[SeaGypsy]

I do have kids to worry about, 2 daughters under 5 years old; but we are doing ok- currently living on a reconstructed rainforest property belonging to an old friend; lots of intentional communities around, low population area, very fertile land.

[Pops]

Pops- I'm sorry, I simply don't see a lot of peer review among the PO crowd about each others claims. I see lots of criticism of stories that show seem to contradict the PO argument (my story above was an example) but I rarely, if ever, see PO people criticize anything said that reinforces the PO argument.

C8, there are 2 parts to the discussion, there are the objective facts and there are the subjective opinions. PO.com is full of discussions of both, the problem is separating the two. I didn't see anyone in this thread attacking the facts of the story you posted. I did see them disagreeing with your interpretation:

"Peak Oil "experts" were either shamefully ignorant or out right lying"

Your interpretation of the article is factually wrong because again, it is talking about a well that hasn't been completed in an area with no commercial wells and a history of exploration. Your interpretation is that the region contains a huge amount of heretofore unknown oil which disproves the idea that all the large finds have been found. The facts presented in the article don't support that conclusion.

What difference is there in your objective argument against PO and the peaker's bias toward it?

I rarely, if ever, see PO people criticize anything said that reinforces the PO argument.

The PO argument might be stated as;
A) oil is finite > extraction will decline
B) it is a key resource > decline will have consequences

You and many others don't like the consequences predicted by Doomers so set them up as a foil to attack the rest of the equation. It is a strawman argument, plain and simple.

Can you point some of this peer review criticism out for me?

Peruse the forums, the whole place is full or people being critical! You keep mentioning "peer review" as if there is some editorial board here. The only review is by members debating the merit of various ideas.

[ROCKMAN]

pstarr - I was only a tad familiar because I once knew a very old geologist who did surface mapping of Mozambique many decades ago. I would hang on his stories but not so much about the petroleum geology as the drama of frontier field work. He had developed a severe case of intestinal worms and probably would have died if his native helpers had not hauled his butt back from the boonies. He figured the only reason they didn't let that “old white fool” (the nickname they actually gave him) die was that he had become their main sources of alcohol and cigars.

[kublikhan]

Peruse the forums, the whole place is full or people being critical! You keep mentioning "peer review" as if there is some editorial board here. The only review is by members debating the merit of various ideas.

+1
C8, is this your first experience with a forum? This is not a peer reviewed journal. We don't have editors and review processes vetting every prediction made. You are free to write anything that pops into your head. I can start a new thread tomorrow about the coming convergence of the continents into a new supercontinent: Kublistan. There is no editorial board in place to vet my predictions(Plenty of worthless naysayers though who don't appreciate that I was the first to recognize this fact. I think they are just jealous that I came to the conclusion first!!)

But honestly, there are plenty of people here ripping into doomer predictions and calling them out on past failed predictions. Have you not seen Oily criticizing DP's doomerish economic predictions? Seen Meemoe criticize every doomerish PO poster here? Seen the latest incarnation of Shorty trolling every thread that all is well and doomers are wrong? Or going further back: Montequest and I sparring back and forth over the coming doom? Or JD calling doomers out on failed predictions?

C8, there are 2 parts to the discussion, there are the objective facts and there are the subjective opinions. PO.com is full of discussions of both, the problem is separating the two.

+1 again
There are plenty of people here who are experts in their field and they can provide both excellent facts and opinions on where we are heading. But realize the two are distinct. Facts are facts. Predictions of the future, well, an educated guess is about the best you can hope for since none of us have a crystal ball. Rockman is very knowledgeable about his field and is a great source of information. But he is also rather cautious about making predictions of the future. We also have the other end of the spectrum here. People who know next to nothing. But are very vocal about their predictions, and possess a great deal of certainty in their belief.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".

Across four studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Meanwhile, people with true ability tended to underestimate their relative competence. Roughly, participants who found tasks to be relatively easy erroneously assumed, to some extent, that the tasks must also be easy for others.

"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision" - Bertrand Russell

"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." - Shakespeare

Dunning–Kruger effect

[h2]

c8, I have to more or less agree with pops, it appears that it was you lacking in the critical thinking skills to separate out the doomers and extreme views from the more realistic ones.

