122 comments on The International Energy Assocation's Medium-Term Oil Market Report
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
122 comments on The International Energy Assocation's Medium-Term Oil Market Report
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- Medical Dark Matter
- Does it Make Sense to Move to a New Location because of Peak Oil?
- Men's Response to Shifting Roles after Peak Oil
TOD:Europe
- Offshore Wind taking off - some background on installation issues
- What difference would Nord Stream mean to European energy supply?
- Peak Fat
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- Meet Trev: A two-seater renewable energy vehicle
- The Bullroarer - Friday 5th February 2010
- The Bullroarer - Monday 1st February 2010
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“The infrastructure of suburbia can be described as the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world.”
—JH Kunstler
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Dave Murphy, Engineer-Poet, Glenn, Heading Out, Jason Bradford, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Nate Hagens, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:ANZ: aeldric, Big Gav, Phil Hart
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
Some points on the IEA Oil Market Report
Non-OPEC
Don’t know if this has been done to death already, but the report implies a decline in non-OPEC output if you exclude OPEC NGL (the IEA include this as non-OPEC since it’s not suhject to quota) and biofuels
IEA numbers (all here and below mm bbs/day) 2007 2012
Non-OPEC incl. biofuels, OPEC NGL 50.0 52.6
- OPEC NGL 4.9 7.1
- Biofuels 1.1 1.75
=Conventional Non-OPEC output 44.0 43.75
The IEA’s disclaimer is “A levelling off of non-OPEC conventional crude supply is notable, but is inconclusive as evidence for an imminent oil supply peak” and they also point out that the definition of ‘conventional oil’ does change over time, but even so this their numbers are very suggestive.
OPEC
Again, not sure if this has been done to death also, but the OPEC projections are interesting for a couple of different reasons
Firstly, the very high dependence of their projects on Saudi capacity expansion with low depletion rates
2007 2012
IEA Projected Crude Capacity for OPEC 34.4 38.4
Increase +4.0
o/w Saudi +1.8
o/w UAE +0.5
o/w Angola +0.5
o/w Kuwait +0.4
o/w Nigeria +0.4
Analyzing the Saudi net increase of 1.8m bbl between 2007 and 2012 we see that it compares to the known project sizes as follows
Saudi net increase +1.8
o/w Khursaniyah +0.5
o/w Shaybah +0.25
o/w Khurais +1.2
o/w Manifa +0.9
o/w Nuayyim +0.1
Total gross expansion projects +2.95
(note the IEA explicitly include Manifa, which is somewhat controversial!)
Total implied depletion/writedown between 2007-2012 -1.15m bbls
As % of claimed Saudi current capacity (10.8mm bbls) 10.6%
Implied % decrease over 5 years 2007-2012 2.1%
(NB: Natural gas to liquid projects are not included in any of the production or projects listed above, since under IEA methodology they are included with Non-OPEC production since are not subject to quotas)
Note that Khurais and Manifa, the two Saudi megaprojects account for more than 50% of the IEA’s global projected capacity increase between 2007 and 2012!
This analysis, although using slightly different numbers to ace’s analysis in this thread, comes to pretty much the same conclusion, that the IEA’s net capacity numbers, the gross capacity numbers published by Saudi Aramco, and the IEA’s claim that they’re using a decline rate for (presumably all of) OPEC of 3.2% do not add up.
Furthermore, we can see the extreme importance of the Khurais, Manifa and (to a lesser extent) Khuransiyah to making the IEA’s numbers add up.
The second point that is interesting is that the IEA assumes (they have no choice really I guess) that the current Saudi capacity is 10.7m bbls/day and this is the basis for their future projections. I don’t know anyone who believes that Saudi capacity is this high and I think there are signs the IEA don’t (comments by both Fatah Birol and Claude Mandil mentioned previously on TOD). What other assumption could we make for Saudi capacity given the complete lack of transparency?
1) We could assume that their capacity is at most the highest production rate that they have pumped in the last 3 years – on the basis that anything which hasn’t pumped in 3 years is probably dead – this is 9.6m bbls/day
2) We could assume that their effective, sensible, non-surge capacity is what they’re pumping now, since we are at near-record prices for crude oil and they haven’t uttered a squeak about supplying more – this is 8.55m bbls/day
Taking the average of these two numbers gives 9.1m bbls/day – ie ‘writing off 1.6mm bbls/day of claimed Saudi capacity
2007 2012
IEA estimated total OPEC Capacity 34.4 38.4
o/w Saudi Arabia 10.7 12.6
- 1.6 mmbbls/day ‘writeoff’ -1.6 -1.6
Adjusted estimate total OPEC Capacity 32.8 36.8
IEA estimated ‘call on OPEC’ 36.2
Given that oil consumption (and hence call on OPEC) varies seasonally this would mean that the world would be running at absolutely flat-out capacity in Q1 and Q4 2012.
My overall conclusion is that this IEA report is a very high quality piece of work, I’m more and more impressed the more I delve into it, and I read economic and financial research for a living. Also that the IEA is calling for help as loudly as it possibly can. Bear in mind that the IEA’s mandate is business-as-usual. They simply cannot say ‘we’re all stuffed and we may as well go home’. And it’s not really their job to propose solutions either – so I think the balance they’ve struck in this report – making the problem very clear but not panicking – is entirely the one they ‘should’ be striking.
P.S. I can’t help but wonder if this report wasn’t made public immediately (which it shouldn’t have been) as a deliberate ploy (or possibly a thank-you to TOD ☺ )
Cuchulainn
WT ELM model pushes your 2012 projection up quite a bit into 2009-2010 time frame but the fact that we are seeing converging projects is encouraging. Inclusion of above ground factors as I'm sugessting ensures a 2009-2010 problem period.
I think if you simply take your bottom up and add exportland and use HL for depletion rates you will get the same answer.
The problem with this bottom up approach is the depletion rate have almost no support for their values.
Thanks for the feedback.
I knew I'd missed the audience by posting this late in the thread! But still, I think that it takes time to digest the IEA report -there's alot of reading there.
To reply to your points though - I'm not making forecasts. I'm not that smart! And as you say, the above ground stuff is VERY important. The IEA say this too (why do I sound like an IEA shill?) You can't predict that sh**
Tell me more about "the bottom up approach..... no support for their values". What do you mean?