Let Them Eat Data

Wayne Thiebaud CakesThe Guardian newspaper dropped a small bomb on the International Energy Agency last night, on the eve of the IEA’s annual release of their signature product: The World Energy Outlook. According to the British newspaper, at least one if not two whistleblowers within the agency were claiming that the IEA’s record of chronic optimism on future oil supply had been disingenuous at best, and moreover, that this positioning had been influenced over the years by pressure from the US. In journalistic terms, the story was beautifully timed. Because today, media on both sides of the Atlantic from the Financial Times to Reuters, to CNN and even CNBC, produced at least as much coverage on the controversy as the IEA’s scheduled data release. This effectively buried the Paris agency under a mound of accusation.

Let’s go back a few months and find some of the early signals, however, indicating this story was likely overdue. In August, a journalist at a separate British newspaper, The Independent, had conducted a long interview with the IEA’s chief Fatih Birol. In that interview, Dr. Birol made a number of very clear statements about the rather dire prospects for any future growth in world oil supply. This was unsurprising, in some respects, because the IEA had already asserted, in World Energy Outlook 2008, that existing oil fields were declining by at least 4.00% if not 6.00% per annum, and that to actually lift global oil production would require not billions, but trillions, of investment. But something odd happened in the weeks that followed this interview. First, Dr. Birol was interviewed by another journalist, this time David Strahan. In this subsequent interview, Birol claimed he’d either been misunderstood, or misquoted, by the Independent’s journalist–Steve Connor–who had reported that Birol was calling for “peak oil in about ten years.” The dispute appears to have turned on the issue of conventional oil vs all liquids (which includes natural gas liquids). Was Birol talking about just crude oil with the Independent’s journalist? Or was that interview about all liquids, which includes biofuels? Regardless, the confusion conformed to a pattern at IEA in which conclusions stated in reports and publications were hedged in public statements, or visa-versa.

Let’s also recall that the forecasting record of both the IEA in Paris and the EIA in Washington has been abysmal this decade. The actual growth of global crude oil supply compared to their forecasts has been so far off the mark, that each agency probably shouldn’t have even bothered to produce forecasts. But what’s particularly bizarre in today’s IEA World Energy Outlook 2009 report is that IEA maintains their forecast of a peak in global oil supply around 2030, but now suggests Non-OPEC supply will peak next year. Sorry, you can’t have 60% of world supply peaking in 2010, and then a final global peak 20 years from now. Besides, Non-OPEC peaked five year ago, and is currently on care and maintenance.

Non-OPEC Crude Oil Supply

The President of ASPO International, Kjell Aleklett, has also posted today at his website on his own attempts to force greater transparency at IEA Paris through the lever of his country, Sweden, and also through the organizational OECD structure, which funds the IEA. It would appear that the IEA has quite alot to answer for. At the very least its own vacillations between its printed assertions, buried deep in its reports, and its public statements needs to be cleaned up. Secondly, the Paris agency produces a number of reports that run as much as 500 EUR, so it’s likely that some users may think twice before paying those kinds of sums if the information and conclusions have become politicized. Finally, the IEA is a taxpayer supported group via the OECD, and it would be justified for the electorates in OECD countries to examine IEA’s funding, and to question to what extent country-by-country energy and transport policies are reliant on politicized IEA data. Through Thursday of this week Dr. Birol will field questions via the FT which is taking questions up until Noon GMT – on Thursday 12 November. Let’s see how the IEA handles this issue.

-Gregor

Photo: Wayne Thiebaud, Cakes, 1963. National Gallery of Art, Washington.

Graphic: Rembrandt Koppelaar, Non-OPEC Crude Oil Production, via The Oil Drum and Peak Oil Netherlands.

Updated: FT question time in final paragraph updated to reflect correct cutoff times: Noon GMT, Thursday 12 November.

  • Ed_Crooks
    Hello

    We have been discussing this issue at the FT’s Energy Source blog, and as I said over there, I am genuinely baffled by this story. The question, as always, is cui bono? How does it benefit the US, a large and growing net importer of oil, to misrepresent the state of oil resources? I can see why the Saudis or other exporters might do that, which makes suspicion of their data superficially plausible, at least. But if the US deludes itself and the world, it damages its own interests.

    Explanations very gratefully received here:

    http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/11/10/di...
  • cougar_w
    Very simple really.

    US oil companies don't really want a reduction in consumer patterns, and feeling that there is a shortage in our near future would do that, perhaps even leave them with excess inventory with little market. The oil giants want to run out the clock and burn every barrel of oil at huge profits against growing demand, and then probably go on government life-support for a few decades while they dither over "what to do oh my", and then turn off the lights as rich men.
  • I witnessed the IEA unveil their 2007 forecast here in Washington at a prominent think tank. I couldn't help notice the stench of fear and confusion in the room from a group of former energy industry executives and top bureaucrats, people not often prone to self-doubt. They seemed utterly without answers or insight, and what was more strange, they seemed willing to admit it.

    The jist of the presentation was "Supply will be limited. India, China and the rest of the developing economies will suck up all of the growth in supply and much, much more. Renewables will be insignificant. And Asia will power their cities with coal, making our forecasts for carbon emissions absolutely unmentionable. I'd like a double bourbon, no ice, keep 'em coming."

    The kicker: "Please call your Congressman to get them to pay attention to this conundrum." As if the guy from the ninth district of Kansas is going to magically understand this better than the most experienced technocrats in the world.

    You could tell that there was something amiss, something they simply couldn't say. These men somehow feel responsible for keeping the whole world going as it is, and they are embarrassed to let people know that their current lifestyle is being supported by a historically unusual circumstance regarding energy. To paraphrase Kunstler, history and reality do not care how you feel about this, so it is in all of our best interests to move quickly toward honesty.

    I have a feeling that such honesty will come much more from blogs like this one than from major agencies or newspapers. Such is the state of institutions in 2009.
  • UnlikelyMoniker
    Given the IOCs' intense resistance to any suggestion of geological constraints on reserves growth, I think that a large part of the cui bono question is easy to guess at.

    But what about the end users of IEA data and advice? To what extent, if any, have Governments like the UK been discounting the degree of exaggeration in WEO and other reports when setting their energy policy?

    Assuming that the hand on the IEA's remote control was indeed the US's, surely a government that was allegedly close to the US administration, such as the UK, would have private access to the IEA’s "real" knowledge and opinions. If it was not, what is the point of having a “special relationship”?

    But even if the UK was in on the game, what could it do about it? If it set its energy policies according to the ‘real’ data, its actions would have made it plain that it regarded the IEA’s public data as bogus.

    But if the UK set its energy policies in line with the IEA’s public position, it was being either very gullible or prepared to screw itself handsomely (by not preparing sufficiently), purely in order not to rock the Anglo-US loveboat.

    Everything about the UK’s economic, foreign and energy policy says we did the latter. If so, what were we promised in return? That Uncle Sam would pull us out of the economic/energy hole we were digging for ourselves? And with what? Iraqi oil?
  • gregor.us
    Nicely put, and nicely written. Thankyou.

    G
  • katemackenzie
    Thanks for the link Gregor; we are taking questions for Fatih Birol up to midday GMT on Thursday (not Wednesday) - so there are still a few hours left.
  • gregor.us
    Thanks Kate. Post is now updated to reflect correct Question Time(s).

    G
  • PCJ
    Gregor,
    Good post as usual. These revelations about IEA are not surprising. Did anybody really think that we could crank up to 100 million barrels a day and stay there? It seems to me that the oil problem is coming into view in such a way as to require more and more effort NOT to see.

    Here is my take on “oil and economics.”

    For what it is worth (not much in my opinion) I have a PhD in economics. My bottom line is that “regime change” is the most succinct way to put in words the nature of the problem. By this I mean: we face a change of energy regime from one in which the marginal cost of oil is falling to one in which it is rising. This change is of immense consequences.

    Here is my take (in which I try to be lighthearted about serious matters).
    http://oilandeconomics.blogspot.com/2009/10/oil...
    P. Johnston
  • moegamble
    How would it help 1st class to alert steerage that the Titanic was going down?
  • gregor.us
    Ha! What a line! Very well done.

    G
  • lionelbadal
    The Guardian strikes again!

    Let's see how the IEA reacts... but their reputation is now seriously tarnished. (Great post by the way)


    Oil: future world shortages are being drastically underplayed, say experts

    • Swedish academics slate IEA's report as 'political document' for countries with vested interest in low prices
    • Oil production 'likely to be 75m barrels a day rather than 105m'

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/12/...

    A leading academic institute has urged European governments to review global oil supplies for themselves because of the "politicisation" of the International Energy Agency's figures.

    Uppsala University in Sweden today published a scathing assessment of the IEA's annual World Energy Outlook, saying some assumptions drastically underplayed the scale of future oil shortages.

    Kjell Aleklett, professor of physics at Uppsala and co-author of a new report "The Peak of the Oil Age", claims oil production is more likely to be 75m barrels a day by 2030 than the "unrealistic" 105m used by the IEA in its recently published World Energy Outlook 2009. The academic, who runs a Global Energy unit at Uppsala, described the IEA's report as a "political document" developed for consuming countries with a vested interest in low prices.

    Aleklett, whose latest work was funded by the state-owned Swedish Energy Agency, said he had experience of similar internal worries about the IEA.

    "The Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) gave me the task of writing the report, Peak Oil and the Evolving Strategies of Oil Importing and Exporting Countries. This report was one of those discussed at a round-table meeting that was held in the IEA's conference room in Paris. At that opportunity, in November 2007, I had a number of private conversations with officers of the IEA. The revelations now reported in the Guardian were revealed to me then under the promise that I not name the source. I had earlier heard the same thing from another officer from Norway who, at the time he spoke of the pressure being applied by the USA, was working for the IEA."
blog comments powered by Disqus