<Tuesday Open ThreadThe Oil DrumTimely delivery is a critical part of a useful fuel supply>

62 comments on IEA Monthly Report for December

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

BioDiesel on January 18, 2006 - 1:42am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
Stuart
You're "player hating" us folks with small monitors.
I got a big one coming any day, but for now I'm left out in the cold.:-(
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stuart Staniford on January 18, 2006 - 1:49am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Sorry - I checked it on my laptop and it was ok. How small do I need to worry about?
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oil CEO on January 18, 2006 - 2:01am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
my screen is set at 1024x768 and I only got left 3/4's.

BTW, where is this data coming from exactly on the IEA site? Is it their Oil Market Report? I couldn't find it. Is it free or do you have to subscribe?

Does it break out individual countries? If so, what do they give for US, Saudi, Angola, Kazakstan for December?

Why are their numbers 1.5mbpd higher than the EIA's?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stuart Staniford on January 18, 2006 - 2:05am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It's their oil market report. I had to trawl through and extract it out of all the past issues. As to the lack of agreement - welcome to the problem. View it as a crude estimate of the uncertainty in the production stats (though the corrected IEA series and the EIA series are very rarely that far apart).
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oil CEO on January 18, 2006 - 2:16am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I've just finished a fairly extensive compilation of monthly world supply comprised of the 75 countries that make up 99.8% of production.

I used EIA's and BP's number alomg with my own calculations to determine monthly total liquids from raw (crude+lease condensate numbers).

I put down the US for about 7.5 mbp for Dec up a million from Nov. I've got Iraq at 1.3mbp, Angola at 1.5mbpd for the hell of it.

I get a total of 83.090 with a probable error rate of +/- .300.

I don't even know half the time if EIA's data matches itself internally. Take a look at their world oil balance numbers, the data is completely different for the exact same time periods from what they come up with when they calculate supply and demand separately. If you look at their demand tables - the numbers are higher than the corresponding supply.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
peakearl on January 18, 2006 - 1:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
How do you find US up 1 million from Nov to Dec? MMS numbers suggest something like 200,000 - 300,000 b/d further hurricane recovery, and EIA would suggest a total of about 500,000 b/d more domestic oil production in Dec than Nov. Just curious.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oil CEO on January 19, 2006 - 2:58am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The numbers straight from EIA for July,Aug are 8.128 and 8.173 - count that as pre-hurricane. Sep and Oct are 6.532 and 6.584.

At this point, to make things easy, I'm not using a particular number for November since we are already into Jan and I'd like to wait for a revised, published number.

I arbitrarily made December 7.500 as a mark on the road to hurricane recovery which will eventually take us back to the 8.1 level. I realize this is probably premature and I will be using your input to revise my table. Thanks.

You can obviously see the fun involved in trying to come up with accurate, up-to-date info.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
peakearl on January 19, 2006 - 11:37am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Thanks for the reply. The difficulty in getting currnet numbers is why I asked, because I know it's a struggle. I appreciate your efforts.  
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stuart Staniford on January 18, 2006 - 2:37am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Ok - if you've can't resize it small enough, that's a problem with the minimum width (which I think Super G has been playing with. It's not something I directly control in writing the piece.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Super G on January 18, 2006 - 8:14am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I'm on Firefox 1.5 on Linux with 1024x768 and there's no problem.

What browser and OS are you using?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oil CEO on January 18, 2006 - 11:03am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
XPsp2 and IE. I just tried Firefox, works fine. For some reason IE makes the image large, like 5 inches high, so it misses right-hand edge.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stuart Staniford on January 18, 2006 - 11:34am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Can anyone with a big screen and IE on XP describe the behavior of the top image as you vary the width of the window from very small to very large?

I just tried IE on my Mac, and there is no resize restriction on either the permalink or the front page. The layout doesn't look great with very narrow window widths, but there's no problem getting things to fit across the width of the window.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ashaddock on January 18, 2006 - 12:22pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I generally use Firefox.  In IE with my 19" monitor (1280 by 1024) I tried reducing the size of the window.

First the column of text to the left of the chart squeeezed until it got to a certain, fairly narrow width, and then the column on the right (about us, personnel, etc.) started to move over the chart from right to left thus effectively "cropping" it progressively as the size of the window was reduced.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on January 18, 2006 - 1:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yikes.  It looks really, really bad in IE.  (I usually use Firefox, but tested it in IE because you asked.)

The text is shrunk to a skinny, unreadable little column, and the image is also cropped as the screen size gets smaller.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on January 18, 2006 - 1:23pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Guess I should have given my system specs.  :)

Windows XP, 21" LCD monitor, set to 1280 x 960.  In IE 6, TOD looks okay at full size, but quickly becomes an unreadable mess as the screen shrinks.  

Firefox handles it a lot better, shrinking the image rather than cropping it.  Though it still does ugly things to the text.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stuart Staniford on January 18, 2006 - 1:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Ok - I checked it on an XP/IE setup and fooled around a little bit. The problem seems to be that IE ignores the width qualifier in the tag when the image is inside a table. I couldn't find a fix. So I won't use that table layout in the future (too bad - it was a nice way of getting a portrait image and some text into a story lead without taking up too much real estate on the front page - and it looked great in Safari).
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BioDiesel on January 18, 2006 - 8:22pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
No biggie

Also, what program do you use for your graphs?
I have been looking at some programs to make my own graphs, but yours look the best so far.
Is the program spendy?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stuart Staniford on January 18, 2006 - 9:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Most of my graphs, and both of the ones above, are just made with Excel (which is very widely available but is somewhat expensive if you don't already have it).  The look of my graphs has steadily improved over the months as I've learnt more tricks with it.  Recently, I have incorporated a few things from Mathematica (which is very spendy unless you're a student).
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack on January 18, 2006 - 1:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I also usually use Firefox, but did just try TOD in IE. I get the same result: the table overlaps with the right column. This happens at full window size and only gets worse as I reduce it. When the window is half the screen size, the table can not be seen. I am using a laptop with XP and a 15" monitor.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.