Perhaps we are getting a little more attention

So there I was, glancing back over the site to the time, a year ago, when we commented several times on the President's proposals on the costs of gas and what could he do about it. But I was also amused to note that, at the time, Prof G looked into the popularity of the words peak oil using blogpulse. At the time he found a peak had occurred for the phrase, as you can see.

So being curious I did it again.

And suddenly we have another peak, though this is about twice as high as the last one.

To turn to the President's plans; if I understand this correctly, the President has stopped filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in order that there should be that much more (only actually around 70,000 bd) crude oil to go around and to keep prices down. Which would suggest that there is a shortage, where every little helps.

But when we go to the Doha meeting of OPEC their comment:
Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi, the powerbroker within OPEC and its convincing voice on extra capacity, said while it would offer more oil if the market wants it, the demand isn't there.

'There's no demand even for light crude,' Naimi said, referring to the higher quality oil favored by most refiners. The usable spare capacity is judged to be as low as 1.7 million barrels a day of high-sulfur, harder-to-refine crude.

'Send the customers, we will give them what they want,' said Naimi.

would suggest that the supply of crude is not the problem.

Well, the Murphy refinery at Meraux (125,000 bd) is scheduled to reopen the second week in May; so we should soon be back in production at all the refineries, just as the new Hurricane season starts. This should allow some greater influx of crude, to provide additional gas to the market, and perhaps this might influence prices. Though following through on the scenario that developed last year nothing much helped.

It would be nice, for those of us who look for answers, if there were more funds for creative processes outside of the defined few, since, as has been said before, the answers will be in bb's not a single bullet. Unfortunately we are not seeing that level of creativity in the allocation of funding. Pity, really!

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-chinas-oil-prices-forecast-rise-/2006/04/25/1604426.htm
"With international oil prices breaching US$75 per barrel, China's crude prices, which fluctuate with international benchmarks, are expected to rise considerably as well. The country's Daqing crude price is forecast to rise to 4,701 (US$586.55) yuan/ton in May, 421 yuan/ton higher than that in April"

One last try.  Does this indeed mean that China expects oil to go to $83/b on the June contract, and does this mean that they are willing to bid to $83/b next month?

I don't think you have the conversion factor barrels/tonnes right.
No, I was assuming 7 barrels per ton.
Perhaps an industry person can comment in more detail but this chart indicates that 1 ton of oil averages 7.33 barrels. Note that actual barrels per ton depends on the specific gravity of the particular oil in question. The exchange rate of yuan for dollars that I can find today is 0.124844 per dollar.

A price of 4701 yuan thus translates (today) into $586.89 which is close enough to the original poster given currency fluctuations. At $586.89 per ton, this works out to $80.06 per barrel.

So yes, the Chinese appear to be willing to bid oil above $80 per barrel soon.

It will be interesting to see what happens when gasoline inventories are released tomorrow. ConocoPhillips' big refinery at Belle Chasse is back up and running at full rates since the last update, but the decline in gasoline inventories for the past 7 weeks has been steep. I expect us to go below the bottom of the average range tomorrow, keeping the pressure on gasoline prices. But the decline shouldn't be as steep this week.

RR

I think it will go lower, but be sure to look at the EAST figures.  This decline is being fueled (sorry the pun) by the purging of eastern stocks. Presumeably that is due the flushing of MTBE supplies and preparation for ethanol.

The president's statement notwithstanding, this MTBE purge will continue until all of the MTBE gas is out of the system.  Whether the gas going out for sale is reformulated with ethanol or straight-up gasoline is another story altogether.  As soon as these declines are wrapped up, I cannot fathom continued declines in gas stocks, given most refineries seem to be up to speed at the moment.

Also, I have to believe there will be some demand destruction at these high prices. That should help inventories rebound.

Off topic, but yesterday someone from the U.S. House of Representatives domain was visiting my blog. I was feeling pretty good about that. This morning, someone from the CIA domain ws visiting it. I wonder if I should be concerned? Both were reading my essay on windfall profits. I captured a screenshot:

http://img85.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ciavisittomyblog12fm.jpg

RR

The inventory numbers are out. I haven't had time to look at them in detail, but the Breaking News at CNN Money is:

Crude oil stocks fall by 200,000 barrels. Gasoline stocks fall 1.9 million barrels. Both are larger declines than expected. More soon

Also, in the other thread I reported on today's COP earnings release:

HOUSTON, April 26, 2006 --- ConocoPhillips [NYSE:COP] today reported first-quarter net income of $3,291 million, or $2.34 per share, compared to $2,912 million, or $2.05 per share, for the same quarter in 2005. Total revenues were $47.9 billion, versus $38.9 billion a year ago. During the quarter, the company reinvested 141 percent of its net income into the development of oil and gas resources and its global refining business, excluding the acquisition of Burlington Resources.

