87 comments on The IEA WEO 2008 - Objectivity of the International Energy Agency
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
87 comments on The IEA WEO 2008 - Objectivity of the International Energy Agency
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
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
- An interview with Stoneleigh - the case for deflation
- The Future of European Transport: iTREN-2030
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 - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
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
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- 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.
“The infrastructure of suburbia can be described as the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world.”
—JH Kunstler
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
Thanks (as always), Gail and Hi Rockman,
re: "In my personal efforts I’ve done such analysis with less then complete data but could still offer a range of risked possibilities. But there have been times when there wasn’t sufficient info to do such an approximation. At that point I can only offer the client a simple answer: I DON’T KNOW."
And "But their true mortal sin would be to offer the world their results without such qualifications."
The second sentence I quote more or less sums up what I wanted to say about the first quote.
Given the enormity of the implications, it seems that it's crucial for the organization to:
1) Put the range of results in context.
2) Point out the implications for the specifics listed in the range.
This would be in economic terms, and physical terms, for example.
3) Assign some meaning to the risk and the ranges of risk, even if one cannot assign a specific risk.
4) It also seems that on the issue of the "bigger picture," "I don't know" is not really satisfactory. The "bigger picture" lends itself to other tools, doesn't it?
Just some thoughts.
Aniya,
"I don't know" might not be very satisfying but if it's true then that's the answer. As far as "other tools" go, yes....they are available and would generate a reasonable result. But there are no tools which can make up for the lack of basic data. The KSA has a very good estimate of their remaining reserves as well as future production rates. They've had some of the best (and most expensive) reservoir modelers working on Ghawar and its other fields for decades. But they are not willing to share those answers. If they were allow others to analyze the production histories we would all know the answer. But they won't. Compare that policy to those of US public corporations who are required by law to present independent third party audits of their reserves which must conform to very strict criteria.
Ranging the risk to any value is fine but one must have a credible baseline to work with. Making a wild and unsupported estimate and then assigning a heavy risk to your answer is deceptive. The MSM and the public will generally use your answer and then conveniently forget to mention the qualifying risk. With regards to the "big picture" the KSA won't even admit how much oil has been produced from its fields since production began or even how much each produced last month. Even if you magically knew how much oil was in Ghawar initially you couldn't even tell today if it were 40% depleted or 70%.
Exactly.
Of course the executives who want to base their decision on such studies want to hear more than "I don't know", otherwise they wouldn't have hired you. Finally they want to know if they shall drill/build/invest or not, so you should give them a clear answer. But normally even under big uncertainties I always could draw conclusions from my data. These could result in a range of values and perhaps an average, and if the client preferred for exaple a conservative statement he could chose the lowest value.
Of course there should never be inconsistencies like in the WEO's chapter of Saudi Arabia:
Classical maths says: 11 fields x 450 million = 4.95 billion.
If these data weren't mixed up by mistake then the report could have said something like this:
The exact reserves are unknown. 6.2 billion barrels of reserves are reported in (source a), however (source b) has 11 fields of 450 million barrels each. So we estimate the total resource is probably in a range between 4.95 and 6.2 billion barrels.