[eastbay]

http://seekingalpha.com/article/160123- ... t-peak-oil

Found this fun read on Seeking Alpha and thought it might be worthy of discussion. Well what is it IEA? Is peak oil on or is it not on? Please make up your minds.

The quote below seems to sum it up nicely:

So what does the IEA think of Peak Oil? Well, nobody seems to know.

[Pops]

However, because of the important decline rates, the world will still be short of “at least” 12.5 MBD before 2015[10].

Even if he's only counting the Cheap/Easy that's pretty short.

I've about decided that if the few people here who have talked about changing much of their life are any indication, it would be foolhardy for any significant number of politicians to bring up the subject.

[lowem]

Either the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, if it's an especially large kind of organization (doesn't have to be that large, I can speak from experience on this one). Or like some more cynical ones might say, I'm paraphrasing here, sometimes some folks are paid to *not* understand the problem.

[eastbay]

I remember when I was becoming acquainted with the term, 'peak oil', back in 2004. I remember the IEA was belittling the peak oil theory suggesting oil would be inexpensive and abundant for decades to come.

That was only five years ago! Wow, what a change in attitude. It's clear their clients don't want to hear any suggestion of near-term limits to oil production. The IEA seems to be struggling with this. Do they simply print what their clients want.... or do they risk their bread and butter and print the truth? This is a tough one.

No doubt we'll read and hear more as time passes. This will be well worth watching and maybe even a bit entertaining too!

[Pops]

The IEA was created in response to the "Oil Emergencies" of the early '70s. I think it's newer job to promote "economic activity" has clouded it's vision some and it's even newer job of promoting renewables has gobbed up the works even more.

Birol told this green site:
"Each year the IEA publishes a reference scenario looking at projections based on legally enacted policies to show policy makers what will happen without any change in policy,"

So if OECD policy makers aren't aware of what's coming down the pike, I'd say the IEA, not the politicians, are at fault for simply parroting back OECD data on their annual reports these last many years and then going off on holiday.

I think, all of a sudden, they got the bright idea to raise their head from the copy machine and actually try to find out what capacity and supply truly is like out there. They found, to their surprise, they needed to revise back their PO date from 20 years down the road to 5!

I think we had better expect more tap dancing and fancy footwork from Mr. Birol and company.

[TheDude]

This is a revision, here's the original from the 5th: Peak Oil and the IEA (What they don’t want you to know…) - Lionel Badal -- Seeking Alpha. Ends thusly:

P.S.

This article was originally submitted to The Oil Drum[27] (one of the leading Peak Oil news webpage). While the editors initially accepted to publish the article, at the very last moment they changed their mind. In other words, an article on Peak Oil was censored by… The Oil Drum (TOD). The reasons why?

“I know there are at least a few people who think we should be putting the IEA in as favorable light as we can. So I have decided not to run it…” (Gail the Actuary, Editor, 2 September 2009).

However, to be fair with TOD, some of their members did not support this action:

“Sorry to hear about what's going on regarding your article and TOD… 1) this is something that TOD should publish, and 2) this kind of censorship, as you point out, isn't something that we should take any part in.” (Jeff Vail, 2 September 2009).

At the end, they wouldn’t accept it. If even TOD starts to censor information on Peak Oil…

To put it in the words of Steve Connor, Science Editor of The Independent, “What an odd thing for Oil Drum to be worried about -- so much for the independent journalism of the internet.”

This was purged from the new version. Commentary at TOD: Permalink. He misrepresented them in a big way, they were merely asking for something a bit more neutral in tone.

[Pops]

Thanks Dude, this DIY free speech / ad hoc journalism is an interesting thing.

[DantesPeak]

This was purged from the new version. Commentary at TOD: Permalink. He misrepresented them in a big way, they were merely asking for something a bit more neutral in tone.

As far as I remember, the Birol statement and another one I posted here were the most negative in regards to the effects of PO from the IEA.

For some reason, an little earlier, more negative statement from an IEA underling did not get much attention. Therefore no IEA comment about it being 'taken out of context' or such.

Since the major purpose of the IEA is to prepare for oil emergencies, the IEA is curiously trying awfully hard not to prepare for what is its main function.

Perhaps the management of the IEA needs to be purged and replaced with some forward thinkers?

[Pops]

Since the major purpose of the IEA is to prepare for oil emergencies, the IEA is curiously trying awfully hard not to prepare for what is it main function.

From the IEA About page

"Its mandate has broadened to incorporate the “Three E’s” of balanced energy policy making: energy security, economic development and environmental protection. "

The old Peter Principle in action perhaps?

[Mesuge]

POPs> yes the best way to counter "ad hoc journalism" is to censor posts critical of recent TODs editorial censorship vis a vis Lionel Badal's article as it appeared in the other thread today. When PO moderator & few sidekicks are loosing in the argument battle just pushing [delete] and the contra argument doesn't exist anymore, how easy and smart.
But then don't aspire to participate/moderate in public forum..

