[TheAntiDoomer]

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.

Not accusing anybody, just showing possibilities, sit down and relax.

[davep]

Not accusing anybody, just showing possibilities, sit down and relax.

You were calling into question the integrity of the source or the journalist. Your post was of no merit whatsoever.

[TheAntiDoomer]

I can raise any question I want Davep, i'm not accusing him of anything.

On another note there also the possibility that this so called whistleblower is a disgruntled employee out to embarrass or discredit his collegues out of bitterness.

[Dr. Ofellati]

The Anti-Doomer types like to accuse us of chronic conspiratorial graspings, yet when a senior official at a major government-sponsored agency is trying to communicate something to the masses, their first response is, "it may be fake news."

Hah!

At least my conspiratorial bent is based on observable phenomenon that apply to the issue in question, not on the unrelated fact that fraud has occurred in the past.

[Dr. Ofellati]

I can raise any question I want Davep, i'm not accusing him of anything.

On another note there also the possibility that this so called whistleblower is a disgruntled employee out to embarrass or discredit his collegues out of bitterness.

Funny timing on that. Right at or about peak oil. And the thing is, he'll be proven right or wrong in short order. Seems to me it would be bizarre that he'd come out with completely wrong information that will soon be proved wrong, in a wild attempt to discredit people.

Do you have a wife AD? I'd like to meet her.

[davep]

I can raise any question I want Davep, i'm not accusing him of anything.

Of course you can. And I can point out what a load of horseshit your smearing is, what with it being based on the square root of bugger all.

On another note there also the possibility that this so called whistleblower is a disgruntled employee out to embarrass or discredit his collegues out of bitterness.

Apparently there were two senior officers. One had left the organisation and the other is still in place. It seems less likely that it's the work of a disgruntled employee when there are two of them, both apparently senior.

[Dr. Ofellati]

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.

Predictions are for the weak of mind. Reality determines the market direction. Oil up at the bell.

[rangerone314]

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.

If oil declines to 50% in 14 years:
1) The price range of oil per barrel will be from $___ to $___?
2) What will the price of gasoline be per gallon?
3) What will the US share of that be? (compared to 25% now)
4) How will that distribution of petroleum in the US be? (fuel oil, transportation, agri)

[eXpat]

You were calling into question the integrity of the source or the journalist. Your post was of no merit whatsoever.

Let him be davep , Anti is fighting for his little piece of cornucopia tooth and nail

[Maddog78]

Predictions are for the weak of mind. Reality determines the market direction. Oil up at the bell.

Would that include your prediction on OPEC output this year?

Anyway I was not making a prediction, only an observation. Perhaps you are referencing the IEA report? That is their raison d'etre, to make predictions.

[Jotapay]

Raw Story picked it up in large red letters.

http://rawstory.com/2009/11/we-entered- ... ly-claims/

WHISTLEBLOWERS: 'PEAK OIL' IS NOW
‘We have already entered peak oil,’ IEA source reportedly claims

[shortonsense]

Brace yourself, guys. This is already running up the flagpole again. Let's see how far it gets before the whack-a-mole happens.

A "whistleblower", unnamed and unknown, 2 days before the report comes out, decides to "whistleblow".

Interesting timing, at the very least.

Certainly the physics of declining fields has nothing to do with anyone's opinion on future events, oilfields do what oilfields do. Are the specifics of how these fields will now suddenly decline mentioned yet? Details on the studies buried, not included or ignored in the IEA's rush to claim that peak oil exists? ( wasn't that last years conclusion? ) Or does the whistleblower have some other references? Admittedly, I'm only on the 3rd page of this thread so far, maybe there are specifics beyond some general accusation concealed deeper in the thread?

[Jotapay]

Interesting timing, at the very least.

I definitely agree with you there.

[Dr. Ofellati]

If oil declines to 50% in 14 years:
1) The price range of oil per barrel will be from $___ to $___?
2) What will the price of gasoline be per gallon?
3) What will the US share of that be? (compared to 25% now)
4) How will that distribution of petroleum in the US be? (fuel oil, transportation, agri)

If oil is depleting now, as I believe it is, at about 7% per year, which I believe is optimistic, then my best estimation is that oil will be back over 100 within a year, and likely within a half year. I expect government controls somewhere between 150 and 200. Price at that point for gasoline will be 5-7 a gallon.

3 is difficult to answer. It's hard for me to see how the U.S. proportion would drop. If anything, it will probably increase. Iraq and Afghanistan argue strongly in that direction.

Distribution is the key, isn't it? Who gets the good stuff.

