Declining Net Oil Exports Versus “Near Record High” Crude Oil Inventories: What is going on?
Posted by Prof. Goose on September 14, 2007 - 10:18am
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: Export Land Model, indonesia, inventories, just-in-time, minimum operating level, original, saudi arabia, united kingdom [list all tags]
This is a guest post by Friend of TOD Jeffrey J. Brown, an independent petroleum geologist in the Dallas, Texas area. His e-mail address is westexas@aol.com.
You can also check out Jason Bradford's recent interview with Jeff for The Reality Report over at Global Public Media here.
Building on prior work by Matt Simmons and Kenneth Deffeyes, I have written a number of articles on Net Oil Exports, often with my frequent co-author, “Khebab,” most recently, “Net Oil Exports and the Iron Triangle.” We are going to present a quantitative assessment of future net exports by the top net exporters at the ASPO-USA (Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas) conference in October, in Houston, Texas, and we will be doing a preview of the paper in late September.
Above the fold was a graph of the Export Land Model (ELM), for a hypothetical net exporter, showed peak exports to net importer status in nine years. (For a better explanation of the meaning of that chart, check out this post.)
It’s interesting that the UK and Indonesia showed even sharper net export declines, going from peak recent net exports to net importer status in seven years and eight years respectively. The ELM and the UK and Indonesia case histories showed that net export declines tend to accelerate with time.
Note that the early data for Saudi Arabia are showing a similar pattern. The 2005 to 2006 numbers for Saudi Arabia are as follows (exponential increase/decrease per year, EIA, Total Liquids):
Production: -3.7%/year
Consumption: +5.7%/year
Net Exports: -5.5%/year
Extrapolating from year to date numbers, my estimates for 2006 to 2007 Saudi numbers are as follows (I am adding in some increased liquids consumption, because of their ongoing natural gas shortfall):
Production: -5.6%/year
Consumption: +10%/year
Net Exports: -9.5%/year
In addition, EIA data show an overall decline in net world exports from 2005 to 2006 that appears to be continuing into 2007.
Given this decline in net exports, It’s interesting that we have “near record high” crude oil inventories in the US, based on the five year range of crude oil inventories. In my opinion, the five year range for US crude oil inventories, as an indication of what is going on in oil markets, is highly misleading.
First, the industry has clearly gone to a Just In Time inventory system. In the Eighties, the industry maintained much higher crude oil inventories, especially in terms of Days of Supply, which have fallen to about 21 Days of Supply currently, from about 29 Days of Supply in September, 1982.
Second, we need to evaluate crude oil inventories based on Days of Supply in excess of Minimum Operating Level (MOL). In the US, the MOL for crude oil is probably about 270 million barrels (mb). At about 322 mb, US crude oil inventories are probably best characterized by Hours of Supply in excess of MOL (about 80 hours). In my opinion, recent fluctuations in US crude oil inventories merely reflect minor changes in a thin margin of supply in excess of MOL.
Refiners are unlikely to let their inventories drop below certain critical levels, and given the expectation of declining world oil exports, refiners will have two choices: (1) Bid the price up enough to keep their inventories up and/or (2) Reduce their crude oil input, thus reducing product output.
My contention is that instead of focusing on crude oil inventories, we need to focus on world net exports, crude oil prices, refinery utilization, product prices and product inventories.
I expect to see crude oil exports trending down, crude oil prices trending up, refinery utilization trending down, product prices trending up, and product inventories trending down.
I'm begining to hear the rumblings of distant thunder and it's making me nervous...
awaiting your quantitative ELM model with bated breath...
Regards, Nick.
There is also a question of quality maths that should be considered. Regard my response below.
Check out the Russan crude oil export number at the bottom of the thread.
http://science.reddit.com/info/2pgcf/comments
if you are so inclined...
Is it a good idea to spell out Jeffrey's email the way you did? Does he like spam that much?
That's what Jeff has done in every post to this point--his words, his choice.
You mean all those women don't want to have sex with me and I am not going to receive $100 million from my friend in Nigeria?
My spam filter seems to work fine.
When I go there, Prof. G., there is no vote buttton as for normal articles. Is this part of the discrimination you were talking about with these sources?
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone
The reddit link looks fine to me - I can vote without any problems...
