2006-07-16

Some Oil research for you

There are some implications of this research that I did tonight. But I'll leave it to later.

I will point out that these statistics clearly show that consumption is always greater than production - although I don't know how this is scientifically possible. Nevertheless, I am assuming that this is merely a statistical characteristic common in this field of study.

What is important in this research is the "%Cons" column. What this column reveals is the "shortfall" between consumption and supply, shown as a percentage of consumption. For the 1970 figures, 45.89 mbd was produced and 46.81 mbd consumed, leaving a shortfall of 0.92mbd, or -1.97% of consumption.

The really frightening thing about this research is the increasing percentage of consumption that is falling short. As time goes on, the difference goes beyond 10% and in recent times has gone as high as 14%. This means that there is an ever-increasing gap between oil produced and oil consumed.

In layman's terms, it means that consumption is increasing faster than production.

(note: someone else may have done this research before me and may be available elsewhere)

--------------------

Prod = World Oil Production, Millions of Barrels per day (source EIA)
Cons = World Oil Consumption, MBD (Source EIA)
Diff = Difference between production and consumption
%Cons = Difference as Percent of Consumption


Year

Prod

Cons

Diff

% cons

1970

45.89

46.81

-0.92

-1.97%

1971

48.52

49.42

-0.90

-1.82%

1972

51.14

53.09

-1.95

-3.67%

1973

55.68

57.24

-1.56

-2.73%

1974

55.72

56.68

-0.96

-1.69%

1975

52.83

56.20

-3.37

-6.00%

1976

57.34

59.67

-2.33

-3.90%

1977

59.71

61.83

-2.12

-3.43%

1978

60.16

64.16

-4.00

-6.23%

1979

62.67

65.22

-2.55

-3.91%

1980

59.60

63.11

-3.51

-5.56%

1981

56.08

60.94

-4.86

-7.98%

1982

53.48

59.54

-6.06

-10.18%

1983

53.26

58.78

-5.52

-9.39%

1984

54.49

59.83

-5.34

-8.93%

1985

53.98

60.09

-6.11

-10.17%

1986

56.23

61.83

-5.60

-9.06%

1987

56.67

63.13

-6.46

-10.23%

1988

58.74

65.00

-6.26

-9.63%

1989

59.86

66.10

-6.24

-9.44%

1990

60.57

66.58

-6.01

-9.03%

1991

60.21

67.20

-6.99

-10.40%

1992

60.21

67.45

-7.24

-10.73%

1993

60.24

67.54

-7.30

-10.80%

1994

60.99

68.85

-7.86

-11.42%

1995

62.33

70.02

-7.69

-10.98%

1996

63.71

71.62

-7.91

-11.04%

1997

65.69

73.42

-7.73

-10.53%

1998

66.92

74.09

-7.17

-9.68%

1999

65.85

75.83

-9.98

-13.16%

2000

68.34

76.95

-8.91

-11.58%

2001

67.87

77.70

-9.83

-12.65%

2002

66.78

78.46

-11.68

-14.89%

2003

69.15

80.10

-10.95

-13.67%

2004

72.46

82.60

-10.14

-12.28%

2005

73.51

83.94

-10.43

-12.43%

2006

73.76a. c.

84.67b. d.

-10.91

-12.89%


a. Jan-Mar figures
b. Jan-Feb figures. My own estimation based on OECD figures being approx. 59% of world consumption
c. 2004 - 2006 Production Data can be found here - pdf file 14.2kb
d. 2004 - 2006 Consumption Data can be found here - pdf file 16.4kb

Update 17 July 2006:
A comments thread at Sydney Peak Oil has been discussing this article, specifically addressing the shortfall between production and consumption. I think it is important to make a comment here about the issue.

It has been put forward that the reason why such a disparity exists is because the two sources that I have used are actually measuring different things. The production figures refer to "crude oil" production while the consumption figures refer to "petroleum" consumption. Specifically, the issue of Natural Gas Liquids (NGLs) and the fact that they are not included in the EIA Production figures.

I am willing to agree that the disparity may be due to this particular issue. However it needs to be pointed out that the production figures do include "condensate", which is the raw liquid that NGLs are produced from. I suspect that the reason why NGLs are not included in the production list is because it would involve double counting - the condensate would be included, which is then refined and turned into NGLs.

What this means is that NGLs are included in the production figures via the inclusion of condensate. The real questions is whether the consumption figures include condensate only, or also include the NGLs that are derived from the condensate. The latter case would be a possibility considering that the consumption figures are labeled as "Petroleum" rather than as "Crude Oil".

But this then begs the question of whether the statistical analysis itself is misleading since it would be counting things twice. To include NGLs in the consumption figures and not in the production figures would mean that the consumption figures are being counted twice. I doubt that this is going on, mainly because the market benchmark for measuring NGLs such as Butane, Propane and Ethane is in Gallons, while the benchmark used in the EIA consumption figures is Barrels. It would be very strange to a) count something twice, and then b) to refer to the whole (crude oil, condensate and NGLs) in terms only applicable to crude oil.

So while I have offered a reason why one explanation is probably incorrect, I have yet to offer my own explanation of why a disparity exists between production and consumption.

I think it has to do with the way in which the market measures both production and consumption.

Production would be measured in how many barrels of oil have been pumped into tankers, while consumption may be measured in terms of financial transactions. In other words, consumption is actually measured first (in terms of contracts specifying how much oil is to be delivered) and then production follows.

Which means. of course, that in a given year, say the year 1999, 75.83 mbd was agreed upon, and 65.85mbd actually produced.

The important thing to realise is that the contracts may be agreed upon in one year, and then delivered the year after. A contract may be agreed upon in December 1999, and then delivered in Feburary 2000. In terms of the statistics, the consumption contract would appear in the consumption figures for 1999, but the production figures would appear in 2000.

If this is true (and remember I am only offering this as a possible explanation), then the increasing disparity between production and consumption that is noted in my figures can probably be explained by the inability of the oil producers to fulfil their contracts since oil production is not meeting demand. In this case, the contracts may be signed in September, but not delivered until February - a longer lag in delivery time that is caused by slower production.

I am prepared to be proven wrong in this - mainly because I am offering a theory and not anything based on rock solid proof. It would be great if the EIS or Peak Oil bigwigs could offer an explanation. I'm sure that ASPO has been aware of this disparity for some time.

Further Update 17 July 2006:
The Wikipedia article on Petroleum indicates that Crude Oil and Petroleum are synonymous terms - they can be used interchangably. This doesn't offer any reason why the EIA chose to use both names in the production and consumption reports, unless it is the industry's way of talking about the product still in the ground (Crude Oil) and the product that is shipped and consumed (Petroleum).

From the Peaknik Department

© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/

FAQ about the author



Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.

6 comments:

Dave Lankshear said...

Peaknik comments on this thread at Sydney Peak Oil.

One Salient Oversight said...

Click here for more important production stats.

onfoyou said...

Here are some links that I believe will be interested

robbinshood said...

Here are some links that I believe will be interested

best4chance said...

Keep up the good work. thnx!
»

mobilemob said...

Looks nice! Awesome content. Good job guys.
»