Why oil costs over $120 per barrel

(New readers, click "there's more" below for the whole article...)



Global Total Liquids production and oil price, January 2002 to present. Production data from the IEA, data files supplied by Rembrandt Koppelaar. Monthly average WTI oil prices from Economagic.

With oil reaching $135 / barrel, Oil Drum readership exceeding 30,000 unique visitors per day and many wild stories circulating in the MSM as to why oil prices are so high this post strives to explain why oil prices are rising exponentially:

• Supply and demand
• Decline of older fields
• Declining net energy and energy density
• New mega-projects
• OPEC spare capacity
• Peak exports

Production and demand

The most significant feature of the chart up top is the dog leg in production growth in 2004. Prior to then the flow of new oil field projects combined with increasing utilisation of spare capacity allowed global oil production to grow and to meet much of the growth in demand.

In 2004, OPEC spare capacity fell close to zero (see below) and the world struggled for a number of reasons to bring on new supply to compensate for decline (see below). The slowing of production growth has meant new supplies are insufficient to meet growing demand and the price has gone up to balance the books. Higher prices stimulate conservation that may take the form of fuel efficiency (driving a smaller car) or abstinence (poor people being priced out of the energy market).

Every year a large number of new oil fields are brought on line. However, this does not directly translate to growth in supplies since amongst other things the production decline in existing fields needs to be replaced first:


new annual production capacity = consumption growth + annual decline + spare capacity growth

Decline

All oil wells, oil fields and oil provinces are exposed to a phenomenon called decline. Producing oil depressurises the sub-surface reservoirs and uses up the reserves. With time the proportion of water to oil that is produced in any well increases (increasing water cut) and this combined with depressurisation leads to declining oil flow rates.

Combined, these processes result in naturally declining production. It has been estimated that the global average decline rate is 4.5% per annum. (personal communication, Peter Jackson, CERA). What this means is that every year the global oil industry must bring on stream 3.8 million barrels per day new production just to compensate for decline (4.5% of 85 mmbpd). If less than 3.8 million bpd are commissioned then global oil production will fall and vice versa.


The higher global oil production rises, so rises the amount of new annual capacity required to compensate for decline.

As global oil production has risen, the annual new capacity required to offset decline has gone up too. Bearing in mind that all the best fields have already been produced, annual decline must be offset using second and third class oil fields. This task eventually becomes impossible and a production plateau is attained. That is where we are right now.

Net energy and energy density

The world has already used up a large proportion of its best oil reserves. These are the light sweet crude oil reserves produced on shore from first class reservoirs.



The proportion of low ERoEI liquids and low energy density liquids is growing exponentially. Source EIA and Oil Watch Monthly.

This chart shows that a growing proportion of world total liquid fuels production comprises second generation liquids - e.g. natural gas liquids, syncrude from tar sands and biofuels.. These are essentially synthetic liquids that need to be created and the process of creation uses energy. The term used to describe this concept is Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) and while historic oil production may have had large ERoEI numbers greater than 100, these synthetic liquids have low ERoEI. Around 1.2 in the case of temperate latitude ethanol and 5.0 in the case of syncrude produced from tar sand. The main point is that a steadily growing proportion of the global total liquids production is being used to produce these liquids leaving less for society to use than the bare figures may suggest.


ERoEI = (energy contained in fuel) / (energy used to produce fuel)

When the energy used to produce a fuel is larger than the fuel itself contains the ERoEI will be less than 1 and the whole exercise is rather pointless apart from in exceptional circumstances where energy quality is very important, e.g. in food production.

A second and equally serious issue lies in the energy density of the new liquids being produced. In energy terms, 1 barrel of ethanol or a barrel of liquefied natural gas is not the same as a barrel of crude oil. The latter contains significantly more energy. Hence measuring energy production by the volumes produced (barrels) is misleading and presents an over-optimistic picture.

As a rough approximation, the energy equivalence by volume of ethanol and LNG are as follows:


1 barrel of ethanol = 0.61 barrels of crude oil
1 barrel of LNG = 0.73 barrels of crude oil

In summary, the picture of rising liquids volume production up top is deceptive. With the passage of time the energy content of those liquids is falling steadily and the amount of energy used to produce them is rising. This means less energy for society to use at a higher cost.

