 | Will Wartime Mobilisation Address Peak Oil? | The Oil Drum: Europe | The Fantasy World of the UK Government |  |
Countdown to $200 oil: International Energy Agency says current prices justified...
Posted by Jerome a Paris on July 2, 2008 - 11:04am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: $100 oil, $200 oil, eia, iea, jeddah, Khursaniyah, mexico, opec, original, saudi arabia [list all tags]
It is oddly fitting that we touched $100 oil on 31 December and got halfway from $100 to $200 oil on 30 June - so we're on track to reach $200 oil by 31 December this year (in case you're wondering: +42% and again +42% from that level = +100% from the initial level). |
It is also fitting that on that same date, the International Energy Agency published one of its gloomiest ever analyses of the oil markets, asserting that oil prices are justified by fundamentals
Opus 9 of the Countdown to $200 oil series.It said: “Like alchemists looking for a way to turn basic elements into gold, everyone wants a simplistic explanation for high prices,” bluntly adding: “Often it is a case of political expediency to find a scapegoat for higher prices rather than undertake serious analysis or perhaps confront difficult decisions.”
I have been told by a reliable source that the IEA has been forbidden by the US administration from updating their absurdly cornucopian oil supply and demand scenarios until the report that comes out late this year (after the election); that report, which will publish the result of a "bottom-up" analysis (ie a summary of all existing oil fields, their production and/or prospects) is expected to show that oil production is unlikely to reach the levels that so many have blithely assumed - notably on the basis of previous optimistic IEA reports. The IEA, which was deeply unhappy about the current lies to was supposed to present and support, has been leaking word of the expected content of that new report for many weeks now, including an increasingly alarmist tone in its official reports, such as today's Medium Term Market Outlook:
“Structural demand growth in developing countries and ongoing supply constraints continue to paint a tight market picture over the medium-term,” the IEA said in its Medium-Term Oil Market Report, released on Tuesday in Madrid.
“Poor supply-side performance since 2004, in the face of strong demand pressures from developing countries, has forced oil prices up sharply to curb demand,” the watchdog added.
Strong demand, disappointing supply. Hmm, where have I read this already?
The IEA said that despite billions of dollars of investment, the challenge of pumping ever more oil out of their aging fields is proving so great that non-Opec countries will in the next five years have to rely on biofuels, such as corn-based ethanol, for 50 per cent of their growth in overall fuels.
The fast decline of fields – especially in the North Sea and Mexico where production is shrinking by more than 20 per cent each year – means that 14.8m of the 16m barrels of new supply from non-Opec countries over the next five years will go to making up for losses from old fields producing less and less each year.
This is one of the most important trends in current oil markets: the depletion of existing fields, and the decline in their production. It's long been discussed in specialised sites like this one but it's been ignored in the "serious" media for too long. and yet, discussions of new fields coming into production cannot paint a correct picture of future production trends if these declines are not deducted to get net production increases.
And the stark truth is that in most of the world, the declines are bigger than the new capacity additions. This is particularly true in "friendly" production zones like the North Sea, Mexico or even Russia, where overall decline rates are dizzying and actually impact global production numbers significantly.
But Opec is also struggling, with project delays impacting its ability to add new capacity. The IEA substantially downgraded its expectations for Opec crude capacity from 2008-2013, cutting earlier forecasts by 1.2m b/d.
The IEA said it believed Saudi Arabia was having bigger problems than the kingdom, the world’s largest exporter, was willing to admit to, despite its national oil company having gone to great lengths last month to reassure energy ministers gathered in Jeddah that, except for Khursaniyah, its capacity editions were running on schedule.
Now the IEA is getting close to heresy territory, noting that Saudi claims about its ability to maintain or increase its production should be met with increasing skepticism.