USA will be one of the last to see oil scarcity. As noted in the last drum beat post, where India faces depletion, the storm will hit first those who cannot buy the oil. And USA is the country with the most money.
Not only will USA foster a little bit longer than the majority of Import Land, but perhaps, perhaps it will trhive even longer than most export land countries. This is speculation on my part, but there seems to be an implicit truth in westexas export land model that may not render exactly as the real "truth". It is considered that export countries will firstly give their consumers their oil and just only afterwards they'll export the rest. I wonder if that will be the case. If USA can spend 150$ per barrel, how on earth will average saudi, russian, venezuelan, angolan, etc, etc be able to compete with that? Will the state oil companies just ignore the incredible amount of fortune that is being denied because of their own inhabitants? And a good example of this, yes you have guessed, is Iran.
So your triangle is a good uncomplicated graph, but reality may well be a different story. I can see perfectly well a country that exports oil but hasn't sufficient oil for their own. Perhaps not Russia, and KSA might have not the guts to do it, but others, why not? It might require more police control on the subsequent riots, but it can happen.
What about the political situation in the exporting country? Both the UK and Indonesia are relatively free and democratic.
Iran has implemented fuel rationing in a bid to cut domestic consumption. I can see many less democratic counties like Russia and SA using draconian measures to curb domestic consumption of oil in favour of selling it the open market at $150 a barrel.
I guess that we can divide the debate into pre-$100 oil and post-$100 oil, but I am struck by the similarities between the UK and Indonesian net export crashes, versus the vast differences between the two regions.
UK: High per capita income; high energy taxes; minimal increase in consumption.
Indonesia: Low per capita income; energy subsidies; rapid increase in consumption (up to net importer status).
A key point to keep in mind is that I expect many exporters to show rising cash flow from declining exports, at least initially.
In any case, one of the things I want to do with the preview paper, to be posted first at ASPO-USA, then presumably later on TOD, is to ask for feedback regarding the expanded ELM, as applied to top net exporters.
Also, I am not very optimistic about our ability, without the implied or actual use of force, to outbid other consumers. Ultimately, we have to offer something of value to trade for the oil, although I suppose that the US may be offering value in the same sense that a mugger offers "value," i.e., if you give me your money, I won't kill you.
Not only that. USA has a lot of political power in the world, perhaps enough to bend many countries' will in these matters. USA government will be very aggressive in the meetings with these countries, and they will pressure the most these countries to supply the oil they need, even if that implies gas cuts in those countrieslike in Iran, to prevent gas cuts inside US. Remember Dick Cheney motto: American way of life is not negotiable.
Yes, but will the USA just eat that cartel lookalike phenomenon without saying a word? Or will USA be one of the most aggressive buyers in the market? I mean, it is no tabu, USA is the bully of the world alredy, I'm not implying a change of attitude in any way. They are already with this attitude.
luisdias, I think you should consider that not only will most producing countries try their best to follow Westexas model but will be encouraged in that, as far as the US is concerned, by the decreasing value of the US dollar.
Personally I would not purchase US dollars right now and I do not see exporting countries trading their goods, as readily as previously, for those dollars.
Yes the US military may momentarily trump Westexas's model but judging by how things have gone in Iraq I would not expect something in that order to be very effectual in the long range in solving US oil needs. Bullying only succeeds up to a certain point. I think the action in Iraq has, as well, diminished US political power greatly, one has only to look to south America , half a world away from Iraq yet next right door to the US, to see how that power has been reduced.
I think we are in for interesting times as to who gets what and how.
Of course they will try! nobody likes being robbed. Remember Carter's doctrine though. USA will not negotiate American's way of life!
Well, I'm a believer of Yoda's preachings, so I fully agree with you: in long term, it will be bad. Something in the order of Violence generates Hate, Hate generates Fear, Fear to the dark side will lead you, hmmmm!
But it may just be enough for the USA plummet after the others. Now, this is speculation. I am not really predicting. I predict USA's reaction and this is what they will try to do. And I see a closing gap for them to do it, but it still exists. Remember that the oil market depends on the US army to be secure. Remember that!
