself"

[pstarr]

Dr. Colin J. Campbell responds to the Guardian
55.9 Kb PDF File

Oh he really needs to do better than that. And he's really, REALLY the wrong guy to be responding.

Come on Shorty. Man up. Why is Campbell the wrong guy to analysis the Guardian newspaper article?

Let's start with the good Doctors's CV: Campbell managed Fina (along with a number of other high-powered posts). Do you know Fina? Belgium national oil, now part of Total one of the six "Supermajor" oil companies in the world.

Okay. So now why is he the wrong guy? And what is wrong with his analysis?

[hardtootell-2]

why are we FEEDING the TROLLS?

[Revi]

The distortion of these figures seems to me to be like the mortgage backed securities meltdown. Everyone believed it because it was in their interest to believe that the bonds were AAA rated. To believe otherwise was to say that the financial system was based on fraud.

We all believe that 3% growth is going to commence again. Even those of us who know operate as if it's going to keep going. Where is this 3% growth going to come from now?

To believe the IEA when they tell us that oil production will peak at 120 million barrels per day is like being one of the Mortgage backed securitiy investors. But it's much worse.

[pstarr]

why are we FEEDING the TROLLS?

Come on! I deserve it. I've worked hard to earn my stripes.

Whoa! Look it! I am the very first PO Super Hero 10,000 posts. Raise a statue! Do I get a Blue Angel flyover?

[kpeavey]

edited to preserve thread integrity

[shortonsense]

Campbell's analysis please?

Is that all you wanted? Why not start a new thread rather than cluttering up this one? Use Colins article as the lead in.