31.8 billion barrels per year

The world now consumes 31.8 billion barrels of oil per year. 1978 was the last year that this volume of oil was discovered and more recently discovery has been running at less than 10 billion barrels per year. It is an utterly forlorn hope that exploration and new discoveries may alleviate the current supply crisis.

Mega projects

The inventory of past discoveries has not yet been used up and a list of new oil mega-projects first complied by Chris Skrebowski has been expanded and maintained by The OIl Drum in Wiki format.



Global crude + condensate + NGL + syncrude scenario based on TOD mega-projects database as of 27 May 2008. This is not a definitive forecast since there is uncertainty over decline rate, project slippage and there is no allowance made for small projects. Beyond 2012 there is a planning horizon for projects and so beyond that date is pure speculation based on 10% per annum decline in new production capacity - and this may contribute to the apparent peak at that time. The 4.5% per annum decline rate is based on a personal communication with Peter Jackson (CERA) who conducted a comprehensive study of oil field decline last year. This decline is applied also to new production.

At face value, these mega-projects should be sufficient to ensure some production growth in the coming years.

However, the pattern of recent years has been project slippage owing to global shortages of materials, manpower and rampant oil service sector inflation. The pattern of slippage may continue and the promise of an increase in new supplies may remain just that – a promise.

Spare production capacity and OPEC

It is a feature of natural resource depletion that there is either a glut or a shortage. Managing this during the early years of resource exploitation causes all sorts of problems. On planet Earth we need to be thankful to OPEC for trying to manage this problem via their production-sharing cartel. For much of the period since OPEC formed in 1960, the world had excess productive capacity, i.e. production potential was higher than was utilised. Withholding this reserve capacity helped bolster prices and reduce demand. But with erratic additions of non-OPEC supply and a tendency for certain OPEC members to cheat on their quota, oil prices tended to swing in an unpredictable manner through the period 1960 to 2000.

Since 2000 this situation has changed. Global demand for oil has continued to increase and to meet this demand much of the OPEC spare capacity has been switched on so that all but Saudi Arabia are now producing flat out.



Global spare production capacity from this presentation by Lawrence Eagles of the IEA (link lost). Note how 8mmbpd spare capacity in 2002 had all but disappeared by 2004. It has since then grown slightly but is once again in decline.



This more detailed and up-to-date picture from Rembrandt Koppelaar's excellent May edition of oil watch monthly shows spare capacity in sharp decline. Despite a healthy inventory of mega-projects, the world is quite simply not managing to bring on new supply fast enough to compensate for decline.

In order to grow spare capacity, the world each year must commission new capacity to compensate for decline and to accommodate increased demand:


spare capacity growth = new annual production capacity - (annual decline + consumption growth)

As demand continues to rise against static supply, the only solution is for prices to rise and to price poor people out of the oil consuming economy.

Much of the spare capacity held in Saudi Arabia is heavy sour crude oil and the world currently lacks capacity in specialised refineries to handle this crude.

Peak exports

Another important concept is to consider is oil exports as described here by Westexas and Khebab. Oil exporting countries have increasing wealth and are attracting massive inward investment and migration resulting in steadily rising oil consumption. Indonesia provides a classic example of a former export land whose rising consumption has totally consumed their oil exports. Indonesia, once part of the oil supply solution has become part of the oil demand problem and has just left OPEC.



Rising demand and falling production has totally consumed Indonesia's oil exports in the space of 40 years. Indonesia's passion for bio-fuels is explained by this chart.

In 2006 Luis de Sousa produced this analysis of global oil exports. Those seeking an explanation for why oil now costs over $120 per barrel need look no further than this chart.



Luis de Sousa's analysis of net oil exports shows a peak in global oil exports in 2004/5 followed by a period of gradual decline until 2010. Net export decline then accelerates. If this analysis is correct then the current oil price / oil supply crisis will shortly get much worse. However, note that 4 important exporting countries - Iraq, Nigeria, Azebaijan and Kazakhstan - are not yet included in this analysis.

Oil is still cheap



At $2 per liter bottled spring water costs $318 per barrel.

Oil is still very cheap. Bottled spring water at $2 per litre works out at $318 per barrel. Oil is fundamental to our lives for transportation and a myriad products ranging from plastic to pesticides. Unlike spring water, oil is finite and costs significantly more to find and produce. The price of oil will continue to rise until the world as a whole decides it can do with less or until meaningful volumes of energy substitution take root.

