Skip to main content

Oil Supply and Demand May Analysis

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Supply 79.6154 83.1243 84.6315 84.5983 84.5944
Demand 79.6118 82.3301 83.6498 84.6225 85.3543

Difference 0.0036 0.7942 0.9817 -0.0242 -0.7599

Quarters 1/7 2/7 3/7 4/7 1/8 2/8 3/8 4/8
Supply 84.20 84.37 84.33 85.49 85.86 86.17 87.18 87.17
Demand 85.36 84.48 85.08 86.66 86.34 85.73 86.45 87.80
OPEC Demand 85.79 86.98 85.75 86.60 88.45 (their estimates)
Difference -1.16 -0.11 -0.75 -1.17 -0.48 0.44 0.73 -0.63

2007 Dec 8,669 23,886 25,067 36,612 85,765 Dec 4.40 32.3300
2008 Jan 8,624 24,013 25,113 36,649 85,674 Jan 4.93 32.0900
2008 Feb 8,625 24,242 25,341 36,881 85,921 Feb 4.93 32.2300
2008 Ave 8,625 24,124 25,223 36,761 85,793 Mar 4.93 32.4500

April Opec (not NGL) 31.70

All of the figures are in Millions of Barrels a Day and come from a range of industry sources. The first problem in getting reliable statistics is that not all oils are the same. Hence you have have different figures for entirely good reasons. However, when looking for the balance between supply and demand as long as the figures you use have consistent assumptions then you are OK. Secondly the EIA figures (my main source) are produced in arrears and modified.

Note particularly the following supply figures 2005-84.6315 2006-84.5983 2007-84.5944 and that Oil production peaked there in 2005 and has gradually reduced whereas consumption has increased (hence the stock draw down). The question as to what extent production increases in 2008. It looks on these figures that production in 2008 is more likely than not to exceed that than in 2005.

This is the M$ peak oil question, however. Although there are detailed causes for constraints on production (strikes etc) the overall constraint is geological. There will, however, be demand destruction (airlines going bust etc) so demand is not that likely to keep up to the estimates.


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. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

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…