When, in their future scenarios, politicians and economists discuss energy they most often refer to the scenarios presented by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Kristofer Jakobsson, Bengt Söderbergh, Mikael Höök and Kjell Aleklett have analysed how reliable these prognoses are in an article that is now accepted for publication by the journal Energy Policy. A summary of the article is given below:
Abstract: According to the long term scenarios of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), conventional oil production is expected to grow until at least 2030. EIA has published results from a resource constrained production model which ostensibly supports such a scenario. The model is here described and analyzed in detail. However, it is shown that the model, although sound in principle, has been misapplied due to a confusion of resource categories. A correction of this methodological error reveals that EIA’s scenario requires rather extreme and implausible assumptions regarding future global decline rates. This result puts into question the basis for the conclusion that global “peak oil” would not occur before 2030.
The article can be read in its entirety at the homepage of our research group Global Energy Systems at Uppsala University. In the article we attempt to show that the prognoses that, above all, the EIA discusses can result in large problems in the future. An unrealistic description of the future will mean that adaptation to a new, realistic one will be beset by conversion problems of enormous magnitude. I would like to quote the following text from the conclusion of our article:
“In the peak oil debate, analysts who downplay the possibility of an early peak are usually labeled “optimists”. This title we would like to claim for ourselves. In our view, optimism means to always have a constructive attitude after a sober look at the facts at hand, not merely hope for the best scenario to come about. An early production peak followed by a gentle decline should provide good opportunities for an orderly transition from today’s oil dependent economy to a more sustainable one. It should definitely not be interpreted as a doomsday scenario, but rather as a cause for cautious optimism. EIA’s high-peak-steep-decline scenarios, on the other hand, would make an orderly transition extremely difficult and likely have catastrophic consequences for the economy.”
(Swedish)
Då politiker och ekonomer i sina framtidsscenarier diskuterar energi hänvisar man oftast till de scenarier som International Energy Agency (IEA) och U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) presenterar. Vi, Kristofer Jakobsson, Bengt Söderbergh, Mikael Höök, Kjell Aleklett, har analyserat hur tillförlitliga dessa prognoser är. Vår artikel är nu godkänd av Energy Policy och här nedan finns en sammanfattning av artikeln.
Abstract
According to the long term scenarios of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), conventional oil production is expected to grow until at least 2030. EIA has published results from a resource constrained production model which ostensibly supports such a scenario. The model is here described and analyzed in detail. However, it is shown that the model, although sound in principle, has been misapplied due to a confusion of resource categories. A correction of this methodological error reveals that EIA’s scenario requires rather extreme and implausible assumptions regarding future global decline rates. This result puts into question the basis for the conclusion that global “peak oil” would not occur before 2030.
Artikeln i son helhet kan läsas från vår grupps hemsidan, Globala energisystem vid Uppsala universitet. I artikeln försöker vi visa att de prognoser som framförallt EIA diskuterar kan leda till stora problem i framtiden. En orealistisk betraktelse av framtiden medför att en anpassning till en ny realistisk framtid kommer att möta omställnings problem av gigantisk magnitud. Från vår slutsats i artikeln vill jag citera:
“In the peak oil debate, analysts who downplay the possibility of an early peak are usually labeled “optimists”. This title we would like to claim for ourselves. In our view, optimism means to always have a constructive attitude after a sober look at the facts at hand, not merely hope for the best scenario to come about. An early production peak followed by a gentle decline should provide good opportunities for an orderly transition from today’s oil dependent economy to a more sustainable one. It should definitely not be interpreted as a doomsday scenario, but rather as a cause for cautious optimism. EIA’s high-peak-steep-decline scenarios, on the other hand, would make an orderly transition extremely difficult and likely have catastrophic consequences for the economy.”
Aleklett's Energy Mix 
Lars-Eric Bjerke
July 25, 2009
Kjell,
I en artikel, som ni säkert har studerat noggrannt, publicerad i Energy Policy i år med titeln “Resources and future supply of oil” av Jan Kjarstad av Filip Johnsson på CTH kommer dessa till samma slutsats som IEA och EIA. De säger att skillnaden mellan IEA/EIA/CTH och er har nedanstående grund.