Emphasis mine.

RR

I think the CIA domain gets spoofed a lot, or it may be the CIA spidering your wesbsite (ie automated without being singled out) for data mining purposes - basically what the search engines do but with different ends in mind. Just a few possibilities.
It wasn't just the domain. The location was also in D.C.

Anyway, thanks for the info. I have to admit I did a double-take when I saw that this morning.

RR

Matt Savinar says his site is regularly visited by the CIA, DIA, and other government agencies.  Maybe just employees surfing in their spare time, maybe not.

I don't think it's automatic spidering, because I run several personal sites for friends and family, and I never see government agencies on the visitor source list.  Google, yes, the CIA, no.

A number of people I know with blogs have had similar experiences. Maybe they primarily spider sites that contain "speech" in order to look for potential dangers as defined by them.
At what price level will higher oil prices cause the economy to go into a recession and cause oil demand to fall?

(McKillop has been predicting, for some time, that higher oil prices, at least up to the $75 range, would not slow the economy.)

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/mckillop/2006/0425.html
Whatever Happened to Oil Price Elasticity?
by Andrew McKillop
Author & Consultant
April 25, 2006

Excerpt:

Getting back to the narrow question of why oil demand (and world gas demand now growing at around 5%-per-year) are much less than unaffected by rising prices, but are directly increased by higher oil and gas prices, we finally call on facts. We can use theory first, but finally we call on facts, because scientific theory is based on and comes from facts. The other way round is called economics - that is, bending facts to fit brokenback theories.

Price elasticity of anything has an underlying notion, hard to quantify, of `satisfaction', and another of `substitution'. Neither of these have much place for the vast majority of oil and gas users. Nobody uses oil and gas `for the fun of it', or at least very few persons. Equally, the famous `hi-tech emerging new energy' substitutes and alternatives simply don't exist. They may exist on the Nasdaq or in people's heads and PCs, and in cute business video presentations, but not in the real economy.

So the simple fact that oil and gas demand is increasing much, much faster than during the cheap energy 1990s, with much, much higher oil and gas prices should at least allow us to accept reality, and find or develop theories that fit. When we go back to economic theory notions of `elasticity', as mentioned above, we soon see that they don't apply in large measure, or any convincing way to explaining what is happening. The bottom line is however very simple: until and unless interest rates are sharply raised, to double-digit annual rates, oil and gas prices can go on crawling ever up. With the ever surer approach of Peak Oil, they will in any case have no other direction to move.

Gee I wish I could understand that:
Demand is INCREASED by higher oil prices.
The economy is not slowed by it.

I truly don't understand how this works. I mean, my own discretionary spending diminishes. The extra money I'm spending on gas is somehow being recycled to my benefit?
Anyone care to light my lantern on that?

The issue is one of more dollars in the third world (oil exporting) economies stimulates worldwide economic growth more than high prices depress it. McKillop has pretty impressive data to back it up.

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1019

Now that is a good example of theory actually listening to practice, instead of shouting it down.
"Nobody uses oil and gas 'for the fun of it'"

Oh, then what's NASCAR? - and won't it be looked back upon similarly to the Roman spectacles?

Tomorrow is here.

Crude oil stocks fall by 200,000 barrels. Gasoline stocks fall 1.9 million barrels. Both are larger declines than expected.

Summary of Weekly Petroleum Data for the Week Ending April 21, 2006

U.S. crude oil refinery inputs averaged nearly 15.1 million barrels per day during the week ending April 21 up 343,000 barrels per day from the previous week's average. Refineries operated at 88.2 percent of their operable  capacity last week. Gasoline production increased last week, averaging nearly 8.5 million barrels per day, while distillate fuel production also increased compared to the previous week, averaging 3.8 million barrels per day.

U.S. crude oil imports averaged nearly 9.9 million barrels per day last week, up 199,000 barrels per day from the previous week. Over the last four weeks, crude oil imports have averaged nearly 9.8 million barrels per day, a decrease of 417,000 barrels per day from the comparable four weeks last year. Total motor gasoline imports (including both finished gasoline and gasoline blending components) last week averaged over 1.3 million barrels per day, the fourth largest weekly volume ever. Distillate fuel imports averaged 379,000 barrels per day last week.