Subsidies and taxation distort the market

Many of the world’s oil consumers do not pay the market price paid by the OECD. In Russia, the Middle East and China and many other countries oil and gasoline prices are subsidised. So the thirst of those consumers is not abated by current high spot price. Taxation in Europe and Japan also de-gears the impact of high oil price in those regions where high tax means that gasoline is already expensive. The impact of rising prices is felt less in these countries - though it is now beginning to bite.

Secondary factors and excuses

There are a range of secondary factors impacting the day to day fluctuations in oil price such as:

  • Speculation
  • Political unrest in producing countries
  • The depreciation of the $US
  • Prime exploration acreage that is off limits to OECD corporations

Speculation

Financial speculation in oil futures is being offered increasingly as the reason for high oil prices. True, speculation is rife. However, the futures market is a zero sum game. For every long position there is a short position and the price is ultimately struck by the individual who takes delivery of the oil - which is then refined and purchased by a consumer. For so long as consumers keep demanding oil at ever higher prices, the price will continue to rise.

The only way speculation could impact the oil price is under accumulation. Inventories of crude oil and refined products have been falling for a year (see figures 14 to 17).

Political unrest

True, political unrest in exporting countries such as Iraq and Nigeria means that less oil is being produced. But this situation has prevailed for many years now and is likely to get worse as energy poverty begins to bite.

The depreciation of the $US

True, the depreciation of the US$ has contributed to the rise in oil prices. But the oil price has risen in € too.



From Countdown to €100 oil by Jerome a Paris.

Off limits exploration

True, there are vast tracts of the USA that are under-explored in the ANWR and off the east and west coasts where the US has placed a high price on protecting their own environment. But it is not true that the Middle East and Russia are under-explored and that greater access to these areas by OECD companies would transform the current situation.

In summary these secondary factors touted by the MSM, politicians and oil companies are nothing more than an excuse and a distraction from the core problem which is demand growth running ahead of supply growth for over three years now. If the USA, Russia or Saudi Arabia could turn on the taps and produce an additional 3 mmbpd, the oil price would fall tomorrow. But they can't and the only way the oil price will come down is by reduced demand brought about by pricing poor people out of the energy market and by deepening recession.

Conclusion

We are now in the early stages of a full blown energy crisis that was predictable if not wholly avoidable. Politicians are awaking to the crisis now that escalating energy costs make its existence plain to see. It is highly unlikely that politicians will now grasp the gravity of the situation that the OECD and rest of the world faces and the responses will likely be ineffectual and too little too late.

The principal reason for current high oil price is the proximity of a peak in global oil production. Politicians must understand this and then grasp that natural gas and coal supplies will follow oil down by mid century. Reducing taxes on energy consumption right now is the wrong thing to do. Taxation structure needs to be adjusted to oblige energy producing companies to re-invest wind fall profits in alternative energy sources on a truly massive scale.

Energy efficiency should be the guiding beacon of all policy decisions and this must apply equally to energy production and energy consumption.

I wonder, will bottled water ever be cheaper than oil? How much oil is spent in piping and treating the water, bottling it and transporting it close to the consumer?

In terms of volume oil is by far the most traded commodity in the world today. What all those folks looking for scape goats need to understand is that 80 odd million barrels a day is really a big figure. Keeping that number for these last few years has been a tremendous task and a very special moment in Mankind's history.

Correct me if i'm wrong:
85 million barrels; 159 litres per barrel
Total litres = 13.5 billion litres
Estimated human population about 6.5 billion people.
Divinding 13.5 by 6.5 we have 2.07 litres produced per every human.
Meaning that if we'd passed the responssability to every human being in the planet of producing some kind of liquid that after some treatment could replace oil, every one had to produce daily 2 litres of such liquid.
I don't drink that much water per day.

MetaPico

You should drink 64 ounces of water everyday to keep your kidneys working fine and all the other running bady parts. If you don't then you are not Cycling your body like it should run.

But then again niether do I. But I am half camel, and I have had Kidney Stones, 3 times in the past 2 years.

Nothing we have can at this time equal the power production like OIL can, not water, not Urine, and not coca-cola..... So given the energy density of OIL, we better start making some life changes soon.

Charles.

2 litres a day! Even if I rendered down the wife, I figure that I'd only get about 13 litres of dripping. (Hmmm, I wonder though, maybe it would be worth it for one final week of driving pleasure!)

