CERA Response Thread I

Obviously, it's quite the buzz in the po-sphere that CERA has released its latest report (which we'd love to give you, but really can't as it is behind a paywall) and press release (original CERA link here). The media coverage is just beginning. Bartlett and Udall respond to CERA here. [Update by Prof. Goose on 11/14/06 at 10:54 PM EDT] Here's another "everything's ok" piece (linked from Drudge).

We here at TOD will begin putting together responses over the next couple of days and weeks. However, obviously, from the emails I am getting in the TOD inbox, you all would like to talk about it too. Well, here you go.

with empirically-based and non-polemic responses of course...
Absolutely fantastic!  These are exactly the types of scenarios that will put TOD on the map - albeit for better or worse.


This is totally CERA-ious stuff dude.
Apply directly to the head.
Apply directly to the CERA-bellum.

Only $1000.000 for the "full" of it report.
CERA-on dude.
Apply directly to the head.
Apply directly to the head.

[U]pon [CERA-ious] examination, the peak oil theory falls down because [London Bridge is falling down, falling down; and cough cough because of] of serious flaws in logic and application [and because of our prediliction for words of fancy dissertation]. CERA's view, based on two decades of research [and a super ultra top secret database], is highly unpopular in peakist circles. However, ours is not a view of unlimited resource. A plateau will occur-but not tomorrow [oh no], and supply will not "run dry" soon thereafter [or heretofore,your mileage may vary]. We hold that aboveground factors [and below-sky variables] will play the major role in dictating the end of the age of oil.
A copy of the CERA press release is posted on Energy Bulletin with my comments at the end: http://energybulletin.net/22381.html

I tried to summarize the points of agreement and disagreement between CERA and the "peakists" (CERA's term). I was surprised by the amount of agreement.  I was further surprised by their openness to debate:

We respect the urgency and seriousness with which some with whom we disagree put their case.
We invite others to join in a considered dialogue, which now seems too easily lost in the rancor.
It is essential and more productive [than making bitter and "true believer" arguments] to build common understanding and conclusions, open to rational assessment of evidence, so that preparations can be made for the future.

I'm eager to hear what the experts at The Oil Drum have to say.

One suggestion - this looks like an opening. It would be good to have a response that is gracious and mature.  


thanks BA, I changed the links...I'd much rather send our readers to you than CERA!  :)
Bart, your response at the bottom of your notes was excellent (and quick)

Where did you get that quote ("We respect the urgency and seriousness ...")?  I could not find it in the press release on the CERA web site or in the abstract of the report. Do you have the $1000 version of the report?


A minor point - not quite sure why you changed the link from CERA to Energy Bulletin (rather than just adding the EB link). With all due respect to EB, CERA is the primary source here, and in my opinion it is always preferable to cite primary sources if possible.

Anyway, the thing that sticks out is just how different Khebab's post and CERA's report are, i.e. 20+ year difference in peak/plateau. It would be interesting to see an analysis of why this is so. It most likely comes down to different analytic methodologies, different assumptions, and  different definitions of "oil" (Daniel Yergin is fond of saying that the definition of oil is constantly expanding). For example, CERA's work seems to be bottom-up, while much of the work done here (Stuart, Khebab) is top-down. (Khebab did a good job disaggregating a lot of the data in yesterday's post.)

It may be difficult to critique CERA's work because of their use of their proprietary IHS database (IHS is CERA's parent company). For example, what are they assuming for the average rate of decline of existing fields in production? And are they assuming any kind of project slippage for new projects? Nevertheless, an analytical comparison of the "peakist" theory to the CERA report would be highly worthwhile. Bart's comments at EB make for a good outline.

PG - yes that quote is from the original report.
I agree with you about linking to the original source whenever possible. -Bart
all right, all right.  I put up both.  :)
I can't help but wonder about CERA's proprietary IHS database. Does the word "database" give the prognostications credence or is this just another "man behind the curtain" (overused, but appropriate in this case IMHO).
First they say "The peak...proponents have not made available a [b]transparent[/b] and detailed analysis that would allow an objective and rational discussion."

Later they say "CERA draws both on its own data bases and those of its parent company IHS, which has the world's most complete [b]proprietary[/b] data bases on oil production and resources."

Bart further notes that "the short report cited by this press release is not publicly available (the 16-page PDF is sold for $1000."

The IHS database is THE industry database, with Wood MacKenzie catching up. The best information about all the international oil companies field's is in there. IHS was formerly 'PetroConsultants', Colin Campbell's one time employers.

As regards OPEC members, the information in the database is what OPEC tell them. If Saudi Aramco drill a well and say they found 400 million barrels, then they stick 400 million barrels in the database (plus a bit more because anything in Saudi Arabia must be good). Apparently the Saudi's have eighty undeveloped fields. The database says so, so it must be true.

from Aberdeen to Melbourne, Oz.

Point 1) With respect to hubberts curve they muddy the discusion of the lower 48 with the introduction of the GOM and Alaska.  "Discoveries that he couldn't have forcast" or something to that effect. The careful phrasing leaves the impression that they are eludding to greater discoveries - somewhere in the dark where we can't see it. We are 56 years beyond 1950. They use technology as the arguement for greater URR later in thier debunking.  Thanks to technology I suspect that we also know a far greater ammount about geology than we ever did in 1950 and therefor we should be able to find (easier) those bigger fields they elude to.(come on man! It doesn't just work one way)

They do eventually give Hubert credit for calling the peak within a year or two of actual - which is a <small> positive - while at the same time trashing him some that his production numbers were wrong.  If I made such a grand prediction in the early 1950's I think that is pretty damn good, it is good, damn good.  Huberts call should be a much bigger positive than it was, they act like they are forced to cough it up.  Nothing follows a perfect curve they should know that as well. All the factors that they mention can and do have an effect on production and ultimate recovery.  I was young at the time but I'm sure there were factors that affected oil production in the period between 1950 and 1972, political, geological, technological, etc. etc. this is not a brand new world they just came up with.  Hubert did a damn fine job and took alot of shit for it. That shit continues....

Point 2)
(I can't toggle back and forth without losing my text here, so..accuracy is not what it could be)
They mention technology as making URR greater - and, AND giving a more gradual downslope on the hubert curve.  I suspect that technology added, or continues to add to the upslope(?)/plataeu as well.  I think logically you can use the effect of technology on bothsides. To say it acts to reduce the down slope with out giving credit as to why we have had so much oil to use for so long seems disingenuinous at best.

Point 3)- The CEO of Shell oil was here in Portland, OR and was interviewed in the paper. The era of cheap oil is over and he stressed conservation.  I think this is more than a mouth full no matter what CERA says.  Shell is not a new kid on the block.

Point 4) What about that damn 'Hirsch Report' - forgotten??? How can we have both CERA and the HIRSCH REPORT at the same time. (seriously - WTF?)

I'm suspect of this group.  I think we need to follow the $ (thiers).   Given the seriousness of PO I think these guys need to have a good look in the mirror in the morning...never mind there are plenty of people without a conscience.


Didn't Hubbert factor in an average six-fold difference between original reserve estimates and ultimate recovery?  Can't remember where I read this but I'm pretty sure is was linked from TOD.
Hubert made many predictions as to when the lower-48 peak would occur. 1956 he had pushed it back to the end of the 1960s..
Sound familiar to the likes of Dr. Campbell?
Proof please.
Back from TOD Retirement, at least briefly

(Hothgor's constant attacks using misleading information, e.g., his bizarre assertion for weeks that US gas production didn't peak in 1973, made it quite easy for me to say adios to TOD.  I am also very busy developing several oil fields, with two rigs dedicated solely to my projects right now, but the CERA story is irresistible.)

I believe Yergin made the statement that this is the fifth time that the world has run out of oil, after four previous "crises."  Interstingly enough, there are four large discrete producing regions that have shown lower production after crossing the 50% of Qt mark using the Hubbert Linearization (HL) method--the Lower 48; Russia; North Sea and Mexico.  

Khebab has mathematically modeled (using only production data through the 50% mark) the post-50% of Qt production for the Lower 48 and Russia.  For the Lower 48, the cumulative production through 2004 was 99% of what the HL model predicted it would be.  For Russia, the cumulative production through 2004 was 95% of what the HL model predicted it would be.

The North Sea peaked in 1999, after crossing the 50% of Qt mark (crude + condensate).  Mexico just peaked this year, after crossing the 50% of Qt mark.

The world is just past the 50% of Qt mark for crude  + condensate, and right at the 50% of Qt mark for crude + condensate + NGL's.  Both measures of "oil" are showing lower production relative to late 2005.  In other words, the world is showing the same type of production response that four large producing regions have shown, at about the same stage of depletion.

Then there are the big four super giant oil fields that are, or were, producing one mbpd or more--Ghawar; Cantarall; Burgan and Daqing.  Assuming that Ghawar is in decline--a reasonable assumption IMO--all four of these super giants are either in decline or crashing.  The only possible super giant on the horizon is the Kashagan Field that, at best, won't start producing until 2010, and won't reach peak production until 2020, when it is expected to peak at just a little more than one mbpd.  

IMO, the CERA story is part of the concerted effort by the "Iron Triangle" to persuade Americans that we are not anywhere near Peak Oil and that Americans should continue buying and financing large homes and autos.   IMO, large majors like ExxonMobil are afraid of punitive taxation, if they admit to the reality of Peak Oil.   I suspect that the recent election had a lot to do with the CERA story.  ExxonMobil is going to assert that they need every dollar of cash flow to bring on the trillions of barrels of oil reserves--so that Americans can continue driving their SUV's to their large suburban mortgages.

Published on 19 Apr 2006 by Energy Bulletin.

What the mainstream media are not telling you about the run up in oil prices
by Jeffrey J. Brown

I think that we are seeing an "Iron Triangle" of sorts defending the status quo concept of ever expanding energy supplies: (1) most housing, auto, financing and related companies; (2) Most MSM companies that are selling advertising to Group #1 and (3) some major oil companies, major oil exporters and energy analysts that are working for the major oil companies and exporters.

The housing/auto group wants to keep selling and financing large homes and SUV's.