U.S. commercial crude oil inventories (excluding those in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) inched lower by 0.2 million barrels from the previous week. However, at 345.0 million barrels, U.S. crude oil inventories remain well above the upper end of the average range for this time of year. Total motor gasoline inventories dropped by 1.9 million barrels last week, and are now below the lower end of the average range. Distillate fuel inventories increased by 1.0 million barrels last week, and remain above the upper end of the average range for this time of year. Increases were seen in both low-sulfur distillate fuel (diesel fuel) and high-sulfur distillate fuel (heating oil) inventories. Total commercial petroleum inventories rose by 2.8 million barrels last week, and remain above the upper end of the average range for this time of year.

Total products supplied over the last four-week period has averaged 20.6 million barrels per day, or 1.3 percent more than averaged over the same period last year. Over the last four weeks, motor gasoline demand has averaged over 9.1 million barrels per day, or 0.3 percent above the same period last year.

Distillate fuel demand has averaged nearly 4.1 million barrels per day over the last four weeks, or 2.8 percent below the same period last year. Jet fuel demand is up 3.3 percent over the last four weeks compared to the same four-week period last year.  

Who was it that suspected the inventory report had bad news, and Bush saw it early, hence yesterday's speech?

The market doesn't seem to worried.  Crude and gasoline are both down on the NYME.
Yeah, but I wonder what would have happened if Bush hadn't given that speech?  As several people noted, you could when Bush's speech began, in the oil price chart in the sidebar of this site.

Anyway, it looks like it's back up to where we started, and a few cents more...

The four week running average of total petroleum imports was 11.852 mbpd (a slight increase over last week), which is the first increase we have seen since total imports started falling from the 2/24/06 number (12.749 mbpd).   Given how high light, sweet crude oil and product prices have been bid up, it makes sense that are finally seeing a supply response into the US.  I suspect that  some importers are unable or unwilling to buy oil at these prices.
Do I believe my eyes? Westexas is admitting that imports are UP!
Tis true.  A 20% to  25% increase in light, sweet crude oil prices has resulted in a 1.3% increase in the four week running average of total petroleum imports, which is still 7% below the 2/24/06 number.   What we don't know is whether the total world net export supply is down, as some importers are unable or unwilling to buy.  

IMO, in regard to oil prices we are going to see steadily higher highs and higher lows, as the markets allocate declining crude oil and product supplies to the highest bidders.

This is what is ironic about the US Congress complaining about high prices.  IMO, the only thing keeping the US market supplied is higher prices.

There is a front page (below the fold) article in today's WSJ titled Oil Minister Asserts Iran Won't Cut Exports Despite Nuclear Standoff (paid subscription required).  It may be posted for free at http://www.post-gazette.com/businessnews in a day or two.

The article is quite supportive of westexas' theory about declining net export capability:

In the past decade, Iranian output has stagnated at about four million barrels a day with the involvement in recent years of a handful of foreign oil companies. Meanwhile, Iran's domestic consumption has soared, reducing crude-oil exports, now about 2.5 million barrels a day. Domestic gasoline use has significantly outstripped domestic refining capacity, forcing Iran to import large volumes.

...

Already, [capacity expansion] efforts are being slowed by sharply declining output at its existing fields. ... Mr. Vaziri said the country needs the big, new investment to create fresh crude-oil production capacity of some 1.3 million barrels a day by 2010. But with average output-decline rates of some 6% to 7% a year from existing fields, those new fields would only bring a net addition of some 500,000 barrels a day in the time period, he said.

That plan doesn't account for another problem: soaring domestic consumption, which is eating into the amount of Iranian oil available for export. Mr. Vaziri said his country's gasoline use is growing at an eye-popping rate of 10% a year. Already, Iran is importing 25 million liters a day of gasoline, equivalent to nearly 160,000 barrels a day. Plans to add new refining capacity could gobble up another 500,000 barrels a day of Iranian crude production -- leaving no new crude to export to the rest of the world.

"We have a problem in the use of gasoline," Mr. Vaziri said.

Analysts say Iran's oil output prospects are dimmer. The decline rates cited by Mr. Vaziri add up to a loss of at least one million barrels a day by 2010. Just to keep its output steady, Iran would have to add that much in new production. With rising gasoline use, Iran's oil exports could slip, even without the impact of any sanctions.

Thanks for the story.  I saw the article in the paper, but I hadn't read it yet.  Note that the WSJ's headline, IMO, is a little misleading.  It should have read, "Iran unable to maintain current oil exports."  

