Getting to Know Daniel Yergin
Posted by Dave Cohen on August 18, 2006 - 4:16pm
This Washington Post It's Not the End Of the Oil Age (July 2005) is vintage Daniel Yergin.
We're not running out of oil. Not yet...The social function of such text, aside from questions about the accuracy of the message, is to reassure the public that the tightness in global spare capacity and high oil prices do reflect market fundamentals. However, the market and production capacity—potential supply—are currently out of balance. These are temporary conditions due to factors explained below. Everything will work out fine if we are patient and wait a few years.But it is oil that gets most of the attention. Prices around $60 a barrel, driven by high demand growth, are fueling the fear of imminent shortage -- that the world is going to begin running out of oil in five or 10 years. This shortage, it is argued, will be amplified by the substantial and growing demand from two giants: China and India.
Yet this fear is not borne out by the fundamentals of supply. Our new, field-by-field analysis of production capacity, led by my colleagues Peter Jackson and Robert Esser, is quite at odds with the current view and leads to a strikingly different conclusion: There will be a large, unprecedented buildup of oil supply in the next few years. Between 2004 and 2010, capacity to produce oil (not actual production) could grow by 16 million barrels a day -- from 85 million barrels per day to 101 million barrels a day -- a 20 percent increase. Such growth over the next few years would relieve the current pressure on supply and demand.
Also, it might be possible to find some likely answers to Chris Skrebowski's questions about CERA's latest report which, as always, carries Yergin's imprimatur.
... CERA's estimates (which escalate dramatically after 2011) are frankly just plain fantasy.Strong language.This raises two immediate questions: First, did CERA just start with the answer -- 110 million b/d in 2015 -- and then work backwards to fit? Second, on whose behalf or behest are they issuing this nonsense?
Brief Biography and History of CERA
Daniel Yergin went to Yale and got a PhD in International Relations from Cambridge in 1974. He is the Pulitzer Prize winning author of among other works The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power (1992), a definitive extensively researched history of the oil business. In 1983, Yergin co-founded Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) along with Joseph Stanislaw and James Rosenfield.
It appears fair to say that Yergin has never been much involved in the day to day operations of CERA. Until recently, that was handled by Stanislaw and Rosenfield. In 2003, CERA hired Emily Nagle Green to replace Stanislaw. She brokered the takeover by IHS Energy in 2004.
Before joining Yankee Group, Green was the CEO and member of the board of Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), the preeminent research and consulting firm in the energy sector, and led its sale in 2004 to IHS Energy (Englewood, Colo.).CERA has been a profitable acquisition. From the IHS 2005 annual report:
Energy revenue totaled $242.3 million in 2005, up 30 percent, with organic growth contributing 13 percent and acquisitions contributing 17 percent. Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), acquired in the fourth quarter of 2004, contributed most of the growth from acquisitions in this segment.Today, the COO is Robert Lockwood (use the CERA link above) who "prior to his appointment at CERA ... was Managing Director of Worldwide Consulting for IHS Energy."
Yergin as a Symbolic Leader
Daniel Yergin's title at CERA is Chairman. That's all. As a cursory look at any press release or actual report reveals, it is Robert Esser and Peter Jackson who oversee the work. Day to day operations are handled by Lockwood. Yergin functions as a symbolic leader.
In an effective [symbolic] leadership situation, the leader is a prophet, whose leadership style is inspiration. While in an ineffective leadership situation, the leader is a fanatic or fool, whose leadership style is smoke and mirrors. Symbolic leaders view organizations as a stage or theater to play certain roles and give impressions; these leaders use symbols to capture attention; they try to frame experience by providing plausible interpretations of experiences; they discover and communicate a vision.In his role as prophet or fool, Yergin does indeed "communicate a vision" which is Cornucopian—the mythical "horn of plenty" which supplied its owners with endless food and drink magically (from Wikipedia). This stance tends to drive some reality-based people concerned about peak oil a little crazy (cf. Skrebowski above). Other Cornucopians include Michael Lynch, Leonardo Maugeri, Michael Economides, the IEA, chief executives of the major oil companies like "Lord" John Browne of BP and finally anyone with an abiding faith in abiotic oil (eg. Thomas Gold).
Tying in the symbolic leader role to CERA's business and his constant reassuring presence in the media, it becomes immediately obvious that Yergin is
- a valuable asset for CERA/IHS, supplying a voice of authority which attracts clients and therefore enhances profits
- a bearer of the "Good News" to those many who are perplexed about some vague energy crisis in the news and who have noticed that their gasoline and natural gas costs keep going up
- an easy, mindless interview opportunity for our corporate owned media who strive above all to maintain the social and political status quo—this also extends to the New York Times and NPR, which operates "inside the Beltway".
Each of the arguments (1) through (3) buttresses the others. It is instructive to contrast CERA with the well-respected energy consulting firm PFC Energy, "a trusted advisor to energy companies and governments across the globe for over twenty years. Founded in 1984, the firm has grown to over 100 professionals, with offices in Washington, Paris, Houston, London, Lausanne, Kuala Lumpur and Buenos Aires." Headed by J. Robinson West and with able staff like Roger Diwan, there is none of the extra baggage associated with Daniel Yergin and CERA.
Getting to Know Daniel Yergin
An excellent source for understanding the CERA Chairman is The Future of Oil, a radio interview by Tom Ashbrook of OnPoint (WBUR, Boston NPR) conducted on September 20th, 2005 after Katrina. Shortly thereafter, a critque by Clyde Simkins appeared in The Energy Bulletin entitled Open letter to Daniel Yergin on optimism and addressing Peak Oil seriously. Simkins raised 4 red flags after listening to the broadcast. Here are they are with some quotes and commentary (selected, written by this author).
- Yergin was not familiar with the Hirsch report (pdf) 6 months after it was published in February of 2005. Although there was some controvery over the disappearance of the report earlier that year, nonetheless Ashbrook was familiar with it whereas Yergin was not.
5:26: Ashbrook quotes from the Hirsch report and Yergin says "I wonder what, I'm not sure what report that is...".
16:15: Again, Ashbrook alludes to the report and Yergin responds "What is the report you're citing...?". Ashbrook tells him what it is.
- Yergin has an abiding faith in technology. To this it should be added that he also has faith in free markets to solve global energy problems.
2:50: This is "the fifth time that the world is about to run out of oil and each time technology, markets, have changed things."
8:08: "There's always an underestimation of technology. I mean, 15 years ago did you envision that everyone walking around the street would have a cell phone? I mean, just to use that as an example. 25 years ago the frontier for drilling was 600 feet. Now, it's 10,000 feet...."
9:50: [responding to Simmons' doubts about free markets] "It is, I think, what's the word, smug, to say, Oh, dismiss economics.... Two of the most important characters [in The Prize] are supply & demand. I really came away [after writing the book] with a respect for those forces....". Shortly after this, he talks about laptop computers.
- Yergin uses ready-made and fashioned arguments to calm the public down. See the point above. A substantial part of his argument concerns explaining away high oil prices by citing the geopolitical "risk premium", the demand shock from China and lack of investment in the late 1990's/early 2000's responsible for the current albeit temporary lack of spare capacity.
3:30: "It's not the risk under the ground [geology] but the risk above ground.... [and then he talks about Iran]"
He constantly appeals to the tar sands of Alberta (which are really oil sands) and other sources (growth in NGLs) as providing solutions to these problems in the near future. -
Yergin has faith in reserves growth over time.
33:00: "I think that what we find is that the definition of proven reserves keeps getting expanded by, ah, technology so that, ah, we said that the world had about, what was it, 600 billion barrels of reserves in the 1970's, now it's about 1.2 trillion barrels of reserves."
While Simkins and others, including this author, have taken Yergin to task, it seems much more accurate to view him as a symbolic leader and prophet with a Cornucopian vision. On such a view, his faith and dismissal of peak oil concerns make sense. It is useful to remember that The Prize is a geopolitical history of the oil business. Moreover, Yergin's background is in international relations, not petroleum geology or any other "hands on" discipline. Indeed, Yergin seems to have a thorough knowledge of above the ground issues. In addition, Yergin comes across as personable and approachable in this interview just as he has done in others.
In Conclusion...
Returning to Skrebowski's questions, here are some likely answers.
-
First, did CERA just start with the answer -- 110 million b/d in 2015 -- and then work backwards to fit?
Probably not. What Esser, Jackson and CERA staff did do is make the answer fit the Yergin vision. This meant using optimistic assumptions in all cases even when these assumptions strained credulity or distorted current realities (eg. the tar sands). Such actions are rarely deliberate. The CERA staff have internalized the values of the organization as defined by its symbolic leader. Otherwise, they would not be working there long.
- Second, on whose behalf or behest are they issuing this nonsense?
CERA is issuing this "nonsense" for no one in particular. These reports are meant for IHS Energy's paying customers. As Khaos3 told me in personal communication, "[CERA is] all about marketing a product and establishing a niche for consulting."
Plainly, if you wish to be a mainstream business and you further assert that the future does not look bright, you are sending a contradictory message—CERA is the elite upholder of the status quo regarding energy issues but the status quo no longer holds. Thus, it is necessary for CERA to bash those concerned about peak oil.
Half full or Half Empty?
For the Cornucopian, the answer is half full and being ever replenished. There are no limits to growth.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Oh well..
I love his comment "This is the fifth time we are running out of oil"
Coincidentally this is the 5th consecutive year he has got the projected price of oil wrong.
Is there someone who can go over each of these 5 times and explain why it might actually be differentths time.
http://www.h-net.org/~business/bhcweb/publications/BEHprint/v022n2/p0036-p0066.pdf#search=%22oil%20r unning%20out%201890%22
This may be the first 3:
The fountainhead of the modern American conservation movement, George Perkins Marsh...estalished major foci and themes, including alarm at the exhaustion of natural resources...The first critics to direct Marsh's concepts towards petroleum and say that America would run out
of oil were Pennsylvania geologists. From 1883 onward, J. Peter Lesley and John F. Carll warned that producers were depleting Pennsylvania oil fields so rapidly that the reserves would exhaust in a generation, and there was "no reasonable ground" to expect large new discoveries.
Thus, in 1908, George Otis Smith...assigned David T. Day...to report on petroleum reserves for the National Conservation Commission...Day offered an alarming view of American petroleum reserves...he concluded that the United States had between 10 and 24.5 billion barrels of oil
left, inclining to 15 billion barrels as the likeliest fiture...he argued that if production continued to increase as it had in the past, oilmen would exhaust national reserves by 1935...Few conservationist perspectives on petroleum have ever received as much attention and
repetition as Day's. For the better part of the next two decades, the USGS repeated his alarm in the petroleum section of its annual survey of mineral resources...After the USGS began to spread the alarm, the newly created Bureau of Mines, headed by former USGS employee Joseph Austin Holmes, joined its campaign by warning that the nation was wasting natural gas.
In December 1924, Calvin Coolidge created a Federal Oil Conservation Board (FOCB), appointed the secretaries of the Interior, War, Navy, and Commerce to it, and asked the board to answer such questions as whether there was an "inexhaustible supply" of petroleum in the United States; whether industry and government were "squandering" natural resourcs; and whether petroleum consumption and production could be cut back without disrupting the economy...The preseident's questions reflected two decades of conservationist discourse...They also implied what many critics of the petroleum industry charged outright; that the American petroleum industry had managed a vital natural resource irresponsibly and that it was time for government
to do something about it.
Count the 1970s as #4 and today as #5.
"In all the oil field booms that I've chased and followed there's one thing that's true of almost all of the oil fields, especially the ones that broke out on the West Texas plains. An oil boom is a thing that comes, and it lasts for a little while, and then it dies down again."
-- Woody Guthrie, 1940 radio interview
cheers
These Press Wars for Public Opinion remind me of the classic "debates" between Biblical Creationism vs Evolution with the clownish Yergin (mis)FigureHead playing the roll of Henry Morris or Duane Gish, and their Disciples playing the role of the fundamentalist christians.
Deliberate half-truths and strawmen arguments are easily passed on to the ignorant press which repeats the same baseless B.S. to the equally ignorant public. This keeps the gullible masses calm and docile like a Herd of Cows (apologies to the Bovine - no insult intended).
CERA is to Oil and Energy what the "Creation Science Institute" is the evolution - a FAITH-BASED answer to science which repeatedly gets away with passing off misinformation spouted by FigureHeads with fancy initials behind their names to give the impression of credibility to their repeatedly discredited Dogma.
And like the Biblical Creationists they do well with an uniformed public but would be shredded for their sophistry in scientific circles.