The MSM wants to keep selling advertising to the housing/auto group.

In my opinion, some major oil companies are afraid of punitive taxation, and some exporters are afraid of military takeovers. This group of oil companies, exporters and their analysts provide the intellectual ammunition for the other two groups, i.e., promising trillions and trillions of barrels of conventional and nonconventional oil reserves.

I would also remind everyone that Yergin, in 2004, predicted that oil prices would fall to $38 by 11/1/05, because rising production would force prices down, in order to equalize supply and demand (note that oil prices were up substantially even before the hurricanes in 2005). In reality, falling production has forced prices up, in order to equalize supply and demand.
Yes, that prediction of his which fell flat was widely reported and highly acclaimed.  So will his enablers in the media hold him to account for blowing it?  Evidently not.  Nope - musn't offend the "go-to" guy on energy issues.  LOL

We hope it's only a one day retirement, Jeffrey.  Best wishes to you.


I would also remind everyone that Yergin, in 2004, predicted that oil prices would fall to $38...

And that point should be hammered home again and again. If a person is going to be a pundit, then their track record should certainly be carefully scrutinized. If their past predictions are no good, why exactly would I pay any heed to their current predictions?

I do want to see the specifics of why their reserve number is so large. How do they calculate it? Upon what is it based? Are they throwing a trillion barrels of tar sands in there?


Published on 13 Jul 2006 by Energy Bulletin. Archived on 13 Jul 2006.
Daniel Yergin Day, July 13, 2006
by Jeffrey J. Brown

In any case, in a column in Forbes Magazine, published on 11/1/04, Daniel Yergin, in response to a question about the future direction of oil prices, dismissed concerns about oil supplies and asserted that oil prices on 11/1/05 would be at $38 per barrel. Note that oil prices exceeded $60 in the summer of 2005, prior to the hurricanes.

In my opinion, Mr. Yergin serves as an excellent symbol of the major oil company/major oil exporter/energy analyst group. And since oil prices are now trading at close to $76 per barrel--twice Mr. Yergin's prediction--I hereby designate July 13, 2006 as "Daniel Yergin Day," in honor of Mr. Yergin's continued efforts to, in effect, persuade Americans to continue driving large debt financed vehicles, on long commutes to and from large mortgages.

One of the little ironies about the Peak Oil debate is that it is those who are trying their best to warn Americans about the dangers posed by Peak Oil---Matt Simmons; Colin Campbell; Kenneth Deffeyes; Boone Pickens, Jim Kunstler etc.--who are most often blamed for rising oil prices. I think that it is just the opposite. It seems logical to me that those who are asserting that we have plentiful supplies of oil are doing far more to encourage consumption--and thus higher oil prices--than those who are asserting that we have problems with oil supplies.

If you believe Matt Simmons, et al, about the future direction of energy prices, you will drastically reduce your overall consumption, especially your energy consumption, by living in a small energy efficient home, close to where you work--which would ideally allow you to walk or take mass transit to work, or at least result in a short commute.

In my opinion, it is those who are telling us that Peak Oil is decades away--such as ExxonMobil, Opec and Yergin--who are most responsible for, in effect, encouraging Americans to continue driving $50,000 SUV's on 50 mile roundtrips to and from $500,000 mortgages in the suburbs.

My personal take on this issue is that we have to kill consumption--via a large tax on energy consumption, offset by tax cuts elsewhere--before consumption kills us.

Mr Yergin knows something that we do not...They are only a couple of years away from taking the carbon out of carbon dioxide mixing it water and getting a new clean burning hydro-carbon (patent pending process).  This will create alot of extra oxygen as a side benifit.  Better go buy that Hummer while the price is low (or ExxonMobil stock!).


They did reference Deffey's estimated date for PO - maybe they just added up his numbers for conventional and unconventional (Canadian oil sands, Whyoming oil shale, and Venezuelan heavy oil) as well. I think that's around 5 trillion barrels.
Perhaps some cattle ranchers could brand $38 Nov 2005 on his chest.
westexas, thanks for returning at this crucial moment. It does appear that CERA has been dragged kicking and screaming into the Peak Oil universe. This was a defensive piece first of all, likely timed to the election. Don't stay away. pleassseee
"IMO, the CERA story is part of the concerted effort by the "Iron Triangle" to persuade Americans that we are not anywhere near Peak Oil"


....I noticed that CERA certainly spent alot of time thrashing on huberts curve....

...maybe you are in thier crosshairs because of you constantly  refer to hubert also...

...I think they do not like you. You are a bad person...


...I think they do not like you. You are a bad person...

After the Peak Oil debate on PBS, where I took on ExxonMobil and Michael Lynch, I had an interesting exchange with the ExxonMobil guy on the way out.  I gave him my card with the EB website and with instructions for finding my articles.  He handed it back to me saying, "We have read all of your articles."  I left feeling not entirely comfortable with that comment.

Of course, that was topped by a comment from a guy at a Dallas area Rotary Club meeting, where I gave a talk on Peak Oil.  On the way out, he took me aside and said that while he agreed with me about ELP, he was surprised that I had not been assassinated yet (I think he was halfway serious).  

And of course, CERA put out their report one day after Khebab released his phenomenal work on TOD.  This could be a coincidence, but the timing, (once again) smells a bit rat-ish.
Oh please.  This is their fourth version on the same theme (since 2005).  Nothing much new in it...
After the Peak Oil debate on PBS, where I took on ExxonMobil and Michael Lynch

I did not know this. Do you have a link. I very much want to see.
"We have read all of your articles."

You should be flattered

he was surprised that I had not been assassinated yet

No disrespect meant to WT, but neither he or any PO figure is influential enough with the public to make assasination a viable repsonse.

Now if millions of young people (including nubile young women) were signing up for ELP, then yeah assasination might be a real concern.

That's the thing about the Iron Triangle. It has such overwhelmingly powerful propaganda controls that ultimately people like us are really no threat. Particularly on an issue where even people of the intellectual-dissident class don't wants to believe this. IE, you can have somebody who is totally "against the system" who would never believe corporate propaganda on all sorts of issues but who will accept it in regards to PO. The alternative (accepting it) is simply too terrifying even for people who are aware of how corrupt the system is.

When it gets to the point where sources like TOD are having a serious impact on public opinion watch out for:

  1. Disruption in the form of Hogthar like contributors. Imagine 50 of him.
  2. Sabotage as in attacks on your server
  3. Increasing the cost of online access and server rentals.
  4. Regulation and censor of contents on national security grounds
  5. Government manipulated commercial takeover of the means of providing the information along with control over who they allow access.
Or they could just give the PO glitterati cushy consulting gigs or grants the way the Ford Foundation and CIA did to alt-news outlets beginning in the 1960s. That would actually be the smarter thing for them to do if they want to shape the debate.

Using myself as an example: Let's say hypothetically speaking Blackwater calls me and says, "Matt we'd like to pick your brain for a couple hours about current events. We'll pay you a consulting fee of $25,000." Would I accpet it? Sure would. Would I then be less inclined to post those nasty videos about Blackwater contractors that I've posted to LATOC? Almost certainly.

Now other PO pundits might be able to say they would turn down such an offer from entities in the petroleum-banking-military-industrial complex. That's all well and good. They'll just find whatever your weakness is and exploit that. For me, it is the desire to get money to buy land, go off-grid, etc. For somebody else who is already secure financially they might want a cushy consulting job or more notoriety or funding for their site, organization, conference, whatever . . .

As an example, let's say some bigtime defense contractor approaches PO pundit #1 and says, "hey we'd like to help finance or publicize your PO conference . . ." The person or organizaiton would likely accept the money under the rationale it is for the greater good as it will allow the conference to succeed. But you are then MUCH less likely to put defense contractor's feed to the fire when the need arises.

Even if the defense contractor was not offering money, the potential political connections and power such a relationship might bring to the PO pundit would be more than most could resist. There would be some seemingly logical rationalization (excuse) generated by the brain to justify the relationship. That's just the way the brain is wired.

Point is, TPTB have much more subtle and effective ways of influencing the PO debate should they choose to employ them. The stuff you listed usually gets employed AFTER these "nicer" methods have failed.

TPTB know it is generally much more effective to send Jenna Bush packing tequila to your door then it is to send Dick Cheney packing heat, if you get my drift.


I am impressed with your insidious ideas of undermining PO awareness. The government or industry would do well to hire you to lead the campaign. After you make your money I recommend your moving to Maine.

Land is dirt cheap here compared to California
Population is only up about 30% from 1900
We have more organic farmers per capita than any state in the country
70% of households own guns and will shoot to protect themselves
A friend who visited was surprised when I drove up to a farm stand, picked out my produce and dropped the money in a slot - People still trust each other.
Make sure you buy a wood lot with your land. It gets cold here. But at least you won't freeze to death.

And the weather sucks. Novembers are no longer cold. Summers are no longer dry. Winters are not as snowy. We have had almost 20 inches of rain ABOVE the average for the year. Two years in a row my gardens have almost failed. If I had had to grow enough food this year to survive through the winter, I'd be dead in February. The people here are NOT any more organic or rural, per capita figures notwithstanding. People are surburbanite suv drivers like everywhere, or gas guzzling pickup drivers like everywhere. I live in a town of less than 10,000, and we're one of only about three households that have cows. Development is considered "nice." Tearing down old buildings for donut chain stores is considered "nice." Not that I would ever leave. The insane live here, too.
Hi Mike,

Last year, like this one, we also had 20 inches of extra rain. We recently had 3 days where the wind blew almost continuously between 30 and 40 mph. No one here I talked with including an 80+ year old farmer has ever seen this before. If this is a foretaste of global warming there is no good place to live. We will all be doomed. It is all relative and relative to other places I have lived including NYC, Santa Barbara, western VA, upstate NY, and suburban NJ I prefer it here. I have a neighbor who can live off the land and is willing to share his skills with others. You only need one person like this to learn. I suspect you already can.

The SUV's and waste are everywhere in this country. We have become a society were hopes and dreams have been channeled into what we can buy and consume.

Have you checked out MOFGA (Maine Organic Farmers and Gardners Association)?

