Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Price of Crude pt 14

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: THE Price of Crude pt 14

Unread postby GoghGoner » Sat 06 Jan 2018, 08:22:34

K, I don't mind metrics on total liquids but crude inventories are also useful since not all liquids are created equal (ie ethanol has less energy than oil per barrel).

There is something wrong with that number you are quoting again. Here is an EIA graph which is correct. It shows the glut has greatly receded.

Image
GoghGoner
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1740
Joined: Thu 10 Apr 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Stilłwater subdivision

Re: THE Price of Crude pt 14

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sat 06 Jan 2018, 12:48:54

GoghGoner wrote:K, I don't mind metrics on total liquids but crude inventories are also useful since not all liquids are created equal (ie ethanol has less energy than oil per barrel).

There is something wrong with that number you are quoting again. Here is an EIA graph which is correct. It shows the glut has greatly receded.

Image

1). At the risk of asking the obvious, could some simple, reasonably objective compromise be reached that indicated the number of total barrels AND the amount of total energy available (or something similar)? That would hopefully reduce skew/distortion enough for people who are trying to get a real look at the overall trend in liquid fuel energy available.

2). It seems to me that generally, if the EIA graph is anything close to accurate, then the oil markets are working well re the pricing mechanism. Financial markets try to look ahead at expected conditions, and that overall supply trend looks to be a good indication that prices deserve to rise until that trend meaningfully changes, especially given that global demand is likely to continue rising, as normal.

3). Since modern ICE's run OK with a percentage of ethanol often enforced, clearly ethanol is a realistic part of the supply picture, unless policy mandating it and subsidies for it end, causing it to diminish greatly or stop being used altogether for transport fuels.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 5700
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: THE Price of Crude pt 14

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 06 Jan 2018, 14:04:37

Let me pipe up for a moment on the all liquids argument.

Ethanol and Methanol are at the very small end of fuel molecules just like their hydrocarbon analogs methane and ethane. Therefore they have inherently less mass and less energy on a per unit volume basis. However by the same token heated asphalt liquid residual oil has a great deal of energy because its molecules are on the very heavy end of the same spectrum. If you heat asphalt up to about 95 degrees C or 200 degrees F you can run it through a large diesel engine and get a quite impressive level of energy out of the fluid.

That works great for large cargo ships equipped with marine diesels but not so great for the motor in your VW personal car. The crucial reason for counting ethanol in with regular fuel is the changes to run your gasoline engine on 100% ethanol are trivial while making the same changes to run even regular Diesel #2 in that same engine are prohibitively expensive. The energy difference is minor, no different in scale than the difference between Diesel #2 and Gasoline for Gasoline and Ethanol. Add in the fact that we don't run straight ethanol unless you modified your own engine or bought an E-85 complaint vehicle and it makes even less sense to worry overmuch about ethanol getting counted as fuel. It gets mixed into about 85 percent of all gasoline in the USA at the blending plant where it increases the volume 10% and reduces the energy content about 5%

IOW it isn't a big enough difference to worry about. If you ever want to restore your car fuel to straight gasoline energy content then dump 3 liters of Kerosene in the tank right before you fill up with Gasohol the next time around. Otherwise stop worrying about it.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14954
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Price of Crude pt 14

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sat 06 Jan 2018, 14:05:01

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
3). Since modern ICE's run OK with a percentage of ethanol often enforced, clearly ethanol is a realistic part of the supply picture, unless policy mandating it and subsidies for it end, causing it to diminish greatly or stop being used altogether for transport fuels.

If the ethanol mandates and subsidies were removed the only reason to include it in the gas formulation is as an oxygenater which they use to obtain the different octane levels and reduce carbon monoxide emissions in cold winter states.Instead of the ten percent figure used today some much smaller amount would be used with usually nothing in the summer months.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8963
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Price of Crude pt 14

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sat 06 Jan 2018, 14:34:09

Tanada wrote:IOW it isn't a big enough difference to worry about. If you ever want to restore your car fuel to straight gasoline energy content then dump 3 liters of Kerosene in the tank right before you fill up with Gasohol the next time around. Otherwise stop worrying about it.