My guess is that the government will step in at some point to "prevent speculation and stabilize the distribution and use of a critical commodity" and, at that point, forced rationing for the average user will be instituted - can't pull them off crack quickly, of course.

As the years go by and it becomes clear that oil production is never coming back up, we'll see more and more rationing until the system is unsupportable. This may be due to social unrest, war, many things.

Isn't the question, really, how long before we can't operate BAU? We're all still in the game at 7 bucks a gallon, aren't we?

Tough call. 5 years? Maybe.

People in general suffer from an inability to accept bad outcomes that result in a reduction of their standard of living. That's why the oil issue isn't front and center in the world's eye.

Even on this site, where acceptance of a bad result is the norm, there is still pervasive belief that "it won't be that bad," or that "it will be manageable." Those, despite the fact that all information that we have points aggressively downward. The information that we don't have - that bogarted by the KSA and other oil powers - is likely substantially worse than the public propaganda.

The stark conclusion is that a 7% decline rate will be optimistic. Many here don't like that conclusion for the same reason that many who aren't here don't want to hear about peak oil.

[davep]

Interesting timing, at the very least.

I definitely agree with you there.

Same here.

I also find it interesting that they have made available the field by field depletion analysis today. I'm getting the impression that this whole thing may go to the very top of the IEA.

The fact they've released this 450 prediction scenario, to mitigate AGW, seems another nudge and a wink that we're going to have to take into account much lower production rates than their regular prediction scenario.

[rangerone314]

I'm hoping to god BAU continues for a good bit more than 5 years, as I won't have solar deployed by then, although my privacy hedges (thuja giant, multifloral roses, blackberries) should be sufficiently grown, and my agricultural self-sufficiency should be established, and I should have sufficient firepower.

I don't think I'd have solar panels and solar water heater before 8 years (child support ends in 6.5 years and that is $870 per month I can toss into solar power & water filtration etc, in 8 years that gives me over $15,000 cash to play with.

[Dr. Ofellati]

This is informative . . .

"According to The Wall Street Journal, the agency is not expected to announce the arrival at such a dramatic conclusion [that peak oil is upon us]. Instead, the 2009 report due out Tuesday will predict slower growth in demand for oil, the Journal reported."

It's almost as if these bozos believe that lowering demand just ahead of dropping production somehow makes the phenomenon of dropping production disappear.

It's like your salary is being cut 5% a month but you are spending 6% a month less, so you're really not losing pay!

[mcgowanjm]

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. --snip--
The stark conclusion is that a 7% decline rate will be optimistic. Many here don't like that conclusion for the same reason that many who aren't here don't want to hear about peak oil.

Which is why I constantly point to socioeconomic events that mirror oil discovery/production.

And that once over the Asymptote you almost immediately move into the Fat Tail. Where you (and I) will find:
A Non Linear Progression if you're a scientist.
A Black Swan if you're a layman.

And, per Dr O's latest above, the fastest way to find new oil is to crush demand.

[davep]

Dr., they've already made their 2009 WEO findings public.

Here's a press overview http://www.iea.org/speech/2009/Tanaka/WEO2009_Press_Conference.pdf

[shortonsense]

If oil is depleting now, as I believe it is,

Don't be silly, oil has been depleting for better than a century now. It didn't just suddenly START, how do you think we managed to produce 50% of it already? By depleting it!

at about 7% per year, which I believe is optimistic, then my best estimation is that oil will be back over 100 within a year, and likely within a half year. I expect government controls somewhere between 150 and 200. Price at that point for gasoline will be 5-7 a gallon.

I believe the calculation for 7% decline rates, to be true, requires a new Saudi Arabia every 2 years or so. We've been about 4 years on the plateau, I don't suppose you can point at the 2 new Saudi Arabia's which have been added to OPEC since 2004?

People just don't understand that declines are the norm, and if they are 7% today, they were 7% yesterday, thats how declines work. So believe what you want, until someone discovers those missing Saudi Arabia's they have to come up with some other scheme whereby 15 million /day in crude production has come from since 2004. I certainly can't find it...have you?

Isn't the question, really, how long before we can't operate BAU? We're all still in the game at 7 bucks a gallon, aren't we?

Of course. The operative working model is called..."Being European".

The stark conclusion is that a 7% decline rate will be optimistic. Many here don't like that conclusion for the same reason that many who aren't here don't want to hear about peak oil.

Many here understand what 7% decline means, and without being able to find the attendant new discoveries the size of 2 Saudi Arabia's, realize that they are suspicious at BEST.