The Oil Drum | IEA Monthly Report

52 comments on IEA Monthly Report

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Oil CEO on March 14, 2006 - 4:04pm

This graph is the sign of our times. I look at it as much as you do, Stuart, and I'm telling you, I see it going up.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Gets IT on March 14, 2006 - 4:30pm

Maybe this could bring a new peak, however the secondary channel appears to be showing the beginnings of a not yet significantly powerful downward trend. In other words, the jury's still out. Wait for a double top to confirm.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

louGrinzo on March 14, 2006 - 5:23pm

Measuring by eyeball, I see a very slight increase, as well.

The real issue is not the last 15 or so months, but the next 12 to 24. If we stay on the bumpy plateau through most of that period we'll still see rising oil prices as demand is ever-more constrained by supply. And there will surely be additional mini-shocks created by political upheavals and natural disasters, even if Bush doesn't invade Iran.

I doubt we'll see an appreciable increase--I'm guessing no more than another 2 or 3 mb/d. My hope is that we tread water at about the current production level long enough to make significant improvements in our consumption patterns and overall non-renewable energy efficiency.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Cherenkov on March 14, 2006 - 5:41pm

I see the Burgan -- peaked. I see the Ghawar -- peaked within a year.

I see Russian--peaked next year. I see Cantrell declining faster than anticipated.

I see optimists pointing at the naked king.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

peakearl on March 14, 2006 - 8:56pm

I don't see it going up. First, you have to mentally block the blue (preliminary estimates) line. It is distracting and so consistently excessively high (and wrong) that it misleads the eye. I would like to the see graph without that line also.

There is of course a climb due solely to the recovery of the hurricane damaged fields, which accounts for over a million bpd. If you look at the specific numbers from different areas, however, OPEC is decreasing and specifically Saudi is declining every month. This is even before loss from Cantarell has even started to really register.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Stuart Staniford on March 14, 2006 - 10:28pm

Here's the graph without the blue line, only since October 2004 till present (ie the alleged bumpy plateau) and with linear trendlines added. Any net trend is less than the differences between the two data sources and therefore not to be relied on.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

peakearl on March 14, 2006 - 11:38pm

Gee, thanks Stuart. Didn't really expect this, but I apppreciate it! I think it pretty well confirms that no trend other than a flat one can be interpreted for the moment. Also worth keeping in mind that Feb should end up about the same as Jan., which would continue or increase the (nonsignificant) IEA downtrend.

I agree with those who say too soon for conclusions but very intriguing.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Fletcher on March 15, 2006 - 12:15am

Thanks as always, Stuart, for these intriguing graphs. Earlier this month you provided a nine month moving average that was almost flat. Is the moving average still going up? Albeit slightly?

Just out of curiosity, what is a sufficient amount of time to identify a convincing flat trend? These graphs indicate seventeen months of no growth in production. Obviously no one can conclusively say what tomorrow will bring.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Stuart Staniford on March 15, 2006 - 1:36am

I'm not in a position to update that moving average yet, since that was based on averaging the IEA and EIA lines together, and so I need to wait till EIA catches up another month (probably in the first few days of April).

As to "Just out of curiosity, what is a sufficient amount of time to identify a convincing flat trend?". I think it all depends who you are talking to. I think probably there'll have to be at least several years of downward movement in production numbers before sceptics would be silenced. At this point, we can't convincingly rule out some further upward movement, though I'd personally be surprised if it were more than a couple of mbpd (and even that much I would assess the balance of the evidence as against it).

I doubt the plateau will be very long (since it requires large opposing but balanced forces to maintain it). Either some strong source of increasing production will enter the picture and we'll resume going up, or before too long the decline rate will start to overwhelm the increasingly tired existing sources of production. I wouldn't give the plateau more than another couple of years at the outside - probably less.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.