Why bash EIA?

nth · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Feb 24, 2005 Posts: 1971

Why do so many of you here bash EIA?

I am puzzled because if you analyze EIA history, they are not that bad at all.

1. They predicted PO.
2. They question Saudi Arabia's ability to satisfy oil demand.
3. They predicted high oil prices.

For #1, they maybe 10-20years off. We should see. But, they have revised those figures to take into account of unconventional oil, so that is why they are so big. They are using USGS numbers who used real scientists and take a high/low measurement and use 50% to come up with these reported numbers. The exact way they do it is available for your viewing. So basicly, they are saying there is a 50% chance that we will discover this much oil. People should check how much oil they predicted last time before mouthing off.

Considering how many times Campbell and others have incorrectly predicted PO, I failed to see why EIA and USGS are any worse.

For #2, people here don't seem to read fine prints very well. I have no idea what you expect EIA to do when Saudi Arabia officially says they have lots of oil and can produce so much. EIA has no way to verify. They write how much Saudi is currently producing, how much they say they will produce, and how much they need to produce based on EIA models of world's oil demand. They then in fine print state that there are people who question Saudi's ability to produce more oil. They also state that Saudi Arabia does not believe they will meet demand.

I don't know how much more clear they need to be considering we see no evidence that Saudi Arabia is lying about their oil reserves.

For #3, EIA has predicted prices in the past and were wrong. Their future predictions right now are wrong, too. So go figure. You guys seem to claim they only predict low oil prices, which is so incorrect. You think an Agency that predicts PO in the 1990's will also claim prices will stay low?

The problem is not with EIA or IEA or USGS. The problem is that we have no evidence that Peak Oil will happen anytime soon. Our track record for predicting PO have been horrendous.

With that all said, I think PO people should stop claiming PO soon, but claim oil will not last forever, so we should start finding alternatives now. We can show real facts that we are becoming more dependent on oil now than 1970's. We need to reverse this trend now.

Raxozanne · Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 3:56 pm Post subject:

The only beef I have with the EIA is that they advise the government and their work is used by the government to plan future energy policies. If they are 10-20 years out and the government doesn't plan because of this the results could be disasterous. Also being such an important advisory agency they should make it their business to find out how much oil is in the Middle East before making predications and informing the goverment because peoples lives might depend upon the accuracy of their data. Most of the government officials quote the EIA as statistics solid fact without even realising that the EIA are guessing.

nth · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Feb 24, 2005 Posts: 1971

nth · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Feb 24, 2005 Posts: 1971

My complaint against people who bash EIA is that these bashers don't know the history of EIA and only care about what EIA said today regarding oil demands. WHICH IS SO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT EIA says about oil PRODUCTION!

Raxozanne · Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:59 pm Post subject:

Antimatter · Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:36 am Post subject:

My biggest problem with the EIA is this set of curves:

FWIW I won't be suprised at all if URR ends up closer to the USGS's 3 trillion figure than Campbell's 2 trillion. The assumption that the world production will only decline once the R/P ratio his 10, as was the situtation in the US, is silly.

nth · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Feb 24, 2005 Posts: 1971

nth · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Feb 24, 2005 Posts: 1971

LadyRuby · Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:02 pm Post subject:

I don't blame the analysts at EIA, specifically. They're working with the data they have and are given. What I want to see if their willingness to change their forecasts in light of some more reasonable data that will hopefully come out over the coming months (if theyare able to get more transparent data...).

And I'm annoyed that the EIA seems to downplay the ramifications/urgency of peak oil, which is in my view a big reason why people don't feel any sense of urgency.

khebab · Moderator Joined: Sep 27, 2004 Posts: 935 Location: Canada

khebab · Moderator Joined: Sep 27, 2004 Posts: 935 Location: Canada

It's interesting to compare the blue curve above (URR= 2,248 Gb) using a R/P=10 depletion model with the following curve (from Help with deconstructing the EIA 2037 peak curve?):

The red curve has the same URR but uses a 2% depletion model resulting in a near symmetric production curve. Notice the difference in the peak production (2026 at 42 Gb versus 2016 at 35 Gb). Clearly the R and P ratio makes things look a lot more rosier for the same URR!
_________________
______________________________________
http://GraphOilogy.blogspot.com

nth · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Feb 24, 2005 Posts: 1971

LadyRuby · Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:49 pm Post subject:

khebab · Moderator Joined: Sep 27, 2004 Posts: 935 Location: Canada

Sparaxis · Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:35 pm Post subject:

Lady Ruby, the previous chart is actually EIA's, using USGS 2000 figures of the resource and reserve base. My other beef of course is with the USGS results:

Part of their ability to increase the URR to 3 GB from the 2.2 GB commonly accepted today is this 50% recovery factor (which has been more commonly 30-40% heretofore internationally). They claim it is based on the US experience (like the distorted R/P ratio business), but the US experience is highly colored by the super-ideal East Texas oil fields that were in a perfect sandstone reservoir, with perfect permeability and porosity, and the oil was light and low viscosity. So, yes, under those ideal conditions, recovery factors are quite high.

But...we're talking about the next trillion barrels, as Chevron would say. The easy, light, prolific oil has already been found and produced. The next trillion is the crappier stuff. Why in the world assume that recovery factors of this second trillion (or even third, in their case) is magically going to jump to 50%? If you exclude that factor (10% increased recovery worldwide), then their URR drops to 2.4 GB, which isn't far off from the other estimates, and brings the peak back to this decade.

My beef with EIA has been echoed here. These are numbers used in all public policy discourse in government. Even a group I work with, who focus on nothing but appliance efficiency analysis for DOE, are forced to use EIA's demand projections to forecast their "savings" to 2035. How convenient they are able to push the peak to 2037, or we might have to start tweaking forecasts to account for it!