IEA Monthly Report for December
Posted by Stuart Staniford on January 18, 2006 - 2:08am
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: eia, hubbert peak, iea, oil prices, peak oil, plateau [list all tags]
|
Ok, you happy plateau watchers. The IEA is out with the latest word (thanks Halfin). Quotes:
Global demand increased by some 1.3% in 2005 and should grow by 2.2% in 2006 as demand rebounds in the US and China.So non-OPEC supply is flat over 2004, but never fear, they're sure it will go up next year. The graph at right includes the latest information. The key point is that although the "initial claim" line stays at the November value of 85mbpd, the "revised" line for November is down to 84.4mbpd, and is not yet back to it's May peak. So Freddy Hutter will have to hold the schadenfreude at least for a little while longer.
|
|
Percentage change from same month in prior year. Average monthly oil production from various estimates. Click to enlarge. Believed to be all liquids. Source: IEA, and EIA. The IEA corrected line is calculated from the month-on-month production change quoted the following month. The smooth curves are quadratic fits to each data set.
Here's the contextual plot requested down in comments. This is the history of annual global oil production from 1930 to 2004. The little yellow box shows the small piece of recent history we are plotting in the top picture that introduced the piece, and is also the timescale for the year-on-year growth plot above.
Average annual oil production from various estimates. Click to enlarge. Believed to be all liquids. EIA line includes refinery gains, others do not. Sources: ASPO, BP, and EIA.
Had to look that one up.
"Schade"=harm "Freude"=happiness
So, I left with nothing but Schade, Schade, and more Schade.
"OPEC crude supply declined 280 kb/d in December to 29.3 mb/d. Iraqi supply fell to 1.55 mb/d from November's 1.7 mb/d. Nigerian production was also disrupted in December and January."
And yet production increases substantially Nov to Dec?
Can't wait for the revised figures next month.
Sometimes these IEA spreadsheets look like some sort of horror movie catalog.
"The Others' production" coming to theatre near you.
It was just a form of speech, I was referring to the Oil Market Report, where others is recurrent.
"The others" is also referred by Deffeyes as a way IEA has been using to hide the real numbers. That's why I asked Stuart for the O&GJ data.
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.:-(
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?
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.
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.
What browser and OS are you using?
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.
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.
The text is shrunk to a skinny, unreadable little column, and the image is also cropped as the screen size gets smaller.
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.
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?
Stuart (or anyone else) have you got the 2005 O&GJ data? Wasn't that soppused to be publish late December?
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/06/news/international/opec_output.reut/index.htm
"Saudi Arabia cut production by 150,000 bpd to about 9.4 million bpd as buyers in the U.S. requested less crude ahead of shutdowns for spring refinery maintenance, according to the survey of consultants, shippers, industry and OPEC sources."
"Production from the 10 OPEC members not bound by quotas, excluding Iraq, fell 50,000 bpd to 28.23 million bpd as increased output from the United Arab Emirates partially compensated for the fall in Saudi output"
This will probably start a firestorm, but I believe Saudi production has peaked. The problem is, the powers that be do not want the situation to get out of hand, so any information reguarding Saudi production is fudged / distorted / suppressed. The disconcerting thing is that the post peak production fall off for Saudi production will likely be quite steep, as we are now finding with the North Sea. For those who are more skeptical about information suppression; What do you think would happen if CNN reported that Saudi production IS declining?
http://www.theoildrum.com/comments/2006/1/18/13443/5542/19#19
They talk of increasing production to 12 mbpd by 2016, which seems realistic but too little, too late, though it's quite likely plans have changed in the 2 years since then. One very interesting figure I got from the presentation: they say the maximum ever field decline rate that they have had is 4.1% per year, the average is 2%. We'll see what happens when Ghawar starts to seriously decline, I'd bet its decline rate will top 4%.
But even if Ghawar is / does decline at 5% or more they can probably manage to hide that fact from the world for a couple of years. Until there is a real global supply shortfall and Saudi has to increase exports - or be found out - we are unlikely to know the real situation there.
It'll depend on the type of heavy. Give me an (the) API and sulfur content and I'll think about it.
"It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
- The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, "The Beryl Coronet".
My guess is that thanks to all these factors we'll be on an undulating plateau (as Jean Laherrère has predicted) for several years, right up to the time geology takes over and the true oil peak comes into play.
If Hirsch is right, and the peak is sudden, sharp, and completely unexpected...it will be like all those countries that peaked. We'll think it's just temporary technical difficulties, next year will be better. Until five years later, we look back and realize yes, that was the peak.