<An Open thread from the snow-covered North-East The Oil Drum You have to repay a loan>

20 comments on IEA Revisions--The 2006 Forecast

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Carolus Obscurus on December 29, 2005 - 9:39am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Dave writes about "IEA's consistently mistaken forecasts"; Greko says that "IEA estimations and statistics are always wrong...".

This is exaggerated, as far as I can tell. Have look at IEA's 1996 world oil production forecasts. They were/are far more accurate than those of the peak oil community. Check the following figures, copied from Freddy Hutter's `Trendlines':

http://www.globalidiot.net/PeakOil02.html

Freddy's original contribution is to be found here:

http://www.trendlines.ca/economic.htm#ASPO

Perhaps I am mistaken about this and have made some awful gaffe  -- if so, enlightenment most welcome!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stuart Staniford on December 29, 2005 - 2:38pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It is true and important that Colin Campbell has called peak early on a number of occasions and had to revise his predictions repeatedly.  Michael Lynch I believe was the first to analyze this with some care, and reading Lynch's papers has had a big influence on me.  Personally, this would make me wary of accepting any of Campbell's predictions simply on the basis of his authority without having really understood the issues myself (something I'm in the process of doing).  This is not to say I don't admire a lot of things Campbell has done.  However, Colin Campbell is not the only prominent person calling a peak.  For example, Matt Simmons track record at calling peaks and depletion issues in the face of official optimism has been quite good (North Sea, North American NG).  Of course, past performance is no guarantee....

I personally think the state of understanding of bottom-up projection, on both sides of the debate, is marred by a very inadequate picture of decline rates.  Only as we are able to reduce that uncertainty will we be in a position to make better predictions.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Agric on December 30, 2005 - 7:54pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You are a terrier on this, decline rates, Stuart, and are very right to be. It is the key to what happens next. Of all the variables it is the one that most determines the future (sudden human commonsense and appropriate action notwithstanding).

I don't scare easily but I am fearful that decline rates will be significantly higher than expected on the major FIP, given the recovery techniques used lately. The initial cliff off PO might be surprisingly steeper than expected. I'm hoping that I have 4 or 5 more years to get organised but there is too good a chance it could hit sooner and fast.

When I look into the future I'm finding a bifurcation around late March 2006 (yes, being 'strange' on this). It's like there are two main probable futures, one where the shit hits fan bigtime, one where it poodles on as presently. They seem about 40% / 60% so far, it will get clearer as that time approaches. I've never felt this extremity of divergence before and what I 'see' frankly scares me.  Things seem to come back together about 4 to 5 years hence but that isn't positive, they come together on the worse path. Seems if we dodge the bad outcome in a few months time it will impose itself later. I've said too much already.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stoneleigh on January 1, 2006 - 10:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I wouldn't count on getting your 4-5 years to prepare Agric. I doubt that the financial markets will hold up far into 2006 as the credit bubble is about to burst, taking the real estate market in the US, UK and elsewhere with it.

I'm betting we're in for a liquidity crunch and a deflationary depression that will make peak oil preparations far more difficult. On the upside, if there can be said to be one, demand destruction might bring energy (and other) prices down and delay the peak. The downside is that people's ability to afford energy may fall even more quickly than prices, meaning that prices would still rise for most in real terms.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

20 comments on IEA Revisions--The 2006 Forecast

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version