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