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)"