First, the top four net oil exporters are farther down the deletion curve than the world is overall.  

Second, back to my Export Land Model:

Let's assume a country with production of 2.0 mbpd; consumption of 1.0 mbpd and exports of 1.0 mbpd.  Over a six year period, production drops by about 25%, down to 1.5 mbpd (similar to the percentage decline in the North Sea).   Consumption increases by 10% to 1.1 mbpd.   So, because of a 25% drop in production and a 10% increase in consumption, the decrease in net exports is 60%.  Net exports = production (1.5)  - domestic consumption (1.1) = 0.4 mbpd.

Predictions:  (1)  production in the top exporting countries will fall faster than the decline in world oil production; (2)  increasing cash flows in the exporting countries will cause domestic consumption to increase even as production begins to stagnate and fall; (3)  as production in the top exporting countries falls rapidly, and as consumption increases, net exports tend to fall markedly.   For a while, the cash flow coming in may not fall that much, because of rapidly rising oil prices; however, the trend toward becoming a net importer from a net exporter will be relentless.  Two recent examples:  United Kingdom and Indonesia.

IMO, net oil export capacity is going to evaporate far faster than most of us anticipated.

In any case, the most recent four week running average of US crude oil imports and total net imports are down 4% and 8.7% respectively from the four week running average at the end of December.

You could augment my Export Land Model with Import Land Model.

Let's assume that Import Land produces 1.0 mbpd and consumes 2.0 mbpd.   Import Land imports 1.0 mbpd from Export Land.  

Let's fast forward six years.  Import Land's production has dropped by 10% to 0.90 mbpd.  Export Land's exports have fallen  from 1.0 mbpd to 0.4 mbpd.  

So, no matter how much Import Land would like to consume, the total available to Import Land is domestic production (0.9) + imports (0.4) = 1.3 mbpd, down 70% from six years ago when Import Land was consuming 2.0 mbpd--even though Import Land's production was only down 10% and Export Land's production was only down 25%.  

I guess one solution is for the Neocons in Import Land to invade Export Land, claiming that Export Land is a threat to Import Land.

Correction

So, no matter how much Import Land would like to consume, the total available to Import Land is domestic production (0.9) + imports (0.4) = 1.3 mbpd, down 35% from six years ago when Import Land was consuming 2.0 mbpd--even though Import Land's production was only down 10% and Export Land's production was only down 25%.  

If the Neocons in Import Land can't persuade (dupe) their citizens into invading Export Land, another logical reaction would be move from Import Land to Export Land.

I suspect that we are going to see this within the US and on a global basis as people move toward the energy supplies--roughly equivalent to trying to gather around  a camp fire on a cold night.   This will tend to aggravate the rate of increase in consumption in the energy exporting areas, thus accelerating the decline in net exports.  

Hello Westexas,

Absolutely right, the world's wealthy are buying into the modern mega-campfire of Dubai's skyscapers as fast as they can.  I am sure you have seen the astounding photos of rampant construction on every corner.  Of course, a new eruption of widespread ME war could turn these buildings in ruins rather quickly.  We'll see.

Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ  Are Humans Smater than Yeast?

I think that it would be really interesting to show some real life case histories of countries/regions that have gone from net exporters to net importers, i.e., plots showing production, consumption and net exports turning into net imports.  I am especially interested in the rate of decline in production versus the rate of decline in net exports.  

A really fascinating development is going to be on the natural gas side, especially here in the States.  I would think that you would want to move away from big natural gas importing areas at the ends of the distributions systems as fast as possible.  California comes to mind.  Note that this would increase consumption in the exporting areas, accelerating the decline in natural gas "exports" to the "importing" areas.

I wonder if we might see the Canadians construct a wall, to keep the Americans from migrating North?

On the oil side, an obvious problem is going to be the dollar.   The question that the oil exporters are going to start asking is what thing of value can you offer us in exchange for our oil, especially if the exporters have trouble exchanging dollars for hard assets.  They could always buy stock, but the question arises to what the inherent value is in the US stock market, especially if the currency is depreciating.  

The Neocons reasoning for putting 150,000 troops in the Middle East becomes more transparent every day.  Unfortunately, I wonder if we are rapidly approaching the point at which everyone in the neighborhood is going to be shooting at us.

What an amazing post. Thank you. Always something to think about.
The case study/history that fits your criteria and is also a big player in US machinations in the ME is England. They are also on the end of natgas distribution. And only missed bigtime economic shutdowns this past winter because the weather kept breaking warm. Thoughts?
UK is to Continental Europe as California is to North America.
This with rich people moving toward energy sources makes sense. If I were to hit the lotto, I'd move to Ft McMurray in Canada! Besides family not knowing about the place, they will be thinking I moved to any one of a bunch of resort towns around the Mediterranian where I served in the Navy. Talk about a diversion!

I'm sure any wealthy peaknik will move to all manner of oil-rich places depending on personality match. Of course, that will only run up consumption in those places - and exports drop quicker. I'm sure a lot of people on this site will want to move if possible to the Dubais and Ft McMurrays of the world.

What do you think life would be like in Fort McMurray? It's certainly nothing like Dubai. Proximity to energy resources does not necessarily translate into a high standard of living, especially where energy production can out-compete all other uses of resources.

Although Fort McMurray may appear to be awash in cash, the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (within which Fort McMurray is located) shows a very different picture of what is happening. With a population of 56,000 (which the industry predicts may soon reach 80,000), Fort McMurray has, as one municipal representative put it, the amenities of a town of only 10,000. Downtown Franklin Avenue is known across Canada as the "crystal meth" capital of Alberta....

....In the spring, the melting snow bares streets littered with all kinds of garbage. The mayor would like residents to take more pride in their community. There's the debauchery on Franklin Street, the overcrowded schools, the lack of land for proper housing developments, plus the need for a new fire station for the south end of the city and a new water treatment plant.......plus a lack of adequate policing simply because the RCMP cannot afford to subsidize its officers to pay the city's high cost of living....

....The Crown land owned by the province that surrounds the city has contributed to a serious housing shortage that's become a nightmare for home-buyers and a major headache for an industry desperate to lure a skilled workforce north. What's more, the local economy is badly skewed. Pipe-fitters, electricians, engineers and plumbers can easily earn $100,000 a year, and the average age is just over 30. but the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo and local businesses can't compete. In a province where the minimum wage is just $5.90 an hour, Tim Horton's offers its workers $10.25 an hour to serve doughnuts and coffee in Fort McMurray, and they still cannot find staff. Teachers, medical workers and municipal employees cannot be persuaded to stay in Fort McMurray at the wages the city can afford.

(From Fuelling Fortress America)

Hello westexas

I find your posts on net exports thrilling, as there is no doubt that the combination of increased domestic consumption and declines from countries that now are net exporters will have a significant impact on future oil prices.

Some time ago and based upon BP Statistical Review 2005 I did some evaluations and found that total global net exports amounted to 33-35 Mb/d (which of course equals the net imports of the importing countries). This is the amount of oil which might be considered to flow freely to the highest bidder.

A decline in Russia and Saudi Arabia combined with increased domestic consumptions would reduce this amount signficantly. Russian domestic consumption has yet to reach levels prior to the dismantling of the Soviet Union.

I also checked the cumulative import figures for US (EIA data) for the 15 weeks of Dec. 31 2004 to Apr. 08 2005 versus Dec. 30 2005 to Apr. 07 2006.

For crude oil the cumulative imports for 2005 was 1 057 Mb.
For crude oil the cumulative imports for 2006 was 1 033 Mb.

A year on year cumulative decrease of 23 Mb.

Refinery throughputs has been 500 kb/d below so far in 2006 compared to 2005.

US domestic production down 400 kb/d year on year.

Did the same for gasoline for the same periode (15 weeks) and came up with a year on year cumulative increase of 23 Mb.

In other words US total net imports of crude and gasoline is presently running close to last years figures.

So it is possibly a little early to cry out that the sky is falling.

As they say, lies, damn lies and statistics (especially my statistics).

IMO, we need to use December, 2005 as the reference datum, since Deffeyes put the 50% of Qt mark right at mid-December.  My reasoning is that the HL method has been validated in so many very large regions--in the sense that I have seen no evidence yet of a large producing region showing production higher than what they showed in the vicinity of 50% of Qt.  

Using four weeks in December as the reference datum, the most recent crude oil imports (four week running average) are down 4% and total net imports (four week running average) are down 8.7%.  Also, the big drop really didn't kick in until mid-March.  What I find odd is falling imports of crude oil and products as the markets are bidding up the price of crude oil and products.  

We are offering to pay the world more dollars for crude oil and refined products, but the supply of crude oil and refined products coming in is falling.   IMO, it suggests that we have only begun to see the price increases.  I suspect that $3 gasoline will soon be a fond memory.  BTW, I believe that the price of Brent crude is now higher than light, sweet here in the states.  Kind of suggests a bidding war doesn't it?

Jeff:

You're inferring trend out of the noise. There's usually a notch in imports in winter, early spring. Give it a few months and then see.

In particular, despite Deffeyes, HL to the extent it is valid has an uncertainty in the date of peak of several years either way.

Stuart,

You are of course correct that time will tell, but the same time period last year (12/31 to 4/8, four week running average) showed increases in both crude oil imports and total net imports, while that time period this year showed a 4% and 8.7% drop respectively.

 

same period from 11/04 to 4/05 was much much colder as well.
"(2)  increasing cash flows in the exporting countries will cause domestic consumption to increase even as production begins to stagnate and fall;"

That is an astute observation: obvious after you hear it, but not something I (or most of us?) would think of.