[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse2', 'H')i Pup and everyone else,

Can someone help me understand this: its my understanding the US uses about 21 mbpd in oil. The US produces roughly 5, and imports roughly 10, so where is the difference? Is it NGL etc?

Also, Pup I'm not following the idea that the US would have to quit selling gasoline to get usage within 9 mbpd.

[seahorse]

Mr. Bill,

Is it correct that fuel consumption by the US military is not known or released and only estimated by outside sources? If so, is it possible this is the difference?

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', 'M')r. Bill,

Is it correct that fuel consumption by the US military is not known or released and only estimated by outside sources? If so, is it possible this is the difference?

[NEOPO]

I used the IEA numbers,charts and overlays to come up with the following.

U.S. OIL DEMAND 2006

TOTAL 2006 ALL PRODUCTS approx. 21 mbpd

LPG + NAPTHA - 13% = 2.73 mbpd
GAS DIESEL - 20% = 4.20 mbpd
MOTOR GASOLINE - 44% = 9.24 mbpd
RESIDUAL FUELS - 5% = 1.05 mbpd
JET AND KEROSENE - 8% = 1.68 mbpd
OTHER PRODUCTS - 10% = 2.10 mbpd

Totals - 100% = 21 mbpd

The following were used as cross reference statistics from other IEA overlays and charts.

Diesel Oil - 3.09 mbpd - 20%
Residential Fuel oil - 1.03 mbpd
Heating oil and other gasoline - 1.10 mbpd
Jet and Kerosene - 1.75 mbpd - 8%
Motor Gasoline - 9.27 mbpd - 44%

These numbers do not add up.
The "jet and kerosene" and the "Motor gasoline" jive but the Diesel Oil does not.
Perhaps this is part of the Military demand?
Oddly the charts were labeled somewhat differently from the IEA's own PRODUCT BREAKDOWN DEMAND reference making it impossible to cross reference every statistic.

____________________________________________________________

Could america "Run" on 9mbpd?

Lets call it a slow trot or maybe a gallop but I dont think "Run" NO.

If america had been preparing for PO for 20-30 years then yes I believe "run" could have been possible.

Consider the U.S. trade imbalance.
The difference is the extra resources the U.S. consumes.
The oil, the coal, the nuclear power etc etc that these other countries use to make those goods.
Now add that on top of the 21 mbpd.

28-30 mbpd? yeah that is perhaps how much the U.S. actually uses if you consider all the walmart junk etc etc.

So the real question should be - could the U.S. survive on only the oil it has in reserves.....?

I hope I am knee deep in compost and manure before we try this experiment

[pup55]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')hilean Cabernet Sauvignons, Merlots ... copper, coffee beans

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U').S. OIL DEMAND 2006

TOTAL 2006 ALL PRODUCTS approx. 21 mbpd

LPG + NAPTHA - 13% = 2.73 mbpd
GAS DIESEL - 20% = 4.20 mbpd
MOTOR GASOLINE - 44% = 9.24 mbpd
RESIDUAL FUELS - 5% = 1.05 mbpd
JET AND KEROSENE - 8% = 1.68 mbpd
OTHER PRODUCTS - 10% = 2.10 mbpd

Totals - 100% = 21 mbpd

[pup55]

http://www.energybulletin.net/13199.html

Here is your data on military use of fuel/energy, per the energy bulletin of about a month ago.

According to this, it is not included in the above data.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', 'h')ttp://www.energybulletin.net/13199.html

Here is your data on military use of fuel/energy, per the energy bulletin of about a month ago.

According to this, it is not included in the above data.

[seahorse]

If US military oil demand is not in the US oil usage stats, is that also true for all world militaries? Further, how does this play into world oil demand stats? If the world is presumed to use about 84 mbpd, what is real world oil demand usage with military demand added to civilian demand?

Here's the problem, if civilian world oil demand is about 84 mbpd, and the world has maybe 1 mbpd spare capacity, how is it there is also enough oil to fuel the militaries of the world?

Last, if I'm following correctly, there is this "other" oil usage which somehow makes all the daily usage for the United States add up. And, as Mr. Bill points out, this "other usage" category seems be the same "million plus" that is so important on the US petro inventory numbers which causes the price of oil to rise or fall. Am I understanding this correctly?

[MrBill]

If we buy into Efficient Market Theory, which states that all known information (and all insider information not publicy disclosed) is in the price (as insiders would use this information to their advantage) then the fact that prices have ground relentlessly higher this year despite apparent increases in inventory data to comfortable levels would indicated to me that either supply is being publicy overstated or demand is being publicly understated and in fact due to military use or whatever discrepancies in the data that we do not in fact have 1.5-2.0 mio bpd excess capacity, but somewhat (how much is uncertain) less spare capacity than is necessary.

This would explain a rising crude price against a backdrop of increasing inventories even though technically the winter heating season is behind us and the summer driving season has not yet started.

Or we may attribute this to Behavioral Finance Theory and fund managers are trying to drive the price of crude and products higher to flatter their first quarter trading profits to attract more funds under management in the second quarter and the natural hedgers are quite happy to allow them to do so until such a time that they feel the market has gone far enough and then they will sell futures, while increasing more physical product onto the market?

What is clear is that the fundamentals are always clearest at the top and at the bottom of the trend.