Good point. I was just trying to find some agreement. If we had some agreed upon standards to report things and discuss things here generally, then maybe we could focus more on concepts and likely big picture trends, instead of worrying about (or obfuscating) issues like this detail (which is, as you point out, quite minor re total energy in liquid fuels).
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 5700
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: THE Price of Crude pt 14

Unread postby kublikhan » Sat 06 Jan 2018, 16:01:54

GoghGoner wrote:K, I don't mind metrics on total liquids but crude inventories are also useful since not all liquids are created equal (ie ethanol has less energy than oil per barrel).
The amount of ethanol in US storage is tiny compared to other inventory. Most of the additional liquids we are talking about are gasoline, diesel, etc. And since other OECD countries use negligible amounts ethanol we are talking really tiny amounts in OECD storage.

GoghGoner wrote:There is something wrong with that number you are quoting again. Here is an EIA graph which is correct. It shows the glut has greatly receded.
That graph is not inventory levels. It is inventory levels minus the 5 year average. The actual inventory levels from your source are the exact same numbers as the source I was using.

Your source:
OECD commercial liquids inventories barrels
July 2016: 3.09 billion
Nov 2017: 2.95 billion
Short Term Energy Outlook

My source:
OECD End-of-period Commerical Crude Oil and Other Liquids Inventory, Monthly
July 2016: 3.090 billion
Nov 2017: 2.953 billion
OECD End-of-period Commerical Crude Oil and Other Liquids Inventory, Monthly

Because the 5 year average is starting to include more and more high inventory months like 2015, 2016, and 2017, it is going to be pulled higher and high. That is why the EIA cautions that using a metric like this can be deceptive:

Going forward, the five-year average will include a higher proportion of data points from 2015-17, which were years of high inventory levels, resulting in higher five-year average stock levels for comparison. Although EIA forecasts OECD inventories to increase by 51 million barrels from December 2017 through May 2018, the level of OECD inventories relative to the five-year average is expected to decrease by 29 million barrels because of the increase in the five-year average.
Short Term Energy Outlook
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4264
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Price of Crude pt 14

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sat 06 Jan 2018, 21:27:58

Tanada wrote:Let me pipe up for a moment on the all liquids argument.
..........
Add in the fact that we don't run straight ethanol unless you modified your own engine or bought an E-85 complaint vehicle and it makes even less sense to worry overmuch about ethanol getting counted as fuel. It gets mixed into about 85 percent of all gasoline in the USA at the blending plant where it increases the volume 10% and reduces the energy content about 5%

IOW it isn't a big enough difference to worry about.

I think 920,000 barrels of ethanol a day needs to be worried about. If the EROEI of corn ethanol is not positive we need to stop wasting time and farmland on it.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8963
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Price of Crude pt 14

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 06 Jan 2018, 23:09:21

vtsnowedin wrote:
Tanada wrote:Let me pipe up for a moment on the all liquids argument.
..........
Add in the fact that we don't run straight ethanol unless you modified your own engine or bought an E-85 complaint vehicle and it makes even less sense to worry overmuch about ethanol getting counted as fuel. It gets mixed into about 85 percent of all gasoline in the USA at the blending plant where it increases the volume 10% and reduces the energy content about 5%

IOW it isn't a big enough difference to worry about.

I think 920,000 barrels of ethanol a day needs to be worried about. If the EROEI of corn ethanol is not positive we need to stop wasting time and farmland on it.


First off as has been pointed out endless times EROEI can be made to say somewhat near what the person using it wants to say simply by adding or subtracting energy needs for any given process. Want your EROEI to be high? Then use a few variables as you can get away with and always use the ones that are towards your desired result. Want EROEI to be low? Throw in every variable you can find an excuse for and use the most pessimistic assumption available for its individual energy cost. People who hate CORN ETHANOL claim it has from 1.34 to -1 EROEI while completely ignoring the fact that the vast bulk of fuel ethanol on the planet comes from much more sensible sources than 'corn likker' as the biological source material. Even if you are just talking about US Iowa Corn Ethanol then you are back to the issue of whose assumptions do you use and what makes their assumptions better than the people advocating a high EROEI for the same process?

Secondly 920,000 bbl is 10% of gasoline consumption just as expected and that 10% only lowers your gasoline energy content 4 or 5 percent. Even if you do an honest assessment and the Corn Ethanol EROEI is 1.34:1 because you add a bunch of natural gas energy to operate the distillers and keep the tanks warm and what not so what? You are transferring the energy of the natural gas which is abundant and cheap into a liquid with greater utility as a vehicle fuel. That is substitution 101.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14954
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Price of Crude pt 14

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 07 Jan 2018, 06:57:03

Having lost a chainsaw and a couple of other small engines to ethanol poisoned fuel I am far from unbiased on the subject but let me try this exercise.
Take one gallon of pure gas pre tax at $1.60 per gallon. in your car it gets 35mpg so cost 4.571 cents per mile. Now take nine tenths of a gallon of gas $1.44 and add one tenth gallon of ethanol at $2.10 a gallon (subsidized 51 cents a gallon) so 1.44+0.21=1.65/ gallon of E10. Now E10 has 5 percent less energy so your gas mileage drops to 33.25 MPG so 1.65/33.25=4.962 cents per mile. 4.962-4.571=0.39 cents per mile which doesn't seem like much but when you multiply it by the 3.22 Trillion miles Americans drove last year it comes out to 12.5 Billion dollars wasted. Then consider that the fleet average for US cars is not 35mpg but 23.6 using E10.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8963
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Price of Crude pt 14

Unread postby GoghGoner » Sun 07 Jan 2018, 08:04:42

On the inventory subject, it is still valid to use the five-year average even though it includes the glut. What you are not considering is that storage capacity has increased because of the glut and now (since oil inventories have fallen significantly the past year) there is a bunch of empty space where it didn't exist before. This means that if some buyer at Cushing wants to fill up wasted space now, that buyer could go on a spree whereas a couple of years ago that buyer didn't such a large capacity.

The farther that inventories fall, the further they will be from their storage limit so there will be more pressure upward on prices than in the past. When analyzing markets, using statistics, and comparing trends, I have found that nothing is directly comparable since we are always in a state of flux. We will always be mislead since we are linear thinkers in a non-linear world.
GoghGoner
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1740
Joined: Thu 10 Apr 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Stilłwater subdivision

Re: THE Price of Crude pt 14

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 07 Jan 2018, 08:56:06

I like to look at storage levels in terms of days of supply at current consumption rates. Products supplied have been averaging 20 million barrels a day over all of last year so today we have a 94 day supply (crude plus finished products) and a year ago we had a 101 day supply a seven day 140 million barrel decline. We are back into normal supply to usage ranges but the question is will supply continue to decline or stabilize. Considering the weather in the Eastern US and the news from the middle East I expect the decline to continue and prices to rise steadily up to the $70's range.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8963
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Price of Crude pt 14

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 07 Jan 2018, 09:52:39

vtsnowedin wrote:Having lost a chainsaw and a couple of other small engines to ethanol poisoned fuel I am far from unbiased on the subject but let me try this exercise.
Take one gallon of pure gas pre tax at $1.60 per gallon. in your car it gets 35mpg so cost 4.571 cents per mile. Now take nine tenths of a gallon of gas $1.44 and add one tenth gallon of ethanol at $2.10 a gallon (subsidized 51 cents a gallon) so 1.44+0.21=1.65/ gallon of E10. Now E10 has 5 percent less energy so your gas mileage drops to 33.25 MPG so 1.65/33.25=4.962 cents per mile. 4.962-4.571=0.39 cents per mile which doesn't seem like much but when you multiply it by the 3.22 Trillion miles Americans drove last year it comes out to 12.5 Billion dollars wasted. Then consider that the fleet average for US cars is not 35mpg but 23.6 using E10.


