Multiple sources have Saudi oil under serious threat (such as this opus, Depletion Levels in Ghawar), with serious concerns about the potential collapse of Saudi production.  EIA seems oblivious to this potential.  A comment from a former EIA employee, who is often supportive of the organization and who is not a big believer in Peak Oil:

"here's a huge problem with the EIA forecast: a projection of Saudi output in 2030 16.4 million barrels per day, up from 8.9 million barrels per day in 2010.  Although EIA has been lowering Saudi output projections for several years now (EIA used to forecast Saudi output at 22.5 million barrels per day in 2025!), this still appears WAY too optimistic, even if you don't buy into the "peak oil"/"Twilight in the Desert" school of thought.  The problem is, if the Saudis can't increase oil output as EIA assumes (and note that this IS a modeling assumption, nothing more), we're in big trouble."

In the face of every mounting predictions / warnings of Peak Oil, EIA is telling our political leadership that:

World liquids consumption in the IEO2007 reference case increases from 83 million barrels per day in 2004 to 118 million barrels per day in 2030.

Of that 35 million barrels/day (mbd) increase, roughly 10 million barrels s to come from "unconventional liquids" (oil sands, ultra-heavy crudes, biofuels, coal-to-liquids).

Continuing the fantasy, the "worst" (high oil price) case has oil up to $100 barrel in 2030, roughly a 50% increase from today and, in real terms, just 25% above 1980's level. For those concerned about peak oil, that is a rosy scenario.

And, well, production shows a linear increase, showing no sign of having problems keeping up with demand. Again, even in the face of growing evidence of Peak Oil.  (Note, it is interesting that the chapter on oil does not even have the words "Peak Oil". I guess that if you don't talk about something, it simply does not exist.)

Well, let's turn to another 'if you don't talk about it issue. Finally, EIA ignores An Inconvenient Truth with projections of carbon dioxide emissions growing from 25 billion metric tons/globally/year to 43 billion metric tons. This might be the case and, if so, that would mean that the world threw in the towel in attempting to do anything in regards to Global Warming.

Now, to be honest, the problem here is somewhat different. EIA is basically following Business as Usual (BAU) analysis. It would be inappropriate for them to put as the core case that the United States (and world) undertakes a revolution when it comes to GHG emissions and fossil fuel use. But, they lay out a rather distressing indication of where things are heading in terms of pumping out CO2. BAU ... will kill us. We can't afford to be stupid anymore is my reaction to this graphic. But, that is my reaction to the EIA forecast. We can't afford to be stupid anymore and this sort of forecasting, simply assuming that the energy will be there -- at an affordable price -- is stupid. As per Lou Grinzo at The Cost of Energy,

I've made no secret of my love/hate relationship with the DOE/EIA. For historical data they're indispensable, as they do a phenomenal job of organizing and presenting a medium-size mountain of data. But their projections? Not so much.

Well said, Lou, well said.

Cross-posted from Ecotality.