The IEA regularly revises supply figures downwards after a couple of months. Then they say in the blurb at the front of the OMR that production "increased" by x kbd, but when you do the math the increase is negative. Must be all that wine they drink at lunch time in Paris.

The latest month really is just an estimate, estimated on the high side in the hope that when it is corrected downwards a couple of months later that no one will notice.

They also include heavy oil from Orinoco and Alberta as well as biofuels in that 85.5mbpd. I strip out Orinoco (600kbd), Alberta (1mbpd) and the biofuels (340kbpd). That's nearly 2mbpd! 1940kbpd to be exact.

So total production for Feb 07 is not 85.5mbpd, it's 83.6mbpd which is for all intents and purposes the same as it has been since Q3 2004. Hidden within that of course are the situations in Saudi that Stuart and Euan have described so well, Mexico etc etc.

I have a question for anybody who still in the thread. I have heard over the months that sometimes oil producing countries buy crude from other countries to fulfill contracts if they cannot do so themselves. For instance I have heard that Venezuela has done this and Saudi did it in respect of some bunker fuels. Does this stuff get counted twice?

Could there be a whole trade going on below the surface whereby oil is counted twice in the production numbers? If Saudi was intent on maintaining their swing status they could do so by being buyers and sellers.

Hi Saildog,

Thanks for your IEA explanation.

I'm looking for succint critiques of both IEA and EIA, if anyone can point me in the right direction? (Or, perhaps you might write more and post?)

re: your question. If no one answers, I'd suggest posing on a new thread. It's always good to get clarification.