Sure, by multiplying in all the drivers in North America you get a huge number, this is not surprising to anyone. On the other side of the coin the E-10 is in there by government fiat and the same government could easily require all new cars sold in America have a higher compression ratio, which would back out the energy issue from the other side. The reason Ethanol provides lower fuel mileage is twofold, first as already stated smaller molecules have inherently less energy by unit volume than larger molecules. Secondly, Ethanol is 110 octane more or less and burning it in a low compression engine designed for 87 octane fuel is incredibly inefficient. See we have this government run by politicians instead of engineers and in some ways they are like ADD afflicted ten year olds. They never look at an issue and carry it through to the logical conclusion, they just take the sounds good step and move on. Most auto manufacturers aimed for 87 octane for the USA market because that level of fuel is relatively cheap to produce and most people want a car that burns the cheapest fuel. Then in the 1970's during the phase out of tetraethyl lead to boost fuel octane ratings the refiners looked for a cheap alternative octane booster and an excuse to use it in their fuel products. They came up with two, MTBE (Methyl tert-butyl ether) and ethanol. In the midwest the Corn Growers Association jumped in with both feet and got their lobbyists in Washington to mandate E-10 as an 'oxygenate' to clean up exhaust by supercharging the catalytic converters. The Californians and some other states where Ethanol was not an abundant local product got permission to use cheap MTBE instead that they could easily manufacture locally. But the Corn Growers Association was never satisfied with the smaller midwestern market and have spent the last 40 years spreading their E-10 mandate to as many states as they could culminating in studies of the horrors of MTBE spills a decade ago and its general discontinuation in most fuel in the USA.
The Corn Growers Association also got commitments from various Presidential candidates because Iowa remains the first state primary for the quadrennial presidential election cycle so that commitment to E-10 and pushes for E-15 have become baked into American politics. Fuel blenders don't mind cheap subsidized ethanol because it lets them use some really cheap low octane fuel components and compensate with the high octane ethanol to get an 87 blend. Car manufacturers on the other hand despise it because the lower energy makes it hard to match fuel efficiency requirements without increasing compression, but increasing compression means labeling the vehicle as 89 octane or even 91/93 octane and that is about a 30 cent a gallon price difference which consumers hate. The simple answer is for the government to get rid of the E-10 mandate, or issue an adjoining mandate that all American sold new vehicles must have a compression ratio that is more efficient for ethanol fuel blends like 10:1 instead of the 6.5:1 which is commonly in use. With that kind of mandate 87 octane fuel would slowly disappear the same way leaded gas faded away in the 1980's until about 1995 when it was banned. The system we use now is clearly not very efficient. Heck in China most vehicles are required to be M/E-85 compliant so they are built in the factory with high compression engines to take advantage of the Methanol/Ethanol fuel high octane. Even more converting Natural Gas aka Methane into Methanol liquid fuel is a pretty simple step and would allow cheap Natural Gas to massively replace much of the gasoline demand in the USA. But it takes political leadership for these things to happen.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14954
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Price of Crude pt 14

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 07 Jan 2018, 16:39:25

Tanada wrote: The simple answer is for the government to get rid of the E-10 mandate,

Yes on that we agree! :-D :)
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8963
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Price of Crude pt 14

Unread postby kublikhan » Sun 07 Jan 2018, 18:15:48

GoghGoner wrote:On the inventory subject, it is still valid to use the five-year average even though it includes the glut. What you are not considering is that storage capacity has increased because of the glut and now (since oil inventories have fallen significantly the past year) there is a bunch of empty space where it didn't exist before. This means that if some buyer at Cushing wants to fill up wasted space now, that buyer could go on a spree whereas a couple of years ago that buyer didn't such a large capacity.

The farther that inventories fall, the further they will be from their storage limit so there will be more pressure upward on prices than in the past. When analyzing markets, using statistics, and comparing trends, I have found that nothing is directly comparable since we are always in a state of flux. We will always be mislead since we are linear thinkers in a non-linear world.
If some buyer in Cushing decides to utilize this wasted space, that is going to put downward pressure on prices. Anytime inventory grows oil prices fall. Adding more storage capacity doesn't cause prices to rise. Draining inventory causes prices to rise.

Investors must note that oil prices can increase in a sustained manner only if the global crude oil inventories are reduced in a substantial way. Global crude oil inventories are not reducing the way they should.
Why Oil Prices May Remain Under Pressure From Supply Side In The Near Future

Oil Prices Slip After API Reports Small Build In Crude Inventories

Oil Prices Fall After API Reports Huge Build In Gasoline Inventories

Growing global liquids inventories reflect lower crude oil prices

vtsnowedin wrote:I like to look at storage levels in terms of days of supply at current consumption rates. Products supplied have been averaging 20 million barrels a day over all of last year so today we have a 94 day supply (crude plus finished products) and a year ago we had a 101 day supply a seven day 140 million barrel decline. We are back into normal supply to usage ranges but the question is will supply continue to decline or stabilize.
In terms of days of supply, we are still abnormally high as well:

Image

The blue line is where we are. The colored band represents the highest and lowest ever for that time of year. We are still near the maximum.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4264
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Price of Crude pt 14

