Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE EIA Thread pt 3 (merged)

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

Re: U.S. proved natural gas, crude oil reserves soar - EIA

Unread postby shortonoil » Fri 09 Jun 2017, 13:19:52

Its uninformed comments such as this that substantiate the viewpoint that the whole ETP idea is complete nonsense.


Completely uniformed people masquerading as experts seems to be the problem

Do a search for "EIA reserve estimates USGS"

You will get about 100 of them. The EAI has used USGS estimates since its inception 1974, and still do.

The Energy Information Administration estimates US undiscovered, technically recoverable oil resources to be an additional 198 billion barrels.[2][3]

Since 2000 the USGS has been re-assessing basins of the U.S. that are considered to be priorities for oil and gas resources. Since 2000, the USGS has re-assessed 22 priority basins, and has plans to re-assess 10 more basins. These 32 basins represent about 97% of the discovered and undiscovered oil and gas resources of the United States"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reser ... ted_States

Your insistent attempts to cover up what anyone with an iota of mining expedience would see in an instant is getting to be "complete nonsense". The industry can no longer replace its reserves, its revenue has fallen by more than half in the last 3 years, and its profit margin has vanished. The petroleum industry is a dying industry. King oil has now become the Poor Cousin.
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 7132
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: U.S. proved natural gas, crude oil reserves soar - EIA

Unread postby marmico » Fri 09 Jun 2017, 13:54:34

Image
marmico
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 14:46:35

Re: U.S. proved natural gas, crude oil reserves soar - EIA

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 09 Jun 2017, 16:09:15

You will get about 100 of them. The EAI has used USGS estimates since its inception 1974, and still do.

The Energy Information Administration estimates US undiscovered, technically recoverable oil resources to be an additional 198 billion barrels.[2][3]

Since 2000 the USGS has been re-assessing basins of the U.S. that are considered to be priorities for oil and gas resources. Since 2000, the USGS has re-assessed 22 priority basins, and has plans to re-assess 10 more basins. These 32 basins represent about 97% of the discovered and undiscovered oil and gas resources of the United States"


When the EIA refers to Reserves and especially recoverable Reserves they use the data that is supplied to the US and State authorities from reporting companies and State regulators (example RRC in TX). They do not use the USGS numbers (which are derived in a totally different fashion for completely different reasons) for anything other than a reference to Resources (which are what technically recoverable reserves are). Read the the page I linked to at EIA, it tells you what they do. The USGS does not talk about the term Reserves (which by definition refers to that which is economically recoverable under the average price of that year) other than it all gets wound up in their over view of what might be recovered eventually from the various basins they inspect. So pull your head out of your backside. You have been instructed numerous times as to what the official terms Reserves, Proven, Probably, Possible, Contingent Resource, Possible Resource etc mean and that Technically Recoverable Reserves is a USGS only term that refers to ultimate recovery irrespective of current price. Not sure why you don't get the fact that Reserves do not disappear....they become Resources when the price drops below their economic level and then they are elevated back to Reserves once the price returns or moves ever higher. I repeat the EIA numbers on Reserves are derived from in their own words:
(EIA) starts with the data filed on Form EIA-23L, Annual Report of Domestic Oil and Gas Reserves, which was submitted by 450 of 467 sampled operators of U.S. oil and natural gas fields. EIA then estimates proved reserves for the U.S., states, and state subdivisions.


The industry can no longer replace its reserves, its revenue has fallen by more than half in the last 3 years, and its profit margin has vanished. The petroleum industry is a dying industry. King oil has now become the Poor Cousin.


IT amazes me how a "dying industry" can still keep paying salaries, drilling wells, pay rent, a large part of the tax revenue you mooch off of, provide the materials for all the countless toys you play with, etc, etc. If you knew how to read a balance sheet and understood how the oil and gas business worked you might be dangerous....you aren't however. Lets look at XOM as an example. If you look at their 2016 filings you would see that the only reason liquid reserve replacement fell below 100% (which it has been above since 2007) was because of a write down in some of their heavy oil holdings. That write down does not constitute lost oil but rather reserves which have been demoted to resources but which will return to reserves again at average prices above $50. When that happens XOM will show a full reserve replacement once again. That is the way it works.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

US EIA cuts 2018 world oil demand growth forecast

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 14 Dec 2017, 23:09:35

The U.S. Energy Information Administration on Tuesday cut its 2018 world oil demand growth forecast by 40,000 barrels per day to 1.62 million bpd. In its monthly forecast, the agency raised its oil demand growth estimate for 2017 by 80,000 bpd to 1.39 million bpd. reuters


US EIA cuts 2018 world oil demand growth forecast
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9290
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

