104 comments on EIA: Annual Energy Outlook 2006
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
104 comments on EIA: Annual Energy Outlook 2006
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
—Richard Feynman
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
Can someone disagree with your outlook and not whine?
If so, tell us how.
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...
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.
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.