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 07 Jan 2018, 19:30:45

You are mixing OECD statistics with USA statistics which are apples to tangerines. Not totally different but not exactly the same.
That the total OECD numbers are a lot less USA numbers tells you how big a chunk of the world supply the USA chews up.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8963
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Price of Crude pt 14

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 07 Jan 2018, 21:44:12

The OECD graph makes it pretty clear they were bumping along at the bottom of the range while prices were in the $80-$110/bbl window back in 2012-13. The logical reason for this was they kept stocks low because prices were high and tying up so much capital in expensive feedstocks would limit their ability to do other things with their capital funds. Now prices are heading back much closer to those prices with Brent already significantly higher than WTI for the first time in several years. This would lead me to expect OECD stocks to decline somewhat, perhaps not to the bottom where they sat in 2012-13, but much closer to the middle of the range.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14954
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Price of Crude pt 14

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 08 Jan 2018, 09:53:23

vtsnowedin wrote:You are mixing OECD statistics with USA statistics which are apples to tangerines. Not totally different but not exactly the same.
That the total OECD numbers are a lot less USA numbers tells you how big a chunk of the world supply the USA chews up.
That's not the reason the numbers are different. The OECD data is for commercial inventory only. You were including the SPR(strategic petroleum reserve) in your data. Commercial inventory does not include strategic petroleum reserves. Apples and tangerines as you might say. Once you exclude that data from the US numbers the OECD statistics and the USA statistics match up very closely. OECD stocks(Fig12) comes out to 61.7 days supply as of Novemeber 2017(latest data) and the US stocks comes out to 61.3 days supply(latest data).

vtsnowedin wrote:We are back into normal supply to usage ranges
No we aren't. The US had around 53 days supply(excluding SPR) at the start of 2014. Today we have around a 61 day supply. We still have an abnormal amount of supply.

Tanada wrote:The OECD graph makes it pretty clear they were bumping along at the bottom of the range while prices were in the $80-$110/bbl window back in 2012-13. The logical reason for this was they kept stocks low because prices were high and tying up so much capital in expensive feedstocks would limit their ability to do other things with their capital funds. Now prices are heading back much closer to those prices with Brent already significantly higher than WTI for the first time in several years. This would lead me to expect OECD stocks to decline somewhat, perhaps not to the bottom where they sat in 2012-13, but much closer to the middle of the range.
I suspect this will happen as well. But not this year. Both the EIA and IEA are projecting the inventory drain to slow down in 2018. Perhaps even reverse to a slight inventory build.

Our current outlook 2018 may not necessarily be a happy New Year for those who would like to see a tighter market. Total supply growth could exceed demand growth: indeed, in the first half the surplus could be 200 kb/d before reverting to a deficit of about 200 kb/d in the second half, leaving 2018 as a whole showing a closely balanced market. A lot could change in the next few months but it looks as if the producers' hopes for a happy New Year with de-stocking continuing into 2018 at the same 500 kb/d pace we have seen in 2017 may not be fulfilled.
Oil Market Report

Demand growth is not forecast to keep pace with supply growth resulting in global liquids inventories increasing modestly in 2018. With global inventories expected to increase in 2018, EIA forecasts Brent crude oil prices will decline from current levels to an average of $57/b in 2018.
EIA: SHORT-TERM ENERGY OUTLOOK

Edit: fixed 2014 days of supply to reflect 2014 consumption levels.
Last edited by kublikhan on Mon 08 Jan 2018, 11:52:18, edited 1 time in total.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4264
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Price of Crude pt 14

Unread postby GoghGoner » Mon 08 Jan 2018, 10:40:03

The US crude stocks are counter-seasonally declining. They are quite a bit below where they were at last year. If you had good numbers, you would find this same trend in floating storage and most other countries inventories. China was building inventory last year.

The reason prices are in backwardation is because the market expects more supply in the future. What the market expects and what it gets doesn't have to match at all. The EIA has had a very poor track record of predicting prices, you can go back thru the archives here and elsewhere for the actual numbers. Maybe they have done well since 2015 but that doesn't mean they have it figured out -- they are just always bullish on supply and predict things to be mostly stable. Like most of us are always bearish.

Image
GoghGoner
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1740
Joined: Thu 10 Apr 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Stilłwater subdivision

Re: THE Price of Crude pt 14

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 08 Jan 2018, 11:17:12

As we do get past the storage issue whether that is 2018 or 2019 I will find it interesting to see these 5 year trend graphs gradually morph more and more to showing the high fill status as the average.

