[wisconsin_cur]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency

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.

[Arthur75]

http://peakoil.com/peak-oil-reports/key ... 56606.html

[davep]

The article on the guardian has been updated with an audio piece and an IEA graph.

[Jotapay]

This was the headline story on Marketplace on NPR this morning.

[davep]

They've released a pdf of the Field-by-Field Analysis of Oil Production from last year's WEO report as well http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2008/chapter10.pdf

[Dr. Ofellati]

This was the headline story on Marketplace on NPR this morning.

JP - what is "this", the whistleblower or the IEA report?

[dorlomin]

They've released a pdf of the Field-by-Field Analysis of Oil Production from last year's WEO report as well http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2008/chapter10.pdf

Ooooh something to read over the weekend.

[davep]

They've released a pdf of the Field-by-Field Analysis of Oil Production from last year's WEO report as well http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2008/chapter10.pdf

Ooooh something to read over the weekend.

I'd take a copy pretty quickly if I were you in case someone decides to pull it from the website.

[dorlomin]

Questions for Fatih Britol over at the FT.

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/ ... questions/

[dorlomin]

Non opec to peak next year EIA.

Non-Opec oil production will peak next year, the International Energy Agency says in its World Energy Outlook.

The IEA also says that post-peak gas fields are declining at a rate of 7.5 per cent, but there appears to be enough recoverable gas reserves to satisfy world demand until at least 2030.

The IEA has been criticised for underplaying the risk of an imminent oil supply. A story in The Guardian today quotes two whistleblowers who claim the agency privately believes oil production will never reach 100m barrels per day, despite its forecasts that world oil demand will reach 105m b/d by 2030.

The WEO repeats the 105m b/d forecast this year, but breaks its outlook into two scenarios: a ‘reference scenario’, in which energy use continues along its current path, and a ‘450 scenario’, in which governments make a concerted effort to limit atmospheric CO2 concentrations to 450ppm.

Under the no-change reference scenario, the IEA sees global oil rising 1 per cent per year, reaching 105m b/d in 2030. This is 1m b/d less than the agency’s forecast last year. OECD demand, in this scenario, will also fall.

Under the 450 scenario, non-hydro renewables rise from 2.5 per cent of the power mix in 2007 to 8.6 per cent in 2030.

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/ ... next-year/

[davep]

Non opec to peak next year EIA.

Non-Opec oil production will peak next year, the International Energy Agency says in its World Energy Outlook.

The IEA also says that post-peak gas fields are declining at a rate of 7.5 per cent, but there appears to be enough recoverable gas reserves to satisfy world demand until at least 2030.

The IEA has been criticised for underplaying the risk of an imminent oil supply. A story in The Guardian today quotes two whistleblowers who claim the agency privately believes oil production will never reach 100m barrels per day, despite its forecasts that world oil demand will reach 105m b/d by 2030.

The WEO repeats the 105m b/d forecast this year, but breaks its outlook into two scenarios: a ‘reference scenario’, in which energy use continues along its current path, and a ‘450 scenario’, in which governments make a concerted effort to limit atmospheric CO2 concentrations to 450ppm.

Under the no-change reference scenario, the IEA sees global oil rising 1 per cent per year, reaching 105m b/d in 2030. This is 1m b/d less than the agency’s forecast last year. OECD demand, in this scenario, will also fall.

Under the 450 scenario, non-hydro renewables rise from 2.5 per cent of the power mix in 2007 to 8.6 per cent in 2030.

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/ ... next-year/

So, as we expected, they're brazenly using AGW to usher in peak oil mitigation.

We need to adhere to the 450 scenario, or we're all going to burn! Not because the other scenario is totally impossible.

I did wonder why there was more consensus than usual amongst world leaders leading up to Copenhagen.

[dorlomin]

They've released a pdf of the Field-by-Field Analysis of Oil Production from last year's WEO report as well http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2008/chapter10.pdf

Ooooh something to read over the weekend.

Check out the graph on page 227.

[davep]

They've released a pdf of the Field-by-Field Analysis of Oil Production from last year's WEO report as well http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2008/chapter10.pdf

Ooooh something to read over the weekend.

Check out the graph on page 227.

And page 236.

The observed post-peak decline rate averaged across all fields on a production weighted basis is 5.1% using raw data. That is equal to 3.6mb/d per year

And they expect us to find all this new oil to replace this where exactly?

[Dr. Ofellati]

Too little to late.

At 7% decline rate overall, we're looking at a 12 year plunge to 50% production.
At 5% decline rate overall, we're looking at a 14 year plunge to 50% production.

In either case (the hopeful 7% or the dreaming 5%) we are completely screwed and to attempt to cover the decline with climate change legislation would cause a riot across the U.S..

The CCC will blame it on the Muslims before they lay claim to it.

[Jotapay]

This was the headline story on Marketplace on NPR this morning.

JP - what is "this", the whistleblower or the IEA report?

The story was about the whistleblower's allegations, the USA's manipulation of the reserves' statistics and that we may not have as much oil as we thought.

[davep]

Dorlomin, I didn't know you posted on the Guardian. I'm Tasselhoff btw, and posted just after you.

[Maddog78]

This story doesn't seem to have excited the traders much.
Crude down slightly as I type this.
It seems today's IEA report predicting continued decreased demand and recent increases of OPEC production have trumped a story on IEA whistleblowers.

[davep]

This story doesn't seem to have excited the traders much.
Crude down slightly as I type this.
It seems today's IEA report predicting continued decreased demand and recent increases of OPEC production have trumped a story on IEA whistleblowers.

I'm guessing this will affect the price of long-term futures and options more than the current price (which is a shame, as I've got a December 2009 call at 100 dollars about to expire).

[TheAntiDoomer]

This story doesn't seem to have excited the traders much.
Crude down slightly as I type this.
It seems today's IEA report predicting continued decreased demand and recent increases of OPEC production have trumped a story on IEA whistleblowers.

or it could be that the so called source is not credible or possibly the reporter is of questionable integrity. I recall several stories in the past:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-03-18 ... main_x.htm

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-272096.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3551981.stm

[davep]

This story doesn't seem to have excited the traders much.
Crude down slightly as I type this.
It seems today's IEA report predicting continued decreased demand and recent increases of OPEC production have trumped a story on IEA whistleblowers.

or it could be that the so called source is not credible or possibly the reporter is of questionable integrity. I recall several stories in the past:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-03-18 ... main_x.htm

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-272096.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3551981.stm

Talk about cognitive dissonance. Your only response is that because some journalists in the past have faked stories, you can slur this one with no specific evidence. That's really, really poor.