I remember back in 1999 reading as much as I could find on this issue, and it became clear, over the years, that the doomers etc were just engaging in wishful thinking while the more serious professionals and ex oil industry guys, like deffeyes, colin cambell, had a very good overview of the situation, and tended to put the target around 2005 to 2010, a very accurate estimate (not guess, guess means you have no idea, they did) it turned out in retrospect.

Colin Cambell and Hubbert both pretty much nailed the economic consequences of the event, not bad considering those events were in the future at that time, now they are in the present. Both highly competent professionals, both I believe petroleum geologists who had worked all over the planet, with years of real experience with the data. Hubbert, you may or may not recall, nailed US peak production almost to the year, which was not at all bad considering he did the calculations long before that time, ie, it was far in the future still. It's been noted that it's much more difficult to predict events in the future than the present, so people who establish good track records in this area are particularly worth paying attention to.

You seem more mad about having fallen for the less well considered worse case scenario than anything else, at least that's what it looks like to me. Again, this is not new stuff, there were always cornucopian dreamers who pushed what society wants to hear, like Yergin, then pretty good realists who have worked professionally with the data, including guys like Rockman, and these guys have always formed a fairly consistent message, providing you have the education to understand that when faced with a varied dataset of unknown quality, remove the sources with the least credibility, which in this case left us with a pretty solid projection, with decent parameters and reasonable margins of error.

While you may think you typed something else in this thread, what I read you saying is that an oil company pr release with no proven reserves listed at all, or drilled, somehow invalidates all the global data on oil production, along with all geological data, flow rates, decline rates, etc. This shows to me a serious sense of wishful thinking interjecting itself into your 'analysis', which you certainly are right to be getting seriously frustrated with. Let me give you a hint: when 10 million barrels of new oil have hit the market, ie, a new russia or saudi arabia, and prices have dropped substantially, to the point that oil sand extraction and fracking is no longer economically viable, then, and only then, can you state that the analysis was wrong and flawed, since everything happening now is exactly in line with what was suggested would happen, a bumpy plateau of production with high prices bringing online increasingly difficult to extract oil from varied sources that were not previously economically viable, while all existing conventional wells continue to decline at known rates, making the new production basically just make up for the lost production via depletion, ergo, a bumpy plateau. Everything else you read at this point is just frantic propaganda being put out to avoid the reality that production is finite and not growing globally beyond small upswings as expensive, peak priced oil, makes extracting the non profitable sources viable.

There's by the way a major advantage to grasping material reality in a concrete way, see rockman's recent threads on china's increasing control over oil flows and production rights, they understand the situation and are acting on it, something we will all hope the US had done in a more reasonable and coherent manner some 10 years from now, give or take.

Did you do something dumb like follow the naturebatslast guy's advice, lol? I could have told you not do that years ago, was about the time he predicted that there would be no cars on the road by... what was it? I think it was 2010, I'd have to look it up to see the exact year, anyone who is that profoundly clueless about reality is best left unread. Or Jay Hansen? He was good for his day, but you needed critical thinking skills to read dieoff.org because there was a lot of trash on it, but also one of the first public releases of the information guys like Cheney had had access to via private studies in the 90s already, that's where I first came across deffeyes and colin cambell, both of whom were clearly professionals studying the problem rationally, and both of whom, no real surprise, painted a fairly accurate and realistic scenario, padded out in beautiful detail over the years by on the ground reports from guys like rockman. Maybe you should work on your critical thinking more, it's hard to dig through the chaff, the best method always is to seek out fairly non biased people who are in the business or were in the business and now are free to talk more openly since there's no further worry about ruining stock prices etc. Seen the reserves of the big oil companies lately?

Stuff like this is good for a chuckle though, I do have to admit that the non stop articles that say: the increased production of shale oils (made possible by globally high oil prices because oil has hit peak production levels), which now makes up some 700k barrels a day of us production, or whatever the number is, 'disproves peak oil', when in fact it directly proves it, since production would not be happening if prices were not high, and prices would not be high if production really were able to meet demand. Don't they teach critical thinking in the US anymore? apparently not, lol. Maybe this is the old Orwell thing, where war is peace, concrete proof of peak oil disproves the existence of peak oil, and the government spies on all of its citizens...?

