The amount actually exported differed from year-to-year thus:

-16
38
41
50
52

Not a very wide band. This perhaps ties in with my question about project timelines - this would be a slow enough rate of decline of exports to send a signal to procure new supplies. If you'll pardon me putting on my economist hat...

We have a globe full of drivers wanting to use that 3 gallons, too. Perhaps another metaphor might suggest itself. When do you calculate that will become an inevitable point of contention? 70s oil shocks suggest only about 2 mb/d will suffice to have populaces glowering.

The numerator in each example is the volume of fuel used or oil exported. Which example are you referencing?

Indonesia, as listed above. The decline in volume was linear, it's only from the perspective of "remaining cumulative net oil exports" that the decline grows like you suggest. This was what JD was griping about on his blog. Anybody with half a brain (declining exponentially even) could read the writing on the wall, of course.

On the subject of framing, how about classing the global decline rate as a massive collection of "negaprojects"? Kudos to Amory Lovins, of course. And me. Heard it here first.

In 2000, note that Indonesia was shipping one percent of remaining net oil exports about every nine days. Based on Sam's modeling, the top five are currently shipping one percent of remaining net oil exports about every 45 days.

When you put it that way it sounds really morbid - like discussing what percentage of beats remaining in your life your heart pumped out for the day...

Thanks for the replies Jeff, great work you and Sam do. Trying to get a handle on what this year will be like, posting stuff in the peakoil.com Weekly US Petroleum and NG Supply Reports 2009 thread off and on, looking for little bolts from the blue that might let us know what the rest of the year will be like - maybe another price spike in the works? That would make for one apocalyptic October in the finance world.