CERA and the Facts
Posted by Prof. Goose on November 26, 2006 - 2:40pm
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: cera, daniel yergin [list all tags]
(1) What is the primary mission of CERA? To fully and accurately report the facts to its clients? To act as a public propaganda arm for them? Some combination?
(2) If CERA's primary mission is to provide factual information, which is likely to be more profitable - to make that information available to the public at large (i.e. by selling it to anyone willing to shell out $1000), or to withhold the most crucial information from all but its most important clients?
(3) If CERA's primary mission is to discredit peak oil arguments even though CERA knows better, what will happen to CERA's credibility over time? Would it be better for CERA to mount a full-scale assault right now against the notion of an imminent peak and cash in before the peak unmistakably manifests itself, or to carefully spin its message, allay fears, and thus be able to bill its clients over a longer period of time?
(4) What is known about CERA's major clients? Which is better for CERA - that the full list be known to the public, or that the names of some clients remain confidential? Logically, who would number among them?
(5) Does CERA offer different levels of information and services to its clients? If so, what is publicly known about these levels? Given what is known and presumed about CERA's clients, what might characterize the various flavors of CERA's products?
(6) What are the credentials of CERA experts? Are there good reasons to believe that all of its experts are known to the public?
(7) If CERA has close links with exporters, is it possible that CERA actually DOES have solid data to back its claims that a peak is far in the future?
(8) Might CERA have more accurate information about reserves and production potential than is generally known to agencies like the EIA, USGS, etc? What about oil giants like Exxon and BP?
(9) Are there good reasons to believe oil exporters are withholding specific information about economically recoverable oil reserves in order to establish and maintain high prices?
(10) Are there good reasons to believe oil producers are withholding specific information about economically viable new technologies that will boost yields from existing reserves in order to maintain higher prices?
(11) If oil exporters and producers actually can deliver significantly more oil than they let on, how would they go about maximizing prices? Over time, how would they balance price-boosting fears of scarcity and depletion with demand-boosting assurances of adequate supply?
(12) Given the relatively unpromising EROEIs for oil alternatives like ethanol, biodiesel, and shale; given the improbability that any combination of them will substitute for conventional oil barrel-for-barrel; is it reasonable to believe that oil exporters and producers would nonetheless try to discredit and quash alternatives?
(13) Suppose for a moment that CERA really does hold key, non-publicized information about recoverable oil and new developments in technology. Why advertise it? Won't their clients already know where to go for the inside dope? And won't their clients be willing to pay REAL money for it rather than a mere $1000? If so, why publicize the $1000 report? Could it be a teaser? A ruse?
My fellow TOD readers/posters, your thoughts please!
DISCLAIMER: Although I am a Trustee for the Village of Oregon, Wisconsin, I do not claim that the views herein represent those of the Village Board.
IMO, ExxonMobil is chiefly afraid of punitive taxation, if they admitted to the reality of Peak Oil, and I think that KSA is afraid of military takeover attempts and/or battles being fought by warring powers for their oil fields, if they admitted to the reality of Peak Oil.
I have outlined the "Assume the Opposite" theory regarding public statements by most elected officials, most CEO's and most energy analysts (e.g., CERA) regarding Peak Oil. To get the truth, just assume the opposite of what they are saying (I borrowed this concept from Ayn Rand).
For example, the CEO of Pemex claims that Cantarell's decline rate is 14% per year. Out of five decline scenarios, the worst case is actually 40%. So, to get something closer to the true decline rate, you just transpose 14% to get 41%.
I suppose your theory is as good as any, but here is mine:
The reason why CERA, Exxon and others fear disclosure is that they would get kicked out of foriegn nations which still have reserves. When Castro came to power in Cuba, he nationalized all US assets in Cuba. All of the promising fields are now located in countries outside of US influence. I think we both agree that once PO is widely excepted and goes public, that major exports will cut exports to husband remaining reserves. This will be devistating for our economy and american lifestyles.
KSA or rather the royal family is probably more concerned about a revote than a military take over. KSA provides generious entitlements that are dependant on oil revenues.
When the oil revenues begin to decline, KSA will be forced to cut entitlements. Plus, there is virtually no way to invade a major exporter like KSA without substantial damage to the oil production infrastructure. Plus we can see from Iraq that it is very difficult to bring back stability once the ruling power is over thrown.
>For example, the CEO of Pemex claims that Cantarell's decline rate is 14% per year. Out of five decline scenarios, the worst case is actually 40%. So, to get something closer to the true decline rate, you just transpose 14% to get 41%.
FWIW: I believe the current decline rate is probably closer to 14% than 40%. 14% in my opinion is a very steep decline and its only bound to get worse since the field is now in terminal decline. Perhaps the decline in oil production in Mexico is the real driver behind the construction of the wall between Texas and Mexico. Mexico also has substantial entitlements financed with oil revenues. If Mexico's Oil production collapses, Perhaps hoards from Mexico will pressing north. Mexico is could be one of the first nations to experience a petro collapse. Its gov't is already on shakey ground and it has a substantial population.
