I just love that graph.

Wasn't late 2005 roughly when Fatih Birol replaced Claude Mandil as the face of IEA? (Anybody?) Birol is a peaker and started making statements (and revising estimates) in stark contrast to the Mandil-led regime. I have a theory that this may have effectively shamed EIA into coming correct as well.

So what have you and Nate been smoking tonight?

Like I said, it's just a theory...and I wasn't able to figure out when Birol became the go-to guy...what is your recall?

Hi Chris - I'm on vacation in S France and have succumbed to some of the local pleasures. Rumors circulating in Scotland that the Sun had gone out I find were over done.

I likely agree with your analysis that Fatih Birol has brought a new sense of realism to the IEA - BUT - the 2008 estimate showing crude production rising to over 80 mmbpd in 2030 is hallucinatory.

What event in the early 2020s is going to turn oil depletion around?

It is interesting to observe the shifting perceptions from 2006 to 2008. 2007 was a bad year for forecasting?

You lucky dog...it's been WAY too long since I sampled the pleasures of Provence! Have a duck confit or an epoisse for me.

Agreed that the projections of both are still too optimistic, but I think they're backing into the truth slowly. I, for one, will be extremely interested to see how EIA responds to the IEA report in November.

It's easy enough to say that the supply problem will resolve itself more than a decade in the future, if palliatives are what you're after. Such projections rarely get called out. So that's a nice little safety zone for them.

I think 2007 wasn't a bad year for forecasting so much as a good year for optimism. Energy stocks were all on a tear.

Nobuo Tanaka replaced Claude Mandil his position at the IEA. Fatih Birol is still the chief economist. It is said that the changeover from Mandil to Tanaka did lead to a different perspective within the IEA that is now driving upwards. But I have no proof of this, which makes it speculation.

I don't think this has anything to do with the EIA monthly corrections. Doesn't sound logical at all.

Yes, but Tanaka is rarely mentioned in the press, at least on this side of the pond. At some point--wish I could nail down when--the spokesman reguarly cited in the press switched from Mandil to Birol, which seemed to correspond with a distinct change in the tone of their announcements. Scuttlebutt I heard at ASPO-USA last year was that it was due to Birol's being convinced of a relatively near-term peak oil. My point about EIA is that they seem to have followed IEA, starting two or three years ago, in downward revising their projections. (Sorry, I didn't mean the historical monthly corrections.)