My organic garden also did not fare so well. But I grow everything in raised beds which allow for better drainage so everything did grow even with all the rain.

I too would be dead by February if I had to live off my own produce. Too many soft years living in the City. But a young couple able to do the work might have a fighting chance. More than in the suburbs for sure.

We need to commiserate. MikeB "at" foxhill "dot" com. I'm really bitchy today because I've had a stomach virus. I called off my classes at USM this morning, then came home and had to shovel a trench around the manure pile. UGh.
This is just plain silliness.  The President of ExxonMobil has admitted in speeches that they are embarrassed by the obscene profits in the quarterlies of late.  He goes on to say that the these profits are mostly due to the wrongminded notion of shortages in the supply chain and that $20/barrel is attributed to the fear component.  It is ASPO and gloomer camps in TOD-like forums that have inspired this situation that is now in correction mode.

SA & the oilco's are well aware that sustained plus-70 oil would bring about Recessionary economies after twenty-four months.  That is not in their interest.  Peaks and valleys are passe in the minds of decision makers and stake holders.

I think you mistake public disinterest for succesful propaganda. Peak oil will get the general audiences full attention sticker shock by sticker shock and the smarter people will buy smaller, more efficient cars, one at a time.
The debate was on the McCuistion program, which is produced by the Foundation For Responsible Television.  It has been shown in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, and I think that it is going to be shown in other local areas around the country on PBS stations.  You can view the progam on line by clicking on watch the programs.  I was a late add to the debate, after they decided that they needed a stronger "Yes, we have peaked" view.

I did get Michael Lynch (who was on the phone from Tokyo) to agree that discrete regions, like Texas and the Lower 48, have peaked, but he in effect asserted that overall production would virtually never peak.  I have several times referenced the comments that Chris Ross made, that Middle Eastern producers would be cutting back on their production in order to prolong the life of their fields.  Dennis McCuistion said that Chris was recommended by Saudi Aramco.


1519 | Peak Oil - Are We There Yet (Part One)

September 17th, 2006

While many experts say we have not reached peak oil, ( the point at which we have produced as much in a given year as we can and from which we can only decline.), differing opinions, the price of oil today, the instability in oil producing regions and the need for substitutes all argue for a better understanding by each of us.

Great, Thanks for the link.

Just listened.  Thx for the link.  Seems quite a snub that they don't list you as a panelist on the website.

I think that Dennis got a stronger "Yes we have peaked" message than what he was counting on.  Did you catch his comment right at the very end?
Kudos to Jeff! congratulations for a great job and standing up for your convictions!

Thanks for kind words.  It did feel a bit lonely in the crossfire between ExxonMobil and Michael Lynch.  The ground rules were that we could not interrupt each other.  We made hand signals when we wanted to make a point.  I didn't get a chance to rebut Lynch's claim that the HL method had "failed dozens of times."  I did think that it was odd that Lynch used the example of a country in terminal decline, the UK, to rebut a Peak Oil argument.

referring to part 1
I have to hand it to you Jeff you did a commendable job of standing your ground.  That is very, very tough.
The problem will be that they will need to produce more to make thier assertions accurate.  I doubt anyone will hold thier feet to the fire if (when) they don't.

The number of drilled wells is more than a little eye-opening.  500k + in the US. I would assume to keep up our declining output this is what is required.

Where did they find this Lynch guy. 12 trillion barrels?  LOL gas should be a buck.

Unfortunatly the whole thing makes me think we are hopeless - greed will overrule conscience and responsibility in the people that pull the levers.

Great job! I wish you all the best.

CERA's comparison of Hubble's prediction vs actual for the lower 48 is fascinating. It clearly shows that the predictions were well within any reasonable standard of accuracy.  

Has CERA (or a similar mainstream organization, like one of the major oil companies) ever made a similar comparison for the other 3 areas, like the North Sea, where you argue that the HL method fits nicely?

er, ah...Hubbert :)
I was certainly sad to see that the Hubbert Space Telescope had peaked. :-)
Seriously, it almost did :(

Now they're planning to keep maintaining it, rather than let it die in orbit in the next couple of years...

It means they don't really wish to debate you or address your work, just to seem to debate you and address your work, and more importantly, they want to outshout you.


If they ever ask you to go hunting with VP Chenney....


I predict that peak oil will not bring abrupt changes, peak coal could but it is far in the future. Decreasing natural oil will be gradually replaced by liquid fuel (obtained from coal by liquefaction).

As about CO2 increase from liquefaction, I'm not yet sure how this global warming thing will turn out (http://www.junkscience.com), and sequestration could be gradually introduced (and hopefully advanced to be economically feasible).

Complete conversion to coal cuts those 250 year reserves (USGS estimate which is usually way too high anyway) of coal to less than 70, and that is with zero percent growth rate!! Add in any growth and the coal supply collapses to a few decades if it becomes a primary energy source.

"In a review of world energy resources, M. King Hubbert (1973) estimated that the coal resources of the United States and of the world will be depleted within 300 to 400 years. More recently, the Energy Information Administration (1995) estimated that the United States has enough coal to last 250 years."

The above reserves estimate assumed (both by Hubbert and the EIA) that coal would continue to represent approximately 20% of our nation's total energy use throughout that 250-300 year period. Clearly, if you change that to, say, 90% of our energy base, then the duration that the reserves will last becomes a small fraction of that 250-300 years, more like 60-70 years. And if usage grows by just 2% per year then it doubles in 35 years, meaning that with continued growth, coal reserves as the primary source of US national energy would drop to under 40 years.

You must understand that coal is not a solution. At the very best, it is simply a bridge from here to a sustainable future. At the very worst, coal is an ecological nightmare, from the damage due to mining (I grew up in coal country), to the environmental runoff from mining, to the burning of coal producing particulates, greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Despite the fact that we have technology right now to heavily scrub coal burning pollutants and that we have tech to sequester CO2, none of the new coal plants built in the last 2 years in Texas have used those technologies.

Anyone (I will not name names of the ignorant) who asserts we have "thousands" of years of coal, is clearly unfamiliar with the professional data about coal. Amusingly, and in an unusual turnabout, note that Hubbert estimated higher coal reserves than the EIA for our coal endowment.

Reserves and resources arent quite the same thing are they? Reserves change with the spot price, and resources are whats its in the ground as far as I can tell.
Thanks for the good answer
BTW, I left Saudi Arabia off my list of large producing regions/countries now in decline, after crossing into the second half of Qt.  


Published on 24 May 2006 by GraphOilogy. Archived on 25 May 2006.
Texas and US Lower 48 oil production as a model for Saudi Arabia and the world
by Jeffrey J. Brown & "Khebab"

In summary, based on the HL method and based on our historical models, we believe that Saudi Arabia and the world are now on the verge of irreversible declines in conventional oil production. While there will be massive efforts directed toward unconventional sources of oil, we predict that unconventional sources of oil will only serve to slow and not reverse the decline in total world oil production.


It's a reciprocal altruism "smoke out." Ie, they're tyring to smoke out the PO crowd. Rather than getting on with real change, they'll have the elite PO crowd of the world endlessly debating whether they're is X or Y amount of unconventional oil rather than getting on with stuff like WT's "ELP" program.

I linked this on LATOC but, to be quite frank, I really don't see it as worthy of my attention beyond a single link. Giving it more than that is, imho, playing into their game.

I am honestly surprised at the attention this is getting here.  It's not like it's anything unexpected.  CERA has been saying similar things for years.  The reaction at PeakOil.com was pretty much a yawn.
I'm with AMPOD here, CERA are playing the Michael Crichton of PO. They are playing the spin game, this is obvious from the contradictory and inconsistent PR. They claim to debunk "PO theory", but don't even understand the theory, or at least misrepresent it.

They are trying to take ownership of the debate, not take part in it. The numbers will speak for themselves, and their projections are already clearly wrong, e.g. wrt North Sea production. When production continues to decline, CERA will continue to promise increased production and lower prices, but really they are the band on the Titanic.

Oh, they understand! They're g*dd*mned liars, that's what they are.
It would be good to have a response that is gracious and mature.  


With all due respect, you are being suckered into a corporate pundit's mind game.

So we are to be labled as "peakists" and they, what are they? The CERA-bellumists?

There is no way their uber-punditry rises to a level of mature and "rational" discourse.

Do you need Tom Cruise to yell it in yo' ear?

Show me the CERA database!
Show me the CERA database!

Yeah, that's sort of my point although I refer to it as the "reciprocal altruism smokeout" instead of scamjob.
Down below, Dave Cohen promises that the Drum Brigade will strike back while the iron is hot. Tomorrow morning. Slice, dice and dissect CERA into a pulp that is beyond recognition. Can't wait to see what Dave has lined up.
Step back asks 'Why be gracious and mature in responding to CERA?'
  • The goal is not to win an argument; the goal is move towards a rational energy policy.

  • Oil companies are going to be important players in any energy policy.

  • The people you count as your opponents today may be the people you want to be your friends tomorrow.

  • People usually forget the specifics of what they've argued about... but they never forget being abused or humiliated.

  • If the peak oil debate is going to go mainstream, good manners count. Time to tuck in our shirts and comb our hair!
Hi Bart,

I truly do understand where you are coming from and respect it. Indeed it is a noble notion to believe that one can engage in rational discourse with his (or her) fellow human beings so as to thereby bring them about gently to our "rational" point of view regarding our current state of affairs.

There was a time when I used to believe in the very same notion. If only I could quietly and rationally provide clear factual evidence to my fellow travellers on this spherical rock as it makes its wild and crazy swing yet again about the fusion-driven center of our solar system, then surely their eyes would open up to the truth, especially because this is The 21st Century and after all, our species has already entered fully into the Age of Enlightenment.
(Click on image to the right for a brief history of the same.)

Their eyes would no longer be "glazed over" in the stupor of watching the nightly TV news and believing everything that "they" the expert talking heads pontificate on over and over again about the oil never "running out". My fellow species members would snap out of it and notice that Yergin and his ilk engage in a strange exegesis consisting of meaningless sets of coded words that make no rational sense to an enlightened mind. (Click on image to the right for a look at some recent CERA interviews.)