Desalination of seawater has a low energy consumption compared to the energy in oil.
This water could be bottled :-).
ca. 2003 stated price <8$/1000 Gallon
http://www.membranes-amta.org/media/pdf/desaltingcost.pdf

and approx the same here, where it is noted the importance of using updated energy costs.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18585189

and a nice description from california on the kWh necessary for various techniques.
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/desalrpt/dchap1.html

kind regards/And1

for what it is worth

According to the Pacific Institute’s fact sheet [PDF], manufacturing the 30+ billion plastic water bottles we bought in 2006:

> Required the equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil - enough to fuel more than one million vehicles for a year. (Note: This was erroneously reported by the New York Times as 1.5 million, and the error is repeated in many places.)
> Produced more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide.
> Used three times the amount of water in the bottle.
/

http://green.msn.com/Articles/article.aspx?aid=368&GT1=45002

the 30+ billion plastic water bottles we bought in 2006 ...

Who is this we you speak of, Kemosabe?

So drink tapwater and dress in recycled paper coveralls that you can use as fuel every month or two when they become obnoxious for other folk to be around. Sheesh.

refer to the link for author and details.

Here in the uk I recently bought loads of Buxton water (best quality spring)in 1.5 litre bottles, from my local T*sh*tco and it cost 17p per litre, or 34p per litre at usual price. I have to conclude that the US dollar must be really worth 0.1 GB Pounds rather than the ~0.6 generally supposed.

The Bottled water issue is that 204 Dollars is a value added tax. I ran numbers for my Dad's Club soda per barrel, then took out the price on One barrel of Oil for the production costs of the One barrel of Club Soda.

I was really hit hard today when I went to Buy Eggs from Wally-World. Dang, I thought the prices were high a while ago.

I don't drive so I don't see the pennies flying out the door so much as I used to. I walked to the Local Wally-World this afternoon and again this evening from my 3rd Ex-wive's trailer and seeing that I either take a bus or walk everywhere I just notice that the Number of Cars seems to be there still and Wally-World was just as packed in. But I did notice the cost of Food going up and up.

"Food or Gas?" I was saying to anyone that could hear me while I walked the Isles in the local Wally-World....

Being recently disabled because of damage due from Blood Clots in 2005, I notice where my dollars go I am Glad I don't have to pay for a car too.

But sooner rather than Later and before the Election this is going to Blow up into a full blown crisis sooner than most MSM and Poli-tick-ians know.

Charles.

Bottled water is already much cheaper than oil. Just because water costs a buck a liter (or more) doesnt mean it costs $8 a gallon or $300 a barrel. Most of the cost of water is in the per unit price, and it doesnt scale linearly. If you were to buy a barrel of spring water, it would only cost you about $10-$30, depending on where you are. Most of that cost would be delivery.

In a sense, when you buy water, you are really buying oil. The oil it took to pump and package the water.

I get a flat of 35 1/2 liter bottles of water for $6 at Costco. What you pay for is convenience.

I lifted the price from this link here:

https://secure1.securewebexchange.com/aquamaestro.com/innerview.asp?cati...

One of the real issues here is the poor quality of water in our taps. In Aberdeen my wife and two kids refuse to drink the tap water which they claim is foul.

Bottled water wastes energy and produces so much waste.

The crude oil vs bottled water comparison argument is specious and getting annoying. If you're going to compare crude oil to water, don't compare it to bottled water but rather to tap water. Or better yet to the bulk cost of ocean or lake water. It is disingenuous to compare a processed and packaged product to a raw material.

A very good read. Does the graph showing the amounts of unconventional oil allow us to correct the all liquids graph for the lower energy values of the ethanol and natural gas liquids? This would allow us to see whether all liquids really is increasing? Just eye-balling the NGLs, it looks like all liquids should "really" be about 2 million bpd lower.

Peter.

|It is a quite concise intelligent and simple explanation of the problem... it is a good read.. like a lot of stuff at TOD

Is this stuff circulating by more direct lobbying means to the powers that be.

I see WT has MSM article lined up and all but what have "we" on the inside track. who do we have on the inside? anybody? Or is it just hit the media via osmosis?

Gordon Brown today was terrifyingly inept. I hope he was just posturing for public consumption but my take is he hasn't got a clue.

