[AdamB]

Over the years the EIA has done a remarkably poor job of predicting the future of global oil markets

But of critical importance...they didn't fall for peak oil nonsense. So whatever else we might say about them, we can conclusively say that they aren't as dumb as peak oil doomers.

[AdamB]

http://peakoil.com/consumption/eia-bashers-should-check-their-own-numbers

EIA bashers should check their own numbers.

EIA does a great job in collecting and aggregating data, and making estimations or forecasts based on them.

But it is subject to some errors.

Name anyone who projects into the future who doesn't?

Name anyone who has EVER predicted something basic, say, the price of oil, over the kind of time periods that the EIA handles. I'm not sure anyone gets that one right. But the difference between most folks, and the EIA, is that someone has to try, and they have the budget and the experts to give it a go, so they do.

[Plantagenet]

Over the years the EIA has done a remarkably poor job of predicting the future of global oil markets

we can conclusively say that they aren't ....as dumb...

Why do you think the EIA isn't "dumb", to use your simplistic terminology? Most of the EIA predictions for the future of global conventional oil production over the last 20 years have been wildly wrong. They are doing a little bit better recently but their overall track record is horrible, and the methodology they use for predicting future conventional oil production numbers is virtually idiotic.

Looking at the EIA predictions, its pretty clear that they just assume that some rate of growth in conventional oil production will continue indefinitely as their projections are mostly just straight or almost straight lines. Then every year the EIA realizes it was wrong, and changes the rate of projected conventional oil production growth to a lower value. The math they use is incredibly simplistic, and the basic idea itself that global conventional oil production will grow forever at some constant rate is really really dumb and has clearly proven to be totally wrong.


Cheers!

[AdamB]

Cheers!

You really need to find a reference that reflects current global production, instead of creating a faux peak. And based on current oil production (correcting for the graph that doesn't even have history right), it looks like the EIA was damn near spot on compared to contemporaneous peak oilers back in 2008! But that isn't even the main point that you want to avoid. Thank you for, again, proving it with your graphs. Regardless of the hysteria of the day, the EIA didn't fall for peak oil. They knew better. Puts them head and shoulders above all those who did. Like what TOD published.

[Plantagenet]

... the EIA didn't fall for peak oil. They knew better. Puts them head and shoulders above all those who did.

Actually, the EIA prediction was for conventional oil production to steadily increase each year, while the Peak Oil theorists said conventional oil would peak.

The EIA was wrong, and the PeakOil theorists were right about that.

AND neither the EIA or the PeakOil theorists predicted major contribution from unconventional oil.

Both the EIA and the Peak Oil theorists were wrong on this one.

If you're keeping score its EIA 0 for 2, peak oil theory 1 for 2.

-------------------------------------------

What you are calling "peak oil" are the predictions made by Campbell and others that global oil production would peak ca. 2000-2010. These predictions have been falsified, but that doesn't falsify the peak oil theory, anymore then someone miscalculating how fast an apple falls from a tree falsifies the theory of gravity.

Cheers!


If the speed at which an apple falls from a tree is miscalculated, does that falsify the theory of Gravity? Same thing with the Peak Oil Theory---yes global oil production didn't peak in 2005, but that doesn't falsify the peak oil theory. Oil is a finite, nonrenewable resource, and at some point a maximum will be reached in global oil production.

[tita]

Name anyone who projects into the future who doesn't?

Name anyone who has EVER predicted something basic, say, the price of oil, over the kind of time periods that the EIA handles. I'm not sure anyone gets that one right. But the difference between most folks, and the EIA, is that someone has to try, and they have the budget and the experts to give it a go, so they do.

Again, I'm not saying that they are not doing a great job. Just that their projections can be argued when there is some valid information contradicting them. Mainly past production figures.

Many "analysts" were deeply wrong when they projected US oil production in 2015, overestimating the effects of the rig count plunge. The same could true with the recent uptick of the rig count, which appears to have stalled despite highest prices in two years.

We'll known in 6 months if the eia was right to warn an oversupply in the beginning of 2018. If they are again grossly wrong about supply/demand, this will have consequences with another strong price correction. I don't think so, but nobody really knows.

Edit: Just after writing this post, I looked a website analysing LTO prod (Hz wells o ly), and it appears that Bakken production had a strong october rise.

https://shaleprofile.com/index.php/2017 ... ober-2017/

Older wells also appear to have grown, which may be related with refracking or completion of DUC, I don't know. At this rythm, Bakken will reach its 2015 high before the end of the year.

