by smiley » Fri 15 Apr 2005, 18:09:30
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n Feb issue, they stated a drop of oil supply.
Yes they stated a drop of 650.000 barrels. However if you look at the word production figures, the actual drop was 800.000 barrels. That might not seem so terribly important, but look at the following exercise.
- In the beginning of August 2004 the world production was 83.5 Mb/d*
- At the end of march 2005 the world production was 84.2 Mb/d**
So the production grew an anemic 0.7 Mb/d in those months.
Now lets look at the individual reported world production growth numbers
(as stated in the previous post).
march 365
February 885
January -645
December -45
November -40
October 890
September 640
august 300
Now if you add those numbers you get a solid growth of 2.3 Mb/d, more than three times as high as the actual 0.7 Mb/d. Then it becomes pretty clear how important these backward revisions are for the perception of growth. The growth numbers in each report are overstated by an average 200.000 barrels.
*World oil supply rose by 550 kb/d in July, to 83.5 mb/d. OPEC crude gained 450 kb/d, mostly from Iraq. Non-OECD revisions boost baseline world supply by 200-300 kb/d over the 1994-2002 period, mainly in OPEC NGL. The net effect of baseline revisions is that the Call on OPEC plus stock change in 2004 is adjusted up by 410 kb/d. Non OPEC supply growth remains at 1.2 mb/d for 2004 and 2005.
**March world oil supply rose by 365 kb/d to 84.2 mb/d, from a lower February base. Non-OPEC oil output rose by 60 kb/d to 50.4 mb/d. Non-OPEC plus OPEC other liquids growth remains at 1.4 mb/d for 2005. Early-year disruptions affecting OECD output now skew non OPEC growth into the second half of the year.