Panic warning as oil supplies run low

[ford man xf]

Panic warning as oil supplies run lowTERRY MACALISTER
November 11, 2009



LONDON: The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, says a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who charges it has been underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

The senior official says the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the prospects of new reserves.

The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply - to be published yesterday - which is used by many governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.

This year's report is believed to repeat the prediction in last year's that oil production can be raised from its present 83 million barrels a day to 105 million barrels. External critics have argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.

Now the ''peak oil'' theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. ''The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120 million barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116 million and then 105 million last year,'' said the agency source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of industry reprisals. ''The 120 million figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.

''Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90 million to 95 million barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources.''

A second senior agency source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was ''imperative not to anger the Americans'' but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. ''We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad,'' he added.

The International Energy Agency acknowledges the importance of its own figures, boasting on its website: ''The IEA governments and industry from all across the globe have come to rely on the World Energy Outlook to provide a consistent basis on which they can formulate policies and design business plans.''

The agency said on Monday that peak oil critics had often wrongly questioned its figures.

The agency was established in 1974 after the oil crisis in an attempt to try to safeguard energy supplies to the West. The World Energy Outlook is produced annually under the control of its chief economist, Fatih Birol, who has defended the projections from earlier outside attack. However, now agency sources say that Mr Birol has increasingly been facing questions about the figures inside the organisation.

A report by the UK Energy Research Council last month said worldwide production of conventionally extracted oil could ''peak'' and go into terminal decline before 2020 - but that the British Government was not facing up to the risk.

Steve Sorrell, chief author of the report, said forecasts suggesting oil production will not peak before 2030 were ''at best optimistic and at worst implausible''

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/world/panic-wa...1110-i7j0.html

[ford man xf]

Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower
Exclusive: Watchdog's estimates of reserves inflated says top official
Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 November 2009 21.30 GMT

The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.

The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.


'There's suspicion the IEA has been influenced by the US' Link to this audio In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.

Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.

"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.

A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad," he added.

The IEA acknowledges the importance of its own figures, boasting on its website: "The IEA governments and industry from all across the globe have come to rely on the World Energy Outlook to provide a consistent basis on which they can formulate policies and design business plans."

The British government, among others, always uses the IEA statistics rather than any of its own to argue that there is little threat to long-term oil supplies.

The IEA said tonight that peak oil critics had often wrongly questioned the accuracy of its figures. A spokesman said it was unable to comment ahead of the 2009 report being released tomorrow.

John Hemming, the MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on peak oil and gas, said the revelations confirmed his suspicions that the IEA underplayed how quickly the world was running out and this had profound implications for British government energy policy.

He said he had also been contacted by some IEA officials unhappy with its lack of independent scepticism over predictions. "Reliance on IEA reports has been used to justify claims that oil and gas supplies will not peak before 2030. It is clear now that this will not be the case and the IEA figures cannot be relied on," said Hemming.

"This all gives an importance to the Copenhagen [climate change] talks and an urgent need for the UK to move faster towards a more sustainable [lower carbon] economy if it is to avoid severe economic dislocation," he added.

The IEA was established in 1974 after the oil crisis in an attempt to try to safeguard energy supplies to the west. The World Energy Outlook is produced annually under the control of the IEA's chief economist, Fatih Birol, who has defended the projections from earlier outside attack. Peak oil critics have often questioned the IEA figures.

But now IEA sources who have contacted the Guardian say that Birol has increasingly been facing questions about the figures inside the organisation.

Matt Simmons, a respected oil industry expert, has long questioned the decline rates and oil statistics provided by Saudi Arabia on its own fields. He has raised questions about whether peak oil is much closer than many have accepted.

A report by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) last month said worldwide production of conventionally extracted oil could "peak" and go into terminal decline before 2020 – but that the government was not facing up to the risk. Steve Sorrell, chief author of the report, said forecasts suggesting oil production will not peak before 2030 were "at best optimistic and at worst implausible".

But as far back as 2004 there have been people making similar warnings. Colin Campbell, a former executive with Total of France told a conference: "If the real [oil reserve] figures were to come out there would be panic on the stock markets … in the end that would suit no one."

[madmelon]

Guess they're ready to see $140 a barrel again...