[shortonoil]

Rockdoc the self-professed Dr. of Oil is the prime opponent of ETP. He argues that it is impossible,and even pointless theory.

The idea that the earth circles the sun, rather than visa versa was also pointless; but it caught on anyway. People that actually study astronomy find it fairly important. The same can be said of petroleum! The Etp Model would only be pointless to those who don't consider that the collapse to their civilization is important. I asked my dog about it, but he didn't have an opinion on it.

[tita]

Rockdoc the self-professed Dr. of Oil is the prime opponent of ETP. He argues that it is impossible,and even pointless theory.

The idea that the earth circles the sun, rather than visa versa was also pointless; but it caught on anyway.

What are you talking about? The sun goes around the earth, everybody knows that!

[AdamB]

... the EIA didn't fall for peak oil. They knew better. Puts them head and shoulders above all those who did.

Actually, the EIA prediction was for conventional oil production to steadily increase each year, while the Peak Oil theorists said conventional oil would peak.

Well, here is the original peak oil documentation. The johnny come lately wanna-bees, Hubbert groupies, bloggers, unemployed lawyers, beat cops, amateur violin players and the generally oil ignorant aren't the people you ask, if you want to discuss the top flight folks doing their jobs. Let me know how that word "conventional" words out in the documentation, or better yet, the volumes aren't off by nearly as many billions of barrels as the EIA.

And as Spike has explained, you really need to figure out the entire multi-peak thing, otherwise you get no peak oil cred playing kick the can and just claiming that yes, sooner or later this century or another, it has to happen sometime. We know, it is the strawman of choice among the "we looked so stupid last time we called for peak, lets CYA more next time" crowd.

[AdamB]

Name anyone who projects into the future who doesn't?

Name anyone who has EVER predicted something basic, say, the price of oil, over the kind of time periods that the EIA handles. I'm not sure anyone gets that one right. But the difference between most folks, and the EIA, is that someone has to try, and they have the budget and the experts to give it a go, so they do.

Again, I'm not saying that they are not doing a great job. Just that their projections can be argued when there is some valid information contradicting them. Mainly past production figures.

The EIA is attempting the impossible. This is known.

Sometimes, directional is all you get right. The peak oilers called an inflection point. The EIA did not. Only 1 gets to be right in even this particular detail, and it turns out, that isn't the peak oilers.

But the funny thing? A peak is axiomatic, so one day, it must happen. I would bet that the EIA would be late to calling the inflection point, but the interesting question is, by how much? When, not if, oil production goes into a permanent decline, how many years of decline must happen before the EIA will begin building a continuing DECLINE into their projections, rather then showing growth?

THAT will be interesting to see play out in real time, although there is no guarantee I'll be alive to see it. but still..it would be cool to see.

[Plantagenet]

you really need to figure out the entire multi-peak thing...

There is no "multi-peak thing.."

Peak Oil occurs when global oil production reaches its maximum level.

Last time I looked it was still slowly increasing at a rate of roughly 1% per year.

Cheers!

[AdamB]

you really need to figure out the entire multi-peak thing...

There is no "multi-peak thing.."

Peak Oil occurs when global oil production reaches its maximum level.

Sure. Like in Mexico. 3 times. Once in the 60's...and then it peaked again in the 90's...and then again around 2004!!!!

Each one...an ALL TIME MAXIMUM LEVEL!!!!

And everyone stood back amazed, peakers clapped themselves on the back in glee, began getting their affairs in order for the Rapture.

until it happened again...later.

Funny how that keeps happening, and peakers keep forgetting it. Spike knows this, told you already, and he isn't even a peak oiler! Peak oilers just seem to have this thing that gets in the way of them learning from their incessant can kicking.

[AdamB]

and don't forget unemployed oil-company interns like yourself.

We'll chalk that one up to just you lying because you are ignorant.

[Plantagenet]

... in Mexico. 3 times. Once in the 60's...and then it peaked again in the 90's...and then again around 2004!!!!

Each one...an ALL TIME MAXIMUM LEVEL!!!!

Actually no.

You are making two mistakes in your thinking here.

The first mistake is that you don't understand some very simple and basic mathematical concepts, such as determining which of two or three numbers is the largest.

Now pay close attention:

The rate of oil production in Mexico was higher in 2004 then it was in either the 60s or 90s. Therefore peak oil definitely didn't occur in Mexico in the 1960s or the 1990s.

Got that? Its pretty simple math so lets assume you get it now and go on to your next basic mistake.

The second mistake you are making involves the definition of peak oil. An oil province or a country or the world can only be said to have reached peak oil AFTER all the potential oil resources in the country are explored and mostly developed and produced.

In the 1960s and indeed in the 1990s Mexico oil resources were poorly explored because oil exploration was greatly curtailed in Mexico after Mexico nationalized its oil industry in 1938. No one in their right mind (except apparently you) thought Mexico was hitting peak oil in the 1960s or even in the 1990s because large areas of the country hadn't even been adequately explored and tested for oil resources.

So little exploration work was done that Cantarell, Mexico's only supergiant oil field, was only discovered in the 1970s. Then after Cantarell was discovered Pemex coasted for another couple of decades and did relatively little exploration work.

Since Cantarell went into decline Pemex has launched into active exploration again of their major oil provinces, but still hasn't found much of anything, so their oil production continues to decline. Just a short while ago Pemex opened up their oil industry to foreigners for the first time since 1938, but so far that has't produced any major new finds either.

In the absence of new oil production that will surpass the peak levels of production Mexico reached before production at Cantarell collapsed, Peak Oil in Mexico occurred in 2004.

Get it now?


Pemex is still looking but so far hasn't found enough oil to totally replace Cantarell, which peaked in 2004, resulting in a 30% decline in Mexican oil production since then.

Cheers!

[MD]

blah blah blah. peak this, peak that. peak what? peak common sense went away a long time ago. The rest is just bullshit and waiting for the fat lady

[rockdoc123]

Just a short while ago Pemex opened up their oil industry to foreigners for the first time since 1938, but so far that has't produced any major new finds either. 

The first few wells into the newly offered acreage have just been drilled this year. Of those there has been two significant discoveries

Petroleos Mexicanos announced its biggest onshore discovery in 15 years, just three months after Mexico reported the first major find by private companies, bolstering the nation’s efforts to revive its oil industry.
The Ixachi-1 well that lies 72 kilometers (45 miles) south of the port of Veracruz is believed to contain 1.5 billion barrels of oil in place, or about 350 million in proven, probable and possible reserves.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-03/pemex-to-announce-big-onshore-oil-descovery-in-veracruz-state

The Zama well, some 60km off the coast of the southeastern state of Tabasco, contains an estimated 1.4bn to 2bn barrels of light oil in place, potentially extending into a neighbouring block.

https://www.ft.com/content/79969c16-66bb-11e7-8526-7b38dcaef614

Given this is just the start of the new exploration phase one should expect additional significant discoveries.

To beat the old peak would require total discoveries somewhere in the size of the KMZ field complex (about 4 billion bbl) which is producing at 800,000 bpd.

[AdamB]

... in Mexico. 3 times. Once in the 60's...and then it peaked again in the 90's...and then again around 2004!!!!

Each one...an ALL TIME MAXIMUM LEVEL!!!!

Actually no.

You are making two mistakes in your thinking here.

Nope. Contemporaneous to the event....it is... PEAK OIL!!!! Peak oilers have been milking exactly this idea since before this website was founded. Back then, no one was meally mouthing around what a peak was, like you are attempting to do now. And why do you need to do it now? Because of all those peak oils from back then!!!!

You want to talk about people making mistakes in their thinking related to peak oils (notice...PLURAL!! ), read this website. I am just recognizing the logic used by your colleagues.

Cheers!

[AdamB]

blah blah blah. peak this, peak that. peak what? peak common sense went away a long time ago.

Peak common sense? When in the hell did THAT ever happen? The entire concept is nothing but a natural outgrowth from an ignorance of resource economics.

[MD]

blah blah blah. peak this, peak that. peak what? peak common sense went away a long time ago.

Peak common sense? When in the hell did THAT ever happen? The entire concept is nothing but a natural outgrowth from an ignorance of resource economics.

something like that, but I would simplify it further to just general ignorance.

[ROCKMAN]

P - To add to Doc's post: some of the most prolific CONVENTIONAL oil trends in S Texas run right up to the Mexican border. Thousands of wells. Without a data base I have no idea how they have or haven't been extended into Mexico. And that doesn't include relatively new plays like the Eagle Ford. But there is a potential problem: these plays tend to be dominated by small independents. Companies that would not be very trusting of the Mexican govt. Not just nationalization but new "taxes". Service companies will also be concerned about moving hundreds of $millions of equipment into Mexico: you also need a permit to move equipment out of a foreign country. More then one service company has been forced to sell their equipment for pennies on the dollar in other countries because they couldn't get an export permit.