Login



Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Discuss specific research and forecasts.

Moderator: Pops

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby mos6507 » Fri 13 Nov 2009, 03:21:21

shortonsense wrote:
Keith_McClary wrote:We just need to ask Mr. OilFinder for a list of "fields yet to be developed" with their expected production by 2013.


Hubbert, in 1956 when he made his prediction of world oil peak in about 2000 at 13 billion barrels a year, calculated that his "fields yet to be found", otherwise known as, "ain't been found", comprised 75% of his total estimate of what the world contained.

In other words, he made up 75% of the volume he used to make his bell shaped curve work. The IEA looks like it is doing something similar to Hubberts tried and true method, with a much smaller % involved. Seems reasonable, considering that we've used quite a bit since Hubberts 1956 paper.


I would think we have a much better handle of how much recoverable oil is left in the ground today than we did a half century ago. You might as well bash astronomy for the fact that we once thought the sun revolved around the earth.
User avatar
mos6507
Master
Master
 
Posts: 9505
Joined: Fri 03 Aug 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Boston Suburbs

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby Quinny » Fri 13 Nov 2009, 04:18:47

mmmm... 20 million barrels per day not yet discovered 7 billion per year!


Looks like Oily's 'discoveries' are only going to last a couple of years. And they need to be in full production about now!! :roll:

http://peakoil.com/peak-oil-discussion/catalog-of-recent-oil-discoveries-t35194-735.html


pstarr wrote:
Keith_McClary wrote:
rangerone314 wrote:105 mil/bbl by 2030?

I do wonder what they project in between now and then, like for 2020, and for 2012 and 2016...

I'd say if they have figures projected for those years, and 2012 rolls around and the figures are lower than projected for 2012 or even lower than 2008, it'd be pretty obvious what 2030 is going to look like.

As I pointed out above, the graph:

Image

shows that"Crude oil - fields yet to be developed" will be 20 million barrels per day in 2013.

We should not have to wait till 2013 to know the answer, since any field that will be producing by then will be under development now - hiring, booking rigs, ordering pipe etc.

We just need to ask Mr. OilFinder for a list of "fields yet to be developed" with their expected production by 2013.
Good point. They haven't come on line but they have been "discovered."
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2697
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby shortonsense » Fri 13 Nov 2009, 18:41:18

mos6507 wrote:
shortonsense wrote:
Hubbert, in 1956 when he made his prediction of world oil peak in about 2000 at 13 billion barrels a year, calculated that his "fields yet to be found", otherwise known as, "ain't been found", comprised 75% of his total estimate of what the world contained.


I would think we have a much better handle of how much recoverable oil is left in the ground today than we did a half century ago. You might as well bash astronomy for the fact that we once thought the sun revolved around the earth.


Well... good point...but I'm not bashing, just noting how the process has worked in the past, and that while we might argue about the size of "how much we ain't found yet", Hubbert certainly used a majority %, and it wouldn't be unreasonable for the IEA to use a sizable % as well ( although maybe not a majority of course ).
User avatar
shortonsense
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby JustaGirl » Sat 14 Nov 2009, 01:02:30

Has anyone compared The Oil Drums megaprojects list to the 'oil fields yet to be developed'? That should at least give an idea if these predictions are even remotely accurate. I would assume the IEA oil fields to be developed as oil projects already on the books that they know will come online? Although, from what I have read most announcements are made only 3-4 years in advance, longer for offshore.

Is there anywhere that they show what the distinction between oil fields to be developed and oil fields yet to be found is?
Only those who can see the invisible can do the impossible.
JustaGirl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed 09 Apr 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Petoria

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby JustaGirl » Sat 14 Nov 2009, 01:10:43

shortonsense wrote:Well... good point...but I'm not bashing, just noting how the process has worked in the past, and that while we might argue about the size of "how much we ain't found yet", Hubbert certainly used a majority %, and it wouldn't be unreasonable for the IEA to use a sizable % as well ( although maybe not a majority of course ).



Hubbert made his prediction when there was still a ton of oil left to be found and all the super giants were just babies or not even in production. I don't think that is even close to what we have today. We are probably at the maximum reserve growth, at this point as well. Not looking good, unfortunately :cry:
Only those who can see the invisible can do the impossible.
JustaGirl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed 09 Apr 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Petoria

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby HeckuvaJob » Sat 14 Nov 2009, 01:58:47

Jotapay wrote:Corporations use the movement to further their own agenda and generate more profits for themselves under the guise of being "good". It looks like this is going to be used to push treaties like the Copenhagen climate treaty...

Two EPA lawyers who share your concern have created a website exposing how the currently proposed cures will be worse than the disease: CarbonFees.org.

Dear Readers: A critical choice is in progress. The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed a climate bill this past June, and a similar bill was introduced in the Senate in late September. Both bills rely on a Cap-and-Trade with Carbon Offsets approach. Based on our 20+ years each as public sector environmental attorneys, we believe enactment of this type of bill would lock in climate degradation; it would enrich carbon offset investors, but fail to create the shift in incentives needed to begin the clean energy revolution. We urge you to use the materials on this site, including our video, to learn about this issue and to contact your representatives. Ask them to become educated about the choice between Cap-and-Trade with Carbon Offsets as opposed to the approach we call “the Real Solution” – Carbon Fees with Rebates.

Here are our main points: (a) A cap-and-trade approach is inherently inferior to carbon fees; (b) the most efficient approach would be escalating carbon fees on all fossil fuels at the point of importation or extraction, along with appropriate carbon tariffs and international outreach as soon as the United States has taken appropriate action domestically; and (c) there is also a need for other interventions, including a ban on new coal-fired power plants without effective carbon sequestration.

A. Defects in “Cap-and-Trade”: While recognizing that there are many variations on the cap-and-trade approach, here are the problems that cut across the board and would delay achieving the large emissions reductions needed to adequately address climate change: [these are fully discussed on the website]

1. Problems Verifying Emissions in Many Sectors:
2. Problems in Setting a Starting “Cap” on Emissions:
3. Policing of Trading will be Complex:
4. Misplaced Market Theory, Uncertainty, and Economic Harm:
5. Shifting of Assets to the Polluters:
User avatar
HeckuvaJob
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Sat 09 Aug 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Pittsburgh

SENIOR IEA source - "The situation is really bad"

Unread postby KevO » Sat 14 Nov 2009, 04:19:26

Very interesting 'exclusive' in the UK's Guardian a few days ago.
Here are some quotes from said article

The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.

The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.


and


Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.

"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.

A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad," he added.


and

John Hemming, the MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on peak oil and gas, said the revelations confirmed his suspicions that the IEA underplayed how quickly the world was running out and this had profound implications for British government energy policy.

He said he had also been contacted by some IEA officials unhappy with its lack of independent scepticism over predictions. "Reliance on IEA reports has been used to justify claims that oil and gas supplies will not peak before 2030. It is clear now that this will not be the case and the IEA figures cannot be relied on," said Hemming.


READ ALL ABOUT IT AT
http://tinyurl.com/yhmtkgb
KevO
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Tue 24 May 2005, 02:00:00
Location: CT USA

WORLD energy consumption 2007 and 2008

Unread postby KevO » Sat 14 Nov 2009, 04:45:39

KevO
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Tue 24 May 2005, 02:00:00
Location: CT USA

Re: SENIOR IEA source - "The situation is really bad"

Unread postby MD » Sat 14 Nov 2009, 05:10:27

and this will be the fourth thread I've merged into the original that's now about 15 pages long....
Do you drive interstate highways daily? If so, stop doing so ASAP. You'll be happy you did.
Energy Efficiency Pays!
Corn makes better food than fuel.
Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4228
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 02:00:00
Location: On the ball

Re: SENIOR IEA source - "The situation is really bad"

Unread postby davep » Sat 14 Nov 2009, 09:10:30

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


Keep up the good work :-D
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 3540
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby mos6507 » Sat 14 Nov 2009, 09:28:56

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.
User avatar
mos6507
Master
Master
 
Posts: 9505
Joined: Fri 03 Aug 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Boston Suburbs

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby deMolay » Sat 14 Nov 2009, 10:25:33

"We Are All Travellers, From The Sweet Grass To The Packing House, From Birth To Death, We Wander Between The Two Eternities". An Old Cowboy.
User avatar
deMolay
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2671
Joined: Sun 04 Sep 2005, 02:00:00

Re: SENIOR IEA source - "The situation is really bad"

Unread postby KevO » Sat 14 Nov 2009, 10:37:19

MD wrote: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
KevO
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Tue 24 May 2005, 02:00:00
Location: CT USA

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby kpeavey » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 13:25:15

Dr. Colin J. Campbell responds to the Guardian
55.9 Kb PDF File
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."
-George Orwell, 1984
_____

twenty centuries of stony sleep were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, and what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
-George Yeats
User avatar
kpeavey
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1670
Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 14:09:04

kpeavey wrote: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.
User avatar
shortonsense
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 14:12:35

shortonsense wrote:
kpeavey wrote: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?
Yikes!
pstarr
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16757
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 14:19:23

pstarr wrote:
shortonsense wrote:
kpeavey wrote: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.
User avatar
shortonsense
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 14:22:35

shortonsense wrote:
pstarr wrote:
shortonsense wrote:
kpeavey wrote: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?
Yikes!
pstarr
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16757
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 14:59:21

pstarr wrote:
shortonsense wrote: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?
User avatar
shortonsense
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby kpeavey » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 15:44:31

edited to preserve thread integrity
Last edited by kpeavey on Sun 15 Nov 2009, 19:52:10, edited 1 time in total.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."
-George Orwell, 1984
_____

twenty centuries of stony sleep were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, and what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
-George Yeats
User avatar
kpeavey
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1670
Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2004, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests