[Guest]

See this chart: (note it's a pdf file, you must have adobe acrobat reader)

IEA OMR

http://omrpublic.iea.org/World/Wb_all.pdf

Which can also be found this way:
http://omrpublic.iea.org/balances.asp (click on quartlerly world balance (compilation)

Then see that for fourth quarter world oil demand is projected to be:

Demand = 83.8 Mb/d

while world oil supply for 4Q04 is projected to be:

Supply = 81.6 Mb/d!

Shortfall = 2.2 Mb/d!!??
Am I reading this right?!!????

This chart is not their most recent (Oct.12), but it is Sept 9. [Apparently to get full current version you have to pay]

[tdrive]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')m I reading this right?!!????

[seb]

Looks like tdrive is right. Oups!
Anyway I did not know this link, so thanks, this post is quite useful after all...

[Permanently_Baffled]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3953907.stm

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he good news is that there is plenty of oil and gas in the ground to meet demand. "The Earth's energy resources are more than adequate to meet demand until 2030 and well beyond," the report says.

[Jack]

I suspect that our governments know the score better than we do; that doesn't mean that they'll tell us. Rather, they'll manipulate us.

So, why is this story being published? Perhaps to make sure that the general populace doesn't quit buying cars and larger houses?

[2007]

The argument of the optimists is that the 'oil is there'. In a few years, when production starts declining, you wonder what the optimists will response. Again, as they see it, the oil IS there, so either we're not willing to invest the financial resources - or, if we take technology - we must be 'too stupid' to develop the right technology.

Price or production is not really interesting, though. ENERGY is.

In Uganda, you've got electricity - outside the cities maybe between 2 and 4 in the morning. And you've also got water - a few miles from where you live. So there you know what energy is. Or isn't.

Whereas in the west - a blind man in a dark room has more sense of direction, than the average western citizen has knowledge of energy.

2007

[slick50]

The IEA's report is a sad commentary on situations that develop in large corporate and governmental entities. Individuals become so shielded by multi-layered management, high paying jobs and nice offices that they miss the big picture. Too stupid to live. We're in big trouble and most people are blinded, some intentionally. Some people that I have talked too about Peak Oil have become noticable distressed, the response goes like, "we'll think of something", or "we'll find more oil". But global demand can not exceed supply, if 84 mbd is the max, well that's about as much as the world economy is going to grow. A simplier life is coming for our world and especially the USA, but it's going to hurt.

[Kingcoal]

US history, circa 1970-1995 is a good example of how people react to Peak Oil. There was nostalgia about the freewheeling 1960's and denial towards long term solutions. If the US had stuck with the CAFE standards, cars would have to be getting at least about 30mpg right now.

[tdrive]

IEA is not completely to blame, they know only as much as the government sources are telling them. I have a strong suspicion that countries like CHina, India and such do not really have any reliable means to provide them with sound statistical data so that IEA can do its job.

Cheers,

[2007]

IEA has an increase in non-OPEC output of about 1,3 mb/d in 2005, p. 15.

P. 21: For Russia, IEA has an increase of 5 % (of 9,2 mb/d), rougly 500.000 barrels, leaving the rest of non-OPEC to come up with a net increase of about 800.000 barrels. Kazakstan (p.22), Brasil, Angola (p. 23-24) are predicted to increase their output.

However, IEA has Mexico more or less flat for 2005 (p. 20) and China is declining for entire 2005 (p. 24).

2007

http://omrpublic.iea.org/currentissues/full.pdf

[BabyPeanut]

Not surprising considering they have yet to peak.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Exploration commenced in the 1840s in the vicinity of Baku on the Caspian, but lapsed during the early years of Communism, until it was revitalised after the Second World War. In fact, the Soviet explorers proved to be highly efficient being able to apply scientific methods, free of commercial constraints. Boreholes were drilled for geological information, and Russian explorers pioneered the geochemical breakthrough that identified the source rocks and generating belts. Accordingly, discovery at least in sub-Arctic Russia peaked around 1960, the corresponding peak of production following in 1987. Exactly how much was found is hard to know, because the Soviet classification of reserves ignored commercial constraints. Decline curve analysis shows that the reported reserves of most Russian fields have to be reduced by about 30% to obtain realistic estimates. Production crashed on the fall of the Soviets, but is now growing under the new capitalists, in part making good the production that would have already been secured but for the dislocations accompanying the fall of the Soviet regime. Accordingly, we may expect a second peak around 2010.
It is clear that the reserve estimates of around 50 Gb as reported by the Oil & Gas Journal were far too low. Exactly how far is difficult to know, but we tentatively favour an figure of about 60 Gb, still giving a fairly low depletion rate of 3%, which is one argument against higher estimates. We add to this 30 Gb of polar oil, together with substantial deposits of heavy oil in Eastern Siberia and NGL from gasfields, which are here excluded from Regular Oil by definition. The total therefore approaches the 100-120 Gb reported by Yukos. The jury is still out but we think that this assessment is reasonable in terms of order of magnitude.

[Keith_McClary]

From our News page:
http://peakoil.com/article1838.html&mod ... =0&thold=0

What Illum seems to be saying is that if you tried to continue the IEA's production graph (p. 6 of his .pdf) beyond 2030 while keeping the area under the curves consistent with IEA reserve estimates, then you would get very unlikely production curves.

To match the IEA curves up to 2030 he needs to make unreasonable assumptions (Scenario C). This results in a sharp peak followed by a steep decline.

[pilferage]

I just made a (not too coherent) post about this in the PO disscusion forum...
compare and contrast the graph asociated with the EIA's report
Long-Term World Oil Supply Scenarios
to the peak curves we've already seen in countries in terminal decline
Hubbert World 2004.png

I can see pushing the peak back for a few years, but the eia's analysis almost literally has us getting ~2-3 barrels pre-peak to 1 post-peak. It's too late in the game imho to push the peak back that far...
and if world decline follows the same historic curve then the ASPO's graph seems the more likely of the two, given they use the same ~2300-2400 gb estimate.
http://www.peakoil.net/Newsletter/NL48/newsletter48.pdf

edit- nm, that was the IEA, not EIA...
anyhoo, I agree completely with Mr. Illum, if we do invest in a larger supply infrasructure and manage to delay the peak a decade, then we'll be in for an even rougher ride...

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pilferage', 'I') just made a (not too coherent) post about this in the PO disscusion forum...
compare and contrast the graph asociated with the EIA's report
Long-Term World Oil Supply Scenarios
to the peak curves we've already seen in countries in terminal decline
Hubbert World 2004.png

I can see pushing the peak back for a few years, but the eia's analysis almost literally has us getting ~2-3 barrels pre-peak to 1 post-peak. It's too late in the game imho to push the peak back that far...
and if world decline follows the same historic curve then the ASPO's graph seems the more likely of the two, given they use the same ~2300-2400 gb estimate.
http://www.peakoil.net/Newsletter/NL48/newsletter48.pdf

edit- nm, that was the IEA, not EIA...
anyhoo, I agree completely with Mr. Illum, if we do invest in a larger supply infrasructure and manage to delay the peak a decade, then we'll be in for an even rougher ride...

[pup55]

First of all, I think it interesting that the US government would go so far as to fund a study, with taxpayer dollars, to respond directly to Campbell and Lahererre.

Second of all, the report below: Long-Term World Oil Supply Scenarios
has to be seen as a politically justified supporting document to rationalize the assumptions made in http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html which is the annual energy outlook.

In other words, in order to issue the rosy forecast in the second document, an even rosier long-term supply scenario has to be advanced. The key of the first document above, is Fig 1, in which the authors assume a radically different and more optimistic "recovery rate" than ASPO, something like 45% recovery of certain reserves, rather than 30%.

In the AEO, the forecast for the next couple of years has some interesting assumptions: increase in the fed funds rate to 3.5% (doubling of interest rates) by 2006, pumping of 86 mbod globally by 2007, and an improvement in the energy efficiency of the economy by an average 1.6 per year for the next two decades, which would lead to only about 2% energy demand growth net for the US. 3.2% real GDP growth, Also an increase in the US work force of 5 million workers over the next couple of years, low inflation, and the dropping of the price of oil to $30 per barrel by 2008.

What a great time to be alive! The point of convergence of both the US-EIA documents and the Illum document above is the assumption of 2% consistent demand growth. Plug 7% in for China and 5% in for India and all bets are off.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', 'F')irst of all, I think it interesting that the US government would go so far as to fund a study, with taxpayer dollars, to respond directly to Campbell and Lahererre.

[2007]

http://omrpublic.iea.org/currentissues/full.pdf

There's not very much new in the november report. As mentioned elsewhere, Opec production is fractionally down in november - however IEA notes, this is the first decrease in 6 months, p. 15.

A bit interesting, it devotes some lines on Saudi Arabia and mentions its estimated anual decline is somewhere between 300 - 800.000 barrels/ day, p. 17. Similar numbers are also mentioned in Aspo newsletters and if it's 800.000 barrels, it's a whooping 10 %.

Else, IEA mentions a tiny increase in US-48 production in 2005, p. 18. Maybe and maybe not. What I find interesting, in the weekly DOE-EIA reports (over the last 6 months or so) US output has been declining at a steady rate of app. 2-3 %. And the IEA thinks this tendency will reverse next year? (Why? a peak-oiler never avoids a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory: if non-Opec decline isn't 'halted' the illusion it can increase becomes impossible to maintain. Maybe US in this report is the most suitable to 'halt' the decline).

Canada in 2005 is a copy of 2004, p. 19, but UK and Norway are both down, p. 19.

Other non-Opec, Russia is up and so is Brasil, p. 21.

All in all OECD is barely down in 2005 and for all non-Opec, IEA has a small increase, p. 21.

But, in this report neither Mexico nor China are discussed in detail - and these 2 countries are of big importance to the non-Opec balance.

[Frank]

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?cat ... Id=7002851

I did search for this but couldn't find anything - hope it's not a dupe.

[MikeB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n reality, energy security is about the supply of oil and gas to meet demand which could grow, again taking the IEA figures, to around 93mbd of oil and 64mbdoe of natural gas by 2015. That would represent a 20 per cent increase in oil demand from today’s level and a 45 per cent increase in the consumption of gas.

Can the oil and gas industry meet that demand?

In physical terms the answer is clearly yes.

The resources are there.

The world holds some 1,000bn bbls of oil which have been found but not yet produced, and some 5,500tcf of natural gas – also found but not yet produced. At current consumption rates, that is 40 years of oil supply and 60 years of gas.

[BabyPeanut]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he current projection from the International Energy Agency is that global demand for all forms of commercial energy will rise from the current level of around 190 mbd oil equivalents to some 240 mbdoe by 2015. A rise of almost 30 per cent.
That forecast is made on quite cautious assumptions about economic growth rates. The numbers could turn out to be significantly higher.