EIA Bashers Should Check Their Own Numbers

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 14 Dec 2017, 23:12:06

Summary Empirical data does not support multiple recent allegations that the EIA's reporting or forecasts are "wrong." The wave of frivolous accusations against the EIA in the blogosphere preys on the least protected category of investors. A competent, independent, bias-free EIA must be safeguarded. This idea was discussed in more depth with members of my private investing community, Zeits OIL ANALYTICS. Bashing the EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration) has become trendy of late among a certain category of bloggers. However, the allegations that the agency's analytics are "wrong" often turn out to be without substance or even without demonstrated understanding of what the EIA does. Disappointingly, the outbreak of the "can't trust the EIA" fever among sensation-seeking amateur writers has coincided with less-than thought-out criticisms by some respected industry insiders and weak coverage of the subject by major financial news outlets. Unmerited attacks on the agency


EIA Bashers Should Check Their Own Numbers
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9290
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: EIA Bashers Should Check Their Own Numbers

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 14 Dec 2017, 23:15:13

I think it is worth mentioning that the EIA is one of the few energy organizations that didn't fall for the peak oil of a decade ago. No Happy McDoomsters there, just experts in many (if not all) facets of energy, with who knows how many man-centuries of experience.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9290
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: THE EIA Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby tita » Thu 26 Sep 2019, 12:16:55

I was looking at the last "International Energy Outlook" from the EIA, with projections to 2050.

It's quite astonishing that, under the "High oil price" scenario, growth is higher and energy consumption/production is also higher while the "low oil price" scenario see lower growth and lower primary energy consumption and production.

I guess the EIA didn't have the memo from the ETP crowd.
User avatar
tita
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE EIA Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Scottie » Thu 21 Nov 2019, 23:52:17

tita wrote:I was looking at the last "International Energy Outlook" from the EIA, with projections to 2050.

It's quite astonishing that, under the "High oil price" scenario, growth is higher and energy consumption/production is also higher while the "low oil price" scenario see lower growth and lower primary energy consumption and production.

I guess the EIA didn't have the memo from the ETP crowd.


The odds of the EIA paying attention to the kind of pseudo science used by the ETP crowd is somewhere between zero and none. I mean really, would they even have read something that couldn't make it through a peer review, in order to not suffer further embarrassment had to remove the entire website and is currently in the process of claiming that the MAP nonsense really wasn't something they thought was a good idea...while using it to lose bets and then welsh when they lost?

My bet is that if they even heard of it their would have been a crooked grin, a chuckle, and then completely forgotten about 5 seconds later.
User avatar
Scottie
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed 02 May 2012, 19:04:19

Re: THE EIA Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ralfy » Fri 22 Nov 2019, 19:08:25

Scottie wrote:
tita wrote:I was looking at the last "International Energy Outlook" from the EIA, with projections to 2050.

It's quite astonishing that, under the "High oil price" scenario, growth is higher and energy consumption/production is also higher while the "low oil price" scenario see lower growth and lower primary energy consumption and production.

I guess the EIA didn't have the memo from the ETP crowd.


The odds of the EIA paying attention to the kind of pseudo science used by the ETP crowd is somewhere between zero and none. I mean really, would they even have read something that couldn't make it through a peer review, in order to not suffer further embarrassment had to remove the entire website and is currently in the process of claiming that the MAP nonsense really wasn't something they thought was a good idea...while using it to lose bets and then welsh when they lost?

My bet is that if they even heard of it their would have been a crooked grin, a chuckle, and then completely forgotten about 5 seconds later.


Shouldn't it be the other way round? Consumption is lower when price is higher, and consumption goes up when price is lower?
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5558
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: THE EIA Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 24 Nov 2019, 12:15:32

ralfy wrote:
Scottie wrote:
tita wrote:I was looking at the last "International Energy Outlook" from the EIA, with projections to 2050.

It's quite astonishing that, under the "High oil price" scenario, growth is higher and energy consumption/production is also higher while the "low oil price" scenario see lower growth and lower primary energy consumption and production.

I guess the EIA didn't have the memo from the ETP crowd.


My bet is that if they even heard of it their would have been a crooked grin, a chuckle, and then completely forgotten about 5 seconds later.


Shouldn't it be the other way round? Consumption is lower when price is higher, and consumption goes up when price is lower?


By the very act of hearing of it, thinking about it, and chuckling, is itself an answer as to the value of the etp idea. It received as much attention as it deserved. Just as I was able to write down why it was wrong years ago, I didn't require reality to prove me out. I knew in advance it would, because it was just flat out wrong. Anyone spouting that 2+2 must equal 5 can be easily dismissed, and some of us knew it years ago.

