CERA Response Thread I
Posted by Prof. Goose on November 14, 2006 - 7:28pm
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: cera, daniel yergin [list all tags]
Obviously, it's quite the buzz in the po-sphere that CERA has released its latest report (which we'd love to give you, but really can't as it is behind a paywall) and press release (original CERA link here).
The media coverage is just beginning. Bartlett and Udall respond to CERA here. [Update by Prof. Goose on 11/14/06 at 10:54 PM EDT] Here's another "everything's ok" piece (linked from Drudge).
We here at TOD will begin putting together responses over the next couple of days and weeks. However, obviously, from the emails I am getting in the TOD inbox, you all would like to talk about it too. Well, here you go.
www.defendscience.org
Any questions?
What a maroon, that Hubbert! Why everybody knows how trees grow to the sky and then beyond even that. It's common sense.
Apply directly to the head.
Apply directly to the CERA-bellum.
Only $1000.000 for the "full" of it report.
CERA-on dude.
Apply directly to the head.
Apply directly to the head.
I tried to summarize the points of agreement and disagreement between CERA and the "peakists" (CERA's term). I was surprised by the amount of agreement. I was further surprised by their openness to debate:
I'm eager to hear what the experts at The Oil Drum have to say.
One suggestion - this looks like an opening. It would be good to have a response that is gracious and mature.
Bart
energybulletin.net
Where did you get that quote ("We respect the urgency and seriousness ...")? I could not find it in the press release on the CERA web site or in the abstract of the report. Do you have the $1000 version of the report?
PG,
A minor point - not quite sure why you changed the link from CERA to Energy Bulletin (rather than just adding the EB link). With all due respect to EB, CERA is the primary source here, and in my opinion it is always preferable to cite primary sources if possible.
Anyway, the thing that sticks out is just how different Khebab's post and CERA's report are, i.e. 20+ year difference in peak/plateau. It would be interesting to see an analysis of why this is so. It most likely comes down to different analytic methodologies, different assumptions, and different definitions of "oil" (Daniel Yergin is fond of saying that the definition of oil is constantly expanding). For example, CERA's work seems to be bottom-up, while much of the work done here (Stuart, Khebab) is top-down. (Khebab did a good job disaggregating a lot of the data in yesterday's post.)
It may be difficult to critique CERA's work because of their use of their proprietary IHS database (IHS is CERA's parent company). For example, what are they assuming for the average rate of decline of existing fields in production? And are they assuming any kind of project slippage for new projects? Nevertheless, an analytical comparison of the "peakist" theory to the CERA report would be highly worthwhile. Bart's comments at EB make for a good outline.
I agree with you about linking to the original source whenever possible. -Bart
Later they say "CERA draws both on its own data bases and those of its parent company IHS, which has the world's most complete [b]proprietary[/b] data bases on oil production and resources."
Bart further notes that "the short report cited by this press release is not publicly available (the 16-page PDF is sold for $1000."
As regards OPEC members, the information in the database is what OPEC tell them. If Saudi Aramco drill a well and say they found 400 million barrels, then they stick 400 million barrels in the database (plus a bit more because anything in Saudi Arabia must be good). Apparently the Saudi's have eighty undeveloped fields. The database says so, so it must be true.
cheers
Phil
from Aberdeen to Melbourne, Oz.
They do eventually give Hubert credit for calling the peak within a year or two of actual - which is a <small> positive - while at the same time trashing him some that his production numbers were wrong. If I made such a grand prediction in the early 1950's I think that is pretty damn good, it is good, damn good. Huberts call should be a much bigger positive than it was, they act like they are forced to cough it up. Nothing follows a perfect curve they should know that as well. All the factors that they mention can and do have an effect on production and ultimate recovery. I was young at the time but I'm sure there were factors that affected oil production in the period between 1950 and 1972, political, geological, technological, etc. etc. this is not a brand new world they just came up with. Hubert did a damn fine job and took alot of shit for it. That shit continues....
