Very good article on the Energy Bulletin.  Note the differences between the EIA's optimistic predictions for the North Sea and elsewhere and the hard, cold reality.  Of the areas mentioned, I've only looked at the Hubbert linearization plot for the North Sea, but the Hubbert/Deffeyes method was dead on accurate in predicting:  (1)  the North Sea peak, at 52% of Qt, and (2) the steep decline rate, since the Y axis (P/Q) intercept is much steeper than what we saw in the Lower 48.

Published on Friday, December 2, 2005 by Energy Bulletin

http://www.energybulletin.net/11370.html

Revisiting International Energy Outlook 2001
By Ron Patterson

In late 2001 Roger Blanchard published a critique of the EIA's publication "International Energy Outlook 2001". Roger thought they would miss their mark. Four years later I thought I would check some of their predictions and see how they were doing.

Question: the Hubbert linearization being an easy, theoretically sound method with a good track record, why the EIA is not using it?
I think that they are not using because they don't like the answers it gives them.
What's even funnier/sadder than this is not that they screwed up in the 2001 projections, but that they've stuck to their guns in IEO2005.  In IEO2005, they predict that the Norwegian sector of the North Sea will peak at about 3.6 million bbl/d in 2006, and the UK sector at 2.2 million bbl/d in 2010.  This report was just put out in July 2005, well after the downward trend in UK and Norway production has been well established.  

The EIA practices top-down supply prediction - forecast demand, and then insure supply will be sufficient to cover by number fudging.