Iran is one of top four net oil exporters.  The bottom two, Iran and Norway, are definitely declining.  The top two, Saudi Arabia and Russia are, at best, flat to slightly up.  The economies in all four countries are growing fast, and domestic consumption in at least three, all but Norway, is increasing fast.

This is the reality of 2006.  What the top exporters can, or will, export is declining.  What the top importers want to import is increasing.  Price is where the battle will be fought, if we are lucky.  If we are not lucky, the battle may involve weapons, conventional and otherwise.

Westexas: Kudos. I had not even heard the concept of declining exports caused by increased internal consumption in oil-producing countries until I read your posts. You should write a book. Your logic is sound- as oil prices increase, the economies of oil-producing countries will soar, along with their oil consumption. Very impressive.
Thank you very much.  Ever since I saw the HL plots that Khebab did on top exporters, I have been trying to sound the alarm.   Total production is interesting, but net export capacity makes the world go 'round.
Geko45 pointed out at PO.com that the numbers - gasoline down, distillates up - suggest that individuals are not cutting back on driving (yet), but industry is.  
And here's the new graph of gasoline inventories:

We are now below the average range.  

I'm sorry, but I just don't take Naimi's comments very seriously any more.

They're like the bin Laden tapes that always seem to pop up whenever the administration is in some kind of trouble. They could be real; or they could be just more psych-ops.

I just don't know what to believe, and I feel like I'm being manipulated most of the time.

OPEC's convincing voice? Stop it, you're killing me!
I did a recent search for "peak oil" on one of the most popular repub/conservative blogs, powerlineblog.com, and got ZERO responses.

On the other hand, "oil for food" (i.e. Iraq) got about 32 responses. And "global warming" got about 46 hits.

It has been that way for the last year and a half that I have monitored that site. These people and just about all the right-wing blogs (except for a few econoblogs) are deathly afraid of the topic. And it isn't because it is an "end-times" marker.

this is basically on-topic, and i am frankly surprised someone else hasn't posted this (maybe below, haven't gotten there yet), but did anyone see the keith oberman show last night?  he had a piece about youtube.com and personal videos circulating the web, and there was a part about the "make your own chevy tahoe ad" campaign.  well, after referring to the ad campaign, the reporter said something like "unfortunately (for chevy) most of the submissions looked like this:" and then it showed a clip of a tahoe with tag lines "why don't you just walk" and (drum roll) "peak oil is here". (transcript available tomorrow)
recognition in the msm! ...if only fleeting
to those TODers (or just PO-aware folks) who made ads, good work!  
-pop
Huffington Post had a Peak Oil guy up last night, one of their guest bloggers.  He said it was a conspiracy and there is no such thing as PO.
Do you mean this one?: link

It is the lack of transparency that has permitted the oil patch and OPEC in particular to bamboozle the world into turning "shortages and peak oil" into accepted Gospel. In my book, "Over a Barrel: Breaking The Middle East Oil Cartel" I go into great detail dispelling this myth.
Do you mean this one?: link

It is the lack of transparency that has permitted the oil patch and OPEC in particular to bamboozle the world into turning "shortages and peak oil" into accepted Gospel. In my book, "Over a Barrel: Breaking The Middle East Oil Cartel" I go into great detail dispelling this myth.
There seem to be VERY FEW of us Repubs who have gotten the message. Yes, I'm a registered Repub, but I take my Repubism seriously, as in Republic not Empire. The Republican party has been almost completely taken over by neocons and nutty Christers. God Will Provide or The Empire Will Provide. Feh.
I wish we could get back to good old fashioned real republicans who weren't just nasty and corrupt and who truly believed in fiscal responsibility. I might vote for one! No great fan of most Demos either.
the possibility of fiscal conservatism was greatly reduced the day the towers fell.  when we moved on Iraq, it was pretty much the EOS.
Why is that?

You mean we were pre-programmed to financially self-destruct just because of one terrorist attack?

We were pre-programmed to financially self-destruct ... but it had nothing to do with the loss of 2 buildings and a couple of thousand people (I don't want to sound callous, but on a grand scale, for a nation of 300 million people, 3000 is just a loss of one out of every 100,000; not much different than some rare disease).

We were/are programmed to self destruct because the game is one where the best bullsh*tter comes out ahead in each round. It is not win-win on each exchange. It's tails they win and heads you lose. When some fancy-named water-in-a-plastic bottle company sells you water for 100 times cost, it's not fair and balanced. The game belongs to those who can and do psyche you out.

Same with cars and gasoline. Why does a machine that pollutes the atmosphere, puts you in hock and just drives you in circles cost $30,000?