The WSJ article, quoting an internal Pemex report, said that the remaining oil column was about 800' thick, and thinning at about 300' per year, which suggests a pretty steep decline rate. Of the five decline scenarios in the Pemex report, the worst case was for a 40% per annum decline rate.
As I have also said before, Ghawar is basically in the same spot as Cantarell, with the remaining oil in a rapidly thinning oil column between an expanding gas cap and a rising water leg. What is amazing to me is that so many people are so unconcerned about the fact that the best case for Ghawar is a one-third water cut--in a field that has already been redeveloped with horizontal wells.
The column may be declining at a high rate, but that does not necessary mean that production out is declining as rapidly. Since the column is shrinking fast I am inclined to believe that they haven't cut production significantly yet, although I have no what to confirm this. Its just a hunch. Of course this means much steeper declines in the near future.
>What is amazing to me is that so many people are so unconcerned about the fact that the best case for Ghawar is a one-third water cut--in a field that has already been redeveloped with horizontal wells.
I am not disagreeing with you and I do appreciate your input. I am just trying to provide you information and suggestion you might find useful.
Take Care.
Thxs for your keypost! If CERA, is in fact, a true clearing house of fully transparent production figures, tech advances, reserve audits, etc, for the true global insiders only--Then the $1000 report offered to the public is junk; a ruse purposely designed to mislead the unwashed masses--and TOD, ASPO, and others offer a better info alternative; mutually we are working to build a Foundation of solid, accurate info.
On the other hand: If CERA, is in fact,
a true clearing house of fully transparent production figures, tech advances, reserve audits, etc, for the true global insiders only-- then this proprietary database [which we will NEVER be allowed to see], then offers the best evidence yet of the existence of an operating entity similar to Asimov's Foundation.Recall that there were TWO Foundations working to predict collapse and direct decline to optimize the journey thru the Dieoff Bottleneck. Life imitating Art?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
For a thousand bucks or so, they might provide you with their answers to the questions listed in the TOD post.
It might cost more, I dunno.
Likewise I think that most Saudis actually believe they have 264 billion barrels of reserves with another 200 billion just waiting to be discovered. Only a very few ARAMCO insiders know the truth and they don't dare spill the beans. Most of the people in the oil business actually buy into those vast Middle East reserves. I truly believe that all the folks at the Oil & Gas Journal, and other such orginizations, actually believe those huge reserves are real.
It is possible that the folks at CERA are just damn fools who mistake phantom reserves with actual future oil production.
Ron Patterson
We are left with a few probable reasons:
- They really do have some realistic hard data that supports their optimistic scenario
- They have a selfish commercial reason for lying
- They have a misguided public spirited reason for lying
- They are incompetent
I think the probability of 1. is well below 50% and shrinking rapidly. I really doubt they are that 4. to explain things, people can only be so incompetent.I was going to hedge this post in less clear terms for legal reasons but I changed my mind: CERA I call you liars, sue me. By the time it reaches court the truth will likely have begun to materialise.
Emperor CERA you have no clothes, I and others see this.
CERA is full of very smart people, who work very closely with the oil industry and major energy policy formers.
So their analysis reflects that consensus.
They are not fans of the idea of 'peak oil' their experience and analysis tells them it is bunk.
They might be entirely wrong, but impugning their conscious motives doesn't get anyone anywhere.
Subconsciously, they may well be prisoners of their preconceptions (as are we all).
Look I deal all the time with people who deny man-made Global Warming. Most of them don't do this because they are venal, or evil (certain lobbyists and 'climate scientists' take a view that there has to be a free market for ideas, and the best ideas will win out in that market, scientific truth is not their business(1)).
Most of them do this because they genuinely think the case for global warming is wrong and/or the costs of action are too great relative to the risks.
I've come to understand that viewpoints on global warming, like viewpoints on politics (or religion) are identity statements, not entirely (or indeed primarily) rationally derived.
Trying to deal with global warming denialists in any other way, other than at face value, doesn't add explanatory or persuasive power, nor give you insight.
I believe the same principles apply to the peak oil debate.
(1) there is an enormous irony in that viewpoint. It is actually a commercialisation of French post modernist thinking. The thinkers most despised for creating 'moral relativism' have become key to the intellectual viewpoint of a lot of 'conservative' political movements as well as numerous 'leftist' ones.
Excellent observation!
