Net export problem

Email Print posted by alphasigmookie 06/03/2008 01:29:26 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
Links:

http://online.wsj.com/artic le/SB121200725158327151.htm l

http://www.theoildrum.com/n ode/4092#more

I'm sure people are starting to get sick of my one issue these days (I'm starting to sound like acroso with the mexicans), but here is some more scary news:

"Fresh data from the U.S. Department of Energy show the amount of petroleum products shipped by the world's top oil exporters fell 2.5% last year, despite a 57% increase in prices, a trend that appears to be holding true this year as well."

Even if global oil production has not peaked and will not in the near future, the fact that net exports appear to have is just as scary.  Here is a table of net exports for all exporting countries:



The reason this happens is that most exporting countries subsidize oil prices for their people.  Thus when oil prices rise, wealth in those countries tends to increase which increases consumption.  As consumption rises, oil avaliable for export decreases leading to higher prices on the market and the cycle continues.  Those countries that must import most of their oil are then left to bid for a decreasing pool of oil on the global market.  This dynamic is probably a bigger reason that prices have risen so much over the past few years than even the increased demand from china and india. 
< Mclellen's story -decompressing the rep spin machine | Missouri says: 300 - THIS IS OBAMAAAA! >
 Display:
Net export problem | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)
The US brought this on itself: (none / 0)

    The United States had 20 years to rectify this issue, to decrease the amount of oil it uses in absolute terms. Oil prices were dirt cheap not ten years ago, and instead of making oil less profitable by also decreasing the amount of oil the American economy used they increased dramatically how much oil was used to offset the lower cost of oil. Oil companies in the US last year in revenues made about $1 trillion dollars, they have a disproportionate influence in the economy and consequently in the government. In the 90s, when oil was cheap US consumption exploded...where was Clinton? The SUV boom occurred, and only now is it coming to an end.

Indeed, when oil was at all time lows in 1998-1999 the increase in US oil consumption was 3.2% (source: EIA) in 1999. While looking at a country like Germany, which has a active government in greening the economy, it has reduced oil consumption AND CO2 emissions within the context of a growing economy, and the world's most competitive economy:

 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/03/2008 03:09:28 PM EST

True (none / 0)
Carter was the last president (for all his other issues) that really tried to put together a big energy policy to get us off oil.

Reagan put a dagger in that plan very quickly, and Bush Sr, Clinton and the current Bush have done very little to nothing (if not made things worse like with Bush Jr).

I also have to ask, where was Al Gore?  I'd like to know if he was screwed by being the lowly VP and facing a republican congress (and a screwed second term due to the Lewinsky debacle) or if he really didn't try very hard.

I have to assume he DID want to do more but couldn't with DLC Bill and the other things I mentioned.

PS---It's my understanding that Germany has had great success with solar.

by ihavenobias on 06/03/2008 04:47:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Germany (none / 0)

It's my understanding that Germany has had great success with solar.

They have, but that's not what decreased the per capita oil consumption. Most of that came from public transit and fuel efficiency. Also, don't underestimate the effects of isolating houses.

by Cogitor on 06/03/2008 05:22:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
should have posted WSJ article (none / 0)
The important question is why are the Top 15 producers exporting less. Is it really "Peak Oil", or are they limiting market supply by design? In the case of Saudi Arabia, they want to sell more refined products and more polymer products and less oil. That's why they recently purchased GE Plastics.

“The world's top oil producers are proving unable to put more barrels on thirsty world markets despite sky-high prices, a shift that defies traditional market logic and looks set to continue.
Fresh data from the U.S. Department of Energy show the amount of petroleum products shipped by the world's top oil exporters fell 2.5% last year, despite a 57% increase in prices, a trend that appears to be holding true this year as well.

There are several reasons behind the net-export decline. Soaring profits from high-price crude have fueled a boom in oil demand in Saudi Arabia and across the Middle East, leaving less oil for export. At the same time, aging fields and sluggish investments have caused exports to drop significantly in Mexico, Norway and, most recently, Russia. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries also cut production early last year and didn't move to boost supplies again until last fall.

In all, according to the Energy Department figures, net exports by the world's top 15 suppliers, which account for 45% of all production, fell by nearly a million barrels to 38.7 million barrels a day last year. The drop would have been steeper if not for heightened output in less-developed countries such as Angola and Libya, whose economies have yet to become big energy consumers.

For all the attention paid to China's increasing energy thirst, rising energy demand in the Middle East may pose the greater challenge. Last year, the region's six largest petroleum exporters -- Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Kuwait, Iraq and Qatar -- curbed their output by 544,000 barrels a day. At the same time, their domestic demand increased by 318,000 barrels a day, leading to a loss in net exports of 862,000 barrels a day, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.”

The graphic below depicts the change in energy production at each of the top 15 oil exports over the course of 2006 – 2007.


Graphic Courtesy of the WSJ

by KenTX on 06/04/2008 03:36:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The trillion dollar question! (none / 0)
That of course is the trillion dollar question Ken.  Unfortunatly, like you I mostly care about the future of the US.  Whether supply is constricted by geology or politics or martian invasion doesn't make much difference in the end result...if we don't do something to sure up our energy supplies we can kiss being a world power goodbye. 

by alphasigmookie on 06/04/2008 03:45:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sick? Sure (none / 0)
Sick of years with a horrible energy policy.  This is important shit and you should continue to write about it just like everyone else.

by jarett on 06/04/2008 03:11:52 AM EST

Piggies: "oink, oink!" (none / 0)

Until Americans make an effort to use resources wisely, they should just shut up, and get to the work of changing their activities and attitudes. I did my part with solar energy, and all we've heard since we built our house is grief: It's too expensive--not true. It doesn't work--not true. Solar houses are funny looking--not true. Costs more than the energy you save--not true.

The emphasis on oil and old technology is expected, after 20 years of oil/coal/nuclear industries running the country, with Clinton Republicans in the interim, but totally misguided. With new (and ancient) energy technologies in force, the oil "problem" goes away. Oil is only a problem when the public is too small-minded and selfish to consider equally good alternatives, like energy efficiency, conservation, renewable energy, buildings designed to use 80% less energy, smaller cars that are not only safe like the new Ford Kuga, six-speed manual-only--sorry piggies--with a EuroNCAP 5 star crash test rating, but as large inside as gas-guzzling SUVs.

One of the most important things that people rarely consider is living in towns where they can walk around or use good public transportation, instead of in suburban developments where they are dependent on their cars/SUVs/trucks. And help the people whose livelihood depends on living outside of towns, like farmers.

 

by zenie on 06/04/2008 01:00:18 PM EST

Net export problem | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: