![]() | Our World Is Finite: The Implications of Resource Limitations | The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: October 25, 2007 | ![]() |
174 comments on This Week in Petroleum 10-24-07
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
174 comments on This Week in Petroleum 10-24-07
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
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- The US stimulus and "green jobs"
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
- An interview with Stoneleigh - the case for deflation
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
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
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
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- 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.
“So one may almost say that the theory of universal suffrage assumes that the Average Citizen is an active, instructed, intelligent ruler of his country. The facts contradict this assumption.”
—James Bryce (1909, 35)
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- 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
I agree, I think there's something going on here. OPEC thinks there is something going on here.
click to enlarge
The chart above is from OPEC's feature article "Oil price developments challenge market expectations" on page 3 of their Monthly Oil Market Report - October 2007
http://www.opec.org/home/Monthly%20Oil%20Market%20Reports/2007/pdf/MR102... (49 pages)
Quotes below are from page 3 of OPEC's report
OPEC acknowledged strong prices, but it can't possibly be due to their inability to supply oil to meet demand, instead the high oil price is due to these factors
Next, OPEC says that it is able to supply oil to the market if required
I think OPEC is genuinely concerned about the oil price and that their inability to increase supply to meet demand could be exposed soon, especially if this winter is cold.
The last sentence is interesting "performance of non-OPEC supply". OPEC forecasts non-OPEC supply of oil (all liquids) to increase from 49.85 mbd in 3Q07 to 52.12 mbd in 4Q08. This is unlikely to happen and OPEC will say that our planned capacity was based on non-OPEC supply forecasts and the oil price went up because non-OPEC supply increases failed.
The other reason for the price increase in the chart above is that it more closely reflects the supply and demand pressures from crude oil and lease condensate production, not total liquids. OPEC, like the IEA, forecasts supply and demand using total liquids (includes NGPLs and ethanol). If the forecast supply and demand for crude oil and lease condensate (C&C) was used, the price increase, in the chart above, might well be justified by an increasing supply demand gap for C&C, even though there might be a much smaller supply demand gap for oil (total liquids).
Do you still stick by your Saudi Arabia 8.2mbpd forecast for this coming spring? Or did you want to take this as an opportunity to either remain silent or "adjust" that?
I'm pretty sure that the general consensus is that Saudi production is being constrained by Aramco in order to enhance the longer-term productivity. Likewise there's no reason not to believe that they can add 500 kbpd production this November and crank things up to around 9.1 mbpd for an extended period (my guesstimate). But do you really believe that they can push production up towards, say, 12 mbpd and hold that production level for perhaps half a year? Do you really believe that there is not a demand/supply imbalance that has a geological component?
So what's your point?
the point of a troll is to upset the community
Sort of looks suspiciously like Ace's predicted Q407 price shock, as predicted many moons ago...
Will the Saudis boost production substantially to bring prices down? That depends on two things :
* the Saudis deciding that $100 oil is not in their long-term interest
* their capacity to do so.
It seems they are determined to remain inscrutable. If they do not substantially increase exports, and announce that they are comfortable with $100 oil, we're no further forward with knowing their true capacities. But the circumstantial evidence that they are past peak would be stronger...
I still believe that the price declines right into November of both 2004 and 2006 had more to do with the interests of the House of Saud in keeping the GOP in power in DC than in market fundamentals. In line with that theory, I would expect Saudi production to being to ramp up again in march 2008, just like in March 2004 and march 2006, to bring down the price in WTI by November 2008.
There is nothing to demonstrate the truth of this theory, beyond the Saudi production statistics and the asynchronous movement of oil prices in the Spring and Fall shoulder seasons.
You really think the Saudis are Republicans? Do you think they have been well-served by the GWB administrations?
I rather think the umbilical cord between Riyad and Washington has been cut, and the house of Saud is looking after number one, from now on.
If they are interested in maximising exports to the USA (in the hypothesis that they have spare capacity), then they might back the candidate who is most hostile to America's energy independence, probably the Republican. On the other hand, if the continuing solvency of the USA as a client is their main concern, they may take the opposite course and favour a Democrat.
I would direct your first question to Bandar Bush. Perhaps it might be asked the other way round. I think at this point the Saudis have no choice but to be Republicans. Any American pullout from Iraq would leave the Shi'a in charge, which would mean Iran ascendant, which would trouble the preodminately Shi'a eastern provinces of KSA, which would threaten Ghawar, Abqaiq, et al., which would ... I think you get the idea by now.
For a short experiment, compare and contrast the conduct of the Bush administration with what a Gore administration would have done, not just in energy and environmental policy, but in digging into the backgrounds of 15 of the 19 highjackers on 9/11.
No, the umbilical cord between DC and KSA is tighter than ever.
Not even hardly. KSA remains the top customer of US defense weaponry, and just three weeks ago they announced a new $631 million purchase of US weapons. Sounds like the same old deadly embrace to me.
--C
I suspect that China's 11.5% annual growth together with its approach to being the third largest economy, surpassing Germany, explains the emergence of a demand curve that does not have the seasonal shape of prior years.
Chris
Let's read between the lines here:
1. Refiners can't PROCESS any more oil right now - so they won't buy any more. In the near term, DEMAND is fixed - not supply! So OPEC can't sell anymore; excess capacity is truly excess. If Saudi flooded the market, crude prices would drop but refineries would still be at capacity - so end prices to consumers wouldn't change. All that would change is profits would end up in the refiners' pockets, not the producers'.
What OPEC's statement means is that the markets should not be responding to fears of a crude oil interruption. IF the world's refiners need 80 bbd (or whatever), and Nigeria shuts down, OPEC (Saudi) will respond by moving us back to 80 bbd. That's stability of supply.
2. OPEC expects that the Majors and non-OPEC NOCs may continue to expand output, taking profits on the high prices. This expansion of non-OPEC production will be faster than any coming expansions of refinery capacity. This will therefore require OPEC to reduce its own production in order to avoid a glut and keep prices high - and OPEC recognizes this. That's stability of price.