I think that you can add that a second issue we are facing is the "balkanization" of knowledge. Modern society is so specialized, and people occupy such narrow occupational niches, that they have absolutely no understanding of anything outside of their immediate occupational sphere of expertise. The outcome is that you may have a population that is extremely intelligent and well educated but one which is also extremely gullible. They simply lack sufficient knowledge to challenge the most basic assertions about their world and lack a concomitant capacity for critical thought. I believe this underlies the current problem with the main stream media and is a key reason for America becoming engaged in Iraq. We may be moving toward Peal Oil; we have already passed Peak Intellect.
Cheers!
The Post-Modern President
Deception, Denial, and Relativism: what the Bush administration learned from the French.
Your point on 'balkanization' is also interesting.
What I feel with the Global Warming debate is that people have become anaesthetised to seeking the truth. The prevailing cynicism is 'it's all lies'. Yet conversely very crude rumours have huge currency: I remember an American professor telling me in all seriousness that Hilary Clinton had invested hugely in healthcare companies when her healthcare report had led to a huge fall in the price of healthcare shares.
If you read the US popular press, you would come away convinced that there is meaningful scientific disagreement about man made global warming. There isn't, in any practical sense (referring to peer reviewed journals).
There are considerable areas of doubt and disagreement, of course, how fast the world is warming up, the role of water vapour, the 'global dimming' of the last 100 years due to particulate pollution and SO2, etc.
Since most journalists and media people know nothing about science, there is little or no effort to discern the truth, the weight of empirical evidence and scientific thought.
Iraq was horrifying. Going into the 2004 election, something like 60% of Americans thought tangible evidence had been found linking Saddam Hussein to 9-11. Something like half thought Weapons of Mass Destruction had been found in Iraq.
On 'Peak Intellect', (great phrase, you should trademark it!), apparently for everyone born 1960-1980, it is likely that lead has had a huge (negative) impact on intelligence. Particularly so amongst inner city youth (highest concentrations of automotive and industrial lead pollution). Indeed one of the causative factors of the 'crime bust' may well have been the abolition of lead as an octane enhancer-- violent crime is the province of 15-25 year olds, and the last of those born in that era have now passed 25.
I remember that this was felt to be a causative factor in the Fall of Rome: lead from pipes. But we knew what harm lead could cause, the Romans did not.
He was recently laid off after Katrina and the downsizing of the University (one can do this to tenured faculty) and has a temporary position at Tulane.
he may not be aware of this side effect of his work and I will pass this on to him.
Best Hopes,
Alan
When I came to the UK in 1989, I was stunned to learn that they still sold leaded petrol (it was a big anti pollution measure that eco greenie types were switching their cars to run on unleaded petrol). We only fully did away with the stuff in about 2000, I think.
I think the break point in North America was the California emission controls, (1978?), which required catalytic converters, and therefore wouldn't work with leaded petrol (although of course, to save a few pennies, car owners persisted in filling with leaded, thus ruining the catalytic converters).
There was huge hooting and hollering, that this was unfair to classic car owners (the valves need leaded petrol), an unjustified expense etc. Now I think we pretty much take it as read that lead is one of the worst contaminants you can let get into your children's bloodstream.
I don't have any good references to hand, but there has been a lot of recent scientific work (and some serious criminological work) that lead poisoning, especially in young people, leads to loss of IQ, hyperactivity and other behavioural disorders.
Of course we then went to MBTE, which turns out to be a carcinogenic ground water contaminant.
Took me a minute to work out what was going on!
We can track man's impact on the planet quite well now, however the data is only in the last 30 years (this ice core a clear exception) so we don't always have good comparability.
Very good point about the impact of a single piece of legislation: change is possible if we want it.
If you do a survey of TOD or other diverse populations, you will find that each of us has a "speciality" at which we believe ourselves to be very good at and very much an expert on, be it that we label ourselves as one or another of the following:
* Accountant
* Acoustical Scientist
* Actor
* Actuary
* Administrator
* Advocate
* Aerospace engineer
* more here
So when some stranger shows up and claims to be an "expert" in some other esoteric field of knowledge, we take them at their word. After all, as an "expert" and a gentleman or gentlewoman ourselves, who are we to doubt the word of another "expert" (i.e., English major Daniel Yergin or no-background man Peter M Jackson of CERA)?
If we question them, do we not question ourselves?
And is not our own expertise beyond reproach?
Whenever I read articles even in respected news magazine articles on subjects I have deeper knowledge in, I find they miss the point, leave out important aspects or just write plain bullshit.
How can I assume it's different with all the other subjects I have no deeper knowledge in? It is probably wiser to assume that the average accuracy of any press release is less than 50%.
But they can get away with this because of the balkanisation effect you describe.
Cheers,
Davidyson
They can miss nuances but tend to get the major issues right IMHO.
Note WSJ reporter at ASPO conference in Boston.
Best Hopes for better reporting,
Alan
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall toward the earth's center. With the feeling that he was speaking to O'Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
George Orwell, Nineteen eighty-four (1949)
Clearly, our current big brothers would have to try it on a simpler formula.
