<I Guess It's Better than the SETI Stuff We Geeks Did... The Oil Drum Speaking of bumpy plateaus>

104 comments on EIA: Annual Energy Outlook 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Freddy Hutter on February 16, 2006 - 2:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Jon, your cynical comments are in line with most here and hence require the reality check that only Mike Lynch has a better record for long term production forecasts, going back as far as 1991.  Our challenge to the element of TOD'rs that are of the apocalyptian ilk stands:  Show us who has a better record and we'll add him/her to our 11 Scenarios.  In the meantime, keep whining...

Our EIA Scenario is not affected today as the extraction forecast in the AEO is based on their reference scenario while we chose their 2005 "high price scenario" which is more conservative than today's outlook.  The URR remains exactly the same as the last release an thus does not affect the exhaustion date next century.

All Scenarios and EIA's 1991 outlook is at http://trendlines.ca/economic.htm  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BioDiesel on February 16, 2006 - 3:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Whining?
Can someone disagree with your outlook and not whine?
If so, tell us how.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Freddy Hutter on February 16, 2006 - 6:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
First, this is not my outlook.  It is a compilation of the world's 11 best modelers.  On Christmas Day, Colin Campbell reviewed the year's data and moved his conventional production peak to 2005 from 2004.  Again.  And he has increased his "all liquids" production peak to 86-mbd from 85.  Again.  In November, Rembrands Koppelaar reviewed all the current data for one of the most comprehensive outlooks (incl refining capacity component) and forecast a 92.4-mbd peak ahead of us.

Yet pundits here ignore the best Peakist predictions and dwell on their navel gazing and ad nauseum posts that we are post peak.  As if our friends from Ireland and the Netherlands had somehow joined "the dark side".

So yes, Bio, it is mere whining.

In 1991, Lynch said we be at 81-mbd in 2005.  It was indeed 84.  IEA was next best with its 1996 forecast of 80-mbd for 2005.  And EIA (aka DOE) saw 79-mbd coming back in 1997.

All the while Campbell foresaw 55-mbd in '91 and upped it to 64 in 1997.

In this our third year of publishing the Scenarios, we continue to see the optimists coming down and the Peakist revising upwards.  And IEA's middle-of-the-road outlook continues to represent the likely outcome...

Extremists at both ends of the spectrum face gnashing of teeth each year end.  We have two sets of whiners...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Freddy Hutter on February 16, 2006 - 7:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Apologies to followers of Jean Leherrere of France and his excellent Hubbert type modeling. It was excluded above and his 2005 Outlook forecasts an 87.7-mbd peak in 2014.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BioDiesel on February 17, 2006 - 3:32am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What is more extreme?

Saying April was peak, like the "whiners" on TOD or that production will continue to rise to 120 million (or whatever number) in some far off date?

We both know the answer.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oil CEO on February 17, 2006 - 4:01am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Freddy, longterm production moves at an annualized rate of between 1.1% and 2.2%. It doesn't take any forecasting skill past 4th grade math to figure this out. Notice how slim this window is. What exactly is the mystery that you are so good at deciphering?

The worry here is that this rate cannot be maintained. The evidence is growing that it cannot.

While I still think your input is needed, it must be noted that the reason some people here think you are a complete douchebag is that you never bring any evidence to the table suggesting the opposite.

Nobody cares about trendlines. I know. I actually follow them. Try providing some indicators that we can continue "producing" oil at 1 or 2 million barrels per day more than the year before for the next few years. Dotted lines on a chart mean nothing.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stuart Staniford on February 17, 2006 - 6:03am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Skip the personal insults please - thanks.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Freddy Hutter on February 18, 2006 - 11:25pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Drilling down into the EIA/AEO data, i see that the max 2025 outlook has been pushed out to 2030 in this new release.  The reference case is down 8%; but the high price case production has been cut an incredible 12%.  And peaks at 102-mbd.  We will show the modified graph for this and ASPO after the Olympics.  The merging continues...
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Agric on February 19, 2006 - 1:22am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Thanks Freddy. EIA suggesting possible peak at 102 mbpd sounds very ominous, I guess that's about 2015. I wonder how long it'll be before CERA begins to shift towards the median?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Agric on February 19, 2006 - 1:32am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Just checked your site, seems that the EIA is anticipating a considerable reduction in rate of production growth compared with the previous high price scenario, with peak still as late as 2030 maybe. That's only half the rate of production / consumption increase we've had in the last 5 years despite tripling of price over that time. Smells a bit odd.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

104 comments on EIA: Annual Energy Outlook 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version