Not an out and out doomer but the current reactions are not confidence inspiring.

Boris
London

I think that a lot of journalists are Peak Oil aware, but the problem is the tiny--but slowly growing--number of Peak Oil aware journalists that are willing to write about it.

We need to keep in mind journalists can write only what editors allow. I've not heard a single comment about what the editors know or don't know or do or don't do.

Perhaps a more effective/efficient outreach might be to contact editors?

Cheers

can you embed in "write to them"?

Boris
London

Newspapers are businesses. The measly 1.50 they get to drive a Sunday paper to my remote location is nothing of what it takes to pay for it. Advertising is their source of revenue.
I think most editors would look at harping on PO as advertising revenue suicide.
When you really wrap your mind around this stuff, it is very scary, maybe the Mayans have it right "2012".

What sells? Sex, blood, violence... plenty of that could be coming soon!

Besides, this stuff is a bit addictive. Once they get their readers hooked on PO, they'll have 'em for life... though that may not be long...

He-he...

Cheers

"What sells? Sex, blood, violence... plenty of that could be coming soon!"

True!

"this stuff is a bit addictive"

Double Tripple true!!

I like your sense of humour, It will be needed.

Newspapers are businesses. The measly 1.50 they get to drive a Sunday paper to my remote location is nothing of what it takes to pay for it. Advertising is their source of revenue.
I think most editors would look at harping on PO as advertising revenue suicide.
When you really wrap your mind around this stuff, it is very scary, maybe the Mayans have it right "2012".

David Strahan has an article in today's Daily Telegraph, titled "sory Gordon but geology has us over a barrel". I think Gordon Brown may be waking up to reality as well. I think he has recently (very) been to Scotland to try and get North Sea oil production revived and may have been told some uncomfortable truths, though this is my cynicysm at work not necessarily factual!.
According to the same paper he is talking about tax concessions to help boost North Sea Investment. (words like "Horse shut bolted gate after" come to mind).

"Sorry Gordon but geology has us over a barrel".

Which is a typical dud MSM headline for when you want to Pravdicate the issue. In contrast to, say, "We are now entering into an unprecedented and unending crisis". You'll never read that in any newspaper.

As for what our Prime Criminal says, it's traditional form for the government to blame natural forces for its woes. If the opposition were to start doing so too then that really would be a transformation.

Robin,

Point 1

Don't disagree with you, just pointed what was said. Headlines based on loose puns are just the name of the game i'm afraid, anoying as they may be.

Point 2

No problem here either. Infact to go further politicians will take credid for all things good, yet blame forces beyond their control for all things evil. We all know the UK's credit boom payed for the economic growth of the last decade, now, I fear its double bust for the next few to come. That's not Gordon's fault (sarcasm), it is the USA's!

point 3

If the opposition were to start doing so too then that really would be a transformation.

Now you are asking for too much indeed!

Boris, from this side of the pond, Gordon looks like a blooming genius compared to the draft dodgers and congressional nitwits running this country. Absolutely superb and concise summary of the problem. Nothing most of us here at TOD don't already know but nonetheless a superb compilation of all relevant data distilled down to the basics. It is a classic monograph which will go into my "saved" folder.

I think I need to work with Rembrandt to see if we cannot come up with an energy density chart normalised , because I do suspect that the volume chart will at least be flattened in doing so.

This is a chart of liquids - shouldn't the analysis be of Liquids Returned on Liquids invested?

Aren't we dealing with the Oil/liquids crunch, not the energy crunch? E-ROI is certainly important for cost and long-term sustainability, but that's a different analysis. For instance, if we use coal (or natural gas, if you decide that NG isn't a liquid fuel) for ethanol distillation, then the Liquids Returned on Liquids invested is about 5:1.

I'm not sure it's fair to adjust the Liquids data for the low E-ROI of tar-sands and ethanol.

I'm not sugegsting adjusting for EROEI - though that would, I suspect be truely eye-opening - but for the fact that the energy contained in, say, 1 barrel of natural gas liquids is only 73% of the energy contained in a barrel of oil. So, it's not really counting apples and apples to add together crude oil barrels and NGL barrels,

Peter.

Russia and Saudi Arabia

Some other very important points. Russia seems to have reached a second production peak following recovery from collapse. Rising production in Russia since 2000 has helped global supplies a lot. This additional supply now going into reverse is a very serious problem.


