[shortonoil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')ts uninformed comments such as this that substantiate the viewpoint that the whole ETP idea is complete nonsense.

[marmico]

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou will get about 100 of them. The EAI has used USGS estimates since its inception 1974, and still do.

The Energy Information Administration estimates US undiscovered, technically recoverable oil resources to be an additional 198 billion barrels.[2][3]

Since 2000 the USGS has been re-assessing basins of the U.S. that are considered to be priorities for oil and gas resources. Since 2000, the USGS has re-assessed 22 priority basins, and has plans to re-assess 10 more basins. These 32 basins represent about 97% of the discovered and undiscovered oil and gas resources of the United States"

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The U.S. Energy Information Administration on Tuesday cut its 2018 world oil demand growth forecast by 40,000 barrels per day to 1.62 million bpd. In its monthly forecast, the agency raised its oil demand growth estimate for 2017 by 80,000 bpd to 1.39 million bpd. reuters

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Summary Empirical data does not support multiple recent allegations that the EIA's reporting or forecasts are "wrong." The wave of frivolous accusations against the EIA in the blogosphere preys on the least protected category of investors. A competent, independent, bias-free EIA must be safeguarded. This idea was discussed in more depth with members of my private investing community, Zeits OIL ANALYTICS. Bashing the EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration) has become trendy of late among a certain category of bloggers. However, the allegations that the agency's analytics are "wrong" often turn out to be without substance or even without demonstrated understanding of what the EIA does. Disappointingly, the outbreak of the "can't trust the EIA" fever among sensation-seeking amateur writers has coincided with less-than thought-out criticisms by some respected industry insiders and weak coverage of the subject by major financial news outlets. Unmerited attacks on the agency

[AdamB]

I think it is worth mentioning that the EIA is one of the few energy organizations that didn't fall for the peak oil of a decade ago. No Happy McDoomsters there, just experts in many (if not all) facets of energy, with who knows how many man-centuries of experience.

[tita]

I was looking at the last "International Energy Outlook" from the EIA, with projections to 2050.

It's quite astonishing that, under the "High oil price" scenario, growth is higher and energy consumption/production is also higher while the "low oil price" scenario see lower growth and lower primary energy consumption and production.

I guess the EIA didn't have the memo from the ETP crowd.

[Scottie]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tita', 'I') was looking at the last "International Energy Outlook" from the EIA, with projections to 2050.

It's quite astonishing that, under the "High oil price" scenario, growth is higher and energy consumption/production is also higher while the "low oil price" scenario see lower growth and lower primary energy consumption and production.

I guess the EIA didn't have the memo from the ETP crowd.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Scottie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tita', 'I') was looking at the last "International Energy Outlook" from the EIA, with projections to 2050.

It's quite astonishing that, under the "High oil price" scenario, growth is higher and energy consumption/production is also higher while the "low oil price" scenario see lower growth and lower primary energy consumption and production.

I guess the EIA didn't have the memo from the ETP crowd.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Scottie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tita', 'I') was looking at the last "International Energy Outlook" from the EIA, with projections to 2050.

It's quite astonishing that, under the "High oil price" scenario, growth is higher and energy consumption/production is also higher while the "low oil price" scenario see lower growth and lower primary energy consumption and production.

I guess the EIA didn't have the memo from the ETP crowd.

[Subjectivist]

Why would anyone have even a sliver of faith in the long disproved ETP project?

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Subjectivist', 'W')hy would anyone have even a sliver of faith in the long disproved ETP project?

[theluckycountry]

The Energy Information Administration is like every other Governmental body, it's primary purpose it to massage the figures and make the US look great, while at the same time demonizing foreign entities. People that trust information from such sources are intellectually lazy, too lazy to do their own research.

How do the heads of the EIA keep their lucrative jobs? By doing what they are told by their masters above. Politics taints everything today, especially science.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he first group wants an instant doom scenario, much like many of the original peak oilers on this website.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('theluckycountry', 'T')he Energy Information Administration is like every other Governmental body, it's primary purpose it to massage the figures and make the US look great, while at the same time demonizing foreign entities. People that trust information from such sources are intellectually lazy, too lazy to do their own research.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he first group wants an instant doom scenario, much like many of the original peak oilers on this website.

[Pops]

The EIA is mostly a reporting agency, what forecasts they make simply assume BAU from here to eternity.

Most forecasts aren't too complicated I think—they are too simplistic if anything.

They start with someone's guess at the amount that will be ultimately extracted, then draw some curve to match that amount. Done.

EIA does it using oil company's numbers, because of course oil companies are totally neutral in valuing their assets, just like real estate slumlords.

Hubbert's big idea was the linearization that basically (so basic even I understand) drew a line through past production hoping to predict the ultimate extraction amount, then drew some curve to match that amount.

Even still, Laherrere simply starts with some ultimate and draws a curve to match. He does admit something that no one else does, all the guesses at ultimates are guesses based on information provided by entities who have every reason, personal, political, monetary, to lie.

I like Dennis' charts because he plugs in a range of somewhat dynamic assumptions: URR, rigs, cost, price, reserves, consumption, blah, blah that give widely differing outcomes. Those broad possibilities, in my experience, are the best you are going to get. They sorta set the bounds as much as can be set.

All this stuff though suffers from the Too Ehrlich problem. Ehrlich said starvation just at the time Borlaug said "water and fertilizer." I hate to quote rumsfeld but there are always things we don't know we don't know and no model will predict. Simply churning out eternally optimist/pessimist guesses means you could be right sometimes or most of the time and still be no help except to the people who choose to cherry-pick your guess to justify their knee-jerk gut reaction.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'T')he EIA is mostly a reporting agency, what forecasts they make simply assume BAU from here to eternity.