[SeaGypsy]

The Kubler-Ross 5 stages of grief as applied around our subject are neither stable or a definite sequence. C8 shows this pretty vividly.

[h2]

By the way, there is a major unknown, that is debated, and there is no way to know the outcome or answer, that is if production will drop steeply at a certain point, or if it will just descend fairly slowly, as it rose. The former case is known as the sharkfin model, because production goes up slowly then drops steeply, forming a shark fin shaped curve. Doomers preselect for the sharkfin because it matches what they want to happen. While I want it to happen because then I would finally be free of having to be around cars, that's a subjective view, and has little if any analytical value, which is also why I do not expect this outcome to be the one that happens.

There are compelling reasons for each point of view, but neither is known or established as fact since the world has never reached peak oil extraction flows before, so we have no good examples of a global system hitting a key resource constraint.

If I were to guess, I'd guess it will be a punctuated gradual descent, ie a sort of descending sawtooth graph, with occasional drops as some nations lose their ability to maintain complex production infrastructure, and the global system becomes unable to maintain current levels of complexity. But that's not a prediction, to be clear, it's just a possible outcome, one of 3 that are likely. I'd view the steep drop off as the least likely however, mainly because it simply has not happened, even after oil broke 100 a barrel. Oil is just too valuable to us in the end, we will do whatever it takes to keep extracting it.

There is one 100% certain outcome, however, we will produce less oil in 50 years than we do today, since discovery rates are known, decline rates are known, and sources of 'new' production like tar sands and shale oil are known, so it's not hard to do the arithmetic.

[ROCKMAN]

h2 – “…I'd guess it will be a punctuated gradual descent, ie a sort of descending saw tooth graph, with occasional drops as some nations lose their ability to maintain complex production infrastructure, and the global system becomes unable to maintain current levels of complexity.” That appeals to me also. I’ve never been a cliffer with respect to natural decline rates. Even if they suddenly stopped drilling the US shales for whatever reason there would be a quick fall back to previous levels but then retain that relatively low decline rate.

Which is why I coined one more silly acronym the other day: PODP. That would be the Peak Oil Dynamic Plateau. As opposed to the POP…PO Plateau. The POP was easy to challenge for some folks given the spurt in US oil production. But as you point out the POD can produces up spikes as well as down spikes in certain metrics. I envision this as exactly the type of saw tooth you describe. On a long cycle it’s easy to project an ever decreasing global oil production rate. But in the shorter term that’s not really very important IMHO. It’s that cutting effect of your “saw” that will bring about pain to many. Complicated in that one person’s pain might be another person’s benefit. Such is the nature of the PODP.

[Pops]

Yeah, the Sharkfin, I always called it the cresting wave but I like Sharkfin better, da duhn, Da Duhn, DA DHUN!

The interesting thing to me has been the relatively stable plateau we've maintained both production wise and as a global economy. I suppose a lot of it is central bank borrowing and ZIRP up to now along with a pretty dramatic decrease in driving. This is from Gail and shows about a 20% reduction in where we would have expected to be:



But she also made this chart showing that the majority of reduced consumption - 50% - came from a category she labeled "other" - basically a reduction in "industrial uses". Not too comforting.




So 5 years now from the run-up and crash and no real change in production except for hopefully a few mmbbls from shales an a little from Iraq. Not much economic recovery either except for the areas benefiting from free government money. And the oil price is stuck at $100-$110 for over 2 years.

Not much undulation in the old undulating plateau so far, just stuck between Iraq and a hard place. LOL

[C8]

Back from vacation- I do like to respond to folks and don't want to appear rude- Cincinnati was great
A couple of points:

1. First, a big mea culpa, I assumed that everyone looking at the Mozambique article was noticing that it stated that a truly huge natural gas find was made there. This is what I was referencing. Many peak Oil theorist had said in 2005-2009 that natural gas would not save us as it was peaking also (I believe natural gas was pretty high priced back then). That such a giant natural gas discovery was recently made when all of the giant fossil fuel fields were supposed to have been found was what I was referring to. The article clearly states that they are just beginning to look for oil there. I should have been more explicit but I am a little lazy and I thought the title and subtitle of the article were pretty dramatic, clearly show what I was talking about, and would put my discussion in context. Again, my apologies as I made connections in my brain that I assumed everyone else would make. I didn't realize the confusion until I remembered a quote pops made. That so may people heard this the way he did means the communications breakdown was my fault.