Christian Creationists are annoying and mildly entertaining, but are "Mostly Harmless" as the HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy would say. The Econo-Creationists on the other hand, are downright dangerous wiht their gross mis-representations of our immediate and very profound energy crisis.
Once again a mindless, gutter religion tends to win the hearts and minds of the gullible and ignorant while scientific realities are ignored because they are inconvenient or even discomforting.
Digital Rules
Capitalism's Amazing Resilience
Rich Karlgaard (Forbes Magazine), 11.01.04
Excerpts:
Where will oil prices be a year from now (now being 11/1/04)--$75 a barrel? $100?
Wrong numbers, says Daniel Yergin. Wrong direction, too. Try $38. Yergin knows oil. He is a founder and the chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consultancy that has 230 employees, with offices worldwide. He is also a recipient of the United States Energy Award and a member of the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board. A former Harvard professor, Yergin is best known for his Pulitzer Prize-winning book on oil, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power.
Yergin's prediction of cheaper oil prices is noteworthy because he doesn't dispute any of the alarming facts cited in my opening paragraph. Not that he would. The facts came straight from Yergin's own mouth at the recent Forbes Global CEO Conference in Hong Kong. I jotted down Yergin's comments while listening to him speak at a dinner. Then he gave a formal speech the next morning and, fueled this time by highly caffeinated tea, I again took notes, just to be sure. Yergin is pretty clear about his predictions. He says oil demand will rise, yet prices will drop. How can this be?
Answer: capitalism's amazing resiliency. Oil prices rise--oilmen become innovative. They work, they invest, they put their heads to the task, they apply technology, and pretty soon they'll discover how to extract oil profitably from oil sand. Or open wells in deeper water. Or scour the planet for new sources using scanners thousands of miles in space. As Yergin reminds us, oil output is 60% higher today than it was in the 1970s. Not many sages from the 1970s would have bet their reputations on this development. The opposite sentiment prevailed back then; experts said the planet was running out of oil. Wrong.
Yergin says he's always asked when oil will run out for good. He shrugs. He's willing to say the world will need 40% more oil in 2025. Hard work and technology probably will find a way to meet the demand.
I did not mention "Daniel Yergin Day" or wrong predictions because I considered that all to be well-trodden ground.
Dave
hmmm you mentioned "something could happen soon like... August" if my memory serves me correctly, a few months ago....Alaska? per chance?
any other "something could happen soon"'s.:)
oh the anticipation to hear from one of the Highest Witches in their Order of the Deranged Psychopaths.
20% growth isn't even reassuring. That's 6 years, meaning (with compounding) less than 3% growth a year. The global economy is growing over 3% a year, so we're told. That means in 2010 supplies will still be as tight as they are now.
Apparently CERA also relies on people's inability to read statistics.
I hope no one tells Matt Simmons--he seems to be making money quite nicely and isn't exactly peddling feel-good fantasies.
The difference, I believe, lays in the nature of the two businesses. Simmons' company (an investment bank) have been financing the oil business for a very long time and continue to do so. On the other hand, CERA is a consulting firm making projections. They are not handing out money. They are handing out text and others are paying them. There's a big difference between the two cases.
Also, we must consider that it has taken considerable hutzpah for Simmons to take the position he has. This has not hurt his business no doubt because -- Lou, as an economist you know better than me -- a loan is a loan especially if the check doesn't bounce.
best --
In a world of digital watches, what does it mean to describe something as clockwise or counter-clockwise?
I was in the environmental field, which was somewhat tangential to their main line of practice. But one thing I quickly learned is that quite often a large corporate or governmental client does not hire a pretigious consulting firm to acquire facts or to learn the truth. Rather, the sole purpose is often VALIDATION.
By that, I mean that the client often has an agenda (usually connected with internal politics) that he/she is trying to promote and seeks to obtain leverage and credibility by having that agenda validated by the consultant.
Of course, an experienced, savvy consultant knowns exactly how to play this game, and - surprise, surprise - he generally comes up with the conclusions that the client is looking for. The art in all this is to not outwardly lie or present false information, but rather to subtly spin the objective facts so as to come up with the desired conclusions. I have seen this at work time and time again, and if done artfully, one cannot detect the consultant's thumb on the scale.
The thing that should answer a lot of questions about what Yergin and CERA are all about is the simple fact that one of their big clients is none other than the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Need one say more?
This is an excellent point and should be considered as part of the general analysis. The reinforcing nature of the business/client relationship should never be discounted and has a great deal of importance in any consulting situation. Thank you for this comment.
Or, perhaps, the Virginia State Climatologist soliciting funding from power companies, which is unfortunately not a joke.
Many years ago, and very early in my career, I managed a polymerization department for an adhesive company. Prior to my taking over the group, the company had decided that sufficient polymers could not be produced using the existing equipment and planned a major addition for major dollars.
One day all the suits were there including the president. I told them it was money wasted and that I could produce more material than they could ever use (which I did - in fact, I ended up producing more than a similar plant that was 2 1/2 times larger).
Did Todd get a pat on the back and a raise since I had saved them millions of dollars? Hell, no. My management was pissed. My guess is that the preceived bottle neck of lack of polymer production was used as a rationale for an inefficiently managed plant...and I under cut it so they had no excuse.
Groupthink is very much alive and well today in the Pentagon and White House. It was strongly reinforced when the General who said we needed 500,000 troops to control Iraq was fired. Only retired officers will say the Emperor has a bare butt.
Yeah!
And the Thought Police gets you when you try to bust some sucker.
How doubleplusungood!
http://www.mscottpeck.com/index.html
Peck wrote a number of books, from "The Road Less Traveled" to "The People of the Lie" to "The Different Drum" and more. I think the latter two were better than the first, but that's just my opinion.
You are right about Grouptthink. Peck really nailed the nature of human evil with regard to US participation in Vietnam, and specifically (IIRC) was one of the military psychiatrists who evaluated My Lai.
Just google "m. scott peck and my lai massacre report" to get a wealth of quotes and information related to this.
Then think about the current US war in Iraq for a moment.
