Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
energyresources · EnergyResources Group
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Show off your group to the world. Share a photo of your group with us.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Revisiting International Energy Outlook 2001   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #84901 of 122414 |
In late 2001 Roger Blanchard published a critique of the EIA's
publication "International Energy Outlook 2001". Roger thought
they would miss their mark. Four years later I thought I would
check some of their predictions and see how they were doing.

Roger's paper:
http://dieoff.org/page231.pdf

The EIA publication in question:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/04842001.pdf

1. North Sea-Concerning the North Sea the IEO2001 states:
"In the IEO2001 forecast, North Sea production reaches a peak
in 2006, at almost 6.6 million barrels/day (mb.d). Production
from Norway, Western Europe's largest producer, is expected to
peak at about 3.7 mb/d in 2004 and then gradually decline to
about 3.1 mb/d by the end of the forecast period with the
maturing of some of its large and older fields. The United
Kingdom is expected to produce about 3.1 mb/d by the middle
of this decade, followed by a decline to 2.7 mb/d by 2020."

The facts are that the North Sea was already post peak when
these words were written. The North sea peaked in 1999 at
5.947 mb/d. For the first nine months of 2005 the North Sea
has averaged 4.787 mb/d, 1.16 mb/d below the average for all
of 1999, the peak year. And that is over 1.8 mb/d below what
they expected the production to be next year. It is almost
a lead pipe cinch that by then the North sea will be producing
at least 2 mb/d below their predicted 6.6 mb/d, and declining fast.

They say Norway will peak at 3.7 mb/d in 2004 year and decline
to about 3.1 mb/d by the end of the forecasting period, (2020).
That is an absurdly slow decline over 16 years. The facts show
how very wrong they were. Norway had already peaked in 2000
averaging 3.197 mb/d for that year. So far in 2005 they are
averaging 2.719 mb/d, well below the 3.1 mb/d the EIA predicted
they would be at in 2020. In fact they are now declining by
about 3.3 percent per year, a rate that would put them at about
1.6 mb/d in 2020.

They say: "The United Kingdom is expected to produce about 3.1
mb/d by the middle of this decade, followed by a decline to 2.7
mb/d by 2020." The UK peaked in 1999 at 2.684 mb/d and now in
the middle of this decade, their expected peak, the UK is
producing an average of 1.668 mb/d over 1.4 mb/d or about 46
percent below where the EIA expected UK production to be.

2. Mexico-Concerning Mexico the IEO2001 states:
"Mexico is expected to adopt energy policies that encourage
the efficient development of its vast resource base. Expected
production volumes in Mexico exceed 4 million barrels/day by
the end of the decade and show little decline out to 2020."

Mexico is now post peak! According to the data supplied by the
EIA, Mexico's highest production month was December 2003. That
month Mexico produced 3.455 million barrels. The 12-month
moving average of Mexican production peaked six months later
in June 2004 at 3.408 mb/d and has been steadily declining ever
since. That 12-month moving average now stands at 3.344 mb/d.
And since Pemex themselves say Cantarell will begin a steep 14
percent decline in 2006 there is little hope of any increase in
Mexican production in the future. Cantarell currently produces
about 60 percent of Mexico's oil.

A note of interest: In 1997 Cantarell was producing about 1.1
mb/d. Since then its output has doubled to about 2.2 mb/d. Since
then Mexican production has gone from 3.023 mb/d in 97 to 3.343
mb/d in 2005. So while the output from Cantarell was increasing
by 1.1 mb/d the output from ALL Mexico was only up by .32 mb/d.
In other words, while Cantarell was increasing output by 1.1
mb/d the rest of Mexico was declining by almost .8 mb/d. Mexican
production outside Cantarell has already been in decline for
about a decade and now Cantarell is about to join the rest of
the country by hitting the skids as well. This makes the EIA's
prediction that Mexico will show little decline out to 2020
absolutely laughable.

2. Argentina-Concerning Argentina the IEO2001 states:
"Argentina is expected to increase its production volumes by at
least 100,000 b/d over the next two years, and by the middle
of the decade it could possibly become a million barrel/day
producer"

Argentina peaked in 1998 at 847,000 b/d average for that year
and so far in 2005 it has averaged 712,000 b/d. Argentina was
already well into decline when the EIA made their prediction.
That makes their prediction all the more weird.

Ron Patterson










Fri Dec 2, 2005 12:43 am

readyourdarwin
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #84901 of 122414 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

In late 2001 Roger Blanchard published a critique of the EIA's publication "International Energy Outlook 2001". Roger thought they would miss their mark. Four...
Ron Patterson
readyourdarwin
Offline Send Email
Dec 2, 2005
2:22 am

Ron, that's a really valuable analysis you just posted, eye-opening data. It reinforces the growing conviction among even the moderate "EIA skeptics" that...
Dick Lawrence
lawrence_01749
Online Now Send Email
Dec 3, 2005
2:59 am

Yeah, the EIA also blew it with China (they predicted a 1999 peak vs. actual record of continued growth) and they underestimated 2005 FSU output by a couple...
doggydogworld
Offline Send Email
Dec 3, 2005
4:52 am

Unfortunately I had an obligation to attend to so I couldn't complete all I had intended to say about ddw's comments. I have been reading the US DOE/EIA's...
blanchardrd
Offline Send Email
Dec 3, 2005
11:05 pm

I don't have the International Energy Outlook for 2001 and I couldn't access it on the US DOE/EIA website so I can't verify that the EIA was stating the...
blanchardrd
Offline Send Email
Dec 3, 2005
11:07 pm

Ron, if you expanded on this to include other source countries and tabulated the resulte it would make a great article for eg EnergyPulse. Murray ... fast....
mduffin3
Offline Send Email
Dec 3, 2005
4:53 am

... tabulated the result it would make a great article for eg EnergyPulse.<<<< Murray, I hope to do that soon. However there is a problem I must work out...
Ron Patterson
readyourdarwin
Offline Send Email
Dec 3, 2005
11:07 pm

I add my thanks to Ron for this work, but please, I need to see (to be able to convince others) the sources for the current production numbers. And I think...
Jim Allen
vineyfig4gj
Offline Send Email
Dec 3, 2005
11:08 pm

The source for all my data is the International Petroleum Monthly, the EIA's own publication. It can be found here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/ipm/contents.html ...
Ron Patterson
readyourdarwin
Offline Send Email
Dec 4, 2005
11:02 pm

Ron's follow-up is excellent. His conclusions suggest to me that the United States takes an unconscionable risk by allowing immigration to drive population...
Abernethy, Virginia D...
virginia.abernethy@...
Send Email
Dec 4, 2005
11:08 pm
Advanced

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help