Skip to main content

July's Crude Oil: 73,596,000 barrells a day

September's "International Petroleum Monthly" has just been released by the EIA in the USA. (see link). The EIA collate crude oil production figures from a number of sources and then make them available both to the US Government and the rest of the world via the web. They are always working in arrears and often the figures they produce are estimates that are adjusted later.

As usual the last figure they have is for July 2005 which is 73.6 Mbbl (as title).

There is a separate calculation for Natural Gas Liquids which is running at 7.6 Mbbl.

The total supply is running at 84 Mbbl.

Like all figures relating to oil supply there are complications. One complication arises from governments not giving full information. Another complication is that not all oil is equivalent which is why you have WTI (West Texas Intermediate) prices and Brent prices. Often specific oils will be priced in relation to WTI or Brent. There are lighter and heavier oils. Some countries count barrells. Other countries (eg the UK) tend to go by weight. Obviously the weight and volume do not have a static relationship as it depends on the density of the oil.

This debate between Kenneth Deffeyes and Peter Odell about Peak Oil raises a number of the key issues.

Kenneth Deffeyes has predicted that global production will peak on Thanksgiving Day 2005 (24th November). That is him having a bit of a laugh, but it is based upon an analysis of the data.

I remain of the view that we will only be certain when peak oil has occurred about 3 years later. What happened with the US peak of oil production (1971) is that the oil cartel control mechanism of the time (The Texas Railroad Commission) said people could produce at maximum about 2 year later and then stopped trying to constrain production.


Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…