2. I don't want peer review process to be confused with the event of internet posters attacking articles. Peer review implies that qualified individuals who are conducting detailed research and have extensive background knowledge are testing, critiquing, and evaluating Peak oil research. These individuals should have extensive knowledge of the business and practice of extracting fossil fuels. It is a little concerning that so many PO writers (the popularizers) are from other fields than oil- and fields not even closely related.

3. Much of the authority of PO writers came from their referencing real authorities such as Hubbert, Simmons, etc. Maybe because of their lack of knowledge of the oil business, the writers that popularized PO were a little too uncritical of many of the assumptions made by the authority figures. Just because a person predicted that the US oil production would peak in year X, and it happens, doesn't make them an infallible guide to the future. Technology changes and this changes events.

4. I do think there are some "red flags" that indicate that any research is problematic and these would have been picked up on by adequate peer reviewers. The PO movement in general rests on some assumptions that may be fatally flawed:

A. that technology cannot innovate fast enough to solve energy problems
B. that high oil prices necessitate economic downturn (or collapse)
C. that increased oil use is necessary for economic growth
D. that we are close to peak discovery, extraction rate
E. that exporting nations must continue to use up more and more of their own oil

I am not saying that I disagree with these ideas necessarily- I am saying that they have no place being assumed in a scholarly work because they are based on historical trends and are therefore subject to revision. There are thousands of historical trends which have come to an end abruptly. These are the questions that should be investigated- not the answers that are assumed before investigation begins since this biases the investigation. There should be some respect for the fact that these questions should always be open ended.

5. Which brings me to this: most of Peak Oil research is simply historical data- which actually cannot really predict much with certainty, and geological data- which implies some things, but not specifically. It is really not a science at all, but an interdisciplinary study of economics, history, energy systems, engineering, etc.. But still, a high level of scholarship requires peer review, persons qualified in their field, training, testing, etc. This is done in all the subfields I mentioned.

6. I think the Peak Oil community lacks a core. Climate Change has a core at the university level with researchers developing new knowledge and tools every day. PO is an orphan child- which has let it be taken over by the hucksters and doomers. Fear sells books, web views, seminars, etc. it is hard to find an economic driver for straight up unbiased scholarship. There needs to be a website, organization, or set of individuals that work at a higher level and applies the same levels of scholarship to depletion issues as is done with global warming.

7. I do think the PO community has to start turning its back on the unprofessional merchants of doom who act as gurus to their fans and damage the reputation of Peak Oil. PO is a very important study but IMHO has been allowed to be turned into something of a carnival. False predictions and a notorious lack of knowledge about the oil field has already hurt PO greatly. If a reporter were to ask for an authority on PO who is considered very professional- who would they turn to?

(BTW- I totally stand by my original statement that many PO writers were either lying or shamefully ignorant of their subject- and I think most unbiased individuals would have to agree given the disaster of the PO writers predictions.)

I don't want to labor on this subject forever, but I do want to plant a seed. I think it is a mistake if some here see this as an attack on them- it is not. I am also concerned that so many seem satisfied with how PO research was handled in the last 10 years and how it is today. There is a real business as usual attitude that says: "we're great- its you who are wrong!" Real scholarship is fun IMHO.

If I hear no voices of agreement, then I will graciously drop the subject here. thanks for reading.

[dorlomin]

6. I think the Peak Oil community lacks a core. Climate Change has a core at the university level with researchers developing new knowledge and tools every day. PO is an orphan child- which has let it be taken over by the hucksters and doomers.

Link

Peak oil is the dull boring result of the observation than an accumulation of production curves in a field create something of a bell curve.
The accumulation of production curves in a group of fields similarly.
The accumulation of the production curves in an oil province like the North Sea, the same.

Perhaps you can show us where this has not been the case?