I also expect peak oil to be blamed on the emerging recession. Oil production will decline and blame will be placed on falling demand rather than falling supply. Cause and effect being reversed. Blame for falling production may also be placed onto tax policy, or environmental regulations. CERA and others (especially economists) will use this to defend their poor forecasting.
As a side note, the cultural model or script that underlies the reasoning employed here has a long history in Western thought. I call it worship of the god Technus (cribbing Neil Postman). Technus will always provide for growing and insatiable human need so long as the faithful remain true in their belief and pursuits of the powr of newer and better technology. It's a sort of miracle of the lamps sort of thing, but with high-tech gadgetry.
This faith is very powerful stuff (how many of us share at least some if it?) and hard to argue against with hard data.
CERA's commercially available country-by-country or field analysis has stood the test of time as have the others. There has not been a single challenge to their 2006 data to this point that significantly debases their projections of ultimate URR or max production rates.
So, technology, economics, exploration can 'find' 113 Gb a year while we 'only' consume 30 Gb/yr, heck let's go for it, we are immortal. Maybe my head is screwed the wrong way, maybe yours is, Freddy, we'll see soon enough, I am patient and think you are. Blessedbe
I point out the stages that new technologies follow, and the time required to gather operating experience with prototypes. I point out that wind turbines are just about to exit the last development stage "Design refinement based on Large Scale Operational testing in a variety of environments". It took over 30 years to get this far.
I point out that no brand new technology can be widely implemented in a dozen years, and even twenty years is VERY optimistic. I agree that 50 years is long enough for almost anything, especially for a society under stress (fusion anyone ?).
OTOH, I point out what the US did with Urban Rail from 1897-1916 (with primitive technology !) and even 1/4th of that effort would make a difference in the next two decades, and start making a difference in a half dozen years.
Oil will be a problem. Despite my inclination towards WesTexas & Deffrey's POV (Peak NOW) I quote Stuart from Boston. 2012 + or - 4.5 years for Peak Oil with Peak Exports before then. (The half year is somehow reassuring).
I then point out that the time to new technologies is too long.
They get the idea that Technus 'will provide", but decades too late (which I do not disagree with BTW) and something with mature technology (electrified rail example) needs to be started NOW ! As well as more research on longer term solutions (I do NOT oppose more research).
Best Hopes,
Alan
They point out that even if we were able to instantly figure out the problems with fusion and implement it worldwide, the population would crash by 2100. Why? Because there are other factors that speak directly to our tenure on this planet. I'm sure everyone saw the recent news about major fish populations disappearing in 50 years. We all know about global warming and its effect on not just our agriculture, but on wild flora and fauna. Most people here know about water shortages, desertification, increasing pollution, runaway population growth, increasing chances of disease.
The main difference between those technoworshippers who magically believe that technology will save their comfy lives and invisible sky-being worshippers who believe that some super event or being will come along and make it all better, is that the super event or being is more likely.
If we continue this insane pursuit of growth through technology, it will only mean that more people will suffer at the end of the century rather than fewer.
We know what needs to be done. Unfortunately, even the scientifically inclined are acting as if their particular technofix will somehow solve all problems, or worse, they state that their particular technofix will only solve one problem, not cause any other problems, and they are not responsible for the rest of the problem. Of course, we all know that we live in an energy field that affects everything. You cannot erect a giant windmill without disrupting wind flow patterns. You cannot trawl the seabed for methane hydrate without increasing the amount of carbon in the air. You cannot erect nuclear power plants without dealing with the radioactivity.
None of these things exist in a vacuum. The hubristic sin is that engineers believe that they can know EVERYTHING that can go wrong, or even worse, they absolve themselves from responsibility for future disasters by saying that they made a "reasonable" attempt to figure out what may happen in the future.
Time is growing short people. We need to admit to the basic underlying truth and all that emerges from that admission.
We are too many.
Unlimited growth is not only impossible, it is insane.
Any attempt to extend the technofest will cause more misery long term than it will prevent short term.
Anyone who claims that their technology is exempt from simple physics, is not intelligent enough nor informed enough to be making any decisions for anyone about our future.
We live on a sphere. There is no more earth to subjugate. The number of natural peoples left that we can kill have diminished to the point of no return.
We are about to enter the final stages of our dreamworld. Soon begins the nightmare.
You / I / we cannot radically change the current dynamics, they are set and will likely change not much before things break down. Incidentally, I think we'll see the first serious cracks in US stocks towards the end of this coming week, as we sawin the US$ last week.
I read the original "Limits to Growth" within months of it's publication as a callow 17 year old, and foolishly thought humans are smart enough to solve these problems. Probably time I read the new version but I doubt it will say anything I don't know already. I'm older and probably wiser now, and know how really stupid humans are. I've already concluded that the monkeys have blown it.