My most "rational" herd mates would see that our rock is of finite volume and that its endowment of accumulated hydrocarbons is therefore finite and that by sheer force of rational logic it makes sense that our extraction trel="nofollow" hrefrom of crude oil and other fossilized hydrocarbons must follow a bell shaped production curve and that in the long run, Hubbert was absolutely right.

However, as I continued my individual study of this Peak Oil phenomenon, it was I who became enlightened. I discovered that the "intelligent" species I thought I belonged to is instead an irrational collection of psychotic apes who make critical decisons on the basis of emotions, sound bites and herd mentality.

Indeed as I opened up this month's issue of Scientific American (December 2006), there on page 34 was a short article about the experimental observations of some professor at the Stony Brook University (SUNY) demonstrating my worst fears, that indeed "Politics, like religion and war, is all about emotions and feelings ... The enlightenment model of dispassionate reason as the duty of citizenship [and as the basis for understanding the behaviors of a democratically voting public] is empirically bankrupt".

So when you write (with all good intentions) that:

The goal is not to win an argument; the goal is [to] move towards a rational energy policy.

I just shake my head and say, there goes another noble creature whose eyes have not yet been opened to the truth of our predicament.

I humbily apologize for informing you that the human mind is not the center of the intelligent, rational universe.

Machine-inserted typo: I had written "therefrom" and every preview showed that typing except the final post. (Doh!) I have no idea how it became "trel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" hrefrom" :-)
step back...have to agree with you here.  I would love all this to be a calm debate, but the reality here is that we are at WAR in a sense.  A war to get the truth out there so we can began sane mitigation processes.  This will require CHANGE from the current processes.  This change is not something that many want to see take place.

So, if you accept this premise, and believe we are at war, Robert's Rules for business conduct are thrown out the window.

See also my reply, much lower down, to Shakespear. We at TOD are guilty of refusing to accept empirical data (experimental observations) just as much as the cornucopians refuse to accept our proofs of Hubbert's theories.

In the case of the disbelievers here at TOD, it is about how the noble and "intelligent" human brain actually works.

Empirical data shows that rational debate is a fool's game.

I would point to the RR vs. WT debates on Peak Date to show that logic is the means with which we argue and disagree.  Stuart in Boston basically argued that the error bars on the data are too large to fix the date precisely (politely critiquing Defferyes).

We are skeptics of ethanol (at least corn source) again due to logical arguments.

By and large there is a strong prejudice on TOD against any arguments except logical.  Thus we try (with limited success) to purge our marketplace of ideas of anything but logic based ideas and concepts.

Now the logic is based on certain presumptions, but these presumptions also are challenged here with some regularity (we are now debating if we use logical arguments !).

Like all complex human creations, TOD is not perfectly logical (step back needs to post Mr. Spock) nor efficient, but our relentless re-analysis does seem to reduce the non-logical fraction to a nearly unique low IMHO.

Take the best that one can find, and TOD is it !

Best Hopes (is hope logical ?),


Alan...I agree, but what affect are we having after 3 or so years of doing this on government policy, general awareness in the public, and corporate responsibility.

When all CERA has to do is call a local media rag, sneeze into the phone, and get headline news, the odds are definitely against us being an effective tool for change.

All we are right now is a statistical archiving service.  I'm asking what should be the next step here at TOD?  How can we overcome some of the obstacles to getting the facts out there?

I think TOD can do some things in this direction, but then it changes the "nature" of what is TOD.  Dave's CERA rebuttal post is integral to what TOD should become in my opinion;  not just research site, but one that takes a stand on some things.

Yesterday the National Petroleum Council eMailed me with:

Dear Mr. Drake:

Thank you for the copies of your proposed plan.  As you may know, we are soliciting a broad range of energy forecasts to betterinform the analyses being conducted by the current NPC Study on Global Oil and Gas.  I am forwarding your information to the study's Demand Task Group for use in its

Again, thank you for your contribution.


John Guy
NPC Deputy Executive Director

I keep knocking on doors, trying to get attention, sooner or later something will "pop".

Best Hopes,


I hope so Alan...you and others do amazing things and try to make a difference.  I guess it's just a factor of how much stamina you have to stomach the blatant falsehoods thrown out in the public arena.
LOTS of Stamina !

I recently hosted a friend and his wife that spent 17 years to get the Expo Light Rail Line built.  They broke ground on the first half a couple of months ago.

George Isaacs spent over 30 years to get the Hiawatha Line built in Minneapolis.

I am approaching ten years for the Desire Streetcar Line in New Orleans.

It is a marathon.  The US will not start reacting soon enough to avoid serious dislocations.  But my efforts may minimize the damage.

Best Hopes,


Good Alan...I know it's a long haul battle and I feel you will not waver in your cause.  Kudos to you.  I hope we all have such determination.  Yesterday and today tested our tolerances.  Thanks for being a rock.

You're a grand role model.

Peak Oil is an abstract concept with difficult to define future developments.

OTOH, the disaster zone that I live in is VERY concrete and real as are the struggles and suffering of my friends and neighbors.  We support each other as best we can, each contributing towards the common good in their own unique way.

The psychology impact of the marathon reconstruction of New Orleans, struggling to preserve our soul and culture, dwarfs the Paek Oil impact.

Quite frankly, my Peak Oil efforts are my respite/break from the daily struggle in New Orleans.  I could not do what I see others do, being fully immersed in the day-to-day recovery.

I do my bit for New Orleans and my bit for Peak Oil and use one to balanc ethe other.  Then have a good meal with a glass of wine :-) and catch some music with friends and friendly strangers.  No city gives so much back to those that love her :-))

A friend that moved here (a psychiatrist doing her residency here and clearly on the front lines) has said two things.

New Orleans is the first city that I have loved that has loved me back.

The longer someone lives in New Orleans, the less able they are to live anywhere else.

Les Bon Temps Rouler


Soothing comments...thanks.  And speaks volumes about perseverance and community.  You know, I sometimes forget reading your posts what you have gone through and how much we should all take away from what you've accomplished down in the Big Easy.

I've been to New Orleans several times, years ago, and loved the culture, food, and music.  Any culture that can make a jazz parade out of a funeral should be exalted by the rest of us.  

Thanks for the shoulder tonight.  And here I am, city intact.  I will wake up tomorrow with a little more vigor.

If this is WAR, Dragonfly41, then we had better be realistic about our strengths and weaknesses.

Strengths of the PO movement: rational argument, technical background, idealism.

Weaknesses: small numbers, little money, a message that is not popular.

Corporations on the other hand are masters at public relations and (when necessary) ruthless action. They have money and paid talent. We are no match for them at that game.

The worst thing we could do is let the debate slip into away from facts and rationality.  Those are our strong points.

The biggest strong point of the peak oil movement is that PO happens to be true, and CERA and the oil companies know it.

I know, I know...I'm just so tempted to beat them at their game.  It's in my nature to fight for what I feel is Truth, Justice and the American Way...ha...that's what I get for reading comic books as a kid.
Step back, you are quite right that enlightened debate is not the default. My background is in journalism, and I've worked in public relations and advertising, so you are preaching to the choir!

But let's not go overboard. Struggle and debate take place on multiple levels. Different strategies are effective in different situations. Propaganda, PR and scientific debate are all going on simultaneously.  

My sense is that CERA and some of the oil companies are working on two different projects. On the one hand, they have a public relations campaign to advance their corporate interests.  On the other hand, they need accurate analyses and forecasts to manage their enterprises. They are not fools.

Ironically, the speeches and reports from CERA and the oil companies are what made me realize that peak oil is real. If anyone could find flaws in the peak oil argument, it would be they.  Looking at their speeches and reports, I realized: they agree with us about peak oil.

My stomach fell... This is really it, then.

Their disagreements are trivial. Peak oil in 2030 instead of 2006?  Not that much difference, if you consider the number of optimistic assumptiions they make.

Bart / Energy Bulletin

Peak oil in 2030 instead of 2006?  Not that much difference

Hi Bart,

I think we all agree on many of the "infallible fundamentals" (;-)).

(As a journalist you should appreciate the heavy alliteration in that flinging of the f's and l's.)

PO in 2030 (25 years away) as opposed to now (Dec. 2005?) is a huge thing because you are pushing out the "urgency" of the matter to a whole other generation away.

Boomers who are say 50-60 years old now can say to themselves, Hell I'll be 75-85 years old, close to kicking the bucket when and if the SHTF with PO, so why should I bother? Let the next generation worry about it. In truth we should have started (and kept going) on an Apollo-like project when Jimmy Carter made his sweater speech back in 1974(?). Here we are 30 years later and essentially nothing has been done on a massive scale to deal with the energy tsunami that is surely (as CERA agrees) going to strike our shores.

The basic message from CERA continues to be that PO is very far away and:

  1. New technologies will save us,
  2. The markets will save us,
  3. Things aren't as bad as the "peakists" would have you believe: there will definitely not be a sharp decline but instead we are going to toughen our ab's with these undulating plateau machines and rejuvenate our old and tired fields. (Don't snake oil salesmen say the same thing to aging Boomers about rejuvenating their failing bodies? Yeah right. 60 is the new 30.)

I take cold comfort in saying, gee, CERA "fundamentally" agrees with what we are saying at TOD.

CERA is working on behalf of private interest groups that want to "stay the course".

Where have we seen that approach lately and how successful has it been for the lemmings (R.I.P.) who unquestionably believed in their stay-the-coarse leaders and kept marching straight for the edge?

Hi Step Back,

We're not ready for Kum-ba-yah yet, but I think it is possible to make common cause with the oil industry on certain issues.

Agreement: on the general idea of the peak, on the importance of data and of realistic forecasts.  Keep in mind that this is more agreement than with the Republicans, the Democrats, and probably most of the Greens.

Yes, the oil industry has its own agenda and it uses PR methods to forward it. But that is the way of the world. We shouldn't be shocked.

One doesn't have to agree on all points to enter an alliance.