[mcgowanjm]

Go to the Dmitry Orlov Collapse thread to read the context of this
same pasted:

WTF!?

So an "explanation" with no rebuttal allowed followed
by "deletion -no further warnings!?

Like this arguement has been dealt with!? exhaustively.

This reminds me of that Thunderhorse debate where not a
single pic emerged of the damage that platform sustained from
Katrina. And yet TOD kept saying no problem. And then Gail goes out on a field trip sponsored by API to tell uss everything's OK.

So again, where's that inflammatory language that TOD had to spare the sensitivities of it's readers from?

This'll be good. And I'll keep posting til you post it or I'm banned.

And all of this on the Orlov Collapse thread.

perfect.

The vortex approaches and we're all singing somewhere over the rainbow.


PS: And I stopped posting to the Drumbeat after my posts were pulled
no warning/explanation given. That's what happens when the owners lose control of the message.

[Mesuge]

There are many layers to such behaviour, one of them obviously is the basic and primitive urge and sense of entitlement of "power" among these so-called owners/editors/moderators to push ahead their little agendas right or wrong at formaly declared free public debating realm they oh-so proudly invited you to talk and share info about the subject in the first place..

More importantly, and what I tried to describe in detail in that deleted post at PO is the issue of ever rising boundaries/animosities/rifts between doomers, soft-gliders, lite-corcnocupians and what have you. At certain point the public discontent with the "system" could be beyond repair, resulting in say, the editor of TOD will have the same bearing on the debate as a frog at the bottom of the oil-shale pit project.

As the general peak oil effects induced reality gradually deteriotes, many up to this point rational people in the peak oil camp will start to get very real shivers. And that's where the real censorship, whitewashing, corcnocupianism, denialism and physical threats start to take its toll.. You can call it the terminal stage of denial. Maybe it's natural, at least final desperate attempt to secure yourself and the closer family circle etc..

But we shouldn't be into fairytale business here!
Let the chips fall where they may, if the outcome is doom=doom, or soft-landing=soft-landing, what's the problem with that?

And what TOD editors and some locals at PO didn't like at all, was primarily that message Lionel dug out during his paper research at IEA H.Q. last year around the time of the publication hinting rapid depletion scenarios (WEO 2008), at the time when the institutional pool at IEA was full of blood and sharks so to speak. Lionel was there just at the right time. Namely, that some senior analysts were scared white from some of the scenarios possibly unfolding in next two decades..

[mcgowanjm]

And what TOD editors and some locals at PO didn't like at all, was primarily that message Lionel dug out during his paper research at IEA H.Q. last year around the time of the publication hinting rapid depletion scenarios (WEO 2008), at the time when the institutional pool at IEA was full of blood and sharks so to speak. Lionel was there just at the right time. Namely, that some senior analysts were scared white from some of the scenarios possibly unfolding in next two decades..

And so, When the Demons Come:

The unstated threat -- but the threat that is deeply felt by the child, even if he is not able to understand it -- is that the parent's love will be withdrawn unless the child obeys. Since the child knows that his life depends on that love, the threat is a terrifying one. Such blows are delivered countless times every day, by millions of parents around the world.

This knowledge is inaccessible to the majority of adults. We are taught to obey, and we learn to idealize our parents. We tell ourselves they did the best they could, or they couldn't help it. In one sense, that is true: they raise their children as they were raised. They learned obedience very well, and they do to their own children what was done to them. But most of us cannot leave this truth at this point: to maintain the veneration of our parents, we must insist that they in fact were right -- that they did it "for our own good." That is where the great danger lies.

When the idealization of the authority figure spreads once we become adults, it can encompass additional authority figures. There are two primary such figures: God -- who may have been there from the beginning, if the child is raised in a very religious household where God is the ultimate authority, and the parents only speak on His behalf; and country. When one's nation becomes such an authority figure, there are subsidiary ones as well: the nation's leaders, and the nation's military."

http://thesacredmoment.blogspot.com/2005/12/on-torture-vib-truth-that-lies-within.html

And whether POForum realizes it or not, the drift into becoming
irrelevant. Like newspapers, the MSM, or a losing sports team.

Those quotes again:

"WEO2008 estimates the industry will need to find 64 million barrels per day (bpd) of new oil production capacity to meet the expected growth in demand by 21 million bpd by 2030 and offset 43 million bpd of expected declines from existing fields. The total cost is put at around $5 trillion at today's prices."

"FIELD DECLINE RATES

Based on detailed data for the world's 580 largest oilfields and an extrapolation to the remaining 70,000 smaller fields, WEO2008 estimates output from existing and future fields will decline by 6.7-8.6 percent a year."