 | Now We're Talkin'...(or, "Transit Panel Urges Federal Gas Tax Increase") | The Oil Drum | Energy Debate in Switzerland |  |
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Home Buyers Demand Short Commutes, Efficient Homes (with Backyards, Parking, lots of Square Feet)
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
TOD:Europe
- IEA WEO 2008 - Fossil Fuel Ultimates and CO2 Emissions Scenarios
- The IEA WEO 2008: Will coal usage be phased out?
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
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
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
—Richard Feynman
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- 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
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
IEA OECD stocks from the monthly Oil Market Report Highlights:
I extended the charts from the previous month's report (available for free) with those numbers. [click for larger]
But OPEC says stocks are not low.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7229848
Robert, have stocks hit the point, in your opinion, that if OPEC does not raise output on Feb. 1 (or later) that OPEC might not have that much more in them--based on your litmus test? Or that they have up to 2 Million Barrels spare but its heavy? I say this in all humility since I don't know much about this and I really don't want to get into a big argument about all this--we've already been there.
I guess my question is: How low is low?
Well, stocks are still in the average range for 2002-2006 in these graphs. And the graphs are not zero-scaled.
Better look at the charts again. OECD Total Oil is well below average. It's touching the very bottom of the range.
Moe, thanks for responding. The bottom of the range is still the range.
I think we can agree it means trouble ahead anyway, as consumption is still higher each year. PO & ELM does not bode well for refilling these stocks. Basically why I come here: to observe and learn.
I feel the exact same way. That's why I wanted Robert's opinion--he is much, much, smarter than me about oil. In fact, I think the litmus test makes tons of sense and I never would have thought of it.
I just wanted to know where he thought the line was. Well under the range? Bottom of range?
It makes a difference to me because it helps me keep track of how much time left to prepare.
"it helps me keep track of how much time left to prepare"
Exactly. But I guess this is different for everybody. When you get laid off for example, it's more difficult to fund preperations.
BTW, yesterday a hilarious article in my newpaper (Dutch nrc.nl), mentioning Hubbert. The actual advise given was (take a seat and hold on) that if you wanted to buy a new flat screen TV you should do it asap, because all these luxury items will get more expensive to produce as resource constraints kick in. IOW, spend your money NOW!
I could see an argument for spending your money now. If you think inflation will make things more expensive, say. Or if your dream is to walk atop the Great Wall of China, and are afraid peak oil will mean no more tourism.
But to buy a power-sucking TV? That's nuts.
I'm going to Japan this year while I still can. Something tells me that in a few years all of these Frequent Flier miles and hotel points I have will be worthless. hehe
They say that spending money on experiences rather than things will make you happier. Things never make you as happier as you think they will. But experiences only get better in your memory.
"I could see an argument for spending your money now"
I' ll be spending my savings for a new roof and a solar water heater.
If you look at US stocks as presented in Tom Whipple's review from EB here: http://www.energybulletin.net/38683.html you can see that each year from '04-'06 moved up. This makes sense, as there are more people using more energy in a growing population/economy time-bomb. Presumably this is also the case for the OECD. But then in '07, esp. after mid-year, US stocks began to be less than the prior year, then years. So being anywhere near the lower end of the five year range seems to be a significant tightening of supply. The five-year average is misleading in the sense that the population and economy has grown during those five years, so stocks, to keep pace, would have to grow as well.
I've been reading article after article over the past week or so from refineries in consuming nations saying that the Saudi two million barrels are heavy sour, and they can't use it. I know some of the articles have been at Bloomberg. Some of them might have been here.
IMO, we are still way above the nominal levels for OECD oil inventories. Nominal levels (in red below) are based on a linear regression model estimated using the years 1994-2001 taking into account seasonal fluctuations:
I think Saudis are looking at that curve and they don't see any reasons to rise production.
Note the big drop in 2003 that nobody seemed to have noticed.
Thanks Khebab--as always your work is excellent.
Of course this gets ignored:
Of course this is a preliminary number, but in any case it will be interesting to see what happens to total liquids production when some of the fields, like Brent, finish blowing down their gas caps--in the last stages of depletion.
Wow. Back down to 51 Days Supply in OECD Total Oil Stocks. No wonder oil has been on a tear.
My call this week to fellow trading friends is that the Crude Oil Futures Curve is going to have to go back to contango again to encourage storage. I believe that process is now underway.
I keep key data on my front page: www.gregor.us
Meanwhile, the dark horse of the complex, Natural Gas, which has been consolidating in price for two years now continues to advance against a backdrop where most investors long since left it for dead. Coal too has given a supporting signal, to NG, the past 120 days.
With the liklihood that a DEM enters the White House, and with their pledge to w/d from Iraq, it doesn't take a trader to figure out how the oil market might price in US troop w/d in Q1 and Q2 2009. Concurrently, I am getting into position to add big to my menu of alternative energy positions as the current massacre in Solar, etc, is the classic set up to the next leg in this group. Wow. US troops getting pulled out of Iraq and a new Admin. throwing tons of cash at Alternative Energy. Yum. I want it all. Oil contracts. Alt. Energy equities. And of course the Railroads--the sleeper peak oil play.
Best to all,
Gregor