I disagree. In the link it does not specify who will determine the victor and using what guidelines. What if it is determined that oil production was just below their prediction? Do they lose? The question becomes how they arrived at their figure. If they believe it is a 50/50 chance of the actual number appearing above or below, then it is a bad bet.
Finally, there is the question of paying up: who is more likely to still exist in 2017: CERA, or a lose association of unnamed business men?
All in all, even if I was certain of my prediction, I would not take the bet. Feel free to enjoy the debate, if there is one.

Soon = in your life time. Soon enough for ya?

I disagree. In the link it does not specify who will determine the victor and using what guidelines. What if it is determined that oil production was just below their prediction? Do they lose? The question becomes how they arrived at their figure. If they believe it is a 50/50 chance of the actual number appearing above or below, then it is a bad bet.

Finally, there is the question of paying up: who is more likely to still exist in 2017: CERA, or a lose association of unnamed business men?

To call the bet, CERA must match the Peak Oil group’s $100,000 letter of credit from National City Corporation. In the event production in 2017 doesn’t exceed CERA’s forecast of 107 million b/d, the individuals of the group have agreed to donate their winnings to an energy-focused non-profit organization.

All in all, even if I was certain of my prediction, I would not take the bet.

I disagree. In the link it does not specify who will determine the victor and using what guidelines. What if it is determined that oil production was just below their prediction? Do they lose? The question becomes how they arrived at their figure. If they believe it is a 50/50 chance of the actual number appearing above or below, then it is a bad bet.

Finally, there is the question of paying up: who is more likely to still exist in 2017: CERA, or a lose association of unnamed business men?

All in all, even if I was certain of my prediction, I would not take the bet.

The bet i want a piece of is the inevitable $100k side bet offered by CERA that last week's Matt Simmons' televised forecast (to Minnesota Legislators) that All Liquids will be down to 60-mbd by 2030 will fail.

Did CERA issue this bet ? Do you have a link? I may take them up on it. Although not all liquids. Crude Oil.

I did not see the 'forcast' that you ascribe to Simmons in looking at the materials submitted to the Minnesota Legislator.

In the materials, Simmons gives odds for 4 scenarios.

For the scenario of 32 million additional net bpd by 2030 he gives a .001% chance

For the undulating plateau he gives a 40% chance

For a 5% decline per annum he gives a 35% chance

For a 10% decline per annum he gives a 25% chance

So you can see why he believes the world needs to initiate risk mitigation measures now in a big way.

World decline rate

The Jan. 17, 2008, press release by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (see www.cera.com), which was carried by Reuters, reported the world’s oil supplies were to rise to 112 million b/d by 2017. This rise is in spite of CERA’s other conclusion that the world’s oil fields are declining in capacity at the average rate of 4.5%/year. These conclusions are clearly suspect.

Although it is unlikely that global oil production is likely to drop significantly in the next few years, major sustainable increases are equally unlikely. Given the current global production of 86 million b/d and CERA’s 4.5% decline rate, global capacity would have to increase by 7.5 million b/d each year for the next 10 years to reach 112 million b/d. This is a total of 75 million b/d of new capacity in 10 years. Even excluding the effect of declining rates, achieving 112 million b/d within a decade represents a massive leap of 26 million b/d in global capacity.

To put this in perspective, 75 million b/d of new capacity is the equivalent of eight new Saudi Arabias or 14 new Irans in just 10 years. Considering the reality that Saudi Arabia, with 25% of the world’s best proven reserves, is already investing $50 billion to increase its production capacity by 2 million b/d, where does CERA expect the additional 24 million b/d of production capacity to come from, let alone the replacement for the 51 million b/d of declines?

Dr. Moujahed Al-Husseini
GeoArabia
Manama, Bahrain

Dr. Sadad Al-Husseini
Saudi Aramco (retired)
Dhahran

But the idea here isn’t to flex muscles and pound chests like a couple of twenty-somethings on steroids. The idea is to say: look, this is such a deeply flawed conclusion that any policy-makers following CERA’s logic here will likely make enormously regrettable decisions.

nice play on words with the thread title

Nothing like retirement to get someone speaking their mind again... I know this!