“A close review of a large amount of reports from the peak community, among others Aleklätt and Campbell(2006), Robelius(2007), Simmons(2005)and EWG(2007) it can be concluded that they do not recognize:
– The current “conventional” estimates of proven reserves. The main reason for this is the substantial upgrading of reserves among Middle East Opec members in the late 1980s.
– That there are substantial volumes of already discovered recoverable oil beyond what is proven(also outside Opec).
– The importance of resource growth in existing fields.
-US Geological Survey’s(USGS, 2000) estimates of future discoveries.”
– Håller du med om deras beskrivning av skillnaden?
– Vilken skillnad har störst betydelse?
– Varför är det så svårt att komma till en rimlig samsyn? Som jag läser skiljer sig uppfattningen om utvinningsbara reserver en faktor 2 till 3.
Svenne
July 26, 2009
Här är ett intressant klipp:
Laurent
September 7, 2009
Yes very good interview.
mats eriksson
July 26, 2009
Jag följer den här bloggen med stort intresse, kan i sällskapet räknas som helt oskolad men mycket av den här informationen räcker det med att man har ett öppet sinne och inte är rädd för verkligheten för att kunna ta till sig. Att den rådande ekonomiska ordningen “snabb och hög vinst framför allt annat” har problem med hur man ska förklara och hantera kommande olje tillgångsproblem är uppenbart. Detta i kombination med att US dollar snart inte är värt någonting gör att många mörka moln syns på himlen, men hur mörkt måste det bli innan vi gör något? Personligen tror jag att lösningen ligger i en mer rättvis ekonomi globalt, var och en efter förmåga till var och en efter behov.
Lionel Badal
July 26, 2009
I recently finished my BA (Hons) in International Relations at the University of Exeter, and will soon join King’s college London for my MA. Over the past 12 months, I have conducted about 20 interviews with leading experts on Peak Oil.
Stephen Harvey (Director of the Oil and Gas Office, EIA) kindly accepted to read my degree’s dissertation (How Peak Oil will Affect international Relations) and give his feedbacks. And apparently he thinks we are now at global Peak Oil:
“There are many compelling arguments regarding the increased difficulty in reaching oil reserves which may well result in a future view of historical production that looks sort of like a bell curve. And, it is quite plausible that the peak of that curve is around now.”
However, he seems to believe that somehow, the economy and new technologies will mitigate the crisis:
“I do think you back into a bit of a problem, though. In both the assessment of peak oil and the assessment of the response by states to a peak oil situation, you constrain your analysis by not considering the important roles of economic responses and technological development.”
My assessment relies on the “Hirsch Report” (commissioned by the US Department of Energy), in which they conclude that we should have acted 20 years before Peak Oil in order to avoid “unprecedented economic, political and social costs”. However, it is very interesting that Mr. Harvey thinks we are now at Peak Oil…
Ed Pell
July 27, 2009
No politician win more votes by saying things are bad and will get worse. The truth cause the pol to lose many more votes than it gains them.
Often they are paid (in one form or another) by entities that do not want the truth told because it is more profitable to them to have the lie told.
I am reminded of what Jeane Kirkpatrick said to the effect “I thought academic politics was rough then I went to Washington D.C. professional politics is much worse.” You make a great professor but you are too good a person to be an effective pol.
Magnus A
August 3, 2009
What about this?
– The atmosphere when the Earth was young had at least 2500 times more CO2 than it has now.
– The sea CO2 content is 50 times higher than from 100 years of fossil emissions at current emission rate.
– In natural decarbonization since then lots of this carbon was stored in the ground, in rocks and in fossil fuel.
– If 1 out of 500 carbon molecules has become fossil fuel which can be captured by man we would have 500 years of fossil fuel left at current production level.
– The production now isn’t lower today than before but vary slightly with small trends up as well as down. The arab countries has a record production rate now. They have also 50 not yet used oil field, and globally the discovered oil reserves are now larger than such findings has ever been.