[ROCKMAN]

d - “I think the Peak Oil community lacks a core.” Actually I can understand such a thought even though it’s not true. There is a huge core that thoroughly understands the current energy situation. Not only do they understand it but they have all the data and resources to completely evaluate the situation. And it’s the oil patch. Of course there’s one tiny problem: other than complaining about govt regulations holding them back there’s zero incentive for the vast majority of them to share that insight. Obviously no one should expect public companies to try to warn anyone of a potential problem since that could damage stock valuations. And what of the privately owned companies: why should they spend any time doing something that doesn’t create cash flow for them?

OTOH the academics are getting paid to be advocates for Climate Change analysis. And that doesn’t mean they aren’t sincere and are doing it just for a paycheck. But they are getting paid. If the unis started paying geologists and engineers to sit behind those ivy covered walls then there would be a similar outspoken core on energy. If they paid the Rockman he couldn’t think of a better gig than broadening the horizons of all those impressionable coeds. LOL

The closest we have to such a public core is the govt’s energy analysts such as the USGS and the Dept of Energy. Of course that brings us back to the lack of motivation by public companies to paint a bleak picture. Given the desire of most politicians to constantly offer a “better tomorrow” one might not expect those folks to paint a bleak picture either. So we’re left with the dedicated band of brothers (and a few sisters) at sites like this and TOD as the core. Granted not a big core and it doesn’t get the positive media attention others find. In fact, often “they” are using a relatively friendly media, along with some tacit support from the oil pubcos, to drown out the message here.

So C8, whether you (or anyone else) likes it or not, you are part of the core. A part of our happy though occasionally dysfunctional family here.

[ROCKMAN]

Pop – Perhaps Gail’s chart of US consumption can serve as a metric for the Peak Oil Dynamic Plateau. Probably some others would work as well. Better than the PO Plateau in that it accounts for the increase in oil prices which pushed the oil production rate upwards and thus giving the appearance of the US steering away from the PO brick wall. If there were a significant decline in oil prices consumption would again increase IMHO. OTOH the drilling activity in the shales would fall off to some degree...perhaps very significantly. And this would lead to fewer supplies during a time of increased consumption which should lead to higher fuel prices which should return us to decreasing consumption. And thus the POD undulating plateau. As I’ve said before the increase in US oil production is some of the strongest evidence for the POD we have IMHO.

Stepping back to look at the global picture it may be more difficult to quantify the POD plateau. Globally consumption may appear flat but not when you break it into individual countries. China’s consumption is growing at a significant rate compared to other countries…especially the PIIGS. Thus an effort to chart a global POD Plateau may make little sense. Regardless of such cute songs “we” are not the world. "We" are individual countries with different agendas and varying methods to effect those agendas.

[Pops]

c8, your'e starting to get slippery on us, lol.

Here is what is pretty certain:

Backdated discoveries peaked in 1964.
Except for US tight oil, crude oil and condensate extraction in the rest of the world has not increased in 7 years.
The average real price of oil has increased several hundred percent - it's at the highest point ever, has been there for over 2 years.

That is what we know with at least a little certainty, cloudy though the data is. Those 3 items, along with a terrible economy, just so happen to be the basic predictions made years ago by peakers and I'll mention, derided every step of the way by others.

You seem to want to make the case that peak oil is all predictions made by non-professional profit-s-of-doom. That's called a plea to authority and might be valuable in some debates but when the prophesies have already manifested to a large extent, impeaching the source seems a little, i don't know, irrelevant?

Which isn't to say there won't be innovation and conservation and economic adaptation and "yet-to-find" oil being found, of course there will. But that is crystal ball gazing and since you aren't an expert I wouldn't expect you to offer an opinion. LOL

So anyway, to be taken seriously along with the rest of us "experts" you should at least start from the baseline of reality, which is that the basic PO prediction of a supply plateau along with increasing price have proven to be accurate.

[rockdoc123]

And it’s the oil patch. Of course there’s one tiny problem: other than complaining about govt regulations holding them back there’s zero incentive for the vast majority of them to share that insight. Obviously no one should expect public companies to try to warn anyone of a potential problem since that could damage stock valuations. And what of the privately owned companies: why should they spend any time doing something that doesn’t create cash flow for them?