And Saudi Arabia is struggling to raise production and / or spare capacity despite new mega projects suggesting that they too are fighting decline.


I am currently sworn to secrecy, but there will be a major MSM article coming out soon, hopefully this week, on net oil exports.

IMO, there is almost no chance that Saudi Arabia will, in 2008, match or exceed their 2005 annual production rate, which would mean three straight years of production below their 2005 rate, which leaves us looking toward 2009, while their consumption is increasing at a rapid clip, probably about +6%/year over the past five years, which has the predictable effect on net oil exports.

Westexas I was wondering if you would consider one valid change to export land.

Instead of consumption increasing forever in exporting countries we would expect it to level out at some consumption level. Lets say two or three times the level of consumption per capita in the US.

I played with it a bit and it does not make a huge difference but it does leave some countries with exports.
However we would expect the rate of growth to begin to decline as it hits these limits.

Given a population of 300 million for the US and a 25 mbd use rate we have .083 mbd/million people.

Saudi population is about 30 million so 2.49 mbd *3 = 7.47 mbd. So the max is probably between this or about 5mbd. This leaves about 2-3mbd or so of exports. Actually all other countries go to zero for the most part but we can expect the per-capita growth rate to slow as usage approaches and surpasses the per capita usage in the US. If Saudi Arabia stopped at levels similar to the US then they would have more exports.

Its actually done correctly here and I think some of your models have it presented correctly.
This paper has it right. And I did my rough one before I found this and its about right :)

http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com/2006/02/saudi-arabias-ability-to-export-...

The real kicker is people need to understand that simply having the people in the exporting countries increase their standard of living in line with what the US enjoys is sufficient to effectively stop world oil exports. I don't think a lot of people realize that oil exports actually require most countries to impoverish the citizens. Nigeria, Russia, Mexico etc none of these countries would have ever been oil exporters if the citizens enjoyed a standard of living close to ours. In effect the US was stealing the worlds oil and not compensating the citizens of these countries with a decent standard of living.

If the Saudis kick out the immigrant labor force, then the Saudi oil consumption will go down a little, and immigrant's home country's oil consumption will go down a lot. Ditto for the US and Europe.
If we have the choice of paying twice as much for the burger slinger at McDonalds, or walking to work...not to mention the immigrants in America aren't going to be happy about the dollar dropping against hard currencies like the Peso...

The energy usage of a country is a proxy for its population growth and rate of development. Population in KSA is rapidly exponential as the Graphoilogy site shows. The usage per capita is high but fairly constant at around 25.

Fig 4. is the kicker -even with lower growth rates NET exports still decline fairly rapidly. For a country further along the curve (higher % internal usage at time of peaking) the decline is even quicker as Jeff has repeatedly shown for Indonesia and UK... 7 or 8 years to 0...

Of course the whole point of the ELM is to show the negative effects that unconstrained internal energy usage in NET exporters can have on their exports but I believe this to be an unrealistic assumption

Even Chaiman Mow realised that unconstrained population growth was eventually going to bring the country to its knees -indeed his answer was even more draconian than anything that would be considered in the West.

How to incorporate in the model?

From here on out efficiency will be a key priority for the NET importers and that's pretty much where places like KSA get all their 'stuff' from. So I would add an efficiency 'fudge factor' going forward that eased the energy usage per capita downwards. For KSA it might go from say 25b/capita to the European average of ~12 at peak This would clearly enable a very good standard of living to be maintained and allow for the exporters having a sense of urgency in their energy usage policy...

[Another factor that is not being considered in the ELM is 'substitution'. For example what if KSA decides that, given $500/b oil it wants to go nuclear so that instead of simply burning oil it can export it? -I think this will have a really big effect on enabling exports to decline less dramatically, a 'substitution variable' would be needed but I have no idea how it would work...]

Regards, Nick.

I've previously suggested Phase One and Phase Two net export declines. In Phase One, the cash flow from export sales increases, even as volumes fall, because rising oil prices are offsetting the decline in volume. In Phase Two, rising oil prices can't offset the decline in volume. The transition from Phase One to Phase Two is probably where we would expect to see some lower rates of increase in consumption.

However, consider the ELM itself. I stipulated a 2.5%/year rate of increase in consumption (and a -5%/year production decline rate), which produced a peak export to zero export period of