[eastbay]

I'm certainly no oil expert, but if a large above ground crude oil tank can can hold 100,000 to 200,000 barrels and Saudi daily production is around 9 million barrels it would require a vast number of tanks to allow them to store excess supply during past 'slack times' and to draw from them during times of depletion. A day's month's worth of production, for example would require roughly 50 to 100 such tanks.

If the Saudi's had thousands of these tanks maybe, but I just don't see it.

EastBay

[big_rc]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'I')'m certainly no oil expert, but if a large above ground crude oil tank can can hold 100,000 to 200,000 barrels and Saudi daily production is around 9 million barrels it would require a vast number of tanks to allow them to store excess supply during past 'slack times' and to draw from them during times of depletion. A day's month's worth of production, for example would require roughly 50 to 100 such tanks.

If the Saudi's had thousands of these tanks maybe, but I just don't see it.

EastBay

[nero]

I wonder about this idea that the 4th quarter is going to be significantly different than other quarters. The oil demand is not seasonal, the product demand is. Instead, the product and oil stocks have seasonal cycles, as stocks are built up in preparation for the next season. In general people like to see their refineries (expensive capital equipment) running at 100% capacity to maximize profits. Similarly there aren't some extra oil tankers left on the bench for 9 months of the year only to be used in the 4th quarter. These are expensive pieces of equipment and to maximize profits should be used at as close to 00% capacity as possible.

[aahala]

Taskforce_Unity

Thank you for posting some actual figures for our discussion.

I don't see what you are claiming by the "regularly". To me,
that implies that over the 1999-2005 period, demand usually exceeded supply and I dont get that by viewing the figures.

I agree that in years 1999 and 2002 demand exceeded supply, but in years 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2004 the opposite(counting four quarters
as a whole year).

The figures after the first quarter of this year are interesting,
but they are just projections.

It would be interesting if someone would add the figures in the
supply and demand collumns for years 1999-2004 and first quarter
2005 to see the difference.

[Taskforce_Unity]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('aahala', '[')b]Taskforce_Unity

Thank you for posting some actual figures for our discussion.

I don't see what you are claiming by the "regularly". To me,
that implies that over the 1999-2005 period, demand usually exceeded supply and I dont get that by viewing the figures.

I agree that in years 1999 and 2002 demand exceeded supply, but in years 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2004 the opposite(counting four quarters
as a whole year).

[eastbay]

Matt Simmons estimates their domestic tank capacity at 50-70 million barrels.

Yes, that represents 6 to 8 days worth of production. I still don't see the impact.

EastBay

[aahala]

What I meant was to add the 25 quarters of historical data for supply
and for demand and see which was greater. By my addition, supply was
slightly greater.(1999-2004 plus 1st quarter of 2005.)

[Leanan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')es, that represents 6 to 8 days worth of production. I still don't see the impact.

[Taskforce_Unity]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'M')att Simmons estimates their domestic tank capacity at 50-70 million barrels.

Yes, that represents 6 to 8 days worth of production. I still don't see the impact.

EastBay

[chuck6877]

Why would the Saudi's LIE like they are??

I don't understand why they would keep up such a blatant lie?

Do you guys have a theory?

I just ordered from amazon.com Matt Simmon's book "TWILIGHT IN THE DESERT" I'm sure it will say why.

Has anyone read it yet?? What does it say??

Chuck

[KiddieKorral]

They'd lie like that to keep the status quo going as long as possible.

[chuck6877]

I still don't understand that argument though.

I understand that it was their intention to keep prices low over all the years to keep people from investing in ALTERNATIVE energy sources.

But NOW things are different. The peak is here and their lies get larger and larger.

Since the peak is here, why aren't they finally admitting that they were wrong? It's too late for alternative energy sources to replace oil. They're going to have BUYERS for all their oil for the next 40 years. Somebody will buy it.

So why don't they atleast admit they're OUT OF OIL and let the prices SKYROCKET and make some nice profits?

Seems like at this point in THEIR GAME, they should just let the prices skyrocket, make a fortune, and save some of their money for when they do finally run dry in the long term.

Chuck

[chuck6877]

I think I thought of the answer to my own question.

THEY are corrupt. Simple as that.

They still, even though they're about to crash WORLD economies everywhere, want to ENSURE OIL is used for the next 40 years.

They don't care if they crash economies, THEY JUST WANT TO PREVENT ELECTRIC cars, BIODIESEL fuels, HYBRID CARS, NUCLEAR running trains, etc, FOR AS LONG AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN HUH???

They simply do not care about anyone or anything but their bank accounts and selling their oil for YEARS AND DECADES TO COME.

PURE GREED.

AM I RIGHT?

Chuck

[Russian_Cowboy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('chuck6877', 'I') still don't understand that argument though.

I understand that it was their intention to keep prices low over all the years to keep people from investing in ALTERNATIVE energy sources.

But NOW things are different. The peak is here and their lies get larger and larger.

Since the peak is here, why aren't they finally admitting that they were wrong? It's too late for alternative energy sources to replace oil. They're going to have BUYERS for all their oil for the next 40 years. Somebody will buy it.

So why don't they atleast admit they're OUT OF OIL and let the prices SKYROCKET and make some nice profits?

Seems like at this point in THEIR GAME, they should just let the prices skyrocket, make a fortune, and save some of their money for when they do finally run dry in the long term.

Chuck

[OilsNotWell]

I think the Saudi (and other producer's) motives go beyond greed, really.. They've (SA) actually fulfilled a very difficult role as swing producer over the years...

The "oil curse" is truly apt...

It is a simplistic and incorrect way of fixing blame upon the management of reserves and production by greed.

Imagine the very stake, the national security of the most powerful nation the Earth has ever seen at peril...there are things that go beyond greed, I believe I can assure you...

Delay and hiding of the true nature of the production/reserve status is imperative...the entire system rides upon the fundamental belief of continual growth...

It's a CON-fidence scheme...a giant Ponzi scheme involving oil, money, geo-politics, world power, etc...based upon the tremendous energy riches of oil and gas.

Can't have anyone losing any CON-fidence in the system now... The very nature of the system itself is DESIGNED for denial of very basic earthly constraints. It's quite simple really when you think about it. Finite world. Finite resources. Finite growth.

Ever seen a run on a bank?

[Sparaxis]

The IEA numbers are a bit misleading. Demand is for products, supply is for crude. You have to add the 1.9 mmbd they project for processing gain as well to make a comparison.

That's why I prefer the Chinese/Russian practice of reporting in tons (mass) and not b/d (volume). You get a lot more volume out of refinery than you put in, but in mass terms it has to balance.

[OilsNotWell]

Excellent point, Sparaxis. I didn't know that.

So then if we take our supply number as measured in volume, b/d, add, 1.9mmbd to it, THEN match it to expected or past demand for refined products, we can compare?

And, what would the differences between specific gravities of crude, say light v. heavy, do to the volume comparisons? Would heavy crude, say, possess more 'density' and thus its volume doesn't increase as much via processing v. lighter oils?

[OilsNotWell]

And, since the refinery inputs are moving towards heavier and heavier crudes (light sweet crudes maxed out, surplus in heavy sour)...a difference of 1-2% by volume would surely seem to make a difference...

And what of the problem that it requires more of heavy/sour crudes to make the same amount of refined products than that of light/sweet?

Our yardsticks don't measure very well, do they.

[Russian_Cowboy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sparaxis', 'T')he IEA numbers are a bit misleading. Demand is for products, supply is for crude. You have to add the 1.9 mmbd they project for processing gain as well to make a comparison.

That's why I prefer the Chinese/Russian practice of reporting in tons (mass) and not b/d (volume). You get a lot more volume out of refinery than you put in, but in mass terms it has to balance.

[Taskforce_Unity]

bah damnit you are right Here directly from the IEA short term energy outlook may 2005

"Demand for Petroleum by the OECD countries is synonymous with "petroleum product supplied" which is defined in the glossary of the EIA petroleum annual monthly. Demand for petroleum by the non-OECD countries is "apparent consumption" which includes internal consumption, refinery fuel and loss and bunkering"

"Supply: Includes production of crude oil, natural gas plant liquids, other hydrogen and hydrocarbons for refinery feedstocks, refinery gains, alcohol and liquids produced from coal and other sources"

I need another dataset, this one sucks....