[Thornie]

"here we go again"

[Bent8]

There is no oil shortage and the price of oil won't be changing much for a while yet.

Want the truth?......here it is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbakN7SLdbk

This gentlemen was told that oil prices would drop to below $50/barrel when it was around $140 last year. People thought he was mad but who's laughing now?

[Ohio XB]

From the first post...

A second senior agency source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name...

Now there is some respectable journalism there. If you didn't know his name how do you know he wasn't the Janitor? Often times reporters won't give the name of a source to hide the identity of the source, but this journalist doesn't even know who he was speaking to, if he was speaking to anyone.


When some news programs are interviewing someone they will say "There are people that have said..." or "Some people say..." in order to ask a question that THEY want to ask without sounding like it is only a question from their own agenda.


The second report looked like a high schooler's attempt to hide plagarism from the first article.



That video is pretty interesting. I will watch the whole series. What he is saying goes along with other things I have heard and the strategy of why things are going the way they are.


Steve

[ford man xf]

Yeh don't know the facts just thought it was an interesting post. Just hoping fuel can at least stay below $1.30 a litre and most will be happy I think.

[Falcon Coupe]

An Anonymous source gathering the hand wringers before Copenhagen, how convenient.

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

An Anonymous source gathering the hand wringers before Copenhagen, how convenient.

I think your right Nick

[ford man xf]

No one really knows if they have even reached peak oil yet anyway there is that much of the black gold down there its amazing they have been pumping the same areas for decades and it still keeps coming up thats how much is down there. Apparently Antartica is even richer in resources.

[mik]

i`ve seen that vid before its an eye opener, 99% of the reports from oil guys telling us we are going to run out of oil would have a vested interest in seeing their share price`s going up as high as they can get it imo.

[GavL]

That article I believe is just an attempt at driving prices back up.

When it was on The Age website the other day but quickly disappeared soon after...

[burnz]

well the oz dollar is high and the price of crude is low, yet still over a dollar per litre.

[madmelon]

They're a bunch of greedy b______ and will do anything to line their own pockets, including take advantage of every person on the planet. The sooner an alternative LIQUID FUEL comes, the better- I want to see them get reamed like they've been doing to everyone else for the last hundred or so years...

[xy500]

Originally Posted by madmelon

They're a bunch of greedy b______ and will do anything to line their own pockets, including take advantage of every person on the planet. The sooner an alternative LIQUID FUEL comes, the better- I want to see them get reamed like they've been doing to everyone else for the last hundred or so years...

why does it have to be liquid?

[madmelon]

Originally Posted by xy500

why does it have to be liquid?

Liquid fuels are much more easily stored than gaseous and generally have a much higher energy density. Also I don't like electric cars- no good noise!

[DougM]

Originally Posted by madmelon

They're a bunch of greedy b______ and will do anything to line their own pockets, including take advantage of every person on the planet. The sooner an alternative LIQUID FUEL comes, the better- I want to see them get reamed like they've been doing to everyone else for the last hundred or so years...

The problem with the alternative fuels is that the same b4stards will control that aswell!!!!! The prices will be artificially high for that too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[MercurySilver]

maybe i should look at that guys home made cell in a piece of polly piping he rigged up under the hood...not the greatest looking thing but it friggin works
cut his fuel bill in under thirds i think he said

(he's basically running a Joe Cell, if any one is familiar with that)

[xy500]

Originally Posted by MercurySilver

maybe i should look at that guys home made cell in a piece of polly piping he rigged up under the hood...not the greatest looking thing but it friggin works
cut his fuel bill in under thirds i think he said

(he's basically running a Joe Cell, if any one is familiar with that)

oh man, lets not talk about "the Joe cell"...

The trouble with producing hydrogen is the energy it takes to make it, ends up being more than you get out of it - especially in combustion engines. Not so much in electrolytic cells, but it still takes a lot of energy to make in the first instance. Oil is just dug up from the ground and the energy is there already.
Lpg is still 55c a litre

[MercurySilver]

Originally Posted by xy500

oh man, lets not talk about "the Joe cell"...

The trouble with producing hydrogen is the energy it takes to make it, ends up being more than you get out of it - especially in combustion engines. Not so much in electrolytic cells, but it still takes a lot of energy to make in the first instance. Oil is just dug up from the ground and the energy is there already.
Lpg is still 55c a litre

what making a Vat with some plates and letting the water do its work??
then putting some in a jar and running on it???
yeah the set up is costly but waters free

for the time being......
they can run cars on friggin banana skins if they wanted too
we can send a prop past bloody jupiter but cant find an alternate fuel source??
notice how its all elec now
yeah...wonder why
bastards :

[xy500]

Originally Posted by MercurySilver

what making a Vat with some plates and letting the water do its work??
then putting some in a jar and running on it???
yeah the set up is costly but waters free

for the time being......
they can run cars on friggin banana skins if they wanted too
we can send a prop past bloody jupiter but cant find an alternate fuel source??
notice how its all elec now
yeah...wonder why
bastards :

i wasn't talking about a "joe cell" i was talking about the use of hydrogen as an alternative fuel.
i'd rather not even discuss the mechanics of something that runs on imaginary gases and energy sources. they call the mechanics behind imaginary things SIDI dont they?

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by xy500

Lpg is still 55c a litre

Hell yeah.

[ch33z1l]

Originally Posted by xy500

Oil is just dug up from the ground and the energy is there already.

Still has to go to a refinery, not to mention the energy used to run the refinery, and I doubt very much it is solar powered...

[MercurySilver]

Hydrogen
more power than fossil crap will ever have

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by MercurySilver

Hydrogen
more power than fossil crap will ever have

True but storing it in a way that it won't bloody explode in an accident if the fuel tank is punctured is a bit of a problem.

F Hydrogen, lets have Nuclear powered cars, we got heaps of uranium haha.

[xy500]

Originally Posted by XCPWSF

True but storing it in a way that it won't bloody explode in an accident if the fuel tank is punctured is a bit of a problem.

F Hydrogen, lets have Nuclear powered cars, we got heaps of uranium haha.

yeah i still don't know why we don't at least have a nuclear power plant??

[Riksta]

Originally Posted by xy500

yeah i still don't know why we don't at least have a nuclear power plant??

Because there's too many uninformed stupid hippies out there who would crack it and protest and complain and whinge about how we're going to be the next Chernobyl.

I say bugger the nuke plant, lets get a plant to burn the hippies to make energy and then once that's all done, build the nuke plant.

[madmelon]

Originally Posted by Riksta

Because there's too many uninformed stupid hippies out there who would crack it and protest and complain and whinge about how we're going to be the next Chernobyl.

I say bugger the nuke plant, lets get a plant to burn the hippies to make energy and then once that's all done, build the nuke plant.

That and the politicians in this country and most other "developed" economies are puppets to industry. Our coal industry is massive- good luck fighting that. I do wish though, that KRudd wasn't so head in the sand over nuclear...

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Riksta

Because there's too many uninformed stupid hippies out there who would crack it and protest and complain and whinge about how we're going to be the next Chernobyl.

I say bugger the nuke plant, lets get a plant to burn the hippies to make energy and then once that's all done, build the nuke plant.

Chernobyl was one of the most over dramatised events in human history. Less than 50 people died, and they were the ones who worked in the plant who copped massive doses of radiation or died in the fire. Birth abnormalities and cancer rates of people in the surrounding areas was no higher than anywhere else either. All the studies showed that unless you were next to the reactor when it blew you really had nothing to worry about. The guy who was in charge of the plant who was to blame for the whole meltdown copped radiation levels 10 times higher than what was considered at the time leathal and he lived for another decade or so with few effects.

Reports of the time believed more than 100,000 people would die because of it. Couldn't have been more wrong.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by XCPWSF

True but storing it in a way that it won't bloody explode in an accident if the fuel tank is punctured is a bit of a problem.

F Hydrogen, lets have Nuclear powered cars, we got heaps of uranium haha.

BMW have already solved that problem with their Hydrogen powered 7 series. They shot at it, set fire to it, dropped it from a crane etc and it still didn't puncture. Its not a problem.

The problem with hydrogen is soley the lack of infastructure to sell it to the public, ie. next to no filling stations. There are some in Japan and in California.