Point 2)
(I can't toggle back and forth without losing my text here, so..accuracy is not what it could be)
They mention technology as making URR greater - and, AND giving a more gradual downslope on the hubert curve. I suspect that technology added, or continues to add to the upslope(?)/plataeu as well. I think logically you can use the effect of technology on bothsides. To say it acts to reduce the down slope with out giving credit as to why we have had so much oil to use for so long seems disingenuinous at best.
Point 3)- The CEO of Shell oil was here in Portland, OR and was interviewed in the paper. The era of cheap oil is over and he stressed conservation. I think this is more than a mouth full no matter what CERA says. Shell is not a new kid on the block.
Point 4) What about that damn 'Hirsch Report' - forgotten??? How can we have both CERA and the HIRSCH REPORT at the same time. (seriously - WTF?)
I'm suspect of this group. I think we need to follow the $ (thiers). Given the seriousness of PO I think these guys need to have a good look in the mirror in the morning...never mind there are plenty of people without a conscience.
Sound familiar to the likes of Dr. Campbell?
(Hothgor's constant attacks using misleading information, e.g., his bizarre assertion for weeks that US gas production didn't peak in 1973, made it quite easy for me to say adios to TOD. I am also very busy developing several oil fields, with two rigs dedicated solely to my projects right now, but the CERA story is irresistible.)
I believe Yergin made the statement that this is the fifth time that the world has run out of oil, after four previous "crises." Interstingly enough, there are four large discrete producing regions that have shown lower production after crossing the 50% of Qt mark using the Hubbert Linearization (HL) method--the Lower 48; Russia; North Sea and Mexico.
Khebab has mathematically modeled (using only production data through the 50% mark) the post-50% of Qt production for the Lower 48 and Russia. For the Lower 48, the cumulative production through 2004 was 99% of what the HL model predicted it would be. For Russia, the cumulative production through 2004 was 95% of what the HL model predicted it would be.
The North Sea peaked in 1999, after crossing the 50% of Qt mark (crude + condensate). Mexico just peaked this year, after crossing the 50% of Qt mark.
The world is just past the 50% of Qt mark for crude + condensate, and right at the 50% of Qt mark for crude + condensate + NGL's. Both measures of "oil" are showing lower production relative to late 2005. In other words, the world is showing the same type of production response that four large producing regions have shown, at about the same stage of depletion.
Then there are the big four super giant oil fields that are, or were, producing one mbpd or more--Ghawar; Cantarall; Burgan and Daqing. Assuming that Ghawar is in decline--a reasonable assumption IMO--all four of these super giants are either in decline or crashing. The only possible super giant on the horizon is the Kashagan Field that, at best, won't start producing until 2010, and won't reach peak production until 2020, when it is expected to peak at just a little more than one mbpd.
IMO, the CERA story is part of the concerted effort by the "Iron Triangle" to persuade Americans that we are not anywhere near Peak Oil and that Americans should continue buying and financing large homes and autos. IMO, large majors like ExxonMobil are afraid of punitive taxation, if they admit to the reality of Peak Oil. I suspect that the recent election had a lot to do with the CERA story. ExxonMobil is going to assert that they need every dollar of cash flow to bring on the trillions of barrels of oil reserves--so that Americans can continue driving their SUV's to their large suburban mortgages.
Published on 19 Apr 2006 by Energy Bulletin.
What the mainstream media are not telling you about the run up in oil prices
by Jeffrey J. Brown
We hope it's only a one day retirement, Jeffrey. Best wishes to you.
Erwin
And that point should be hammered home again and again. If a person is going to be a pundit, then their track record should certainly be carefully scrutinized. If their past predictions are no good, why exactly would I pay any heed to their current predictions?
I do want to see the specifics of why their reserve number is so large. How do they calculate it? Upon what is it based? Are they throwing a trillion barrels of tar sands in there?
Published on 13 Jul 2006 by Energy Bulletin. Archived on 13 Jul 2006.
Daniel Yergin Day, July 13, 2006
by Jeffrey J. Brown
;)
D
Hmmmm
....I noticed that CERA certainly spent alot of time thrashing on huberts curve....
...maybe you are in thier crosshairs because of you constantly refer to hubert also...
...I think they do not like you. You are a bad person...
:)
D
After the Peak Oil debate on PBS, where I took on ExxonMobil and Michael Lynch, I had an interesting exchange with the ExxonMobil guy on the way out. I gave him my card with the EB website and with instructions for finding my articles. He handed it back to me saying, "We have read all of your articles." I left feeling not entirely comfortable with that comment.
Of course, that was topped by a comment from a guy at a Dallas area Rotary Club meeting, where I gave a talk on Peak Oil. On the way out, he took me aside and said that while he agreed with me about ELP, he was surprised that I had not been assassinated yet (I think he was halfway serious).
I did not know this. Do you have a link. I very much want to see.
You should be flattered
Creepy
Now if millions of young people (including nubile young women) were signing up for ELP, then yeah assasination might be a real concern.
That's the thing about the Iron Triangle. It has such overwhelmingly powerful propaganda controls that ultimately people like us are really no threat. Particularly on an issue where even people of the intellectual-dissident class don't wants to believe this. IE, you can have somebody who is totally "against the system" who would never believe corporate propaganda on all sorts of issues but who will accept it in regards to PO. The alternative (accepting it) is simply too terrifying even for people who are aware of how corrupt the system is.
Using myself as an example: Let's say hypothetically speaking Blackwater calls me and says, "Matt we'd like to pick your brain for a couple hours about current events. We'll pay you a consulting fee of $25,000." Would I accpet it? Sure would. Would I then be less inclined to post those nasty videos about Blackwater contractors that I've posted to LATOC? Almost certainly.
Now other PO pundits might be able to say they would turn down such an offer from entities in the petroleum-banking-military-industrial complex. That's all well and good. They'll just find whatever your weakness is and exploit that. For me, it is the desire to get money to buy land, go off-grid, etc. For somebody else who is already secure financially they might want a cushy consulting job or more notoriety or funding for their site, organization, conference, whatever . . .
As an example, let's say some bigtime defense contractor approaches PO pundit #1 and says, "hey we'd like to help finance or publicize your PO conference . . ." The person or organizaiton would likely accept the money under the rationale it is for the greater good as it will allow the conference to succeed. But you are then MUCH less likely to put defense contractor's feed to the fire when the need arises.
Even if the defense contractor was not offering money, the potential political connections and power such a relationship might bring to the PO pundit would be more than most could resist. There would be some seemingly logical rationalization (excuse) generated by the brain to justify the relationship. That's just the way the brain is wired.
Point is, TPTB have much more subtle and effective ways of influencing the PO debate should they choose to employ them. The stuff you listed usually gets employed AFTER these "nicer" methods have failed.
TPTB know it is generally much more effective to send Jenna Bush packing tequila to your door then it is to send Dick Cheney packing heat, if you get my drift.
I am impressed with your insidious ideas of undermining PO awareness. The government or industry would do well to hire you to lead the campaign. After you make your money I recommend your moving to Maine.
Land is dirt cheap here compared to California
Population is only up about 30% from 1900
We have more organic farmers per capita than any state in the country
70% of households own guns and will shoot to protect themselves
A friend who visited was surprised when I drove up to a farm stand, picked out my produce and dropped the money in a slot - People still trust each other.
Make sure you buy a wood lot with your land. It gets cold here. But at least you won't freeze to death.
Last year, like this one, we also had 20 inches of extra rain. We recently had 3 days where the wind blew almost continuously between 30 and 40 mph. No one here I talked with including an 80+ year old farmer has ever seen this before. If this is a foretaste of global warming there is no good place to live. We will all be doomed. It is all relative and relative to other places I have lived including NYC, Santa Barbara, western VA, upstate NY, and suburban NJ I prefer it here. I have a neighbor who can live off the land and is willing to share his skills with others. You only need one person like this to learn. I suspect you already can.
The SUV's and waste are everywhere in this country. We have become a society were hopes and dreams have been channeled into what we can buy and consume.
Have you checked out MOFGA (Maine Organic Farmers and Gardners Association)?
My organic garden also did not fare so well. But I grow everything in raised beds which allow for better drainage so everything did grow even with all the rain.
I too would be dead by February if I had to live off my own produce. Too many soft years living in the City. But a young couple able to do the work might have a fighting chance. More than in the suburbs for sure.