Personal opinion: The US will lose its access to oil in the back half of the total of nations. I wouldn't venture to guess where in that back half though. It might be at the 51% mark or clear back at the end as the 100th% of the loss. But if I had to guess, I'd put the US losing its access to exported oil after roughly 2/3rds of the rest of the world has lost their access to the same. This is all seat of the pants guessing, of course, since none of us know what the future actually holds. We can only look at trends and try to extrapolate.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone
"Yes the US military may momentarily trump Westexas's model but judging by how things have gone in Iraq I would not expect something in that order to be very effectual in the long range in solving US oil needs."
Considering that the DOD is the largest consumer of oil in the world, it seems to me that no matter how much oil we attain through such military action, most of it would have to go to the government/military just to keep the military operational. How well this would go over with the American public when they realized these wars were not getting them any more energy to keep their cars running and their homes warm, I can only imagine - unless, of course, we're under martial law and we have no say in the matter.
Linda
The U.S. Department of Defense uses about 200,000 barrels of oil a day, less than 1% of the overall U.S. usage.
On the serious topic of the U.S. or some other country using military force to take oil - it seems unlikely that the U.S. would do this. Does anyone on this board think we ought to? I can't recall talking to anybody who does. The current Iraq conflict is not an example of seizing oil, since Iraqi oil is being sold to all kinds of players, many unfriendly to the U.S., and the Iraqi oil the U.S. gets is paid for at near record prices.
The Iraqi war, combined with mindboggling incompetence on the part of the Bush Administration, has just about demolished the US's ability to dictate to the world. Our economy is crumbling, etc. etc., so it is a fantasy that oil exporters (like Iran) will fear the US government more than their own people.
Quite the reverse. From Iran's model, we can see that cutting subsidies is a great way of losing legitimacy. and if it is in teh name of being able to sell it to American imperialists, that is even worse.
Yes, we have money (compared to India), but that will only go so far.
A quick check on Google, and I didn't see any recent estimates of US Military oil consumption that were below 320,000 bbls/day. I think you're off by about 50% (not that that invalidates your point...it is still not a large percentage of overall US consumption).
Arkansawyer
The DoD is the biggest user of oil in the world.
"On the serious topic of the U.S. or some other country using military force to take oil - it seems unlikely that the U.S. would do this"
You aren't serious about this?
Even with the Greenspan announcement, you still think US didn't go to Iraq for oil?
We all know that oil price is balanced on supply/demand (mostly).
If US is able to flood China, Japan, EU, etc with cheaper Iraqi oil, they can buy cheaper oil from elsewhere themselves (closer to home).
It's still stealing, even if you give it away to others to use.
Let's see what US does now that Iraqi government refuses to push the oil bill forward.
If it truly wasn't about stealing oil, as you suggest, US would let the people of Iraq do what they want. In good and bad.
However, I see it very unlikely it'll come to that.
As for people who advocate stealing oil, there are plenty of those on this board (if you read the backlog) and many other boards (go to peakoil.com for a large sampling).
It's not stealing when WE do it!
Luis, you live in 1975. Wait, that's Vietnam, bad example. In a comment above you say the US has the most money. Where have you been the past 5 years?
The US government aggressive in meetings? Not those with China and Russia, I can guarantee you that. The notion that the present government and Fed are trying to keep the economy roilling as is, and hence try to get as much oil as possible, ignores the fact that what they've really been doing the past 7 years, and have succeeded in doing, is try and bankrupt that same economy.
Does anyone really still believe these people are in the business of making sure Americans are comfortable?
One, China is Import Land. So all US has to do is to secure oil before China. Of course, this is increasingly difficult, because China plays that friendly character instead of the bully.
Two, Russia is being met with a lot of agressiveness in the placement of missiles near its own territory. Putin stated clearly this is not a tolerable behaviour and USA didn't retracted. How is this not being agressive?
One, that fact is not a fact, it is your own opinion, based on ... on other's opinions. Yes, you may say I'm blind and blah blah blah, just don't tell me its facts, 'cause they aren't.
Two, I've seen USA being "bankrupt" many times before, and they still recovered pretty easily as the most powerful economy. Yeah, this is a big bump, I know, but it also may not be. No one knows for sure. Fact is, USA is still the richest country in the world. Come on! Face it. Those are facts. If USA will be unable to pay back its debts, its the other countries which will pay the most, not USA itself (in the short run, at least). Also, you behave as if you are unaware that all the world economy plummets if the USA tanks. That simple.
So to say that USA will plummet before the others, is a big wishful thinking. They deserve it, but I think it won't happen.
