Net Oil Exports - April Update. Top 20 Exporters (93% of total exports).
For those of you that have already downloaded the spreadsheet - The correct value for Venezuelan March production is 2444 not 2244. Thanks to eastender for catching that.
Exports dropped by about 150,000 barrels per day in March.
check link to right for newer spreadsheet
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Net Oil Exports - April 2008 Update
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Good work. Intuitively, what I expected.
Xeroid.
Hi.
Long time lurker first time poster here. You may have seen me at TOD, I (scarcely) post under the handle 'eastender' there. Your efforts are really appreciated here.
However, I have to point out something regarding your latest release. The numbers don't add up.
If you add the top20 export numbers, you arrive at 41,140 mbpd for February and 40,835 mbpd for March - but in the excel the sum is 41,449 and 41,144 - respectively. Can you please explain me the reason?
Also, if you look at output numbers, you can see -50 thousand for SA and -200 thousand for Venezuela (and -10 for Russia) from February 2008 to march 2008 - but these decreases fail to materialize in your output sum: it is unchanged at 85,795 from February to March.
Why is that?
I didn't check the older versions, but my gut feeling is I'd find some discrepancies there as well.
I'm positibe you can add numbers you yourself present in a table, so there has to be a root cause for all this. Could you plaese elaborate?
Thanks.
- eastender -
OK.
As for my second question, I already know the answer. You use data for the top 20 exporters as far as their C&C+NGPL output goes, and you use the 'quasi-official' EIA number for world output - all liquids. I see.
However, I still don't know the answer to my first question: if you add each and every export number of the top20 exporters, you arrive at 41,140 for February, but your sum at the bottom states 41,449 for February - as a sum of the top20.
What makes up for the difference and why is it not shown anywhere?
Thank you for paying such close attention.
The Venezuela number is incorrect. It should be unchanged at 2444.
As for the addition discrepancies you are seeing, I don't know the answer. I've re-added them in a separate cell and get the same answer. But I'll recheck. Even if I have to do it by hand.
And yes, the EIA all liquids number for Feb and Mar are the same as Jan. I used to try to change those based on available IEA data, but it never ended up being useful.
-mfp
As for the addition discrepancies you are seeing, I don't know the answer.
Nevermind. It was my fault. I somehow excluded Ecuador. Sorry for that.
We all make mistakes, eh? ;)
Take care.
Yes, we do :) Thanks for catching that!
Seeing the number corrected, or more to the point: seeing the correct number, is good news and bad news at the same time.
On the one hand, it gives us some relief as far as export projections are concerned in 2008. A 150 thousand barrel drop is 50% less than a 300 thousand barrel drop. That's great - in case someone is a true peakist and is more interested in volumes than prices.
On the other hand, the very same decrease in the decrease is bad news for worldwide elasticity. If one tends to think that prices are mainly a reflection of export/import supply&demand for net oil exports (and I do), it results in the conclusion that a 150 thousand barrel drop caused a fairly big jump in prices in the first half of April (while speculation and the declining dollar also having a say).
At any rate, resulting (i.e.: calculated) worldwide demand elasticity for crude oil prices has to be effected upon the news (i.e.: upon the correction).
This is not good new at all.
- eastender -
I'm new to this blogging thing so I'm having a little trouble with it at times, so I'm not sure were to leave a message...anyway I thought you'd like to read the English translation (I'm not sure about its accuracy as I pulled it off a message board) to an interview with Fatih Birol. There doesn't seem to be another translation from the original German. But anyway I just posted it to my blog: http://oildepletiondebate.blogspot.com/
Yeah, just post on the newest thread. I keep meaning to turn off older comment threads. Good interview. I read about half, it's long. I'm half asleep. I'll tackle it tomorrow. All the major agencies and Companies have to make a switch to peak-oil "understanding." They have no choice.
How should you interpret this? I'd be scared.
How do I interpret this? I don't care. I saw the possibility of this years ago. I made adjustments in my gasoline consumption and my lifestyle to take advantage of the situation.
-mfp
I found this site using [url=http://google.com]google.com[/url] And i want to thank you for your work. You have done really very good site. Great work, great site! Thank you!
Sorry for offtopic
Post a Comment