This site shows daily changes in the tanker index, but doesn't provide dollar rate or historic data. I just tried a quick search and couldn't find one that did.

http://www.lloydslist.com/

The comment that tanker rates are set to plunge seems accurate (see below), but doesn't provide any insight into oil depletion. We already know that exports haven't increased, so one would expect tanker rates to drop, regardless of whether the cause was limited supply or reduced demand.

Tanker Rates May Drop for Third Year, Hurting Frontline, OSG
2007-01-05 05:16 (New York)

By Alaric Nightingale
Jan. 5 (Bloomberg) -- The cost of transporting oil on
supertankers may fall for a third consecutive year as crude
shipments ease and new vessels are launched, prompting owners to
sell ships as scrap metal or adapt them for other uses.
Companies including Frontline Ltd. and Overseas Shipholding
Group Inc. may earn about $43,000 a day for hauling 2-million-
barrel cargoes on the benchmark 40-day round trip between the
Middle East and Japan during 2007, according to the median
estimate of 10 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. Earnings averaged
$59,250 a day last year.
``We are looking at a year of high vessel deliveries and
softer trading conditions than typically prevailed over the past
three years,'' said Mark Jenkins, a senior analyst in London for
Simpson, Spence & Young Ltd., the world's largest closely held
shipbroker. ``That's likely to result in some owners of older
ships finally accepting that it's time to cash in their chips.''
Earnings for Hamilton, Bermuda-based Frontline, whose fleet
has the world's biggest carrying capacity, and Overseas
Shipholding are being squeezed by an expansion in the global
tanker fleet and a drop in Middle East exports. Since November,
OPEC has pledged to cut crude supplies by 1.7 million barrels a
day. Next year, 35 supertankers enter service, more than double
this year's additions.

$40,000 a Day

Owners probably will earn $40,000 a day from their
supertankers in the first quarter on the Middle East-Asia
voyage, according to the median estimate of nine of the
analysts. That compares with $71,910 last year, according to
London-based shipbroker Galbraith's Ltd.
The very large crude carriers, or VLCCs, that will either
head for conversion yards or be broken up for scrap are likely
to be those with one layer of steel separating their cargo tanks
from the ocean. Single-hull vessels, due to be banned by the
United Nations from 2010, usually earn less and are a higher
risk to the environment than those with two hulls.
Frontline's profit fell 19 percent to $381 million in the
nine months to September as a glut of vessels reduced hire
rates. Earnings at New York-based Overseas Shipholding, the
biggest U.S.-based tanker owner, dropped almost 21 percent to
$279.4 million. Frontline said fourth-quarter performance would
be even ``weaker'' as reduced OPEC shipments cut vessel demand.
Hire rates for VLCCs dipped below Frontline's stated break-
even levels at one stage in the fourth quarter. Profit from the
company's single-hull tankers probably was hit even harder,
earning about $10,000 a day less than double hulls, Chief
Executive Officer Bjorn Sjaastad said in November.
Just as earnings for the vessels declines, a rally in crude
prices is presenting owners with other, more profitable ways of
employing them.

Baltic Dry is the standard. Perhaps u can get a friendly tanker link from one of the sites that cover it.

http://www.slate.com/id/2090303/
http://investmenttools.com/futures/bdi_baltic_dry_index.htm

In the meantime, here's a historic view compliments of iea:

http://trendlines.ca/energy.htm#misc

I would say one thing that would be very important when analyzing future SA rates is that only looking at C+C needs to stop. They have major GTL projects, as well as huge additional refinery capacity coming online in coming years (ie they will be exporting less crude and more refined products).

The refinery capacity that they are adding makes it sound like they are much more optimistic about their future production than many around here.

"At what contract price (not spot) would u agree that your hunch and position is in error ... and we'll wait and see?"

That depends on the psychology of the market participants.

"Last autumn, i was almost alone in forecasting'

Lets all give fast freddy a round of applause and a pat on the back of the head he so desperately needz.

Freddy

First, this site is mostly interested in po, not peak prices. Regarding the latter, you predicted low prices because your lot predicted record production. In the event, production plateaud but we had another warm winter, and it is weather related demand destruction, not price, that is the real reason prices have not gone back up even tho storage is down to last year's. THere is absolutely no indication that the major consuming nations are cutting back on account of price. Regarding po, your consensus projections' predictions for 06 were for significantly higher produciton than 05, and there was no recession even as avg price hit a nominal record for any year... so, your continued hopes for higher production in future years should have a logical explanation for last year's miss, otherwise you should join peak now.

Second, I posted the following reply to a comment you made a week ago... the new format lets me see my comments, but not whether they generated responses, so maybe you can't see it:

As I told wt, no month will be remembered as a peak, just as no q will be. What is important is the peak year; the interesting points are a) that a great 3q was not able to bring 06 above 05, and b) that 4q dropped back quickly, indicating that 3q production level is not likely to continue.

Your comparing the 1999/02 plateau with the current one is like apples and oranges... then, the US, japan, and parts of europe were in recession, and prices were low. The current plateau is happening with good gdp growth and record prices. Everybody, not least sa, is producing balls out. Not one barrel was left behind last year on account of low prices or demand destruction, excluding only the modest cutback by opec nov/dec. In spite of this, all of your contributors, including colin, over predicted 06 production, and by a lot... what, indeed, was their consensus for 06 production? This is a serious question, and one which you could answer if you are willing to... but, I don't really expect an answer as it would undermine your position.

Meanwhile, stuart and his plateau was right on, and wt was not far behind. Something seems to have gone awry with your consensus, given that nominal 06 prices were at a record high. What might have happened?

THe peak oil now (pon) crowd thinks major producers are declining at a much higher rate than your lot expected. north sea, sa, mexico, us gulf, china? (certainly daqing, but anyway a bit murky there), etc. us historical decline data does not work for the rest of the world because of the high tech, eg horizontal, is allowing fields to be produced at a higher rate at the end of their life, naturally leading to very rapid decline rates. Old on shore fields are being produced exactly as off shore fields are, and will therefore have similar decline rates. This certainly appllies to nearly all sa fields, not least ghawar, and probably iran/q8 as well (the latter may anyway have to reduce production on account of parliament wishing to limit produciton to 2% of actual, as opposed to imanginary, reserves.)

A reason mentioned by a few is equipment. Your fav IEA says there will be no problem "as long as the necessary investments are made." IEA probably meant financial. But, what if what is necessary exceeds the world's available rigs? SA is increasing rigs as fast as they can, which is already slashing us gom ng production. And, while sa produciton is no doubt higher now that they have 60 rigs than what it would be if they has stayed with 18, production is nevertheless declining fairly rapidly.

Colin, thrice bit mostly on account of deep offshore in s. atlantic basin, is naturally a little shy. IMO he is looking for ngl production to come on line faster than is likely.

How long wiil we manage to cling to the plateau? How long will new fields (none in sa) manage to make up for accelerating decline and equipment delays? We'll just have to wait and see. Your conviction that production will soon revert to an upward climb should explain why 06/05 was flat. You have been turning Economics 101 on its head; economists normally claim that high prices lead to higher supply in a free market, not that high prices lead to lower or stagnant supply.

BTW, how interesting that it is all happening at once. US ng peaks in 01, canadian ng in 02, world oil in 05/6, the us now inporting coal as GB and western europe desperately looks to import oil and gas... We live in interesting times. Lets hope for more warm winters, which is the real demand destruction these days, not price. Consider that high ng last year boosted fuel oil demand, missing this year...

usa centric oil volatility with Price in black on LS axis & % in red on RS axis: