Cullen admits green is better than red
Continuing from yesterday’s parliamentary question about government’s ability to accurately predict oil prices, Jeanette asked another series of questions in the house today. She asked the Minister if there was any government department that had got the oil price trend right, given his statement yesterday that “there is a very, very high probability that any forecasts are likely to be wrong in this area?”
I hope the Minister had been warned by his staff, as the answer was in Jeanette’s article in this morning’s Independent Financial Review. It seems the Ministry for Economic Development does have a ‘minority’ forecast based on peak oil predictions, and its trend matches the real trend in oil prices almost perfectly.
MED’s ‘mainstream forecast is shown in red, the ‘minority’ forecast in green and actual prices are shown in black. The trend-line for actual prices runs across all of them. It’s uncanny how accurate the minority predictions are, considering they’re from 2005. Even the Minister of Finance was left admitting the green line did appear to be doing better than the red line.
November 14th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Wow, the 5th post today and still nothing about the terror story which has dominated the news. Have you no shame?
November 14th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Actually, Nick, because the end of cheap oil is much more important for both New Zealand and the world than a few people running around playing pretend war games in the bush and having a mobile phone conversation about who they might like to see assassinated.
But if you want my comment on the terror story, it is that I hope the Police make all efforts possible to identify the person, who could well be one of their own, who has defied the Courts by releasing inadmissible evidence to the media and jeopardised the right of people already accused of offences to receive a fair trial, and if they do identify that person, prosecute him or her. Perverting the course of justice strikes at the heart of democracy, much more than a few people running around in the bush with firearms and telling bravado stories over the phone to their mates about blowing things up or shooting people. From what I’ve read of what has been illegally disclosed, no-one had formed any actual plan to do anything violent.
November 14th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
intriguing frog, intriguing. So who produced the “minority prediction”? Is this like a minority report in select committee where one person disagrees with the group but they publish their viewpoint?
Or is this just an alternative scenario, in which case why label it as “minority” why not just scenario A and scenario B. Isn’t calling them “mainstream” and “minority” a bit biased?
November 14th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
MAybe toad, but are 5 quotes from Bob Clarkson? We have had a massive 8 posts today, not a single one on the issue that everybody else is talking about: The terrorism evidence. Why is this?
November 14th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Answered you on another thread, Nick.
Because the evidence is suppressed by Court process.
Can’t talk about it here. Get it! Unlike the Dom-Post, the Press, the Waikato Times, and TV3, the Green Party actually respects judicial process.
The accused deserve a fair trial, without inadmissible evidence being published by the media after being leaked by someone in the Police or Crown Law Office.
This is a very sad day indeed for justice in this country.
November 14th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Toad
Please do not suggest that the trial will be about Justice, if we were after justice then all the evidence gathered would be admissible.
Our legal system has nothing to do with justice, if it did then these people would be locked up for a very long time.
November 14th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Hey Stuey. I wrote ‘minority opinion’ becasue that’s how it’s treated in the mainstream press, and yes, in select committees and yes, in silly movies starring Tom Cruise. The Energy Outlook from MED and the NewZealand Energy Strategy both refer to it as the ‘peak oil’ perspective. (Like we’re seeing things a bit differently.)
November 14th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Is this graph what they really predicted?
Did they really predict that the price would keep rising until US$120/barrel, and then stay there?
And not rise any higher?
November 14th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
BB said: …if we were after justice then all the evidence gathered would be admissible.
So should the past sexual history of Shipton, Schollum and Rickards (two of whom were already conviceted rapists) been admitted in the Louise Nicholas trial BB?
November 15th, 2007 at 3:05 am
kahikatea, The answers to your questions are yes, yes, and yes (actually they forecast a drop to $75 by 2020).
The PDF “Workshop: Assumptions and Scenarios for the New Zealand Energy Outlook”
http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/27057/oil-prices.pdf
explains, briefly and simply, why they chose to have two forecasts and what assumptions they used for the price drop.
‘Oil Price Assumptions for Energy Outlook - Discussion Paper’
http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/20755/oil-price.pdf
provides this more precise explanation:
“Specifically, we propose assuming in the high price case that oil prices continue to rise steadily to average US$80 per barrel in 2008, before jumping after the peak to US$100 per barrel in 2009, and then US$120 per barrel in 2010 at which level it would stay until 2015. After 2015, it declines steadily to US$75 per barrel in 2020, remaining at that level for the rest of the outlook period. Note that we are assuming that only conventional oil production peaks in 2008. This case is, therefore, not consistent with the more extreme versions of the peak oil perspective, which would have all oil production peaking in the next few years. This
is highly speculative of course, but the argument for the decline after 2015 is that, given adequate lead times for R&D and investment, there should be opportunities to produce alternative liquid fuels for US$75/barrel.”
November 15th, 2007 at 6:00 am
http://www.gulfnews.com/business/Oil_and_Gas/10167372.html
November 15th, 2007 at 6:05 am
Any prediction of future oil prices in US $ is meaningless, as the price will not in the future, be set in US$.
Any prediction of the price has to also encompass the demand destruction that goes with the rising prices and I would be astonished if there were not some fairly wild swings and roundabouts as the price per barrel approaches parity with an ounce of gold.
Big refineries will have to close towards the end of the oil age, there won’t be enough feedstock to keep the processes running.
There are some very UNpleasant times ahead for the world.
respectfully
BJ
November 15th, 2007 at 7:03 am
Toad
If I was to post my true feelings about the merits of Louise Nicholas it would not pass the censor, and before I am hammered by the PC brigade I am not suggesting for one minute that Schollum and Shipton are good men, clearly they are not.
November 15th, 2007 at 7:14 am
Slightly off topic I know but why is Cullen spared the anger of the Greens (and Russel in particular) given his naked dislike of the party.
You only have to watch question time to see Cullen’s sarcastic and flippant replies to points of order or questions raised or asked by the Greens.
The Nat’s and John Key hardly ever attack the Greens yet one could be forgiven for thinking that this is a Labour party site rather than a place to discuss Green party policy.
Perhaps this demonstrates Russel’s true political leanings which seem to be more Red than Green
November 15th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Those graphs were interesting. Thanks for posting them.
Off topic: Is it possible for people to stick to the topic of each thread? I know discussion can wander off track slowly, but court cases, who hates who in parliament, and the “sexual history of Shipton, Schollum and Rickards ” has nothing to do with the projected price of oil. Perhaps there could be a “miscellaneous” thread, where off topic posts get moved to by the moderator?
November 15th, 2007 at 9:22 am
“Because the evidence is suppressed by Court process.”
Then how about a thread about how you think The Dom Post should not have published the evidence. Besides, whats the point in trying to cencor it when everyone has a copy sitting in front of them anyway?
That’s just a lame excuse. This is very embarasing for the greens so you are deliberatly ignoring it.
November 15th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Come on, Nick. Fair’s fair. Keith Locke has put out two media releases this week, on Monday and Wednesday, re this topic.
Incidentally, (on this thread) that’s only one less than National Party MP Bob Clarkson has managed on any topic all year.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
An indepth look at the MED’s oily assumptions vs. reality is available at http://greens.org.nz/campaigns/peakoil/OilOutlooks.pdf