by peripato » Thu 17 Jan 2008, 10:37:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', '.')..So where did that oil go? about 60 million barrels (2 mbpd) per month should have shown up on an inventory somewhere. '
That is, unless it all went to China and they used it.
That could be, but still, there's definitely something fishy about that kind of an increase.
That's an understatement. You guys have been saying we already peaked, and we're about to go off a cliff. That IEA graph looks like we went off the cliff in reverse.
Anyway, don't mind me. Please carry on with the denial session.
Even if true, (as the IEA are usually wildly optimistic in their estimates which are almost always revised down), at a time when the oil industry is swimming in cash, I'd hardly call an increase of 1.4 mb/d of
liquids, not just crude, over 18 months exactly stellar, seeing that demand is outpacing supply growth at a far faster rate, with no sign of abating. Surely with all the profits to be had they could have done better than that? Now if production fell again in January or February you'd have to say that this event was an essentially meaningless statistic in a still undulating plateau, as oil growth, in comparison to previous years, has essentially flat-lined. The really interesting figure though, which is far harder to obtain, is the amount of total exports.
So we don't now for sure that peak has arrived yet. What’s your point? We knew that peak oil would only be visible with the benefit of hindsight anyway. We also know that the amount of oil is finite and can only be produced up to a certain rate before it declines. Even optimists in the oil industry and the IEA's chief economist don't see it ever going above 100 mb/d, or past 2020. Do you suggest that because the fateful date has not been
exactly identified that we throw all caution to the wind, as if the supply can just keep growing forever, when the symptoms of peak oil's arrival or impending arrival are everywhere to see, for those who choose to take notice?
by TonyPrep » Thu 17 Jan 2008, 14:35:56
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'Y')ou guys have been saying we already peaked, and we're about to go off a cliff. That IEA graph looks like we went off the cliff in reverse.
Anyway, don't mind me. Please carry on with the denial session.
Where is the denial session? We are discussing the rather large spike in reported IEA figures, for December and 4Q07. I don't know who "you guys" are but most here have, by virtue of a bumpy plateau over the last 18-36 months, thought that peak
may have arrived. Then October came, the revised November figure showed a significant reverse (about 0.37 mbpd), then December spiked again (on the first estimate). You were one of the few who stated categorically, in your big fizzle thread, that peak definitely had arrived. Also, who was saying we were about to go off a cliff? A 1-3% decline, when it sets in, is hardly a cliff, though it would still have significant impacts in a world of rising demand.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')It's been higher 3 months in a row. Time to eat the "noise" explanation, and concede.
Higher than what? October was 1.4 mbpd higher, November was 0.4 mbpd lower, December was 0.9 mbpd higher, on IEA figures. We don't have the EIA figures for the last two months. Production is still lower than consumption, on average, so let's see if 2008 can reverse that.
by Bas » Thu 17 Jan 2008, 19:10:27
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'T')alk about shooting the messenger. If you'd like to engage in groupthink rather than critcal debate, do kick JohnDenver out.
I wouldn't call this:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat's an understatement. You guys have been saying we already peaked, and we're about to go off a cliff. That IEA graph looks like we went off the cliff in reverse.
Anyway, don't mind me. Please carry on with the denial session.
critical debate. If he doesn't engage in devoid of content posting like this "me vs the rest" (God knows I do it myself on other topics) post, I do like his contributions. (ok, partly because he brings up things where he's in agreement with me, maybe without knowing)
Anyway, this thread isn't about JD, so let's get back to the topic at hand; the happy newz of production increase
by wisconsin_cur » Fri 25 Jan 2008, 08:11:30
Sounds like 2012 is the official IEA line. they also seem to use the term "supply crunch" as a term with a rather definitive meaning. I would guess it means, "Demand outstripping supply."
Article
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')A sees oil supply crunch looming
By Alex Lawler
Reuters
Monday, July 9, 2007; 9:02 AM
LONDON (Reuters) - World oil demand will rise faster than expected to 2012 while production lags, leading to a supply crunch, the International Energy Agency said on Monday.
In its Medium-Term Oil Market Report, the adviser to 26 industrialized countries said demand will rise by an average 2.2 percent a year between 2007 and 2012, up from a previous medium-term forecast of 2 percent.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ome analysts say the agency is being alarmist and that its warnings about supplies are actually leading to higher prices.
"The International Energy Agency has put such a fear premium in the market that crude futures remain bought no matter what," said Olivier Jakob of Petromatrix.
The IEA said fundamentals of supply and demand are prompting price gains.
"The simple thing is we are there to project the market as we see it," Eagles said. "The price response is due to fundamentals. We are simply pointing out the fundamentals. That's our job."
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')Certainly our forecast suggests that the non-OPEC, conventional crude component of global production appears, for now, to have reached an
effective plateau, rather than a peak," the report said.
Falling output at ageing fields and setbacks such as 2005's hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico have slowed growth in non-OPEC output in recent years.
Lower supply from non-OPEC countries and rising demand will boost the requirement for OPEC oil.
The IEA said demand for OPEC crude, or the call on OPEC, will rise to 34.7 million bpd in 2011, up 1.3 million bpd from the previous projection.
Emphasis mine.
by wisconsin_cur » Sat 26 Jan 2008, 03:21:59
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Twilight', 'H')e was not trying to say mid- (specific year), he was trying to say the middle of next decade and was unable to express the thought. Perhaps his language failed him momentarily. It happens, no matter how well you speak a second language.
I'm fine giving him the benefit of the doubt on that issue.
But is 2012 the middle of the next decade? It is either the beginning of the next decade or, if we are precise, four years away.
"Middle of next decade" is a language trick. It sounds farther away "than four years"
http://www.thenewfederalistpapers.com
-
wisconsin_cur
- Light Sweet Crude
-
- Posts: 4576
- Joined: Thu 10 May 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: 45 degrees North. 883 feet above sealevel.
-
by Tanada » Wed 30 Jan 2008, 14:39:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DomusAlbion', 'Y')ou guys are watching the pot, waiting for it to boil.
Does it really matter when exactly we reach peak?
It's going to happen. Sooner than most of us hope.
Hell if it was what I hoped it would have been 1981!
A heck of a lot has happenned since 1981, and I don't think we are better prepared to deal with it now than we were then.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
