Exploring Hydrocarbon Depletion
NEW! Members Only Forums!
Access more articles, news & discussion by becoming a PeakOil.com Member.
pstarr wrote:We are still getting what we need from these four declining exporters. That tells me some country somewhere is not receiving their share. Could it be Zimbabwe? Haiti? Ireland? Portugal? Greece?
Nah. Those problems are mortgage related
But our consumption has not dropped 3.3 mbpd. Someone's must have correct?gollum wrote:pstarr wrote:We are still getting what we need from these four declining exporters. That tells me some country somewhere is not receiving their share. Could it be Zimbabwe? Haiti? Ireland? Portugal? Greece?
Nah. Those problems are mortgage related
We are also needing less, lots of people not going to work every day who were 3 years ago, less vacations, less air travel.
TheAntiDoomer wrote:Someone with photoshoping capabilities should label the man in this pic Jeffrey Brown and write "Export Land Model" on the horse....
Perhaps oil prices could be rising because of a declining supply of net oil exports?Note that Saudi Arabia showed a very sharp increase in net exports from 2002 to 2005, as global crude oil prices doubled from $25 in 2002 to $55 in 2005. In response to the first crude oil price price doubling, we did of course see a substantial increase across the board in total liquids production (inclusive of biofuels), in total petroleum liquids, in crude + condensate (C+C), and in Global Net Exports (GNE) and in Available Net Exports (ANE).
In response to the second Brent crude oil price doubling (2005 to 2011), we have so far seen a very slow rate of increase in total liquids production (up 0.5%/year from 2005 to 2010), virtually flat total petroleum liquids and virtually flat C+C production (through 2010), and a 1.3%/year and 2.8%/year respective decline rate in GNE & ANE (through 2010). GNE fell from 46 mbpd (million barrels per day) in 2005 to 43 mbpd in 2010, while ANE fell from 40 mbpd in 2005 to 35 mbpd in 2010.
annual "Gap" charts follow, showing the gaps between where we would have been at the 2002 to 2005 rates of increase, versus the actual data in 2010.
Yet these calculations do not take account of the region’s growing thirst for its own oil. Between 2000 and 2010 China increased its consumption of oil more than any other country, by 4.3m b/d, a 90% jump. It now gets through more than 10% of the world’s oil. More surprising is the country that increased its consumption by the second-largest increment: Saudi Arabia, which upped its oil-guzzling by 1.2m b/d. At some 2.8m b/d, it is now the world’s sixth-largest consumer, getting through more than a quarter of its 10m b/d output.
Saudi Arabia is not the only oil-producer that chugs its own wares. The Middle East, home to six OPEC members, saw consumption grow by 56% in the first decade of the century, four times the global growth rate and nearly double the rate in Asia (see map).
The third reason for rising Gulf consumption is the inefficiency of domestic energy markets. Some 65% of Saudi electricity is generated using black gold, even as successive price shocks and the relative inefficiency of oil generation have seen it all but phased out in rich countries. Oil is used with such profligacy because domestic consumption is massively subsidised. According to the International Energy Agency, global oil subsidies added up to $192 billion in 2010. OPEC countries accounted for $121 billion of the total.
Saudi Arabia has the cheapest fuel in the Gulf and dirt-cheap electricity, too. This has alleviated poverty but it has also encouraged an American-style driving culture (for men) and limited public transport. Only a third as many Saudis own cars as Americans; as they get richer many more will take to the desert highways.
The point is, the only pipelines run south.dissident wrote:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/us-oil-production-a-threat-to-canadian-energy-industry/article2191152/
According to the above article the increasing US total liquids production is a threat to Canada's oil sales. This is so idiotic it is surreal.
Mr. Wuori pointed to the current discount of nearly $25 (U.S.) per barrel applied to oil traded in the landlocked central parts of North America.
“That’s an example of just how serious price degradation can be when you have too much supply and not enough outlet,” said Mr. Wuori, for whom the coming changes provide further reason for Canada to pursue other markets. Enbridge, the country’s largest transporter of crude, is a major proponent of such plans, with its $6.6-billion Northern Gateway pipeline that would bring oil sands crude to the Pacific coast for export to Asia and California.
This assumes $25 oil.The Washington Times: Oil and Iraq's future
Washington Times - Apr 17, 2003
With an export potential of 7 million barrels per day achievable within about six years, Iraq could be generating about $64 billion per year at a price of
With the coalition of the willing having vanquished Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, it is now up to the "coalition of the drilling" to provide the resources to underwrite Iraq's political and economic development after decades of repression and economic mismanagement. Let there be no doubt: Iraq's immense oil and gas reserves 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves; at least another 100 billion barrels of potential oil ...
Complete Article, 721 words ( )
gollum wrote:What isn't discussed much, is the tendency that net exporters will probably have to hoard their oil when it becomes apparent the oil will be worth more in the future as peak oil becomes more apparent.
Meaning not sufficient demand at a high enough price.Though Iraq could, in that scenario, theoretically pump as much as nine million bpd, Shahristani said that between five and six million bpd “would generate enough revenues to meet our needs.”
“We thought in Iraq that there is no point at this stage to invest very large sums to develop the fields for a much higher production capacity if we are not going to use that capacity and produce the oil, that we cannot market because there is not sufficient demand for it.”
ROCKMAN wrote:Keith - That position probably goes a long way towards explaining the Iraq position on trades with third parties on developing their oil infrastructure. The Iraq terms appear to allow only a very thin margin for those third parties and thus there’s little interest by anyone except the Chinese. China imports the majority of Iraq oil today and dominates forward projects. Not having to focus strictly on the bottom line China can play the long game of commodity access and not worry too much about quarterly profits.
Users browsing this forum: pstarr and 16 guests