Thursday, 11 February 2016

EIA's Predictions Questionable - OPEC Call is the Fudge Number!

Just How Accurate Are The EIA’s Predictions?

Mahjoub Mohamed Salih, WNN news

The EIA recently published the February edition of their Short-Term Energy Outlook. If you follow this month to month, and we do, you will notice their prognostications change a little every month. And over several months those small changes can add up to some rather dramatic changes. Nevertheless, below are several charts with their current oil production projections.

The EIA STEO only gives monthly data for total liquids. All C+C data is quarterly and annually. The monthly projected data begins in February 2016. Projections for quarterly and annual data begins January 2016.

The EIA says Non-OPEC total liquids dropped .5 million barrels per day in December and another .36 mbd in January. But then, other than another short drop in the first quarter of 2017, they see things leveling out for the next two years.

For the total world, the EIA expects far better production numbers than just for Non-OPEC. They expect new highs to be reached in 2016 and again in 2017.

They see US total liquids dropping in 2016 then they begin a slow rise through 2017, but not overtaking the peak in 2015.

Apparently the EIA thinks Russia has had it. They see a drop in December 2016 then a huge drop in January 2017. We have no idea why. However the scale here makes the decline seem greater than it really is. From January 2015 to December 2017 the decline is only 400,000 barrels per day.

Adding the other FSU nations to the mix, mostly Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, only exacerbates the decline, making it half a million bpd between January 2015 and December 2017.

Looking at just Crude + Condensate you get a better picture of what the EIA really expects in the next two years. They expect Non-OPEC C+C to drop 580,000 bpd in 2016 and another 170,000 bpd in 2017 for a total of 750,000 bpd over the two years.

They are expecting far better things out of OPEC's gang. They have the OPEC gangs total liquids up 1,010,000 barrels per day in 2016 and another 870,000 bpd in 2017. They do not project OPEC C+C.

But taking a closer look at their US Projections:

The EIA expects US C+C to drop 740,000 barrels per day in 2016 and another 230,000 bpd in 2017 for a total decline over two years of 970,000 barrels per day.

However they have US total liquids faring much better then just C+C. They have total liquids declining by only 490,000 barrels per day in 2016 and increasing by 100,000 bpd in 2017.

What this means is that US “Other Liquids”, that is NGLs, biofuels and refinery process gain must show a very impressive gains while everything else is going to pot. They show other liquids increasing by 250,000 bpd in 2016 and another 330,000 bpd in 2017.

Most of this increase has to come from NGLs as biofuels are only a minor input and refinery process gain pretty much follows C+C consumption. But…

Using their projections for Dry Gas production we find that gas production increased more than other liquids increased in 2015. However they say gas production will increase by only .4 percent in 2016 while other liquids increase by 4.6 percent, and a similar story in 2017 though not quite as dramatic.

Bottom line: We find the EIA’s past production data very accurate. However their projections appear to be pretty lame. This observation is proven out by the fact that those projections are constantly changing. Also, those “Other Liquids” projections seem to make no sense whatsoever. It appears to be mostly a fudge.

But the very biggest problem with the EIA’s projections are with OPEC. That is because it is not a projection at all but an estimate of what will be needed to meet world demand. That is they estimate Non-OPEC production, then they estimate world demand, and the difference between the two will be the “Call on OPEC”. That is, they will simply expect OPEC to make up the difference, whatever that difference may be.

Lately, however, OPEC seems to be producing a lot more than their call asked them to. That is, they appear to be ignoring their call. And they will likely do likewise when they are expected to produce more to meet demand. They are all currently producing flat out and if there is a call on them to produce more, it will very likely go unanswered.

WE thus expect the “Call on OPEC” is a running joke between OPEC nations.

______________________________________________________

Wednesday, 10 February 2016

OPEC January Production

The latest OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report is just out. The the data is “Crude Only”production and do not reflect condensate production.

Also the charts, except for Libya, are not zero based. I chose to amplify the change rather than the total. The chats do not include Indonesia. That will be added within the next few months when I am able to get better historical data for Indonesian crude only production.

All Data is in thousand barrels per day.

OPEC production, not including Indonesia, was up 130,700 barrels per day in December.

OPEC uses secondary sources such as Platts and other agencies to report their production numbers. These numbers are pretty accurate and usually have only slight revisions month to month.

Algeria peaked in November 2007 and has been in a steady decline since that point.

Angola has been holding steady since peaking in 2008 and 2010.

Ecuador appears to have peaked last year. It is likely production will be down, but only slightly, in 2016.