What I mean is, starting in mid 2014 the stocks began to build and they kept building right through 2015. For 2016 they slowly built for the first few months and slowly declined for the last few month ending the year at virtually the same high level they began with. 2017 just passed the stocks seasonally built some in the start of the year but the overall trend was a decline over the course of the year to end around the middle of where we were in 2015 on the building side of the glut. Now the 5 year averages the IEA and other organizations use for placing the grey 'zone' on these graphs was 2010-2014 for the 2015 rapid building phase so if you go back and look at a say June 2015 graph the trend line is way high above the grey zone on the graph because the build was rapid and large scale. But if you look at that same graph plotted in June 2018 the five year grey zone will be based on 2013-2017 inventories and because that includes the start of the build in 2014 all the way through the current still high levels this will skew the grey zone higher than the 50 day commercial inventories average kublikahn is pointing to. This in turn may mislead people into thinking those high levels are what we should be aiming for in 2018 and 2020 and for several years beyond simply because they use a short five year cycle of data and the glut has lasted over 60% of the cycle and is still in process. IMO it would be useful if they would include a graph with the 10 year average zone and the 20 year average zone as options to clear out or smooth over rather these short term fluctuations.

Kublikhan do you have data on how many days of working storage the USA/OECD kept on hand in say 2005? Was it generally kept to 50 days or was it higher before prices started expanding in the Aughties?
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14954
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Price of Crude pt 14

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 08 Jan 2018, 11:34:33

The draw in crude oil is offset by a build in refined products.

Inventories of U.S. crude fell by roughly 7.4 million barrels for the week ended Dec. 29. Crude stockpiles fell for the seventh-straight week offset a larger than expected build in product inventories. Gasoline inventories – one of the products that crude is refined into – rose by 4.8 million barrels, well above expectations for a rise of 2 million barrels, while supplies of distillate – the class of fuels that includes diesel and heating oil – rose by 8.9 million barrels, confounding expectations for a rise of just 500,000 barrels. US distillate supplies are 20 million barrels below 2016 levels but just one million barrels shy of the ten-year seasonal average.

Crude production, however, continued to advance toward 10 million barrels per day. Total weekly U.S. production jumped by 28,000 barrels a day to nearly 9.8 million barrels a day.
Crude Prices Settle Higher, Shrugs Off Huge Gasoline, Distillates Build

U.S. crude stocks fell last week as refiners boosted activity to the highest rate since 2005, while stocks of distillates, which include diesel and jet fuel, rose by the most in a year.

Refinery activity hit its highest utilization rate since 2005 as refiners kept processing heavy volumes of crude into products, and due in part to year-end tax concerns. “Refineries have the incentive to run down stocks to avoid tax payments, which are based on the level of crude oil stocks at the year-end.”

Crude inventories fell by 7.4 million barrels in the week to Dec. 29. Distillate stockpiles, which include diesel and heating oil, rose by 8.9 million barrels. Gasoline stocks rose by 4.8 million barrels.
U.S. oil stocks down, fuel inventories up sharply

Another big dip in the nation's crude oil stockpiles was offset for the second week in a row with an even larger build in gasoline inventory levels. The country's falling oil glut saw its commercial crude stocks decline by 5.1 million barrels last week. However, gasoline inventories grew by 5.7 million barrels.
Big oil inventories draw again offset by fuels build

Tanada wrote:Kublikhan do you have data on how many days of working storage the USA/OECD kept on hand in say 2005? Was it generally kept to 50 days or was it higher before prices started expanding in the Aughties?
There's a graph here that gives US storage levels that far back:
Weekly U.S. Ending Stocks excluding SPR of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products

You can do a little math to translate that into days of supply. 947,390,000 barrels / 20,802,000 bpd = 46 days of supply in Jan 2005. If I am remembering this correctly, reported US storage levels increased a bit even before the glut. This is because we have higher domestic oil production and more domestic oil in transit. Domestic oil in transit(ex: oil in pipelines, railroad cars, etc) is counted as storage however foreign oil in transit(ex: oil in tankers) is not. IE, 46 days of storage in 2005 might in reality be similar to 53 days of supply in 2014 once you even out the transit factor.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4264
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests