Comments on: Energy Information Administration Forecast

by: health governance system

Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:57:20 +0000

Very true. You always seem to get your facts right.

Avax

by: Vital Trivia » Blog Archive » Aviation White Paper Disaster

Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:43:55 +0000

[…] we looked at the shocking discovery that the EIA’s International Energy Outlook 2001 was completely wrong in it’s analysis of some major oil provinces, worrying since it seems some people, eve […]

by: Gary Saunders

Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:23:19 +0000

While the EIA may be quite good at reporting on past values, I have found that their predictive powers are pretty poor. One only needs to look at the Annual Energy Outlook to see that even in the short-term on such things as costs and supply (in the US), they have a pretty poor track record.

I was recently engaged in a debate over the Kyoto Protocol and the citing of economic effects on the US if the Kyoto Protocol was ratified. The citation…the EIA evaluation of the Kyoto protocol published in 1999, with several scenarios as well as a “no-action” base case. What’s interesting is that all the costs for fuels and the lost jobs have all been realized even without Kyoto (if only gas had only risen 66 cents/gallon, etc.).

The reply has typically been “well, the impact would have been worse….” but even in the very short-term the EIA has not been able to get any of the prediction for energy costs and impacts correct. Why should people who claim doubt on global climate models because they might show a couple of degree variation between model assumptions out into the future (though fairly close agreement with “past values”) hold so strongly to a group that has consistently shown themselves to be so wrong?

Is it politics? Maybe a bit, despite the nonpartisan charter for the EIA. But it seems that the EIA is afflicted with the same problem that most of the society seems to have…it will be the same in the future because its always “been that way” in the past. But the consistent failure to get even reasonably close to cost and supply estimates suggests something bordering on incompetence (though I’m not suggesting willful incompetence). As a policy tool, I’m not sure that it serves us well except as a rear-view mirror to show where we’ve been.

by: David Saxton

Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:23:38 +0000

In trying to convince local leaders about the issue of the coming energy famine I find myself confronted with stupified gazes and the occasional comment “They would never let something like that happen !” or a suspicious look that I’m some kind of dangerous subversive. Trying to alert local goverment officials such as city councils, school boards, planning bodies, etc. is not simply difficult but I’m coming to believe dangerous work. It flies in the face of deeply held assumptions about how the world works and the immediate impulse is to distrust the messenger. My thinking is that PO activists are setting themselves up for some hard slogging and I fear vicious attack as the dominent world views begin to diverge and reality sets in. This is difficult and dangerous work and it should be understood as such. Sweet reason is not welcome and the anxiety this issue arouses expresses itself in anger and fear directed at innocent others who simply want to see some prepartory action in the face to the coming crashes of damn near everything.

by: Edward Teague

Tue, 13 Dec 2005 02:09:36 +0000

Asset stripper Wilbur Ross has moved in on UK Coal and now has 3.6% of the equity. It is assumed he takes over, shuts the pits, imports coal (he has widespread coal interests in the Americas) and sells off the above ground landholdings.

Leaving the UK within 2 years importing 95% of it’s coal.

Drax offers its shares for sale this week. UK Coal’s main customer. The bondholder slook to have increased their investment (£700Mn)by about 150% in 3 years.

by: Starvid

Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:47:12 +0000

Wow, EIA does seem to have their heads up their asses. I had no idea their predictions were this bad.

by: Edward Teague

Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:13:33 +0000

Since Shell revealed the need to “adjust” their stated reserves I have simply assumed that published figures are both fiddled deliberately and inaccurate through sheet incompetence.

I suspect as does MO above, that the real situation in North Sea gas beachings is optimistic.

There is a curious belief amongst the political classes that commerce and industry serve to meet the customers and not the suppliers best interests, and that insurers really do want you to have a happy retirement rather than they maximise their income.

It is also becoming evident as offshore wind farms are delayed, (E.ON S. Wales etc.,) the costs of distribution become crystal clear, the reliability of equipment is under question and maintenance costs are now being realistically costed, that the projected level of energy output in the UK from wind is going to be negligible.

Furthermore UK Coal is continuing to make stupefying losses which cannot continue as the shareholders will not accept it, as far as I can see they are hanging on to realise the above ground property values.

by: Max Oakes

Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:27:15 +0000

I would check that the forecasts for the North Sea do not refer to oil plus gas as a bbl equivalent total. This has often been used to hide the early decline of the N Sea as gas production did not fall so steeply in the initial stages. No escaping the fact that typical pre-peak forecasts from the UK govt. IEA and the PILOT initiative were hopelessly optimistic. Denial of real gas supply decline is still denied by UK govt.

As another example of corporate ignorance look at GM’s decision to release a whole new range of SUVs just a gasline hit $3 a gallon.

In the UK we have truly spectacular plans for new airport runways and motorways which also provide startling evidence of the ‘establishment’ view of peak oil.

I have discussed cancelling airports and motorways with members of scottish parliament (SNP MSP’s) who state that there is no alternative to oil fuelled growth.