—
Of course we may got an oil peak in say 70 or 270 years of times, but we’ll very well cope with that. Oil peak is also something oil producing countries likes to talk about, since it creates a feeling that oil is a limited product which therefor can have a high price (equals benifits for the producer). I think this is the business of oil peak consultants, aand I think Monbiot now are oaifd by oil companies — no, I don’t think that, I know that; look at
Magnus A
August 3, 2009
Sorry. The last sentence is this:
I know Monbiot has been sponsored by oil conmpanies (Shell, Exxon, BP and another large company). Look at the information in this Guardian article and the comment by geoffchambers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/may/20/climate-change-denier-mit?showallcomments=true
olof
August 3, 2009
IEA:s chief economist freaks out in the independent:
“Higher oil prices brought on by a rapid increase in demand and a stagnation, or even decline, in supply could blow any recovery off course, said Dr Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the respected International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris, which is charged with the task of assessing future energy supplies by OECD countries.
Related articles
In an interview with The Independent, Dr Birol said that the public and many governments appeared to be oblivious to the fact that the oil on which modern civilisation depends is running out far faster than previously predicted and that global production is likely to peak in about 10 years – at least a decade earlier than most governments had estimated.
But the first detailed assessment of more than 800 oil fields in the world, covering three quarters of global reserves, has found that most of the biggest fields have already peaked and that the rate of decline in oil production is now running at nearly twice the pace as calculated just two years ago. On top of this, there is a problem of chronic under-investment by oil-producing countries, a feature that is set to result in an “oil crunch” within the next five years which will jeopardise any hope of a recovery from the present global economic recession, he said. ”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/warning-oil-supplies-are-running-out-fast-1766585.html
lb262
August 3, 2009
Birol has been at the IEA for 12 years… For 10 years he argued there were no problem, don’t listen to the “doomsayers” (a.k.a. ASPO). Now he wants to present himself as the brave man who warns the world about the crisis!
If the IEA didn’t offer an objective analysis years ago it’s for a good part his fault… despicable person
Magnus
August 6, 2009
Skulle vilja ha lite synpunkter, gärna av Kjell eller Mikael på följande resonemang. Det utgår ifrån resonemangen om tidpunkten för Peak Oil (2005, 2010, 2020 eller efter 2030?):
Under den första delen av tillväxtfasen av den totala globala oljeproduktionen är det i princip efterfrågan som sätter gränsen för hur mycket olja som levereras (=produktion). När vi närmar oss toppen börjar dock utvinningskapaciteten få en viktig roll. Dvs svårighet med produktionsökning leder till ökade priser vilket dämpar efterfrågan. Med denna logik skulle man alltså förvänta sig en fas med kraftigt ökande oljepriser före själva peaken. Jag uppfattar oljeprisets ökning under perioden ca 2002-2007 som en tydlig indikator på att en sådan fas pågick då. Nu inser jag att man måste ta hänsyn till oljemarkandens dynamiska kapacitet och mängder med därtill hörande faktorer. Min fråga blir dock: Ska man förvänta sig pre-peak prisrallyn eller inte och i så fall varför?
ANDJELKO
August 23, 2009
Ersätta alla dagens förnybara och icke-förnybara
kraftkällorna med ny FORMEL (M= -0+),
UTSLÄPP i NATUREN = 0%.
Formeln används även fusion tyngdkravt men det är stora motståndare mot gratis kraftkälla.
1. F Reinfeldt -statsminisrer- med hela statsråden.
2. Per Eriksson -rektor- LU
3. Tomas Kåberger ENERGIMYNDIGHETEN
4. L G Josefsson Vattenfall
5. Leif Johansson – volvo-
6. BJÖRN von SYDOW VETENSKAPSRÅDET
Regeringen tillsammans med dessa ledande akademiska
experter inkluderar bittra kamp mot gratis kraftkälla
med maktlösa formel. Detta är regeringens stor SKAMGREPP.