by ashurbanipal » Fri 16 Dec 2005, 11:14:09
IIRC, the CERA analysis relied on 4 things that I would consider somewhat fishy:
1) They didn't backdate discovery, so that the discovery curve they use doesn't look as catastrophic as a backdated curve. They then extrapolate discovery from that, expecting it to rise somewhat. It's similar in effect to what the USGS did in calculating future reserves.
2) They accept at face value the increase in OPEC reserves that took place during the 80's.
3) They call for rather a large dollar investment to improve infrastructure and increase exploration.
4) And, as already pointed out, they're only talking about capacity--not actual production. Yergin said it himself:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01672.html
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here will be a large, unprecedented buildup of oil supply in the next few years. Between 2004 and 2010, capacity to produce oil (not actual production) could grow by 16 million barrels a day -- from 85 million barrels per day to 101 million barrels a day -- a 20 percent increase.
They rely on everything going exactly right to get there--note the secondary key phrase that capacity "could" grow--i.e. that it's possible with enough investment.
The problem of course is that their research is not really open to the public. Unless, that is, you want to pay the thousands of dollars they charge for their reports. So this is just what I gleaned from interviews, the bits they published on their website when the report first came out, etc. In other words, my skepticism should be taken with a grain of salt--they may well have genuine cause for optimism. I've never found anything to suggest that they're being insincere.
In a world that is not whole, you have got to fight just to keep your soul.
-Ben Harper-