Here's one quote:
>>>
Once again we are confronted with our all-too-human laziness and narcissism. Basically, it was just too much trouble. We all had our lives to lead--doing our day-to-day jobs, buying new cars, painting our houses, sending our kids to college. As the majority of members of any group are content to let the leadership be exercised by the few, so as a citizenry we were content to let the government "do its thing." It was Johnson's job to lead, ours to follow. The citizenry was simply too lethargic to become aroused. Besides, we shared with Johnson his enormous large-as-Texas narcissism. Surely our national attitudes and policies couldn't be wrong. Surely our government had to know what it was doing; after all, we'd elected them, hadn't we? And surely they had to be good and honest men, for they were products of our wonderful democratic system, which certainly couldn't go seriously awry. And surely whatever type of regime our rulers and experts and government specialists thought was right for Vietnam must be right, for weren't we the greatest of nations and the leader of the free world?
By allowing ourselves to be easily and blatantly defrauded, we as a whole people participated in the evil of the Johnson administration. The evil--the years of lying and manipulation--of the Johnson administration was directly conducive to the whole atmosphere of lying and manipulation and evil that pervaded our presence in Vietnam during those years. It was in this atmosphere that MyLai occurred in March 1968. Task Force Barker was hardly even aware that it had run amok that day, but, then, America was not significantly aware either in early 1968 that it too had almost unredeemably lost its bearings.
<<<
And another:
>>>
The research we proposed was rejected by the General Staff of the Army, reportedly on the grounds that it could not be kept secret and might prove embarrassing to the administration and that "further embarrassment was not desirable at that time."
<<<
Again, think about our current military engagement in Iraq and the misguided GITMO "War on Terror" brutality. We're all too busy leading our lives of relative comfort, while it is the President's job to lead, and our job to follow, and congress has the job of oversight, and the courts do their job of interpreting the law and overseeing the secret wiretapping and secret trials and.....any problems are just caused by "a few bad apples."
Sorry -- the reference to Peck's superb work on the my lai incident triggered a rant, but there may be something worth reflecting upon here. Peck's "The People of the Lie" is certainly relevant today.
If we really wish to track oil production then we should stick to oil production, crude oil production, not alcohol or bottled gas.
At any rate the peak, so far, is December 05. I am of the opinion that this date will be the peak when it is finally established. But if you add alcohol, palm oil and bottled gas, I have no idea when it was, or might be. After all, the production of bottled gas seems to be growing by leaps and bounds lately.
Now, let's give the proverbial devil his due... however far off the deep end Mr. Yergin seems to be these days, or however much one disagrees with his predictions for the future (and I do, vehemently), the fact remains that 'The Prize' was a pretty amazing piece of work. Reading it ~15 years ago was a huge eye-opener for me, in that it made me understand just how pervasive oil's influence has been in shaping the geopolitical world we live in, and thereby gave me the context to understand just how serious PO might turn into.
So yes, cornucopian or corporate shill Yergin may now be. And yes, it's hugely unfortunate, given how much of a positive influence for change he could be. But all that said, I'd still put 'The Prize' on a very short list of required reading for understanding just how we've gotten ourselves into this mess...
Or, somewhat less clumsily, "just how serious PO might turn out to be".
(And on my first post, too. Dadgummit.)
That realization shocked me into a new view of the world.
Many of you will recall that he was deaf when he wrote the Ninth.
"I'm listening to the Fifth Symphony right now."
Very, very good choice! And did you know that despite many people who insist that culture is an unaffordable luxury without surplus crude oil, and that culture and art in any meaningful form will perish without it, that Beethoven never saw an oil refinery, a Royal Dutch filling station, or gassed up an automobile? Believe it or not!! :-)
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
What's it gonna be boy, die off or 600 million?
Tom,
The same also applies to oil consumption, don't it?
You see those "peak charts" that show after, oh, about next week, the line of oil production just plummeting down and down and down.....but who's going to be using it? Given the big die off, it's true in it's own way, the production line will be falling through the floor, but not because the oil isn't still in the ground, but because all the consumers have died off....for the next generation, the ones that survive, it will be a cushy world of driving around in restored Lamborghini's and Lincoln Navigators in an oil sotted world, because all the older competitive consumers would be DEAD!
Too bad the aging boomers won't be around to see it, 2090 would look like 1985 redux! Because you see, there will be a big die off, absolutely assured, when the aging boomers die of old age anyway....the current demographic stats so often used to terrify the masses are in fact a statistical oddity anyway...for those worried about the babies on the way....by the way, consider this....what is the fertility rate when the average population age of a nation goes over 60? :-)
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
My statement was in the context of current population growth rates and if you are too fucking stupid to understand that, then you can shove your god damned head farther up your fucking ass.
Ah! You have been done quite easily by Tom.
He just used the know tricks Generalize the Matter, Then Argue Against it (pretending to ignore your specific context) and Make Your Opponent Angry (insulting).
I suggest you study the The Art of Controversy by Arthur Schopenhauer a good index is here.
This is not so much a peak oil issue but as the original post noted, a perception management issue. Wait, be patient, your kingdom will come. I've got to wonder about the nexus between white western Xtian values, nail us to a cross, we're not good enough to question authority and our commercial governmental structures. Our Constitution was backlash against those uppity farmers (Shays) that weren't interested in waiting until the next life - and that knew better and that had the confidence in themselves to know they knew better. To keep down that riff-raff we needed a stronger authority that has evolved to the point of being a monarchy (Greenwald on DemocracyNow! today makes that point so clearly).
When I look at our current political structure, it's all perception management, keep us stupid. It WAS hard to read the Ruppert article, it sounds like he's over the edge, except for his long history of being so on target:
That judge who finally called Bush on the NSA wiretaps - a black woman - this country does not have kings. While Specter tries to legalize it. No doubt she'll be getting military grade anthrax in the mail soon.The social implications of peak oil dwarf the first order economic consequences. [I want to thank leanan for focusing on that aspect. Good work.] We won't build electric rail or rail of any sort without something order of magnitude a Shays rebellion. Yergin, the whole neo-liberal crew, both Democrats and Republicans, rising tide lifts all boats - it's your fault if you have no boat. Oh, and I just put my foot through your planks - clean up that mess.
The people who are destroying this planet have names and addresses. Yergin and the board of NPR and one could go on and on - but interestingly, the number would only fill a small football stadium the interlocking directorships are so tight. It's just that they own everything and you and I work for them. Like the Israeli general that said the Lebanese will knuckle under because they want their air conditioning and flights to London. Like the Iraqis, whom the US military will never be able to conquer, some part of the US saying "we're mad as hell and not going to take it any more", that will be the breaking point.