[seahorse]

Mr. Bill,

I don't understand why this issue of the U.S.' oil numbers not adding up hasn't come up at some point in time with your fellow oil traders, people in your business. Why is that?

And, if they don't make sense, do you subscribe to the "efficient market theory" or the "behavorial science theory"?

[killJOY]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ould America run on 9 mbpd?

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', 'M')r. Bill,

I don't understand why this issue of the U.S.' oil numbers not adding up hasn't come up at some point in time with your fellow oil traders, people in your business. Why is that?

And, if they don't make sense, do you subscribe to the "efficient market theory" or the "behavorial science theory"?

[seahorse2]

Mr. Bill,

It seems really important to determine if the numbers add up or don't. I do agree that there is always some uncertainty and that there is also a margin of error, however, the numbers should still make sense, especially over time.

If in fact the numbers do not add up, that is signficicant, bc as you point out, everyone is relying on numbers that don't reflect reality. The question then would be, what are realistic numbers and why are the numbers incorrect to begin with (where's the reporting problem?)

If the numbers are being intentionally doctored in some way, it would support what some long term pessimist have been alleging about peak oil. After Enron, many other corporate scandals, and knowing gov't and people in general, my experience as an attorney, tells me that numbers are often skewed. We would only hope or believe that with so many entities and organization plugging the numbers into the big formula, it would be very difficult to skew the numbers. If you can find an answer, I hope you will let us know.

[spudbuddy]

-interesting comment about the capitalist economic model being compared to a bicycle / if it stops, it falls over.
That's part of the problem right there. This model and the entire concept of "sustainability" are incompatible, absolutely.
Assuming that some fine day we actually wake up and take to the idea that there are limits to growth....

I think that realistically, America would have to go on an "energy diet" to achieve a 50% reduction in energy use (just for starters!)
I would imagine this would have to be set up as short/medium/long range goals.
The government would have to step back into the business of running things, and give BIZNESS the boot, no doubt.
This would include:

An absolute ban on (new) personal vehicles that get anything less than 50mpg.
First reducing, and then eliminating altogether, long-haul trucking....(replaced entirely by rail.) -combined with short-haul, lighter and more fuel-efficient trucks.
Severe reductions, leading to an eventual elimination of new sprawl (perhaps future development would entail massive infill, and a substantial increase of population per acreage in urban areas.)
-combined with a new emphasis on public transit - primarily light urban rail.

I believe all of this would have an enormous impact on energy consumption levels.
Mass transit works in places where the population density provides enough ridership to pay for it.

It's one thing to imagine a shift in popular consciousness - where people can actually see how much less wasteful of energy these alternatives are...
But it still means weaning the population away from the lifestyle models we've enjoyed for some time now. (McHouses and McMansions, for starters.)

I think a critical shift has to take place in the public will: that we actually want some of the changes this would bring about....
improvements in community/neighborhood/public realm due to reduction of sprawl.
Options/choices that allow for far less dependence on the private automobile.

Unfortunately, to realistically bring about this kind of change on a massive scale, requires the kind of wealth we're squandering on our energy-hogging economy now.

The entire world economy (let alone America's) is not set up at all, to conserve what's left of our carbon resources. (back to the comment/quote at the top.)
It would be a far different world, wouldn't it? - if America were aiming at energy self-sufficiency.

How long has it been since America producted enough fuel to run itself?
Quite awhile, I imagine. What are we looking at now? A 75-80% shorfall?

It's interesting - the historical perspective on the collective psyche - I think the last time we actually achieved an actual reduction in consumption was back in the '70's....a general attitude that big bad OPEC was whipping the puppy -
(partying on the gluts for two more decades) and here it comes round again...like a tasteless Uncle Buck who just won't go away.........

Could America run on 5mbpd?
Sure.
A far different America than the one we see now.
Better? Worse?
That's a fascinating debate, isn't it?



you're just as robbed with the fountain pen
as with the gun, son

[Ghog]

America is no longer interested in 'leading the way'. There was a time when we would have taken this challenge head on. Instead we now have a bunch of spoiled, arrogant citizens being led to the slaughter by a bunch of greedy, special-interest serving boobs. We mobilized the masses in the past, but it won't happen now. We have too many INDIVIDUALS saying, "why should I?". Not exactly what we would need to run on 5 let alone 9 mbpd.

Could we physically do it? Of course. Will we? Probably not.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse2', 'M')r. Bill,

It seems really important to determine if the numbers add up or don't. I do agree that there is always some uncertainty and that there is also a margin of error, however, the numbers should still make sense, especially over time.

If in fact the numbers do not add up, that is signficicant, bc as you point out, everyone is relying on numbers that don't reflect reality. The question then would be, what are realistic numbers and why are the numbers incorrect to begin with (where's the reporting problem?)

If the numbers are being intentionally doctored in some way, it would support what some long term pessimist have been alleging about peak oil. After Enron, many other corporate scandals, and knowing gov't and people in general, my experience as an attorney, tells me that numbers are often skewed. We would only hope or believe that with so many entities and organization plugging the numbers into the big formula, it would be very difficult to skew the numbers. If you can find an answer, I hope you will let us know.

[seahorse2]

Mr. Bill,

Were you able to get a complete answer to the "missing barrels" number? Just curious.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse2', 'M')r. Bill,

Were you able to get a complete answer to the "missing barrels" number? Just curious.