$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Grautr', 'T')he two examples I know of are Britain, which peaked in North Sea crude in 2000 and became a net importer by 2007.
Mexico peaked in 2005 and is due to begin importing in 2011.
The real blip will occur when this happens to SA.
PeakOil is You
TOD: Export Land Model
Re: The Export Land Model
by shortonsense » Sun 21 Feb 2010, 17:27:03
Net importers can only be such as long as the aggregate net exporters are able to keep up the supply. SA won't be able to import unless there is enough supply to go around by then, which seems unlikely.
As the owners of the largest recoverable accumulation known to man, perhaps it will be Venezuela to the rescue? But in the near future, my bet is on Russia.
-
shortonsense - Permanently Banned
- Posts: 3124
- Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Re: The Export Land Model
by Revi » Sun 21 Feb 2010, 17:42:36
I think the way they'll deal with it is to crash the economies of certain countries to limit demand. We are using less now in the US for example.
The export land model assumes that demand is robust, which may not be the case if people can't afford to buy oil.
Nigeria has riots because people can't afford to buy cooking oil, while people use it for wave runners over here.
There are export states where the domestic population uses oxcarts while huge amounts of oil are exported to places where it's wasted.
The export land model assumes that demand is robust, which may not be the case if people can't afford to buy oil.
Nigeria has riots because people can't afford to buy cooking oil, while people use it for wave runners over here.
There are export states where the domestic population uses oxcarts while huge amounts of oil are exported to places where it's wasted.
Deep in the mud and slime of things, even there, something sings.
-
Revi - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 7417
- Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Maine
Re: The Export Land Model
by AirlinePilot » Sun 21 Feb 2010, 17:44:24
EIA data show that Chindia's net oil imports increased at about 9%/year from 2005 to 2008, while (2005) top five net exports fell at about 2%/year from 2005 to 2008.
Over the 2005 to 2008 time frame, US net oil imports fell at 4.3%/year. All of this occurred as annual US oil prices went from $57 to $100.
So, to summarize, from 2005 to 2008:
Net oil exports went down, especially from the top five;
Oil prices went up;
US net oil imports went down;
Chindia's net oil imports went up.
JD, all but agrees with Brown on the principles of the model, he just unsuccessfully debunks the results as a "molehill". ANYTHING which can act to increase the total decline picture is something to be concerned about. I find it interesting that someone even tires to "debunk" this, its actually happening right in front of our faces.
Over the 2005 to 2008 time frame, US net oil imports fell at 4.3%/year. All of this occurred as annual US oil prices went from $57 to $100.
So, to summarize, from 2005 to 2008:
Net oil exports went down, especially from the top five;
Oil prices went up;
US net oil imports went down;
Chindia's net oil imports went up.
JD, all but agrees with Brown on the principles of the model, he just unsuccessfully debunks the results as a "molehill". ANYTHING which can act to increase the total decline picture is something to be concerned about. I find it interesting that someone even tires to "debunk" this, its actually happening right in front of our faces.
-
AirlinePilot - Moderator
- Posts: 4378
- Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South of Atlanta
Re: The Export Land Model
by TheDude » Sun 21 Feb 2010, 17:48:30
I never saw the point in coining a term for this, Net Exports is a widely understood and simple enough concept to grasp. Jeff has been clogging up TOD articles for years now with the same old message, and I mean almost cut and paste versions of the same rap, which got very tiresome for me a long time ago - I just skim over his stuff now.
That wiki article fails to mention Sam Foucher, aka Khebab, who did all the serious number crunching for this. The whole idea of the ELM is predicated around an a priori assumption about a producer's capabilities - that Iran are shipping 6% (or whatever) of their Net export capacity this year. But quantifying this number is only possible if you know when they will go into decline in the first place, so you're back to square one with HL or whatever.
As JD pointed out producers don't accelerate consumption as they go into decline - that's beyond absurd, the populace don't collectively decide to ramp up the party when they hear the news. It has nothing to with real world examples, of course. UK consumption increased only 5.94 kb/d on average 1999-2005, when their production went into decline. In many years demand contracted sharply, check the BP data.
All this business about consumption assumes producers will never address domestic demand in any fashion, too, thus your late 70s Carter + Schlesinger warning of world peak in the mid-90s. The reason that didn't happened was because URR estimates were low and conservation measures were implemented. This latter can still be a deciding factor at this stage, every OPEC member wastes oil in a more than wanton fashion, and simple solutions like deploying solar thermal in KSA would free up a fair amount of export capacity. Whether this runs ahead of soaring BRIC demand is another matter, and why peak oil is still a horse race. But the ELM is just an extraneous construct, far as I'm concerned.
That wiki article fails to mention Sam Foucher, aka Khebab, who did all the serious number crunching for this. The whole idea of the ELM is predicated around an a priori assumption about a producer's capabilities - that Iran are shipping 6% (or whatever) of their Net export capacity this year. But quantifying this number is only possible if you know when they will go into decline in the first place, so you're back to square one with HL or whatever.
As JD pointed out producers don't accelerate consumption as they go into decline - that's beyond absurd, the populace don't collectively decide to ramp up the party when they hear the news. It has nothing to with real world examples, of course. UK consumption increased only 5.94 kb/d on average 1999-2005, when their production went into decline. In many years demand contracted sharply, check the BP data.
All this business about consumption assumes producers will never address domestic demand in any fashion, too, thus your late 70s Carter + Schlesinger warning of world peak in the mid-90s. The reason that didn't happened was because URR estimates were low and conservation measures were implemented. This latter can still be a deciding factor at this stage, every OPEC member wastes oil in a more than wanton fashion, and simple solutions like deploying solar thermal in KSA would free up a fair amount of export capacity. Whether this runs ahead of soaring BRIC demand is another matter, and why peak oil is still a horse race. But the ELM is just an extraneous construct, far as I'm concerned.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
-
TheDude - Expert
- Posts: 4896
- Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Re: The Export Land Model
by Tanada » Sun 21 Feb 2010, 17:52:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', 'E')IA data show that Chindia's net oil imports increased at about 9%/year from 2005 to 2008, while (2005) top five net exports fell at about 2%/year from 2005 to 2008.
Over the 2005 to 2008 time frame, US net oil imports fell at 4.3%/year. All of this occurred as annual US oil prices went from $57 to $100.
So, to summarize, from 2005 to 2008:
Net oil exports went down, especially from the top five;
Oil prices went up;
US net oil imports went down;
Chindia's net oil imports went up.
JD, all but agrees with Brown on the principles of the model, he just unsuccessfully debunks the results as a "molehill". ANYTHING which can act to increase the total decline picture is something to be concerned about. I find it interesting that someone even tires to "debunk" this, its actually happening right in front of our faces.
Over the 2005 to 2008 time frame, US net oil imports fell at 4.3%/year. All of this occurred as annual US oil prices went from $57 to $100.
So, to summarize, from 2005 to 2008:
Net oil exports went down, especially from the top five;
Oil prices went up;
US net oil imports went down;
Chindia's net oil imports went up.
JD, all but agrees with Brown on the principles of the model, he just unsuccessfully debunks the results as a "molehill". ANYTHING which can act to increase the total decline picture is something to be concerned about. I find it interesting that someone even tires to "debunk" this, its actually happening right in front of our faces.
BUT the USA net production was greatly encouraged by the higher prices, why import more expensive petroleum when you can produce more domestic oil at $50.00/bbl in 2008 than you could at $35.00/bbl in 2005?
$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.
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.
- Tanada
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17094
- Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