CERA on undulating UK Plateau

Here's the source, March 8th 2006, London

http://energy.ihs.com/NR/rdonlyres/382ADD9F-49FF-4EA6-837C-96955A9CA6E1/0/CERA_PeterJacksonTheOilSup plyConundrum.pdf

The main point, current UK production is around 1.35 million barrels per day:


That is somewhere just below the yellow/orange boundry line.  With optimism like this who needs oil.  I'm seeing stuff like this all over now - the CERA report smacks of desperation.  A full and detailed technical "review" to follow.

fka CW

You really do have to wonder about CERA, undulating plateau of UKCS production? That graph from the March 06 presentation, it shows a new ~200,000 barrels per day in 2010 from fields yet to find. 2010 is less than 38 months away - how can anyone seriously suggest the UK is going to find and develop another Buzzard in 3 years?

I have finally realised what has been bugging me about the graph. FUA is actually producing more oil than FUD in 2007, which should be impossible unless FUA is really FIP in disguise. Surely FUA shouldn't be added to the total until 2011 at the earliest (only 5 years to project to fruition - a record I would guess). How can FUA be ahead of FUD?
IMHO the three key attack points in logical order are:

Production rates versus Reserves
CERA talks a lot about reserves, but less about production rates. Who cares how much is in the ground if we can't increase production rates any further?

Net production vs gross production
The units are not the same when it takes 1 barrel to extract 3. Who cares what the gross is when the net continues to decline. I'd rather make $50k and keep 90% ($45k) of it than make $60k and only keep half ($30k).

Exportland is what matters
Who cares what global net production is if no one will sell it to us? Given the local political constraints, even if there is a global "plateau", oil will first meet domestic needs and then the excess will be sold as exports. World market prices will continue to rise for the export market in that scenario. (And don't give me that cynical 3 Days of the Condor crap.)

Therefore, even if we accept CERA's undulating plateau scenario, other factors will make life significantly worse for oil importing nations.

No one said this was the "End of Oil" (not even Paul Roberts said that, despite the title of his book). It's the end of cheap and plentiful oil.

Great summary Peakguy. Folks, here are three BIG talking points on important and relevant concerns on which CERA is silent.
During the plateau period in later decades, according to the CERA analysis, demand growth will likely no longer be largely met by growth in available, commercially exploitable natural oil supplies.  Non-traditional or unconventional liquid fuels such as production from heavy oil sands, gas-related liquids (condensate and natural gas liquids), gas-to-liquids (GTL), and coal-to-liquids (CTL) will need to fill the gap.

Even if this were possible, did it not occur to the boffins at CERA that the production of unconventional oil is so energy intensive that it will never be allowed to happen in a carbon-curtailed world?

It never ceases to amaze me how often people on both sides of the argument view peak oil in isolation from climate change and vice versa.  Its all part of the same problem -- our addiction to fossil fuels.

Even if this were possible, did it not occur to the boffins at CERA that the production of unconventional oil is so energy intensive that it will never be allowed to happen in a carbon-curtailed world?

They probably made the not terribly unreasonable assumption that CO2 emission controls are largely posturing that wont actually translate into policy outside a few select jurisdictions.

Even if there was an international system of capped carbon trading, that still leaves many options avaliable for synthetic fuel production using nuclear process heat and nuclear hydrogen.

They probably made the not terribly unreasonable assumption that CO2 emission controls are largely posturing that wont actually translate into policy outside a few select jurisdictions.

But, but ... didn't Canada sign up that Kyoto thingie?

I know its hard to believe that CO2 emission controls will ever be taken seriously if you live outside of Europe, but I believe it will be taken seriously everywhere soon, indeed it must if we are to prevent the planet from frying.

Are TOD-NY, TOD-Europe, and TOD-Canada tuned in here tonight?

All points bulletin to respond to CERA report.

The main point made on the CNBC piece was that the Peak Oil Theory had been shown to be fallacious by CERA.  This seems to me to be a change in their approach.  Previously, they've avoided using the term "Peak Oil" as much as possible when discussing oil supply.  Today the term was front and center.  Perhaps the MSM is beginning to run scared.

All the attempts to raise awareness of Peak Oil seem to be having an effect.  I thing that congratulations are due to those who have participated.  Much, much more remains to be done, though.

Yes...the fact that they are coming out "guns blazing" to discount immediate PO theorists (within five years) makes me more confident that we have hit a nerve.
Their first point, ironically, about the problem with PO theories, is the best weapon to use against them: presentation of actual data (as opposed to qualitative statements of faith).
yes, but unlike other issues, people - including people generally skeptical of corporate interests like CERA - will gladly lap it up because the alternative is so terrifying.
1) they think Peak Oil is 2030 whereas the peakists think its somewhat sooner (depending on the dataset/and/or the analyst.) But both CERA and people writing on this site acknowledge that oil is finite and will peak within a generation. So in that sense we are all on the same page and need to plan mitigation and adaptation.

2)The report said:

We hold that above ground factors will play the major role in dictating the end of the age of oil

If that is true (and I believe it is) then why vilify the people who think the geologic peak is sooner than you do? It implies that geology will play the lesser role in the end of the age of oil? So we should all be concerned, and start preparing.

I agree with Bart above - the title of this report downplays the urgency of the oil situation, but reading between the lines, CERA is hedging a little bit more with every release.

I don't think they are hedging. Yergin/CERA has never said that oil is not finite and won't eventually peak. They have been saying for at least the last two or three years that the undulating plateau will arrive several decades hence and last several more decades before a gradual decline sets in (source). I don't see anything different in this press release.

They are, however, directly attacking peak oil theory by name rather than merely saying "this is the fifth time the world has run out of oil." Don't forget the "peak oil theory is garbage" comment in the BusinessWeek article about the Jack-2 discovery.

They are also attempting to frame the whole problem in terms of above-ground factors, so that if and when their optimistic forecasts do not come to fruition, they can make a powerful argument that the problems, and hence solutions, are man-made.

Why do you think they are hedging?

They are also attempting to frame the whole problem in terms of above-ground factors, so that if and when their optimistic forecasts do not come to fruition, they can make a powerful argument that the problems, and hence solutions, are man-made

This is hedging is it not?

You're right, this is their hedging strategy, with the option of it becoming their primary strategy if and when necessary. Very clever, as this will allow them to argue for policy changes to help increase the oil supply, which will in turn please their clients to no end.

My argument that they are not hedging is that they continue to refute any notion of a near-term (i.e. less than 10 years) geologic peak in oil production from all sources, both conventional and non-conventional.

Who are the best "framers" in this country?

Who is best at taking a serious scientific study, bending it on its ear, repackaging it and spitting back  out to the MSM?

Where does all the money for CERA work come from?

Inquiring minds want to know.

"I don't think they are hedging. Yergin/CERA has never said that oil is not finite and won't eventually peak. They have been saying for at least the last two or three years that the undulating plateau will arrive several decades hence and last several more decades before a gradual decline sets in (source). I don't see anything different in this press release."

I haven't read all the CERA reports/articles or heard all the Yergin interviews, but I have seen some and this is the first time I have seen "peak" mentioned as going to happen. I found it extremely frustrating to hear only about undulating plateus in their past stories without any mention of a peak. Good to see that they are now on the same page with just about everyone but some of the economists.

Their earliest beginning of the "undulating plateau prior to the peak" at 2030 puts in the same ballpark as the USGS and IEA I believe.

Over the last two years there has been a merging of the models, thus hedging has been occurring on the IEA, EIA, CERA etc camps.  The next version of our Depletion Scenarios will however show dramatic changes for CERA, not because of their production outlook (which is down) but due to their revised URR stats.  We have never been able to justify the 126-mbd peak supply forecast by CERA due to their low URR projection.  They have now reconciled that for TrendLines by increasing their URR by almost 1 Trillion barrels.

In the meantime, all the Peak Oil modelers have increased their production forecasts and their URR's.

"It is likely that the situation will unfold in slow motion and that there are a number of decades to prepare for the start of the undulating plateau.  This means that there is time to consider the best way to develop viable energy alternatives that would eventually provide the bulk of our transport energy needs and ensure that there is a useable production stream of conventional crude for some time to come," CERA concludes.

In other words, of all the possible scenarios, the most likely one happens to also be the most convenient for humanity.  Super.
From the CERA press release:
"The peak argument is not presented in the context of a credible systematic evaluation of available data...  At base "their methodology is to impute decline curves against currently proven reserves and declare that the game - and the argument - is over.""
This statement is so intellectually dishonest as to be slanderous.  The PO modelers never use currently proven reserves in their predictions and have been at pains to discredit the importance of reserves in future production predictions.  It the the optimists who are constantly bringing up reserve figures to bolster their points, usually follwed by the infuriating "at current levels of consumption."
Hubbert's method does not incorporate economic or technical factors that influence productive capacity; most importantly, it ignores the impact of both price and demand, both major drivers of production.

The old "the market will put more oil in the ground" argument will take a long time to unravel. Just keep posting production numbers and don't insult people that don't agree with you. I've awoken several people to our energy issues by doing little more than showing them historical US production data. It can happen.

In the absence of WesTexas I will point out the situation in Texas in 1972.

A new record oil production that year.

In the next 10 years:

Oil prices increase by x10

A surge of new technology driven by sky high prices

Massive new drilling, a record.

Only 14% more producing oil wells despite massive efforts.

And -30% less oil produced in 1982 than in 1972.


CERA's homepage has the exact quote "peak oil" in six different places. WOW!
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Actually, in my first post on TOD, I (foolishly) questioned the level of cynicism regarding an earlier CERA report. (My long overdue apologies for questioning Dave's dead-on level of cynicism! Sorry Dave. Mea Culpa.)

Wow, I don't think you are all being nearly cynical enough. The last two points on the last slide say it all. If enough people agree that peak oil is a problem, CERA feels that it could create a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is, people believe that there will be a shortage of liquid fuels, so they refrain from investing in new infrastructure that might delay the peaking (though simply making the depletion rate faster in the future), thereby ensuring that production peaks soon.

The part you have to read between the lines to see is that IHS and CERA provide services to the oil investment/infrastructure community. What happens to CERA if investors create the self-fulfilling prophesy above? CERA turns out to not only be wrong, but out of business and probably under congressional investigation. What happens to CERA if they convince enough people to keep investing in more infrastructure? They might have a remote chance of staying in business for a little while longer. If nothing else, they can pin their forecasting error on other people's lack of investment, instead of their own delusions.

CERA has made a bit of real progress here, since they are actually crediting Hubbert with getting the date right. (Yergin completely ignored Hubbert in "The Prize.") How generous of them! Yet at the same time they claim his methods are otherwise completely wrong since he didn't get the production level right. Isn't the date, and the fact that there was a peak in US production, the important part? Seems so to me.

CERA says, "The peak argument is not presented in the context of a credible systematic evaluation of available data; its proponents have not made available a transparent and detailed analysis that would allow an objective and rational discussion.", yet the peak oil discussions are held out in the open for anyone in the world to review, while they are using proprietary databases that no one else can verify.

They accuse peak oil analysts of ignoring the potential for new discoveries, ignoring additions to reserves through technology, and changing peak date predictions over time. Yet I have read analyses here and elsewhere that consider new discoveries, evaluated additions to reserves through technology, and changes to peak date predictions have been made to reflect these. They appear to want things both ways. There is a simple way for CERA to prove that there are ample supplies to be discovered - all they have to do is discover some. We're waiting...

Undulating nonsense out of CERA. Although they are taking on "peak oil" head on so it should be good for press coverage. They dont address EROEI or NG required to get oil out of canadian sands.
"Powerful you have become Yergin..but much to learn you still have" ...Yoda
Unimportant. Tar sands can be produced with nuclear process heat. EROEI is a much abused concept in the discussion of liquid fuels.

The capital required to produce synthetic hydrocarbons from nuclear process heat is important however, as is the lead time for constructing such infrastructure.

Tar still requires Hydrogen to be upgraded to syncrude.  Nuke available today cannot produce those hydrogen directly and electrolysis of H2O is energy consuming.  (H2S is another matter !)

Also, tar sands have to be hauled to the reactor (and the sand hauled back), and one nuke can consume all the tar in a large radius in 40 to 60 years.

A better strategy would be to build a nuke where NG is used for baseload (say Texas) and use that NG saved for tar sands production.  (Reduce Canadian exports of NG, increase Texan exports of NG).


Or you can be cheap and reform some of the bitumen into hydrogen. There are many ways to make fuel.
Ok Guys, I give that nuclear takes times. But I suggest that if you already arent aware then look up current uranium supply demand fundamentals.
I'm aware of uranium supply/demand fundamentals. It tells us that nuclear power can supply all of civilization for the next quarter billion years. If we look only at the once through process with light water reactors, it only is 25000 years worth however.
I think you got your numbers wrong. In any case... the limitation of nuclear would be the safe storage of the waste. For now there are neither workable political nor proven technological solutions to that problem.  

The issue with carbon is that we are running out of atmosphere to burn it with. Anyone who has any awareness about climate issues will be able to tell you that burning as much oil as CERA suggests is still in the ground is not going to happen, one way or another.

If you are the ignorant public, though, it sure feels good to know that you are not doing anything wrong by driving that 5.8l V8 and that nothing will have to change for the next century or so. Doesn't that feel good?

I think you are dreaming.The current situation is so bad that we may have lights go out in some places soon. Cameco just announced that their major project for 2008 will be dealyed by at least a year. That mine was supposed to produce 17% of the world uranium supply in 2010.
The least amount of time from exploration to production for uranium is 7 years and that is for the richest grades. The 2500 years or billion years that gets thrown out there is bunch of BS. Thats the same as saying that tar sands and shale can provide us oil.
As far as uranium from sea water was concerned the estimates many years back was it could be done profitably at $250 a pound. adjusting for inflation I would say that's more like $500 a pound and by the time it happens probably more than that.
Uranium is at $61 a pound and thats after a huge run-up.
As far as EROEI is concerned only seawater makes the grade. The very low density uranium mining is unlikely to cut it.  
I'm afraid you just arent familiar with the energy return on uranium from reasonable ore grades, or the vast recoverable resources avaliable in the continental crust alone.


people REALLY don't want to contemplate Energy Transition/ Peak Oil.

i sent a copy of the Hirsch Report to my brother, who is a VP at Morgan Stanley.  he reacted as if i had sent him a copy of that old classic, Abbie Hoffman's "steal this book."

given that people want to avoid the subject, it is very convenient for the media, like the Fox propaganda channel, to have paid trolls like Yergin to present the "plenty of oil left", as one of the 2 opinions in their "fair and balanced" propaganda.

Yergin comes in very handy for the media that plays to the ostrich crowd.

CERA doesn't want to have to deal with me.  Trust me on that ~_~
Maybe it is just me but if CERA is saying that production will hit a plateau and then decline aren't they categorically saying they believe in peak oil??

I may be oversimplifying here but it seems everyone is in the same camp but predicting a different date for decline. The way I read the summary at EB was that CERA is trying to discredit 'peakists' to make their date of decline seem more reasonable.

Re: aren't they categorically saying they believe in peak oil??

Yes, they are. In fact, it gets worse. They admit that conventional oil may not meet demand but don't specify when that may happen. Regardless, never fear, substitutes are here! It's all in the timing.

That's a good point about conventional oil. In fact, I think CERA will be successful in forcing the debate to deal with conventional plus unconventional sources. Bart noted that difference in his EB notes.
As I've said for many months here now:

When do unconventional sources of oil become very conventional sources.

"As I've said for many months here now:"

 I suppose 46 days counts as many months. Here's your first; maybe you meant many times, not many months.

507) Untitled [none / 0] Replies: 2
posted by Hothgor on 09/30/2006 11:30:11 AM EST
attached to DrumBeat: September 30, 2006

http://www.theoildrum.com/?op=search&offset=430&old_count=50&type=comment_by&topic=& amp;section=&string=Hothgor&count=50&next=Next+Page+%3E%3E

Smart Asses are a dime a dozen ~_~
The difference about the two of you, is that he is a smart ass and you are a dumb ass.

If I went trough all your posts and counted the times you posted a falsehood and then became insulted when found out about it. What number do yo imagine I would end up with? 30? 50? 100?


I have yet to be insulted even once here.  I actually find it quite amusing when people make themselves look moronic when they automatically dismiss anything I say as 'false' and 'uninformed' when they know damn well there is a wealth of information out there that backs up my assertions.

Those words would be true had they had been spoken by Galileo Galilei, but they weren't and they're not.
It is your responsibility to bring to the table the "wealth of information" that backs up your assertions. It is not mine, nor any other reader's to do so. When you fail to do so and instead make unsubstantiated assertions, you will continue to be dismissed. For instance, your disparaging comments at Khebab's recent work were totally unsubstantiated, as if we should pay attention to you just because you say so. You contested Alan, again without data. You contested efficiency of heating elements, and again were shot down.

Bring your data to the table rather than make grandiose but unsubstantiated assertions. Thus far you have mostly failed to do this and consequently are ignored. This is why you are ignored. If you want people to pay attention to your posts do a better job of getting your facts straight and providing supporting data, especially since in your brief 1+ month here you have been shown to have been wrong so many times.

Or get your own blog and then reference links to your work on the subject.
Thats funny, I don't seem to recall attacking Khebabs recent work here...the conspiracy theories seem to be clouding your memory :P
I want to see where he got his data.  Until I do I'm going to operate on the assumption that it doesn't exist and its all a very clever ruse designed to lead TOD masses like sheep on a political agenda.
Perhaps we should use the exact same assumptions about any of your posts.  There is far greater evidence in your case.

One could assume that ALL of your links are like ALTI (Altair Nanotechnologies, formerly Altair Int'l Gold and a "pump & dump" classic).

No need bothering with checking out, just assume that ANYTHING you post is absolutely worthless and not worth reading.

Sauce for goose, Sauce for gander,


BTW, Khebab has a long history of good work, unlike other posters here.

The 9/30/06 date for Hothgor's first post is pretty interesting, since the two part Peak Oil debate on PBS was shown in the Dallas/Fort Worth area on 9/17 and 9/24 (see link below).  In other words, our new friend Hothgor appeared on the scene, apparently with me in his crosshairs, shortly after the Peak Oil debate was shown.

However, you have to give credit where credit is due.  Hothgor is quite effective at what he does.

Westexas, I have refrained thus far from responding to any of your threads so you don't throw another fit, but I must say that your grand conspiracy theories are, well, insane.
I too was a conspiracy doubter till two items.

News article on a group of US Senators asking Exxon-Mobil to stop funding Global Warming skeptics


The MASSIVE publicity blitz (precisely timed for elections) over 2Q06 test well Jack #2.  From memory, a confirmatory test well for Jack #1 (they will also need a Jack #3 before deciding to develop per 25% owner Statoil).  The 8th "wet hole" out of 11 drilled in that ultradeep trend.

This 1 inch footnote in the WSJ suddenly becomes a MAJOR story !




Can you point me in the direction where I can read more about the test wells Jack#1 - 3?


You might start here to see that the Jack discovery, now referred to as Jack1, occurred in May 2004:


See especially the concluding paragraphs which tell you that Jack is one of nine discoveries in the Wilcox trend, which indicates inter alia that Jack is part of a long term process:

"To date, 13 prospects/ wildcats have been drilled in the Wilcox trend with nine discoveries, for a 69% success rate. Over 12 Bbbl oil in place have been discovered in the early stages of this emerging trend. There is considerable upside potential of up to 15 Bbbl recoverable oil reserves for this deepwater turbidite depositional system that covers over 34,000 mi 2 (54,740 km 2) in the Northwest GoM deepwater basin (Figure 11). However, most of the remaining play will be in the sub-salt environment, testing structures below the mobilized Louann salt canopies that range from 7000-ft to 20,000-ft (2134-m to 6098-m) thick, in water depths from 5000 ft to 10,000 ft (1524 m to 3049 m), and drill depths from 10,000 ft to 30,000 ft (3049 m to 9146 m) subsea.  

Several inherent technical challenges need to be addressed to ensure economic feasibility of the Lower Tertiary Wilcox trend. ..."



I posted the quote from Statoil about needing another well (I assume that it will be called Jack #3, my name not theirs) before making a decision on whether to produce or not.

Note that Statoil is Norwegian and 5/8ths owned by the Kingdom of Norway and less likely/willing to blow smoke to affect US public perceptions.

From memory, Encana sold their interest in the Jack lease (and other ultra-deep GoM leases) to Statoil after Jack #1 came in.

Encana is investing their monies into tar sands instead (JV with RRs employer from memory).

Infer what you please from Encana's business judgment.  They are considered one of the better managed O&G producing companies from what I have heard (I own stock in ECA).

Best Hopes for Truth & Reality based policies,


I have read a lot about the Jack wells.  Encana sold their interests due to technical hurdles that Statoil is better able to handle.  There is a reason that these fields are only being drilled today.  There is a salt layer that clouds the seismic data.  Trying to map these fields are very difficult due to these geological structures.  Also, the costs are prohibitly expensive.  It costs close to $100m to drill per well.  If they are lucky, they maybe able to cut it down to $50m, but with how fast rates are going up for everything related to drilling, no one is going to bet on the price going down.  This oil field will only go into production if they have a pretty high confidence that they will be able to produce 250kbpd for 6 years at the minimum.  The industry way to measure it is cost per barrel of production capacity.  Using this measurement, you are talking $17,000 per barrel of production capacity just for drilling not including cost of platform and other costs.  These costs will rival those of Shell's Sakhalin, which is projecting $25k per barrel production capacity. Now, see why this supposed good news is scaring away smaller oil firms with little deep sea experience?
And so, you believe that I was hired out by some oil/car/political/foreign group to attack westexas specifically?  You think westexas is under imminent threat of assassination?  That oil CEOs and policy makers around the world are listening with undivided attention to whats said here?  I'm sorry, but I doubt anyone here is 'big' enough in the grand scheme of things to justify such tactics.  Big Mouth Bass in a large lake, perhaps, but not the sharks they make themselves out to be :P
Does it seem to you that Jack 2 played any role in the election? Did peak oil? Do you remember any republicans campaigning on the success of recent discoveries?

This seems like a real stretch, way out of character with your usual rational posts.

There is a strong inverse realtionship between Bush's approval #s and gas prices.

There was (IMO) a palpable worry about oil and where we were heading before Jack #2 (and lower oil prices).  That largely abated after Jack #2.

There is zero doubt in my mind (I was not a conspiracy believer before) that there was an organized PR blitz to blow Jack #2 WAY up from a normal 1 column inch blurb in the WSJ to headlines accross the nation.

The exact reasoning behind that successful PR blitz is only supposition on my part.


Thanks for the reply. I suppose the reporting on Jack 2 was out of proportion with the field's significance, but don't see that there are any breadcrums between that the big bad "iron triangle".

But then, maybe I just think anything called Jack must be good.

IMHO, there is a strong connection between Jack #2 and a reduction in oil angst/worry among the American public.  The price of oil may have even dropped as the worry dropped.

I also see fingerprints on the Jack #2 story.  This was a human guided PR blitz.  Someone(s) with deep ties within the oil industry (but not within Statoil since they did not "get on board").

Now I agree that the breadcrumbs get thin after that point.  Timing for release of a 2Q06 (April, early May ?) story is one crumb.

The logic then changes to "who benefits" from a reduction in oil angst/worry by the American public ?  Or any other PR impact of Jack #2 ?  Who benefits and who has the access to the MSM ?  

Supposition I agree.


While I still don't see it, I give the supposition more credit coming from you. I'll keep an open mind.

However, honestly I don't really buy the link between reduction in angst and the Jack find. In facts, I would guess that if you interviewed 100 people, no more than five would have heard about it. I suspect gas prices could did exert a calming force.

What bothers me about He Who Cannot Be Named, and the concept of ignoring him, is that people are starting to turn to TOD for the resources here; international exposure, as we have seen.

  If I was somebody from China, coming here for the first time, and seeing not you, or RR, or Khebab or Alan or a host of others, but, instead a post from him saying "As I have said for many months,...", I'd would think him the expert. I wouldn't know "many months" was 46 days. I had to do a lot of searching to find that out, even tho I've been here for 47.
 I think it is important we not let him get away with unproven expertise, even tho we find it annoying. Until such time as total bans are around,I think people can't just hope for an ignore button so he will go away.
Cuz we may not be reading him, but a newbie would.

 Thanks for your work


When do unconventional sources of oil become very conventional sources?

When their EROEI is comparable.

never fear, substitutes are here!

Sorry folks.
Super-tanker Man couldn't make it due to above-ground factorilizations.
But have no fear.
His substitute is here.
Call me Ethanol-Dawg.

More powerful than a barrel full of hydrocarbons.
Able to leap along long highways with a single bond.
Up in the sky.
Is it a turd?
Is it Valerie Plame?
It's  Ethanol-Dawg.
And his pet companion, Rin-Tin Coal Conversion.
Dog technologies to the rescue !!!!!
That sounds very much like the "teach the controversy" approach of US creationists to me. You pit science against a paid for religios influence group and hope that the easier to understand "opinnion" will win the majority vote based on its emotional appeal.

I think in philosophy they call that "sophism" and "sophistry". It's as old as public speaking.  

I suspect that the CERA linguists are trying to rub out the "Peak" part of the Peak-Oil meme by sending out the message that there will not be a "Peak" and therefore the Peakists are wrong. There will only be an Undulating Plateau, --repeat, a Plateau not a Peak-- and therefore the Peakists are wrong. The Peakists don't have a mountain top to stand on.

A Flat-top mountain --No Peak
Therefore no Peak Oil

Another possible comparison point may be with the recent Wood Mackenzie report on Arctic oil and gas resources. I can't find the report on the WoodMac web site but there is a story on it in the latest Oil & Gas Journal (Nov. 13, 2006):

SPECIAL REPORT: WoodMac: Arctic has less oil than earlier estimated, by Sam Fletcher

The entire international Arctic region contains "much less" potential petroleum resources, with a mix of more natural gas, than previously estimated ... the study indicates only a quarter of the oil volumes previously estimated in key Arctic basins in North America and Greenland. Moreover, it concludes that the Arctic is primarily a gas province, with natural gas accounting for 85% of the discovered resources and 74% of the exploration potential in that northernmost region of the globe. Under the study's most likely scenario, the Arctic is projected at its peak in 20 years to produce 8 million boe/d, split 40:60 of oil and gas, with the proportion of production from US basins lower than previously anticipated.

It would be interesting to compare these findings to those of CERA/IHS.

CERA reminds me of a cornered animal...ready to strike out wherever they can to save themselves.  They are dangerous, but one by one, there arguments will fall away until at last they are trapped by their own making.

Just a hopeful prediction.

Cornered animals do not sell "reports" for a kilobuck each.

A dishonest business model is not the same as being in the corner. It is much better than that... you collect the money as long as you can, then you close shop and walk away with the money. There are no laws against that. So you don't even have to say "Sorry. I was wrong!".

The law of averages and a method to disprove or prove CERA once-and-for-all:

You should ask the people at CERA to present their model of the production profile of a typical oil field.

Then you take the production data of fields which have more-or-less complete data, build a production profile for each, normalize each graph (expand or contract the production profile graph so that the area underneath each production profile is the same) then average all normalized production profiles to get a typical production profile.

If CERA's doesn't match this production profile the obvious conclusion is that their depletion model has no empirical basis.

I intuitively think that if CERA's model production profile is reasonable and you went through the following procedure you would see the Hubbert Peak. The procedure is this:
take the ultimate recovery estimate of all fields and de-normalize the typical profile by scaling the profile according to ultimate recover size and then sum the profiles   plotted with respect to their center weigth year of production corresponding to the actual center-weighted year of production.

If you could animate this summation process, you could probably make a very visually convincing argument for Peak Oil, as convincing as Al Gores power point presentations.

From the CERA press release:

[The report emphasizes the importance of focusing on the critical issues.  "It is not helpful to couch the debate in terms of a superficial analysis of reservoir constraints. It will be aboveground factors such as geopolitics, conflict, economics and technology that will dictate the outcome."  ]

They left out Nature (strange, especially after Katrina... ???) and they think ASPO's and TOD's analysis of "reservoir constraints" is superficial.    

They live in a test-tube world that ignores the history of the physical constraints we've witnessed ourselves.  Their Test-tube world replaces cheap oil with a wishlist of alternates that depend on technology, geopolitics and economics.

And Some One pays them for their vision of this test-tube world which depends on the success of their plans on their drawingz board (technology) and on Crisis Geopolitics and "Economics" ????


I found this graph in one of the news releases:

From this source.

I found this graph in one of the news releases:

How can they know how much is exactly left to be discovered if it hasn't all been discovered yet?
That's easy.
Don-the-fun Rumsfeld could have answered you:

"There are knowable unknowables."

But what about the unknown unknowns? ;-)
We are still not sure what we know about such above and below ground contingencies and therefore we are taking them under advisement and re-evaluating our options with regard to possible scenarios.

(Wow. Isn't corporate double speak ever so cool?)

By the interpolating the decreasing annual revisions over time.  Bottom-up modelers rarely add this in.  They use factual data that is continually revised; but they serve the purpose of giving us worst case sceanrios by the inherent conservatism.
Cal: I love the "yet to be discovered" amount- 1.07. They should have taken it farther, like 1.076655- LOL.  
Hello TODers,

Any speculation on how much CERA/IHS's database differs from ASPO's, Khebab's, Skrebowski's, et al?  Do they have any specific details that leads them to their profoundly different conclusions?  And what might these pertinent facts be?  IF TOD had this proprietary info: would we arrive at the same results as CERA/IHS?

Matt Simmons stressed the need for full data transparency and complete fossil fuel resource auditing in his Twilight in the Desert book.  CERA/IHS should be gracious, and contribute to this effort by sharing their proprietary database with everyone.

If Yergin doesn't want to share it on TOD and the rest of the WWWeb, perhaps he could let Matt Simmons and his staff, then Colin Campbell and ASPO have a 'good look under the covers', then Matt & Colin could independently confirm & report back later whether CERA/IHS has a much better data set, or not.  I think these two gentlemen would sign non-disclosure agreements that would be binding for six months or so.

Just an idea, but I doubt if Yergin would sanction any release of the his database.  Not even a small peek to Matt & Colin.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Who cares what CERA says? I don't.

CERA is in the business of selling data, like a realtor or stock broker, unlike contributors to TOD, such as Khebab.

They sell what is good for them; not what is good for their customers.

There approach here is redefine oil to include not-yet-oil (shale), used-to-be-oil (tar sands, and a whopping amount of natural gas and declare "resources" (careful to not say reserves) to be 4.82 TB.

Any comparison of their estimates and Hubbert's are off base. Hubbert never redefined oil. Let's get the price of corn down--redefine corn to include crab grass!

The USGS and IEA do not seem to have much to say. CERA is convinced that peak oil is crap so they have a strong mouthpiece talking against it.
Who are the prominent USGS and IEA people speak out against peak oil?
What I would like to see is a series of comparison tables:

   CERA on the Left   |     TOD on the Right
what are the          |   what are the
credentials of        |   credentials of
CERA's so-called      |  TOD's so-called
"experts" ?           |  "experts" ?
what are the          |   what are the
"facts" put out by    |  "facts" put out by  
CERA's so-called      |  TOD's so-called
"experts" to support  |  "experts" to support
their opinions?       |  their opinions?
who, what, when, why  |   who, what, when, why ...

I looked far and wide for "Doctor" Daniel Yergin's credentials. Finally found this (here):

Dr. Yergin is president of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. Dr. Yergin is the author of the 1992 Pulitzer Prize winning book, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power. Dr. Yergin was formerly a professor at the Harvard Business School and the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He received his B.A. in English with honors from Yale University. He is a graduate of Cambridge University in England with a B.A. in history with first class honors, and a Ph.D. in international relations. Dr. Yergin was chairman of the SEAB Task Force on Strategic Energy Research and Development (1995).

Now I've got a couple of degrees under my own belt too. One of them is in engineering. I know the difference between a degree in a hard sience and a degree in pompous punditry. Looking around at the short bios's of some of the posters here SS (PhD in PHYSICS !!!), RR (Chemical engineer), Kehab (PhD in Remote Sensing, MS in Physics. Researcher in Computer Science since 2001.), ...

Where is the sense of balance?
There is not even a contest here!
The table tilts way over even when you begin to look at the credentials of the people here (TOD) versus the "experts" there (CERA).

Jouranlists are supposed to do their homework:
WHO (remember?) WHAT  (remember?) WHY (remember?)

IMHO, any journalist who does not do his or her homework on the WHO part, so as to understand the "credibility" of the person providing the information, deserves an F, no an -F with high distinction, in journalism.

Has anyone tried to read his book? I did. I gave it the old college try. It's an absolute tome. The character sketches are wooden. This should have been a page-turner. Instead, a stomach-turner.

This was before I learned Yergin was anti-peak. I really wanted to like that book. I couldn't.

I actually found The Prize to be very enjoyable. However he should stick to history since his economic forecasting is leaving much to be desired.
Don't be silly.  Yergin has never stated that he did the research for the data presented.  He is the spokesman and has never pretended otherwise.  The only member at TOD that has studied the done bottom-up data is Rembrandt Koppelaar.  And as one of TrendLines four resident Peakists, he likewise has revised his production projections upwards (92.4-mbd in 2012) along with a 2.5-Tb URR.

Not a single person here has successfully challenged the data of Koppelaar, Campbell, Skrebowski or CERA.  Each provides their data via Excel Sheets, tables or at their websites.  The scrutiny here and at other forums has been intense.  And yet we continue to see daily posts of anecdotal crapola that suits the gloom camp.  

Plainly there are a few here who have an agenda and they don't let facts hinder what they consider a good post.  They are wrong about URR.  They are wrong about future production.  They are wrong about net depletion.  They don't comprehend the dynamics of this industry.

The Oil Drum response will be out in the morning.

Slice & Dice


Jackieeeee Channnnnnnn

Can't wait to read it.

Give him hell Harry!
Err, I mean, Drum 'em to Death Dave!!!

Turn the Beat around, yeah yeah.
tap Tap, I heard the noise.  I look up there he stood the man with two blind eyes,  tap tap.   Omg I thought, gee when did he do that?  I was about ready to turn tail and go the other way, I hate the blind you see, they drive me nuts.   tap tap burp the man said weally loud and then laughed for a while and a while longer then looked at me and smiled and said.   My dog don't bite.  He had no dog till the hiss of his feet on the side walk sounded like a grrr in my ear I thought my oh my the burnt popcorn is tasty with the coke and the pepsi is the best if the coffee is dry and taste less like my air phone coffee maker.

 Tap tap tap tap taop top the wahy I go the noe is in the noise in is in the no is out of the box oh my did you no, that I can't type while sleepless 21 the one less that then then tin ten thin mint paddy whack give a dog a bone and then look back and kiss your wife and hand her a nude photo of the spider and the fily and give a poem to the one you last had from her the child.

 Hey the tapping spotted and the stopped guy is the blind man. yah they finally bulled him over for driving with out his hearing aid.  Man i love the time that my main man goit hit wi the cop from afar,  it was so cool the cookie just hit him hard and bam the paradox is you were born first and knew the fix was in, and I was born last and had to wait till I took the od twice in a row and died twice and then the fix was so fucked up I thought am I right, no I am crazy and you are the light and ai am the son,, or is the other way around you tell me I told you the sum of the gain, I upload and down load about 50 times a day, and flirt with the skirts till the girls tell me to back off or tell me I am way to cute to live in the bad teeth paradox of the day I have.  OMG

Burp pet pet pet pet peap[  peat paet] pat pat patp apt patpa pa pt pt pap tpt paptpaptpa my head hurts but then again it is fine and I can type faster than the fastest I could before with out a mistake and the mistakes are the best i can make them and the worse I can palce me them.

 OMG that is so coooooooooolll a bet the man main that I am a girl and the woman is the make and male ai the is the woman in the genisis is story his story hissssstory,  I can't preach like this all the darn day long, but then agaon I can haha.

 Noise os the machine.

LOL I am an Author at Large
 An Eagle eyed, Cat, who looks like a Bear and is as strong as an Ox.

 comments please????

Is this really not twice as bad as Hothgor? While I am sympathetic to the guy's apparent emotional breakdown, I don't think his mental meanderings have anything to do with TOD.
I am way back on this discussion but would like to add to thi comment made above.

"Point 2)
They mention technology as making URR greater - and, AND giving a more gradual downslope on the hubert curve.  I suspect that technology added, or continues to add to the upslope(?)/plataeu as well.  I think logically you can use the effect of technology on bothsides. To say it acts to reduce the down slope with out giving credit as to why we have had so much oil to use for so long seems disingenuinous at best."

This rational by CERA affirms my belief that these people truely lack FIELD EXPERIENCE. They talk about things that they have not experienced.

If we do get this undulating long flat curve than the downward curve will look every steeper the longer we stay flat. This is reality that you will see in the field.

The better technology argument. Again, yes things have improved but I do not recall anything in the last 5-10 yrs that allowed us on the ground to find Prudho Bays. We drill extended ( for kilometers no meters) horizontal wells, we have better pumps, better software but the fields we find are not getting bigger and bigger.

CERA has a big name, pedigree with IHS and that is why they can carry a lot of weight with policy makers.

I repeating here what I have said on PEAKOIL on this subject which is worth for us to do. They are a tough group to fight because they enter doors with business cards ready. We exist here in CYBER SPACE. Policy makers I suspect do not spend time here reading all this. Just my opinion. Perhaps they do :-)

CERA has a big name, pedigree with IHS and that is why they can carry a lot of weight with policy makers.

Not quite.
Policy makers are human beings (=fact).
Human beings are for the most part irrational (=fact).
CERA knows how to use psycho-linguistically manipulative language to manipulate policy makers towards CERA's conucopian point of view (well actually, and this is a conjecture rather than known fact, towards the point of view that "them" who pay CERA want the policy makers to adopt).

See my long winded reply to Bart above about "engaging in rational debate" with the CERA-bellumists. Sadly, we the human race, are not what most of us believe we are.

Many posters here at TOD get infuriated by the dogheaded refusal of MSM journalists to understand how our empirical data and graphs regarding Type III field depletion "proves" that M. King Hubbert was right, that indeed oil production rates do follow the logistics curves proposed by Hubbert in 1956 (over 60 years ago!!). North Sea history proves it. Cantrell proves it. And yet, "they", the MSM remain highly "skeptical" of our freak peak alarm bells.

However, the very same infuriated crowd here at TOD is guilty of the same thing. They (we) refuse to accept the empirical observations of field scientists showing that human beings are irrational, that you cannot have a dispassionate, rational debate with your fellow citizens. Indeed, one of Professor Charles Tate's papers describes the motivational drives that cause a person to disbelieve a hypothesis even though "the facts" show otherwise.

Research findings confirming a hypothesis are accepted more or less at face value, but when confronted with contrary evidence, we become "motivated skeptics" (Kunda, 1990), mulling over possible reasons for the "failure", picking apart possible flaws in the study, recoding variables, and only when all the counterarguing fails do we rethink our beliefs. Whether this systematic bias in how scientists deal with evidence is rational or not is debatable, though one negative consequence is that bad theories and weak hypotheses, like prejudices, persist longer then they should.
But what about ordinary citizens? Politics is contentious (Newman, Just, & Krigler, 1992). In the marketplace of ideas, citizens are confronted daily with arguments designed to either bolster their opinions or challenge their prior beliefs and attitudes (Gamson, 1992). To the extent that ordinary citizens act similarly to scientists the consequences would be similar ---hanging on to one's beliefs and attitudes longer and stronger than
Yes I agree. It seems quite rational to believe that any new technology used before the peak will increase the amplitude of the peak and extend the time. Also any new technology discovered after the peak will reduce the slope on the backside, however all the new technology used before the peak will increase the slope on the backside of peak oil. Due to increasing consumption and ever increasing efficiency the backside will be much steeper.
I will check out Prof. Taber. Sounds interesting and in line with my own observations how I and others behave. :-)