But as long as we are willing to accept "prosperity is just around the corner, wait a few more years", there will be no breaking point.
Yergin is nothing but an "independent" video news release, a product advertisement dressed up as news.
cfm in Gray ME
- Passive resistance - never effective in the short term, only works after the tyranny is losing a war or going bankrupt. Try this too early and you lose your job and friends for starters, maybe end up framed for crimes and rotting in a cell or "suicide" with two bullets in the head.
- Active resistance - usually fatal, except when a regime is in full collapse. It worked for George Washington but not so much for William Wallace. Not attractive for people with families. It can also get your friends killed.
- Exile - You lose your home, job, and many friends but get to keep your freedom, your life and maybe even your money. It is the option with the most hope. There can be new jobs, new friends, a new home.
Ruppert stuck with #1 for way too long IMO before coming to his senses and moving on to #3. I was way ahead of him and decided on exile in 2004.John F. Kennedy's press secretary, Pierre Salinger, moved to exile in France in 2000 after W was selected. He was far enough inside to know what the deal was. I wish Pierre had told me. Salinger kept fairly quiet and died in exile of natural causes in 2004.
In a time of plentiful rainfall: a shamanistic medicine man should manouever to claim full-credit for success, thus maximizing his potential tribal gains.
In a time of drought: the 'cunning' medicine man Does Not offer a personal raindance as the solution to their woes, but seeks to convince the tribe that ALL must dance to their gods in the vain hope of receiving rainfall. When this fails, as it inevitably does, the medicine man can safely claim it was their faulty raindance, not his actions, that brings their doom.
Yergin's deluded, but highly profitable public exhortations to create and reinforce the deep yearning and universal belief in the 'miracle raindance' is merely the economic prodding of the unwashed masses forward to the very limits of the infinite growth path. He believes this strategy will insure that he will be among the last to confront the cliff's edge.
A better use of his time would be to promote the Hirsch Report on needed mitigation--but this seems unlikely.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Yes, or that they were stabbed in the back by "enemies of the people". Harpers has a great article about how the Nazis used this strategy to deflect blame for their mistakes to their enemies and how the Republicans are using it now - see Stabbed in the Back!.
Excellent article! Fascinating read! But does it have enough power to convince the great unwashed masses that the '3 Days of the Condor' scenario can be prevented postPeak? This will be the true test of American morality and political will-- do we want to Powerdown now, or wait until we lash out in starving desperation?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
It looks like we are already chosing the "lash out in starving desperation" but so far only our auto fuel tanks are starving. Just wait until the food and energy riots start...
I am listening to Van Halen and their lovely song (my lyrics changes):
"there will be riots, riots in the streets, over food and energy, across the nation, a chance for folks to freak..." or substitute in later verses " a chance for marshall law to PEAK."
Our currently Fat and Happy First World with all it's quaint little ethics and morals (PETA being a good example of pathological extremes in both) will shed them in a minute when it's their asses that are feeling the symptoms (and I don't mean the petty nickle jumps in gas prices at the pumps).
That is the problem. For Yergin it would be impossible to admit he was wrong and perform a highly public and embarrasing U-Turn. As the symbolic head of CERA, his credibility and the fee-earning credibility of CERA would collapse.
So either he knows the truth yet carries on with the bullshit. That makes him a knave.
Or he truly believes his own rhetoric. That makes him a fool.
Now if you were well heeled, and could continue to be well heeled by telling Government and Corporations what they want to hear (with the usual legal disclaimers at the bottom of each report), What would you do? He will continue to rake in the loot.
Better to be a rich knave than a poor fool.
Okay, it's not 20th century tech, but I belief that development and construction of certain tech doesn't have to require oil.
but not if we are so far over the overshoot that the vast hordes of starving people overrun the whole shebang and we go down to nothing in no time.
I keep thinking of that Cummins plant in Pune. Inside the fence, a tropical paradise- a riot of trees, flowers, green shade with an engine plant inside it. Outside the fence, the goats nibbling every tiny green shoot to the bare dirt, and dirtpoor people by the hundreds of thousands milling around in a limitless expanse of troddendirt. Wish I had gotten a photo.
Watch out for the EROEI.
It better be substantially above 1.
Well... Unless you supplement it with slave labor all the way along.
Me, 30 years from now talking to my grand kids (who hopefully will not be among the slaves...)
Maybe not 15, but 10 years ago it was obvious. I had a very-well compensated programmer friend whose company gave him a "brick" analog cell phone so he could be accessible for emergencies. Despite the high costs it was very useful.
Peak Oil needn't mean Peak Energy unless we're idiots. So far, we look like idiots, unfortunatley.
Peak Energy would mean Peak Civilization---and the downside to that is not crunchy organic kibbutzim, but warlordism, disease and death.
Sub-Saharan Africa is now involuntarily Powering Down. You can see the monuments to its success.
Sub-Saharan Africa is now involuntarily Powering Down. You can see the monuments to its success.
Very enlightened remark.
However, what are the chances that a voluntary Power Down results in OTHER than "warlordism, disease and death"?
With a REDUCED energy base in both cases (involuntary or voluntary) what would make the outcomes be different?
Might it be a large cultural/social change?
And I DON'T mean political because we know how this game is played, we have seen it going for millenias.
This is why I am concerned about population. Solving the energy crisis alone does not save us from the core problem of overshoot. And in fact, the energy crisis is merely a symptom of the overshoot problem.
Now what is the size of the sustainable civilization? I think that actually varies based on the energy and other resource consumption as well as the ecological footprint of that civilization. Right now I don't think anyone seriously expects planet earth to support 6.5 billion people living like early 21st century Americans. We use too much energy, waste too many resources, and damage too much biosphere. So something has to change.
I've always believed that these problems are technically solvable. What I question is whether we have to collective political will to choose to solve them. We have all sorts of technologies to consider, from CTL to nuclear to solar to wind and more. So will we make sensible choices and then choose to change or will we wait until it is too late? Hirsch and others think we need an extra push before the main crisis hits. Others think we don't and that the market will care for everything. Now strictly speaking, the market just might take care of everything but in a manner so painful that many of us who survive its brutal lessons may wish it had not.
Because there is NO "we".
The political outcomes even of democracy are NOT AT ALL comparable to a one man intellect decisions.
We are anthropomorphising societies, nations, governments, TPTB, the "people", the UN, etc...
Solving the energy crisis alone does not save us from the core problem of overshoot. And in fact, the energy crisis is merely a symptom of the overshoot problem.
EXACTLY but how many realize that, even here at TOD?
I've always believed that these problems are technically solvable.
I am not so sure that the SHORT TERM population problem is technically solvable.
Now strictly speaking, the market just might take care of everything but in a manner so painful that many of us who survive its brutal lessons may wish it had not.
This is unfortunately the most likely outcome given that "business as usual" and "non negotiable way of life" cannot continue for long, not to speak about demented cornucopians like the singularitarians
OTOH this will be in any case (painful or not) an opportunity to change the rules of "the game" because what would be the point to get back to primitivism or warlordism with an even more degraded ressource base?
This will not prevent the recurrence of one or more overshoots (See Tainter about Mayan hiatus, one rebound before the final splat) only giving collapse a long, painful tail.
a high tech advanced civilization could arise in the aftermath of a global collapse
Yes this is the choice, too bad there is no "we" to make "conscious decisions" as slaphappy happily suggest.
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
George Washington
Even more so when it is hijacked by "special interests"...
How did he get into the oil consulting business?
Has has he ever stated when the "undulating plateau" starts? (I assume in his mind it never ends)
Here's the short version: What qualifies you to comment on this subject?
Note to first timers(newbies): Read the post before commenting.
"Oh, yeah, grounded that one too. You are lucky."
Don't know what to make of your dribble here.
"Here's the short version: What qualifies you to comment on this subject?"
Anyone is qualified to post on a message board. Yergin is paid big bucks to use his background in International Relations to tell people how much oil remains in the ground. Well, oil and "unconventional liquids". Do you get the difference, Oil Dingleberry?
" 'How did he get into the oil consulting business?' "
"Note to first timers(newbies): Read the post before commenting. "
Note to long time cranks, think about the question before responding. Saying that he started his own company doesn't say why he and his customers felt he was qualified to make predictions on oil reserves and oil production. Can anybody get into that business if you have money for office rent and a shingle?
Why? Because I'm one of the few qualified and I feel like it. Any time you wanna have a real debate, just let me know, sweetie. Hope you don't mind the sight of your own blood.
What is your prediction for the beginning of the "undulating plateau"?
It turned out that we produce more oil now then we did 20 years ago. If production goes up after a peak then I no longer fear the peak. I may just buy a Hummer.
Oily you are such a cute little biped (my assumption).
If you are as you claim "one of the few qualified" to defend Jerkin' Yergin the eCON, why don't you do just that ??? Go back in the thread and defend some of the his garbage.
Why instead does a "qualified" person like you chose only to make "derogatory" remarks to other posters like a threatened mental midget of a child on a playground (are you perhaps an up and coming semi-pro wrestler in real life - drawing blood in the ring of charades there too???).
By the way Oily, how many hours a day of watching CNN qualifies you as a "oil ceo?." You might consider changing your alias to "AngryTwerp."
This is his standard "welcome greetings" to newcomers.
''I "re-worked" my original greetings. Available upon request''.
O Great One, post them.
We kneel at your feet, O Great One.
Cast your pearls before we unworthy swine that we may be enlightened. O Great One.
http://www.misi-net.com/publications/LR_Energy_Forecasts.pdf
which lists some studies, one of which seems to explain how Yergin got into the oil forecasting business. There was a study by the Harvard Business School on energy of which he and another were listed as the editors. Ironically, it was labeled as a pessimistic study.
Well, if you wish to purchase CERA's report, I'll be happy to read it. In the mean time, we know that the HL (Hubbert Linearization) method has been consistently right, while Yergin and CERA have been consistently wrong.
As you know, I have been crystal clear regarding my predictions, largely based on my analysis of Khebab's technical HL work. My two key predictions were: (1) The world would face a problem with net export capacity this year, before it became readily apparent that world oil production had definitely peaked and (2) Saudi Arabia and the world were both on the verge of permanent and irreversible declines in production. I am of course building on work done by Deffeyes and Simmons, and prior to that, by Hubbert.
The EIA is reporting that eight of the top ten oil exporters are showing declining production, relative to December, and they are reporting that both world and Saudi production are down since December. We have credible reports that the four largest producing fields, as expected, are all declining.
Again, Yergin and CERA have consistently been wrong, while the HL method has consistently been right. So, what are we supposed to learn from reviewing CERA's report? Also, I have been puzzled as to exactly what position that you are taking. Peak Oil is here? It's years, decades away, what?
For the benefit of the "Newbies," could you clarify exactly what your background is? I'm going out on a limb, but I am assuming that you are not actually the CEO of an oil company.
Energy Bulletin articles based on Daniel Yergin search:
http://www.energybulletin.net/news.php?author=&keywords=daniel+yergin&cat=0&action=searc h
CERA Private Report May 2005
My Goodness, where did you get the idea I was the CEO of an oil company? I'm the CEO of Oil.(And word has it that some of the board members are not so happy about my activities, but whatever. I've still got most of the stock. I think. I've got to check with my accountants. Does anybody remember the number for Anderson?)
Background? Casual observer. More readily available for your oil consulting needs than either Daniel Yergin, Matt Simmons, Ol' Man Pickens, or Stuart Staniford. And if you check my blog for January and my posts here you will see I have a clue as to the price of oil.
Position? I like numbers. Peoples' opinions tend to suck. Show me the numbers to back up what you say, be clear about what you say, go out on a limb consistently about your predictions and be right - and you have my respect. That's my position.
Position? I believe in peak oil. But I didn't get religion through Heinberg and Ruppert. I got it through Roberts, Goodstein, Deffeyes, Simmons, and Tertzakian. There is a huge difference. Or there was.(I admit that for the new generation the differnce may have become blurred).
Just a few years ago it was only scientists(geologists, etc.) and skilled writers(and Economides- but he had other credentials) who wrote on the subject. Now anybody who wants to make a quick buck as the latest "leader" of the movement can do so. Look at Savinar. Guy just figured out the difference between a gallon and a barrel last week.
That's my position.
There is a lot I don't know, but I'd venture a guess that overall I'm probably not too far behind Cheney, Chavez, Rockefeller or Raymond.