Who cares what I believe? I just listen to the rethorics and the actions, and they fully coincide to the most dumb and stupid effort to maintain an unsustainable condition.
America has less cement, steel, coal, production than China today. Our only net exports are high technology products, and out entire net export base goes home every day at 5PM.
The devastation in real estate is almost too vast to comprehend. The mortgage bubble is roughly $5.5 trillion, and yet, prices have just begun to fall. It�s a long way to the bottom and there�s bound to be plenty of bloodshed ahead. Two million homeowners will lose their homes. 151 mortgage lenders have already gone belly up. Many of the hedge funds, which are loaded with billions of dollars in �mortgage-backed� securities, are struggling to stay alive. Perhaps the most shocking projection was made by Yale University Professor, Robert Schiller, who believes that home prices could decline as much as 50 percent in some of the �hotter markets."
Mike Whitney-Soup Kitchen USA
I posted this on the Drumbeat thread, but I have always thought that this essay was profound in its implications.
IMO, a key problem the Neocons are facing is that more and more members of the military--and their families--are beginning to realize that they are fighting and dying to keep the oil flowing a little longer to the US.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1181629,00.html
Why Iraq Was a Mistake
Sunday, Apr. 09, 2006 By LIEUT. GENERAL GREG NEWBOLD (RET.)
Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq war. Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized. Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war. Here, for the first time, Newbold goes public with a full-throated critique:
Excerpt by Lt. General Newbold (Ret.):
Wait until the shortages begin, and then tell me that the majority of US people won't vote for a full scale war to anyone who is keeping "your" own oil in their backyard.
Carter's doctrine anyone?
I mean, when everything's fine, its good to be in John Lennon's side and all, but WTSHTF, the military option will have 99% popularity.
Full-scale war? Doubt it.
The US military is beyond stretched thin. They should and will revolt. As a draft would need to be re-instated, the majority of the US, realizing they might have to sacrifice not someone else's child, but their own, would openly revolt.
Otherwise, expect a radical change in US immigration policy, and some new, eh, requirements for citizenship.
luisdias,
the non-negotiable way of life is GHW Bush's doctrune, King George the Elder's. Jimmy Carter was the guy who put solar panels on the White House roof and the 55 mph speed limit andwore a sweater indoors instead of turning up the heat.
Jimmy Carter was or best president on environmental issues and energy, and is a very decent and kind man who is informed on how to behave by his old-fashoined liberal Christianity, the best of what it means to be a Christian.
But that didn't mix very well with the real life responsibilities of being president of an aggressive empire, plus, he was just plain unlucky besides naive. Read about the Iran-Contra affair for a real expose of just how the thugs in the CIA and the Military operate. Bob Ebersole
Bob, Carter armed the Mujahideen.
55 mph was a gift from Tricky Dick Nixon, two presidents before Jimmy Carter.
Mr Robert, I have nothing against Carter himself. He is no longer the american president, so I couldn't care less if he is some kind of mother theresa.
I am referring to the Carter's doctrine, which is a document that refers:
Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
...which can be perceived as a clear reinvindication of the whole Middle East territory.
Arkansawyer
;}
Thanks WT. These comments need continuing exposure, because the story remains the same.
You should hear what Fallon thinks of Petraeus. :-)
Arkansawyer
Were War Critic Soldiers Killed To Send Message?
Two soldiers who wrote op-ed that contradicted Patraeus report die in strange accident, while another is shot in the head in case that bears chilling resemblance to Pat Tillman story
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, September 14, 2007
The mother of a soldier who died in an apparent vehicle accident shortly after writing a New York Times op-ed critical of the war in Iraq is demanding to know the truth about what happened to her son, while another author of the piece was also shot in the head in a case that bears a sinister resemblance to the murder of Pat Tillman.
Interesting website, also found there:
The Creeping Fascism of Global Warming Hysteria
We should keep in mind that China could buy OUR oil and have it shipped to them for their use. As they are our banker now, and we believe in the the law of supply and demand, it is more than a little possible. They are already making deals in Canada for tar sand development. We would certainly be on a quick oil efficiency diet if that were to happen.
Well, if China bought ANYTHING from us, that would at least start us on the path to solving the imbalance of trade. We are selling them our culture, but that turns out to be too copyable, so it doesn't actually send any funds our (or hollywood's) way.