For the greater part it is all about keeping a low profile, I haven’t met a senior Exec at an oil company yet who doesn’t believe in the concept of Peak Oil and its potential impact on the industry. Most don’t want to say anything they feel could be at all controversial in public. There are exceptions. Quite awhile ago (back in the late nineties) a former Executive with BP who took over the helm of Talisman Energy and eventually built it from a $500 MM market cap company to a $25 Billion Market cap company started to be quite vocal to investors about his views on Peak Oil and it’s potential impact. Back when oil was below $20/bbl his comment was something to the effect that potential Asian demand growth was underestimated and that if everyone in China owned a motorbike we would be in trouble in terms of reserves. Back then he predicted oil at over $100/bbl and was mocked considerably by many of the investment community. He made that bet, picking up assets at a low price and was successful. After retirement from Talisman he stills speaks at various conferences etc on the subject of Peak Oil. Here is an interview with Jim from 2012. BTW…this guy is brilliant, PhD from Oxford in Astrophysics, can carry on a conversation about string theory and switch mid track to talk about forward yield on bonds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JBNMfZ22YE

[kublikhan]

6. I think the Peak Oil community lacks a core. Climate Change has a core at the university level with researchers developing new knowledge and tools every day. PO is an orphan child- which has let it be taken over by the hucksters and doomers. Fear sells books, web views, seminars, etc. it is hard to find an economic driver for straight up unbiased scholarship. There needs to be a website, organization, or set of individuals that work at a higher level and applies the same levels of scholarship to depletion issues as is done with global warming.

Doesn't this describe exactly what the IEA is? Sure there mandate is a bit broader than just resource depletion and covers all issues energy related. And their forecasts may shade a bit too much on the optimistic side for many here. But I think this organization is exactly what you are talking about. No hucksters peddling fear & doom. Just straight up unbiased scholarship on energy issues.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) is an autonomous organisation which works to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for its 28 member countries and beyond.

Founded in response to the 1973/4 oil crisis, the IEA’s initial role was to help countries co-ordinate a collective response to major disruptions in oil supply through the release of emergency oil stocks to the markets.

While this continues to be a key aspect of its work, the IEA has evolved and expanded. It is at the heart of global dialogue on energy, providing authoritative and unbiased research, statistics, analysis and recommendations.

Today, the IEA’s four main areas of focus are:

- Energy security: Promoting diversity, efficiency and flexibility within all energy sectors;

- Economic development: Ensuring the stable supply of energy to IEA member countries and promoting free markets to foster economic growth and eliminate energy poverty;

- Environmental awareness: Enhancing international knowledge of options for tackling climate change; and

- Engagement worldwide: Working closely with non-member countries, especially major producers and consumers, to find solutions to shared energy and environmental concerns.

IEA - What we do

The member countries of the IEA seek to create conditions in which the energy sectors of their economies can make the fullest possible contribution to sustainable economic development and to the well-being of their people and of the environment.

In order to secure their objectives, member countries therefore aim to create a policy framework consistent with the following goals:

Diversity, efficiency and flexibility within the energy sector are basic conditions for longer-term energy security: the fuels used within and across sectors and the sources of those fuels should be as diverse as practicable. Non-fossil fuels, particularly nuclear and hydro power, make a substantial contribution to the energy supply diversity of IEA countries as a group.

The environmentally sustainable provision and use of energy are central to the achievement of these shared goals. Decision-makers should seek to minimise the adverse environmental impacts of energy activities, just as environmental decisions should take account of the energy consequences. Government interventions should respect the Polluter Pays Principle where practicable.

More environmentally acceptable energy sources need to be encouraged and developed. Clean and efficient use of fossil fuels is essential. The development of economic non-fossil sources is also a priority. A number of IEA member countries wish to retain and improve the nuclear option for the future, at the highest available safety standards, because nuclear energy does not emit carbon dioxide. Renewable sources will also have an increasingly important contribution to make.

IEA - Shared goals

[agramante]

Well, kublikhan, there's ample reason to question the worth of the IEA as a predictor, as they've tended to have strong cornucopian tendencies. At the very least, in their 2010 New Policies scenario production forecast, they do us the favor of plotting their wishful thinking under the category "Fields yet to be developed or found":

Oil Production Forecast.png

Though it's easy enough to see beneath that fig leaf.