For what I don't know, I pay attention to you, Jack, Halfin, Freddy, Darwinian, LouGrinzo, SAT, Cry Wolf, Prodigal Son, Step Back, Roger Conner, Twilight(on vacation), Jack Greene, Dave, Heading Out, Khebab, Robert, Leanan, Sailorman, odograph, GreyZone, fallout, joule, and others. There are many others. I know I forgot people, but I'm getting better. I try to do it everytime from memory. bjj and Oilrig. Once you're on the list, you're on. This is the "moderate" side. Although, I think you qualify for doom status, but that is not a bad thing, and I've never been quite sure about you..
Out of this entire group, I am positive I am the youngest one here with the exception of maybe(?) Leanan and Oilrig.
I'm not a doomer, but I love Bob Shaw, Dan Ur, and Cherenkov.
That's my position. I support EarthMarines.
A couple observations:
1) If you search for the term "depletion" it only turns up twice. They mention a worldwide loss of 3-4 mbpd due to depletion/decline, but nowhere in the report (that I found) do they discuss where this number came from and how they project declines going forward. They expect SA to be able to expand production to 2010 and only expect Mexico to lose 200,000 bpd from 2004 to 2010 (Mexico is only starting its decline and is already 60,000 below 2004). At this point, I think most of us would consider these projections, and many others, as unrealistic. There is a lot of reference to decline in areas, but how they analyzed this is unclear.
2) As has been mentioned before in TOD, analyses of oncoming projects are relatively uncontroversial, whether done by CERA, Skrebowski or Koppelar. The primary issue is the different views/assessments of depletion rates. CERA really avoids any direct discussion of this in their report that I could find, particularly in their methodology for assigning future decline rates. Decline is, of course, the central discussion point in Simmons' concerns. We are having parallel conversations here. I can't accept conclusions from a report that so neglects analysis of decline concerns.
Are you OK? What's the problem?
http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/CERA2005.pdf
not sure it's the $2,500 document but it has 60 pages.
Shake'n'Bake, bro!
http://petropestlaunchpad.blogspot.com/2006/08/magic-oil.html
Every major oilfield in the world is in decline, adding adipose poultry butts into the equation won't change that.
http://petropestlaunchpad.blogspot.com/2006/08/putins-smile.html
And maybe Putin can "get it up" to 11 mb/d. I'm sure they'd be glad to share so Sally Soccer Mom can drive her Escalade down to the Bed & Bath.
That was nothing. Pay no attention. Just some voices. But I'm sure your numbers are on the level, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
See Darwinian's post yesterday on Pemex numbers? My boy basically gave us a two months head start on what we want to know. Darwinian is quality. He doesn't waste time here arguing about shit he knows way more than most about. He does the work. He goes and finds the stuff. You realize how much dedicated brainpower is here on this site? We could make CERA look like first-graders if we would just harness that energy. He is technically proficient and he pays attention. I just wish he'd give me his email address.
Even if we include the tar sands, total Canadian crude + condensate production is down 11% since December, and there are reliable reports that the other great very heavy oil/bitumen source, Venezuela, is also showing declining production.
http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/CERA2005.pdf
"And what about the "peak"? "Based on our in-depth, bottom-up analysis," write Jackson
and Esser, "there is no `peak oil' problem before 2020." And, they add, when it does come it
"will certainly not be followed by a precipitous decline in production capacity."
--Daniel Yergin
May 2005"
------------------------------------------------
"Jackson and Esser's 2006 analysis found that productive capacity is still rising globally, with expectations for strong continued growth and a gradual improvement in the supply-demand balance.
"Based on the report's extensive field-by-field analysis, Jackson and Esser conclude that the data reinforce CERA's view that the specter of "peak oil" is not imminent, nor is the start of an "undulating plateau" pattern of supply capacity. "
Yeah So.
Is it just me or do you also see 200 million cars zooming around at 85 mph. Same as yesterday. Same as 1999. Only getting worse. What part of not emminent aren't you seeing? Do I need to actually back that up with gasoline consumption numbers?
(Don't think for a second I can't argue your supposed position better than you can)
Why did we have a date in 2005 and the date is not mentioned in 2006?
"Is it just me or do you also see 200 million cars zooming around at 85 mph. "
Before the peak everything looks good. When do you see the beginning of the "undulating plateau"?
So, far starters, with me, we don't take that as anything. It has no inherent obvious mathematical value so it doesn't exist in my equations. I take take that shit on faith, dude. I know god exists, because I wouldn't be alive today if he didn't. I mean, I'm pretty sure? What the hell do I know.
So that's the funny thing. I can sit here and admit that I don't necessarily know shit about anything. But at the same time you are hanging onto this next sentence willing to listen to absolutely anything I say about oil...
and you get this...
The best I can do is what I can do with all I got and that's pretty much the best any of us can do. When it comes down to it, I try to figure things out by narrowing the question as much I can, and then really making sure I catch the right answer.
I've seen both sides. I'm am one of the few that has dared to step for long periods of time into the other side. I have been on the both the light and the dark side.
But I'm like Obi Wan, dude. I'm gone. I'm off the reservation. Both sides try to recruit me. Ultimately, whoever has the best torture methods is gonna break me.
One sentence at a time. What date in 2005 and 2006?
Interestingly, Jean Laherrere has recently used that very expression "undulating plateau" (talk given at Lyon, 30 May 2006):
"But obviously if there is demand constraint [...] the peak will transform itself into an undulating plateau" (FRENCH ORIGINAL: "Mais evidemment s'il y a contrainte par la demande [...] le pic va se transformer en plateau en tole ondulée."). [my italics]
For 'all liquids', Laherrere-2006 puts peak production at approx. 2018 (cf Figure 35), commenting on his figure as follows:
« This is potential peak supply without demand constraint, probably there will not be a peak but an undulating plateau with chaotic prices »
[FRENCH ORIGINAL : "Ce pic est ce que peut offrir l'offre sans contrainte de la demande, probablement il y aura non un pic mais un plateau en tole ondule avec des prix chaotiques."] [my italics]
Has Laherrere been reading too much Yergin?
Laherrere's text is to be found here:
www.hubbertpeak.com/laherrere/CERTU2006mai30.pdf
Незаметный Карл
You can talk of a plateau rather than a peak. When I see graphs of regional (such as US) production, I don't see any plateaus, just peaks, but certainly the world could work differently. And a plateau would be preferable to a peak in that it would wake people up before a decline. However, when you give the date you think a plateau begins, you also need to give the date it ends. As in "we see an undulating plateau beginning in 2025 that will last until nnnn at which time an inexorable decline begins".
"Has Laherrere been reading too much Yergin?"
Maybe he's been talking too much to Yergin's clients.
But see:
A Half Century of Long-Range Energy Forecasts: Errors. Made, Lessons Learned
I linked in the older report in this text:
People do read these posts, right? I'd like to think so since it requires some work to put them together. Maybe I was too subtle.I linked in the older report in this text:
Daniel Yergin's title at CERA is Chairman. That's all. As a cursory look at any press release or actual report reveals, it is Robert Esser and Peter Jackson who oversee the work
People do read these posts, right? I'd like to think so since it requires some work to put them together. Maybe I was too subtle. "
Daniel Yergin has a degree in International Relations. Do they teach geology in International Relations classes? How he get to a position where he started a company that is going to tell the world how much oil there is and when he is interviewed do they add the disclaimer that "he is only the chairmen of this company so everything he says is just the opinions of his underlings"???
I'm on your side. That's why I insist that we fight this on their terms. Because I know it can be won on straight facts. But first we must define the battlefield. This is why Israel will ultimately prevail. Because they understand these intricacies.
Let's not bicker about any differences between my Middle-East hangups and those of others - I can only imagine they are many. We are on the same side when it comes to oil. Nuff said here. I'll email you. We gotta lot in common. Oooh, frickin' scary, eh?
WHEN THE CHRIST IS CANADA GONNA GET ITS OWN OIL DRUM?
Yeah that, and the fact that we pay them 4 billion a year to buy the most modern weaponry in the world. Not to mention that they have an army, navy, air force, and a European standard of living while their opponents live in occupied squalor in refugee camps or hunkered down in holes in the ground. You don't need Vince Lombardi to coach the Green Bay Packers against an elementary school team.
...
I have to edit myself, sorry.
...
We fail to understand lacrosse. What are the inherent lessons in football?
"occupied squalor." Holy shit. How many different accents can you do that in? In your experience, which nationalities are worth more?
What is more important is the common ground. Hello? This is the goddamn planet we are talking about.
Renewed IDF Attacks in breach of UN Ceasefire:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5266688.stm
What is it about loosers that they always want to get a re-match?
"Let's everybody read the CERA report. Compare what they say to things that have been said here. Slowly, methodically. What exactly are the differences."
Yeah, what exactly are these differences? Take Skrebowski (who isn't physically `here', but who is spiritually on the same wavelength) and compare him with CERA:
CERA's latest report's press release has estimates of `potential capacity growth' from 2006 to 2010 put at 13.3mb/d.
Skrebowski's latest estimate for the same period is 9.15 mb/d (1.985 + 2.140 + 1.456 + 2.150 + 1.420). -- see his latest Megafields report, published in Petroleum Review this April.
It is entitled "Prices holding steady, despite massive planned capacity additions" (my italics).
BTW if CERA had used the term massive planned capacity additions, all hell would have broken loose.
The things ASPO-activists can get away with ....
Íåçàìåòíûé Êàðë
Skrebowski's latest estimate for the same period is 9.15 mb/d (1.985 + 2.140 + 1.456 + 2.150 + 1.420). -- see his latest Megafields report, published in Petroleum Review this April.
"
How to Skrebowski and CERA compare after 2010?
Unfortunately Skreboswki stops at 2010, so I can't oblige.
http://www.energybulletin.net/5266.html
JD: In the light of much evidence, and in the light of your report, do you think that Ken Deffeyes’ suggestion of Thanksgiving 2005 being the time of peak, is too bold in your opinion?
CS: No, that is entirely possible. We're now into, you know, a sort of unknown land. We haven't been in this situation before. I don't think we know quite how to analyse it. We're taking traditional, fairly conventional analysis. And we're saying let's see what happens when we do this. And I suppose the rough answer we get is that from this year on it looks difficult to get it to add up comfortably. It certainly looks as though after about 2008 it really doesn't add up. But it's not quite clear what more you can say.
http://www.energybulletin.net/5266.html
"JD: In the light of much evidence, and in the light of your report, do you think that Ken Deffeyes’ suggestion of Thanksgiving 2005 being the time of peak, is too bold in your opinion?
CS: No, that is entirely possible. We're now into, you know, a sort of unknown land. We haven't been in this situation before. I don't think we know quite how to analyse it. We're taking traditional, fairly conventional analysis. And we're saying let's see what happens when we do this. And I suppose the rough answer we get is that from this year on it looks difficult to get it to add up comfortably. It certainly looks as though after about 2008 it really doesn't add up. But it's not quite clear what more you can say."
odac-info.org.hosting.domaindirect.com/assessments/documents/Megaprojects_2006Apr.pdf
Naturally both CERA and Skrebowksi factor in depletion and subtract it from their gross figures.
That statement was made while he was issuing a report that production would be up through 2010. ??
Only problem is that reality is subjective.
I like OilCEO's comment above that numbers help define reality.
Only problem is that there are too many numbers!! Yergin got numbers. CS has numbers and we reality types have to project numbers into the future -- where reality is undefined.
Sometimes I just get so confused.
"We're not running out of oil. Not yet."
In the article he never gives the date for yet (and why does he say "running out" and not "peaking"), but does say production increases till 2010. Peak Oilers like ex-geologist Jeremy Leggett also say that production could increase till 2010.
Can Yergin be leaving open the possibility that 2010 is the peak?
"At this point, even with greater efficiency, it looks as though the world could be using 50 percent more oil 25 years from now. That is a very big challenge."
What are the odds that a very big challenge will be met? Challenges are often not met. Even fewer big challenges. When a challenge becomes very big I would have to think that the odds of surmounting it are under 50%. To me he just said that 25 years from now it's likely demand will NOT be matched by supply. That's the same thing Peak Oilers like Jeremy Leggett would say explicitly. Do the two really just differ in how great the pain will be?
The share of "unconventional oil" - Canadian oil sands, ultra-deep-water developments, "natural gas liquids" -- will rise from 10 percent of total capacity in 1990 to 30 percent by 2010."
Is this statement correct - was 10% of oil coming from those 3 sources in 1990? Is the North Sea considered "ultra-deep water"?
What percentage figure does Campbell give for those 3 sources in 2010? The one you always see quoted is the Tar Sands - 1 million barrels a day now (1.x % of total) rising to 3 million barrels a day by 2020/2025 (6% ??).