free html hit counter Peak Oil Debunked: 110. IEA DISMISSES EARLY PEAK HYPE

Saturday, September 24, 2005

110. IEA DISMISSES EARLY PEAK HYPE

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has gone on record stating that the early peak theory is hype :
IEA Dismisses Peak Oil Talk, Says Technology Can Boost Reserves

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The International Energy Agency said technological investments will expand world oil supplies, dismissing "peak oil'' theories that supplies are running out.

"There is no shortage of oil and gas in the ground, but quenching the world's thirst for them will call for major investment in modern technologies,'' IEA Executive Director Claude Mandil said in a statement marking the publication of a 150-page book "Resources to Reserves, Oil and Gas Technologies for the Energy Markets of the Future.''

At least $5 trillion in investment will be needed in the next three decades to tap reserves, the IEA said, repeating a figure it has already used. The IEA has never before directly responded to "peak oil'' theorists who say the agency is overly optimistic about estimates of increased production.

[...]

"The hydrocarbon resources in place around the world are sufficiently abundant to sustain likely growth in the global energy system for the foreseeable future,'' the IEA said in its report. "The doomsayers are again conveying grim messages through the front pages of major newspapers. The IEA has long maintained that none of this is cause for concern.''Source

3 Comments:

At Saturday, September 24, 2005 at 5:25:00 AM PDT, Blogger Dukat- said...

99% of people dismiss peakoil, whats your point JD?

Alot of vested interest is in winning the infinate oil myth vs the limited oil myth. The IEA claims newer technology will increase oil production. Unfortuantly as people who are informed on the subject know, when your able to increase production of a said resource, you'll maintain peak for longer, but the decline will be very sharp compared to when you used the same technology to extract the resource over the entire cycle of the extraction. I remember colin campbell commenting quite afew times on the subject. This is not good, and further illistrates peakoil is more likely to have a very serious effect on the world. Alot of eggheads believe that we will slowly transition to cleaner fuels, but as what is appearing now, we will all be living in lala land for the next few years (possibly payer slightly higher fuel prices) while the peak is maintained. There will be no great new investments in renewable energy technologies. It will be business as usual until the supply of oil cannot be maintained, and we will head into a tragic steep decline over the passage of only afew months forcing oil to be unafforable to most people. Using technology to increase extraction rates is akin to a wolf in sheeps clothing, it will be good for us now, but much worse for us later on. (typical pattern of the human species to solve problems)

Perhaps JD you need to pass on afew posts to maintain your credibility as a "Peak Oil debunkerist".

 
At Saturday, September 24, 2005 at 3:58:00 PM PDT, Anonymous Wildwell said...

The IEA have always maintained this position, it’s nothing new. The ‘real reserves’ figure is a matter of politics, as much as money and technology. Indeed, the whole matter is an issue of ‘rent a quote’ from scientists and geologists, some of which are pessimistic (Colin Campbell etc) others more optimistic. Conclusion: Nobody really has a clue.

 
At Sunday, September 25, 2005 at 2:40:00 AM PDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortuantly as people who are informed on the subject know, when your able to increase production of a said resource, you'll maintain peak for longer, but the decline will be very sharp compared to when you used the same technology to extract the resource over the entire cycle of the extraction. I remember colin campbell commenting quite afew times on the subject. This is not good, and further illistrates peakoil is more likely to have a very serious effect on the world.

Informed people know that URR is a moving target influenced by technology, economics and politics as well as geology. A later peak is more likely to mean that Campbell and co underestimated URR again rather than a sharper decline. Informed people also know that much of what peak oilers take as gospel is merely unproven assertion from the likes of Matt Simmons. Peak oilers tend to latch onto half-truths, assertions, missconceptions and pure made up bullshit as long as it supports their world view.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home