Oil, again

[Cyrus]

Some statistics your way :

Crude oil reserves, at the end of last year, stood at the equivalent of approximately 40 more years of production, if production remains at 2004 levels. You get that figure by dividing the total known 2004 reserves of crude oil by the 2004 production - which is 1,200 billion of barrels divided by 80.2 million barrels.

This reserves-to-production ratio (40 more years) actually fell in 2004 (it was 43 years in 2003) despite the fact that reserves continued to increase last year and are now some 17% above the 1994 levels. But production is now 20% higher.

Oil production increased by more than 3 million barrels daily in 2004, the largest increase since the mid-1970s. OPEC accounted for 2 /3rds of that increase.

Oil refinery capacity worldwide, despite the many closures and mothballing of the last decade (due to low or non-existent refinery margins), actually increased to 84.5 million barrels daily, up some 1% from the previous year. It was 75 million barrels daily in 1994. So capacity is up.

So is utilization of refinery capacity. Oil refineries operated, on average, worldwide, at 87& of their capacity, which is the highest level for at least the last 25 years. When you think of the unavoidable losses in utilization due to maintenance, accidents, etc, the figure represents something close to “full” utilization.

Oil consumption rose worldwide – you could say dramatically, although we will soon see higher increases than last year’s. In 2004, oil consumption was 80.7 million barrels daily. That includes all oil products consumed, both inland and internationally, ie bunkering and aviation, and also refinery losses (also crude oil used directly as fuel). The rate of worldwide growth in consumption was 3.4% which is the strongest seen since 1978. It was above the 10-year average in every region of the world. The Asia-Pacific region accounted for 50% of the growth on oil consumption the last ten years.

Detail : The products with the highest growing consumption (demand) were the so-called “middle distillates” which are mainly Gasoil. They accounted for half thr world growth in consumption, which China the main “culprit”, due to its phenomenally rising transport and power generation needs. Chinese mostly burn diesels.

The United States continues to be a voracious consumer of petroleum. The US produces some 7.2 million barrels daily and imports another 13 million barrels more, which brings its consumption level at a little more than 20 million barrels daily, easily the highest for a single country and more than the whole of Europe or the whole of Asia-Pacific (incl. Japan, China, etc).

So why are they not building more refineries ? Or getting refineries out of the mothballs ? Because either building a new refinery or re-starting an old one is a very costly affair. It does not make sense when you combine the above data of phenomenal demand with the current refinery gross profit margins, which (at between 4 and 6 dollars per barrel processed) are at the highest levels the refiners have seen for more than 15 years (if you exclude a 2000 spike in US refineries’ margin).

There are two answers and these you will not find in most analyses. One is “bad”, and the other is “good”. The “bad” explanation for not seeing a rush of new refineries getting constructed is that, well, the oil companies are all in cahoots! They want prices and margins to remain so high, since they can already meet worldwide demand, in order to continue to make out like bandits.

That’s the conspiracy theory. It is weak on many levels, one of which is that not even countries (as opposed to oil companies) are going for new refineries, not in any significant manner. Except for the “natural” development whereby Saudi Aramco opened up a refinery in China some years ago, there are not many new refineries around.

The “good” answer is the one you will more likely hear in the corridors – but you gotta take the elevator to at least the seventh floor : Oil companies do not expect the current high levels of prices and margins to last more than one or two years down the road. The reasoning behind that doubt is that demand is already been met, that prices are high also for “artificial” causes (Iraq, etc), that there is a big amount of speculation in the commodities markets, etc. Therefore, it does not make financial sense to build or re-open a refinery when the refinery margins, along with oil prices, are gonna revert to their “historical levels” – whatever these are.

That’s it.

...Now burn, baby, burn.

[adios]

I agree completely with all the points you made in this post and your information is spot on. Exxon-Mobil actually came out and stated that they expect production in 2005 to be flat or down a little. They're not making a lot of new investment in increasing their production. This indicates to me that Exxon views the risk as being too high given potential returns for their investments which means they don't expect prices to remain this high. We'll see if they're right. Demand from Asia will be the key IMO.

[MtSmalls]

[ QUOTE ]
They're not making a lot of new investment in increasing their production.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure glad the Adminstration just gave them a ton of tax breaks to do just that!

[adios]

Obviously not enough [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. The new energy bill gave alternative energy production tax breaks too and also gave tax breaks to those who use energy effecient vehicles. Are you against these tax breaks as well? Whether or not government should use taxes to encourage domestic oil production is a matter open to debate (as well as using taxes to encourage alternative energy production and energy effeciency) but let's be fair about the tax breaks. Far be it from me to enthusiastically endorse the recent energy bill. The effects of that bill will probably raise gasoline prices in the short term due to the environmental issues that the bill addresses. So going back to my post awhile ago, emission standards raise the price of gasoline as well and this is a regressive tax that hits the less affluent the hardest. You don't have to be dirt poor to be less affluent and from all the hand wringing from the left wingers around here about how the middle class and below are losing ground to the most affluent citizens, I would think that it would become painfully obvious that the costs of clean air emissions in gasoline (automobiles as well) is hurting more and more people. Why aren't the left wingers screaming about how more and more people are getting hurt by these extra costs? Some might even state that this is an example of elitism [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[Triumph36]

You are being facetious, correct?

Even according to free-market dogmatists it's possible to argue that emission standards are clearly beneficial - the external costs of not having them are potentially far worse, for everyone. Pollution standards are not just for the sake of suburban liberals having open spaces to stare at.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
You are being facetious, correct?

Even according to free-market dogmatists it's possible to argue that emission standards are clearly beneficial - the external costs of not having them are potentially far worse, for everyone. Pollution standards are not just for the sake of suburban liberals having open spaces to stare at.

[/ QUOTE ]

Classic non sequiter. I didn't say that external costs of not having them didn't exist. I stated that the extra cost of gasoline due to clean air emissins standards is a regressive tax on the less affluent.

[FishHooks]

Oil was thought to be running out by the year 2000, and now most experts, which you are not say we have 80-100 years left. People really have no idea how much oil is left.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Oil was thought to be running out by the year 2000, and now most experts, which you are not say we have 80-100 years left. People really have no idea how much oil is left.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Cyrus's defense (much as I hate to do that), that isnt what his post is about.

[Il_Mostro]

A few points
[ QUOTE ]
Crude oil reserves, at the end of last year, stood at the equivalent of approximately 40 more years of production, if production remains at 2004 levels. You get that figure by dividing the total known 2004 reserves of crude oil by the 2004 production - which is 1,200 billion of barrels divided by 80.2 million barrels.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem with this number, be it 40 years or 80 years is that it's pointless. You can't produce at full speed until the well is dry. We will have oil for a lot more than 40 years, just a bit less every year (starting at some unknown year).
It's also somewhat intellectually dishonest to report numbers quoting "todays production" when demand is growing (not directed at you, Cy, more a general comment).

As for the argument on why not more refinerys is built, there are other explanations possible, more or less likely. But let's stick to yours. The thing I don't get, maybe someone can explain it to me, is that if we will have demand growing even more the coming years, as seems to be the forecasts, then why belive prices will come down? If we add demand but don't add supply, well, hardly a recepie for falling prices.
And if we belive in reduced demand, well, then we are thinking we'll see demand destruction, aka recession, right?

[TorpedoBreath]

Yeah, Reserve Life Index (RLI) is not good for practical purposes. It's an artificial minimum time limit for the reason Mostro explained as well as there being reserves added every year. There should be some substantial year over year reserves adds expected in the near future from lower quality bitumen/heavy oil/synthetic crudes as mega projects in the north kick in. XOM has got a piece there as well.