Sanctions were just lifted, in the middle of January, on Iran. I expect their production to be up by about half a million barrels per day by year’s end. However I believe Iran will be the only OPEC nation with any significant production increase in 2016. Most other OPEC countries will, I believe, be flat to down slightly.

Iraq increased production more than any other OPEC nation in 2015. However I believe their increase in 2016 will be very moderate, if any.

I expect Kuwait will continue its slow decline from its peak in 2013.

Libya is struggling with their own Arab Spring. There is no way of knowing when, if ever, peace will break out there. I think it extremely unlikely they will produce as much as 1,000,000 bpd within the next 5 years or so. Nigeria

Nigeria is struggling with their own political revolution. But it appears they are in decline regardless of their political problems. However they had the largest increase in January, up 74,000 bpd.

I believe Saudi is producing every barrel they possibly can. They will be lucky to hold this level for much longer.

Qatar has lots of natural gas but their oil production has clearly peaked and is now in decline.

From 2005 through 2010 the oil rig count in the UAE averaged around 12. In November their oil rig count stood at 48, 4 times their average. They have managed to increase their production about 11% above their 2008 peak. I believe UAE production is about to follow Kuwait’s lead and rollover. The UAE’s rig count stood at 44 in January.

Not much can be said about Venezuela. Their conventional oil is in decline but their bitumen production is keeping production relatively flat. They took a hit in January however, down 34,500 bpd.

The combined production of OPEC, less Saudi Arabia and Iraq, peaked in January 2008 at 19,931,000 bpd and is down 2,778,000 bpd since that date 17,153,000 bpd.

Since the combined production of the other OPEC 10 nations peaked in January 2008, Saudi and Iraq have increased their production by 3,625 bpd, from 10,850,000 bpd to 14,475,000 bpd. That is 33,000 bpd below their peak in June 2015.

Again, none of this data includes Indonesia. Historical crude only data for Indonesia is not available. I will include Indonesia in OPEC charts when I can calculate those numbers.

OPEC average crude only production in 2015 was 31,152,000 barrels per day. In January their production was 31,628,000 barrels per day.

OPEC expects Non-OPEC liquids production to be down 720,000 barrels per day in 2016. If OPEC manages to hold production relatively flat from January, their 2016 production will be up 475,000 bpd. That is their gain would be about 250,000 bpd short of Non-OPEC’s decline.

However I expect OPEC to be slightly up this year due to Iran increasing production. But the increase will be modest as the rest of OPEC will likely be down. However I believe Non-OPEC will be down a lot more than 720,000 barrels per day.

China, the world’s fifth largest oil producer, has peaked and will suffer a sharp decline in 2016.

Why Declining Chinese Oil Production Is Good for Global Prices

China’s role as a big oil consumer has become a crucial factor in energy markets in recent years. Now, its role as a major producer is gaining attention as well.

China is among the world’s top five oil producers, but its fields are growing depleted and are increasingly expensive to pump. The country’s leading companies are choosing to leave more of their oil in the ground and some analysts now say Chinese oil output may have peaked.

Cnooc Ltd., China’s third-largest oil producer–which produces most of its oil from offshore fields–also said last month it expected output to decline by 5% this year, after years of rapid growth.

As China’s production starts to decline, demand for oil from overseas should remain firm, which would be good news for prices, which have been languishing near multi-year lows amid a global supply glut and weak demand in the rest of the world.

Physics Sets the Stage For Economic Collapse

The Physics of Energy and the Economy

by Gail Tverberg

About Gail Tverberg

My name is Gail Tverberg. I am an actuary interested in finite world issues - oil depletion, natural gas depletion, water shortages, and climate change. Oil limits look very different from what most expect, with high prices leading to recession, and low prices leading to inadequate supply.

View all posts by Gail Tverberg →

I approach the subject of the physics of energy and the economy with some trepidation. An economy seems to be a dissipative system, but what does this really mean? There are not many people who understand dissipative systems, and very few who understand how an economy operates. The combination leads to an awfully lot of false beliefs about the energy needs of an economy.

The primary issue at hand is that, as a dissipative system, every economy has its own energy needs, just as every forest has its own energy needs (in terms of sunlight) and every plant and animal has its own energy needs, in one form or another. A hurricane is another dissipative system. It needs the energy it gets from warm ocean water. If it moves across land, it will soon weaken and die.

There is a fairly narrow range of acceptable energy levels–an animal without enough food weakens and is more likely to be eaten by a predator or to succumb to a disease. A plant without enough sunlight is likely to weaken and die.

In fact, the effects of not having enough energy flows may spread more widely than the individual plant or animal that weakens and dies. If the reason a plant dies is because the plant is part of a forest that over time has grown so dense that the plants in the understory cannot get enough light, then there may be a bigger problem. The dying plant material may accumulate to the point of encouraging forest fires. Such a forest fire may burn a fairly wide area of the forest. Thus, the indirect result may be to put to an end a portion of the forest ecosystem itself.

How should we expect an economy to behave over time? The pattern of energy dissipated over the life cycle of a dissipative system will vary, depending on the particular system. In the examples I gave, the pattern seems to somewhat follow what Ugo Bardi calls a Seneca Cliff.

Figure 1. Seneca Cliff by Ugo Bardi

The Seneca Cliff pattern is so-named because long ago, Lucius Seneca wrote:

It would be some consolation for the feebleness of our selves and our works if all things should perish as slowly as they come into being; but as it is, increases are of sluggish growth, but the way to ruin is rapid.

The Standard Wrong Belief about the Physics of Energy and the Economy

There is a standard wrong belief about the physics of energy and the economy; it is the belief we can somehow train the economy to get along without much energy.

In this wrong view, the only physics that is truly relevant is the thermodynamics of oil fields and other types of energy deposits. All of these fields deplete if exploited over time. Furthermore, we know that there are a finite number of these fields. Thus, based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the amount of free energy we will have available in the future will tend to be less than today. This tendency will especially be true after the date when “peak oil” production is reached.

According to this wrong view of energy and the economy, all we need to do is design an economy that uses less energy. We can supposedly do this by increasing efficiency, and by changing the nature of the economy to use a greater proportion of services. If we also add renewables (even if they are expensive) the economy should be able to get along fine with very much less energy.

These wrong views are amazingly widespread. They seem to underlie the widespread hope that the world can reduce its fossil fuel use by 80% between now and 2050 without badly disturbing the economy. The book 2052: A Forecast for the Next 40 Years by Jorgen Randers seems to reflect these views. Even the “Stabilized World Model” presented in the 1972 book The Limits to Growth by Meadow et al. seems to be based on naive assumptions about how much reduction in energy consumption is possible without causing the economy to collapse.

The Economy as a Dissipative System

If an economy is a dissipative system, it needs sufficient energy flows. Otherwise, it will collapse in a way that is analogous to animals succumbing to a disease or forests succumbing to forest fires.

The primary source of energy flows to the economy seems to come through the leveraging of human labor with supplemental energy products of various types, such as animal labor, fossil fuels, and electricity. For example, a man with a machine (which is made using energy products and operates using energy products) can make more widgets than a man without a machine. A woman operating a computer in a lighted room can make more calculations than a woman who inscribes numbers with a stick on a clay tablet and adds them up in her head, working outside as weather permits.

As long as the quantity of supplemental energy supplies keeps rising rapidly enough, human labor can become increasingly productive. This increased productivity can feed through to higher wages. Because of these growing wages, tax payments can be higher. Consumers can also have ever more funds available to buy goods and services from businesses. Thus, an economy can continue to grow.

Besides inadequate supplemental energy, the other downside risk to continued economic growth is the possibility that diminishing returns will start making the economy less efficient. These are some examples of how this can happen:

Deeper wells or desalination are needed for water because aquifers deplete and population grows.
More productivity is needed from each acre of arable land because of growing population (and thus, falling arable land per person).
Larger mines are required as ores of high mineral concentration are exhausted and we are forced to exploit less productive mines.
More pollution control devices or higher-cost workarounds (such as “renewables”) are needed as pollution increases.
Fossil fuels from cheap-to-extract locations are exhausted, so extraction must come from more difficult-to-extract locations.

In theory, even these diminishing returns issues can be overcome, if the leveraging of human labor with supplemental energy is growing quickly enough.

Theoretically, technology might also increase economic growth. The catch with technology is that it is very closely related to energy consumption. Without energy consumption, it is not possible to have metals. Most of today’s technology depends (directly or indirectly) on the use of metals. If technology makes a particular type of product cheaper to make, there is also a good chance that more products of that type will be sold. Thus, in the end, growth in technology tends to allow more energy to be consumed.

Why Economic Collapses Occur

Read More

Or

Related and Recommended
Paradise Lost
by
Paul Chefurka
Or

"Watch A Related Recommended Video"

OPEC January Production

OPEC January Production -

Mahjoub Mohamed Salih, WNN News (Arabia)