Do the science, and what follows is a step forward. Make up silly ideas that can't make it through peer review, need hidden because otherwise they are hung by their own petard, that has nothing to do with doing the science.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9290
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: THE EIA Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Thu 17 Dec 2020, 14:38:37

Why would anyone have even a sliver of faith in the long disproved ETP project?
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Subjectivist
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4700
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE EIA Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 17 Dec 2020, 16:32:07

Subjectivist wrote:Why would anyone have even a sliver of faith in the long disproved ETP project?


Two groups like it. The first group wants an instant doom scenario, much like many of the original peak oilers on this website. TEOTWAWKI, and they want it now. Doesn't matter that the claim of the end of the world has come and gone and the equation was bumbling nonsense, only that they liked a claim that alleged had numbers involved. Made it look all scientific-ey. The second group are Shorts sock puppets. And short himself, returned in a new guise and doing his best to pretend he isn't himself so folks won't go after him for the bets he welshed on.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9290
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: THE EIA Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby theluckycountry » Fri 04 Mar 2022, 16:37:38

The Energy Information Administration is like every other Governmental body, it's primary purpose it to massage the figures and make the US look great, while at the same time demonizing foreign entities. People that trust information from such sources are intellectually lazy, too lazy to do their own research.

How do the heads of the EIA keep their lucrative jobs? By doing what they are told by their masters above. Politics taints everything today, especially science.
après moi le déluge
theluckycountry
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2021, 18:08:48
Location: Australia

Re: THE EIA Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Doly » Fri 04 Mar 2022, 17:48:14

The first group wants an instant doom scenario, much like many of the original peak oilers on this website.


Hey, I was around this website a long time ago, and I didn't *want* an instant doom scenario. I just thought it sounded plausible, when it was true that the US kept getting into wars and conflicts with oil-rich countries, and also true that the Earth has a finite amount of resources. And I remembered seeing in my teens the figure of 2020 for when oil was expected to run out, and thinking: "Cars are going to be quite different when I'm old." I didn't want doom, I wanted to prevent it, and if it was too late for that, I wanted to help my local area deal with it when it happened, in an enlightened self-interest sort of way.

The problem I see with most people coming up with forecasts is that they get them wrong because they make them too complicated. And they make them complicated to make them look respectable. In fact, there was never anything too wrong with the Hubbert curve, and accepting that in reality you are unlikely to get enough information to get something more detailed than that unless you are an expert and have access to possibly restricted information. What I like doing is use simple models and tinker with them to get an idea of what sort of things are possible, and most importantly, what sort of things don't seem possible.

On the other hand, there's clearly an issue with people not knowing how to filter information, critical thinking, too many people following unthinkingly a few news sources and alternative sources being often as healthy as pond scum. The Internet seems to have created an information space that we don't know how to deal with. And the way things are going and with all the issues with supply chains, it's legitimate to worry if the Internet will last.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4366
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: THE EIA Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 04 Mar 2022, 19:31:02

theluckycountry wrote:The Energy Information Administration is like every other Governmental body, it's primary purpose it to massage the figures and make the US look great, while at the same time demonizing foreign entities. People that trust information from such sources are intellectually lazy, too lazy to do their own research.


The EIA is the only organization that posted a peak oil date back during the bad ol' days of peak oil (before the suckers realized they'd been had and ducked and ran for cover into climate change or Qanon or net energy or whatever) that hasn't been discredited by reality. Take that for what it is worth in the "quality" department (meaning they knew better than the geologically ignorant) even if their method was a bit wack-a-doodle at the time.

And you wouldn't know "research" from a hole in your head.

theluckycountry wrote:How do the heads of the EIA keep their lucrative jobs?


They don't, for any length of time. They tend to be replaced with each new administration. Duh. Know as much about US government stuff as you do nuclear waste and how to ride a motorcycle I see.

theluckycountry wrote:By doing what they are told by their masters above. Politics taints everything today, especially science.


Told you. The EIA doesn't do science, it does mostly analysis. Sure, they kick out an occasional published paper, but you wouldn't know the difference between a research paper and toilet paper, so run along and go bend some bananas.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9290
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: THE EIA Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 04 Mar 2022, 19:42:31

Doly wrote:
The first group wants an instant doom scenario, much like many of the original peak oilers on this website.

I didn't want doom, I wanted to prevent it, and if it was too late for that, I wanted to help my local area deal with it when it happened, in an enlightened self-interest sort of way.


I recall more than a few who were interested in peak oil this way, for as much fun as I make of the run of the mill congregation members.

Doly wrote:The problem I see with most people coming up with forecasts is that they get them wrong because they make them too complicated. And they make them complicated to make them look respectable. In fact, there was never anything too wrong with the Hubbert curve, and accepting that in reality you are unlikely to get enough information to get something more detailed than that unless you are an expert and have access to possibly restricted information. What I like doing is use simple models and tinker with them to get an idea of what sort of things are possible, and most importantly, what sort of things don't seem possible.


There was exactly something wrong with the Hubbert curve. And in the knowing of it, there is course correction hopefully incorporated in the next forecast, be it as simplistic, or more complex. It is the way learning works. Simplistic or complex, do you agree that once you have learned something to improve a model and incorporated it, you have an improved model? Still might not forecast for crap, but it is improved, and hopefully won't be as "stupid" the next time, even if it returns a forecast later disproven as well.

Doly wrote:On the other hand, there's clearly an issue with people not knowing how to filter information, critical thinking, too many people following unthinkingly a few news sources and alternative sources being often as healthy as pond scum. The Internet seems to have created an information space that we don't know how to deal with. And the way things are going and with all the issues with supply chains, it's legitimate to worry if the Internet will last.


You describe the internet pretty well. I usually use the term "echo chamber" to describe most of what goes on there, in forums and reddits and whatnot, learned what you've just put to words while researching peak oil topics, and interacting with the denizens of the various congregations along the way.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9290
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: THE EIA Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Pops » Sat 05 Mar 2022, 11:12:37

The EIA is mostly a reporting agency, what forecasts they make simply assume BAU from here to eternity.

Most forecasts aren't too complicated I think—they are too simplistic if anything.

They start with someone's guess at the amount that will be ultimately extracted, then draw some curve to match that amount. Done.

EIA does it using oil company's numbers, because of course oil companies are totally neutral in valuing their assets, just like real estate slumlords.

Hubbert's big idea was the linearization that basically (so basic even I understand) drew a line through past production hoping to predict the ultimate extraction amount, then drew some curve to match that amount.

Even still, Laherrere simply starts with some ultimate and draws a curve to match. He does admit something that no one else does, all the guesses at ultimates are guesses based on information provided by entities who have every reason, personal, political, monetary, to lie.

I like Dennis' charts because he plugs in a range of somewhat dynamic assumptions: URR, rigs, cost, price, reserves, consumption, blah, blah that give widely differing outcomes. Those broad possibilities, in my experience, are the best you are going to get. They sorta set the bounds as much as can be set.

All this stuff though suffers from the Too Ehrlich problem. Ehrlich said starvation just at the time Borlaug said "water and fertilizer." I hate to quote rumsfeld but there are always things we don't know we don't know and no model will predict. Simply churning out eternally optimist/pessimist guesses means you could be right sometimes or most of the time and still be no help except to the people who choose to cherry-pick your guess to justify their knee-jerk gut reaction.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: THE EIA Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby AdamB » Sat 05 Mar 2022, 13:25:58

Pops wrote:The EIA is mostly a reporting agency, what forecasts they make simply assume BAU from here to eternity.


Except for peak oil forecasts anyway, that happens, and then oil production drops. So...no...not from here to eternity. And changes in market penetration rates aren't BAU, certainly drilling in the US reaching a plateau isn't from here to eternity, and then then there are oil and resource side cases which go all BANANAS just to satisfy those who make stuff up about BAU to prove that, you know, BAU has ranges and stuff that AREN'T BAU. But maybe you have to be paying attention to find those?

Pops wrote:Most forecasts aren't too complicated I think—they are too simplistic if anything.


And you are familiar enough with their modeling well enough to make this statement...how? Because last I looked, the upcoming new Administrator of the joint himself said they are a pain in the ass complicated, need to be simpler and more open source, etc etc. I certainly agreed with that, I can't make hide nor tail out of some of their simplistic, state of the art modeling techniques. Perhaps your experience is more substantial in this regard.

Pops wrote:They start with someone's guess at the amount that will be ultimately extracted, then draw some curve to match that amount. Done.


Funny that when they had those annual conferences, and you could actually go talk to them, they said exactly the opposite. Perhaps you would like a link to some of their documentation proving that you aren't paying enough attention to the only non-discredited peak oil gang? :)

Pops wrote:EIA does it using oil company's numbers, because of course oil companies are totally neutral in valuing their assets, just like real estate slumlords.


No. They don't. Come on pops, you reference their stuff all the time, are you really this uninformed on how they do what they do domestically? Have you ever even TALKED to them, picked up the phone, hassled a modeler, anything? You usually don't make shit up like Short and his puppets, why start now?

Pops wrote:I like Dennis' charts because he plugs in a range of somewhat dynamic assumptions: URR, rigs, cost, price, reserves, consumption, blah, blah that give widely differing outcomes. Those broad possibilities, in my experience, are the best you are going to get. They sorta set the bounds as much as can be set.


Good thing the EIA does stuff like that and more then. Price, area, geology from the USGS, well performance as calculated by them and not taken from oil companies...and one better...demand assumptions and the interaction between that and price and by extension supply. Dennis doesn't even touch an integrated energy modeling environment. And the side cases are the broad possibilities. Duh.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9290
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Previous

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests