Apologies, HO. I'm always spoiling your threads. Oil is my thing, I'm trying to get myself up to speed on Gas.

As a sidelight - we need a second auto thread round about the time HO posts. It's about time, Folks. We don't need an editor. Just an autothread/openthread.

Anyway, I'm just posting here because I'm sure JEROME will see it.

Jerome, excellent work, as always. Not going to get into the debate you got going here with HO and others.

I'm just concerned with numbers you posted in your Thursday DKos file. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/7/81746/22730

I left the last comment there yesterday morning.

I was hoping that when I clicked on the Energy Bulletin Link I would get some stuff from Simmons International. Instead I got a very small editorial from Matt and an addendum from Peak Oil Review.

Can somebody tell me exactly what "Peak Oil Review" is and who their "Editors" are? Clicking on the link leads to an ASPO page.

Because, Jerome, the numbers and the tables you produced are from these people. I'm not saying they are wrong. I'm saying the whole deal is highly misleading.

Somebody produced a table from BP numbers and attempted to draw some pretty large conclusions from the cherry-picked results. Simmons' words as an introduction are also extremely vague.

I have produced numbers regarding imports/consumption/exports here in the past that are by far more detailed than what we see in this Peak Oil Review table. I am currently working on an even far more detailed, up-to-date, and extensive review. It was sad to see Simmons say in his second sentence of the article you referenced that,"I have not have had to check..." Maybe he needs an editor.

I also find it odd that Energy Bulletin is publishing a piece with Simmons in one half disparaging BP and in the second half all the data supporting claims is from BP.

I fail to see how China, Gabon, Uzbekistan, Syria, and (especially)Cameroon belong anywhere near these tables. These inclusions should have raised some alarm bells.

Typo, Simmons said...

At the end of August each year, the IEA updates the past 15 years' reports with all the latest revisions. I have not had time to check and see how big any revisions have been.
I'll be happy to see your numbers when you have them and, if appropriate, post the appropriate correction on ET if anything I posted based in Simmons' article is false or misleading.

But I think that the numbers I focused on, and the conclusions drawn, should stand, i.e. that the biggest oil producers, and in particular those wit hte ability to increase production, are also substantially increasing their internal consumption, thus eating in their additiona lexport capacity, while those that are in decline are also seeing storng demand growth, thus compounding the need for more substitute exports).

Basically, demand growth is very strong, especially since the decline in the FSU stopped.

You got it. Thanks for responding. I'll be sending you something in next few days. I'm adding the Simmons/POR numbers to my database right now. There are some huge differences from EIA numbers as far as ordering and(I think)overall significance.

And again, I'm not calling anybody wrong here. I'm trying to practice Love. But there are most definitely different ways of looking at numbers.

I would urge you to take a look at the case of Equitorial New Guinea and place it on your top/bottom 20 list.

Keep up the good work,
OilCEO a Boston

Jerome,

I took the EIA 2004 list of top 10 net oil exporters (total liquids) and compared their 6/06 production to their 12/05 production (EIA crude + condensate).   For consumption, I guesstimated that their 2006 crude + condensate consumption was probably about the same as their 2004 total liquids consumption (Arab producing countries showed about a 5% increase in oil consumption in 2005 versus 2004).  

In any case, that exercise led to an estimated annual decline rate of 9.2% in net crude + condensate exports (based on 12/05 to 6/06 data) from the top 10 net oil exporters.  

IMO, we are in the calm before another round of bdding for declining net oil exports.  

Two questions:  (1) Do you agree with the "calm before the storm" premise regarding net exports and (2)  Do you foresee falling, stable or increasing oil production in Russia a year from now (relative to current production)?

BTW, I think that we are seeing a developing campaign worldwide to blame declining oil production on mismanagment of oil reseves by national oil companies (NOC's), e.g., Saudi Aramco.  

To some extent this might be true, but I think that it is a rounding error.  Once the big fields roll over and go downhill, in most cases all better technology can do is to slow the rate of decline.  I believe that this line of reasoning--NOC's are to blame for falling production--will be used to justify military takeovers of oil exporters.

Jeffrey J. Brown

Oil CEO,

'Peak Oil Review' is in fact published by ASPO-USA. The editor is Tom Whittle, whose articles on peak oil in the Falls Church News-Press are often republished in the Energy Bulletin.

Much appreciated. Thank You.
Tom Whittle?

Tom Whipple twhipple(a)erols.com

I also find it odd that Energy Bulletin is publishing a piece with Simmons in one half disparaging BP and in the second half all the data supporting claims is from BP.

While we're on the topic, i.e. off-topic:

The only good reason for disparaging BP is that they have in the past been overly conservative in their reserve estimates  -- they almost got as much stick from Odell et.al. as did Colin Campbell for initially predicting the peak to occur in 1989 (or thereabouts).

This is all very well explained in an excellent article by Roger Bentley titled 'Global Oil and Gas Depletion', which you will find here (PDF file).

Perhaps it is partly because they tend to rely on BP's definition that peak oil forecasters err by paying too little attention to the magnitude of the yet-to-find fraction. As everybody probably knows, BP defines 'proved reserves' as follows:

Proved reserves of oil- Generally taken to be those quantities that geological and engineering information indicates with reasonable certainty can be recovered in thefuture from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions. [my italics]

known reservoirs? No wonder peak oil analysts find it so difficult to accommodate discoveries such as Chevron's recent GOM mini-elephant.

Apologies for reinventing the wheel.