Of course, none of that is news for readers of this site or even of my Countdown to $200 oil series, but, as we know, we're not Serious People - but the IEA is the ultimate in Seriousness, so this is big news. And I say that quite seriously (pun intended): many governments, and countless businesses, not to mention pundits, use the IEA numbers religiously when preparing scenarios, business plans or pontificating. Changing these underlying numbers will have MAJOR impact on public discourse on energy.
It's maybe not too late yet.
Hi, Jerome.
Can you say more about what you mean by "It's maybe not too late yet?" Any way that I look at it I seem to arrive at the same conclusion, namely that it is too late.
-André
lol--me too, aangel!
Great post, Jerome.
Its been too late for at least 10 years...
Along with their Medium Term Outlook ($$$), the IEA released this presentation:
http://www.iea.org/textbase/speech/2008/eagles_mtomr2008.pdf
On page 23 it says that mature fields in the OECD are declining at greater that 10% per year.
Great catch.
Some points from the presentation:
And finally:
That if any, is a tacit admission from them for peak light crude at the very least for non-Opec.
They must have really balanced on what to graph and what words to use: they had to make an impact and show things are serious, but at the same time not let the cat out of the bag completely.
It'll be interesting to see how the market reacts to the final report later this year.
I only picked one slide to show, which I think is telling
It seem that they are saying that they do not know (or necessarily believe) that non-OPEC supply can re-gain growth again after 2013.
We know what people here at TOD believe, but it is interesting to see IEA flashing the same - even as a possibility.
Truly they are conservative in their communications :)
Hi
I am confused... if as the IEA say 2008-2013 demand growth is 7M bpd total (abt 1.4m bpd annually) and according to the IEA new presentation posted (I don't have access to the actual report) non-opec is 1.2 and OPEC crude + NGL is 2.5+2.1M bpd over the 2008-2013 period, that is extra demand of 7M bpd vs new supply of 5.8m bpd or about 200,000 bpd a year shortfall in supply. Is that correct or am I being an idiot and missing something? Were does the (say) 3.5m bpd depletion come in? Doesn't that then mean a total output growth of 4.9m bpd (1.4 + 3.5) that is needed to meet demand each year and make up for depletion but the total output growth as stated above of 5.8m bpd divided by 5 for the period in question = 1.16m bpd so isn't this a HUGE shortfall. Are my calculations right or am I misunderstanding something???
My reading:
Incremental supply additions from 2008 to 2013:
Non-OPEC crude capacity +1.2 Mb/d
OPEC crude capacity +2.5 Mb/d
OPEC gas liquids output +2.1 Mb/d - output
World biofuels output +0.6 Mb/d (capacity 2.0 Mb/d)
----------------------------------------------------
Total: +6.4 Mb/d (w/ biofuel cap. 7.8 Mb/d)
Against demand growth +7.x Mb/d (+1.4% p.a.)
NB! This is 2.6 Mb/d lower than the estimate a year ago (MTOMR 2007 in 6/2007).
Incremental = on top of the existing production level (that is, already taking into mature field declines)
Summary: if biofuels (read: ethanol) don't come through in spades and/or Iraq doesn't miraculously recover - we are screwed.
Either way, it's going to be really tough, prices are going to be high, unless we hit Asian/worldwide depression, in which case people have other things to worry about.
And that's just the optimistic IEA scenario :)
yes, and the IEA presentation makes the point that some (Asian) refineries are marginally economic as the margin between sour and sweet crude reaches historic highs.
One reason is that lower sulfur in street-side fuels are increasingly mandated in Indonesia, Australia, Vietnam and other Asian-region countries.
The other reason is that most Asian refineries can only handle sweeter crudes. They are captive to a continued supply of sweet crude.
The global significance is that (in 2005, assume not much changed) Asian refineries handle about 25% of total global crude production.
Local Asian sweet crudes lead the world in price. Today, Minas crude, from Indonesia, overtook Tapis, from Malaysia, as the highest ever price for a crude oil ($US148.66).
Smaller Asian refineries that don't own a share of the 'cheap' sweet fields (i.e.less than $US80 a barrel investment/development assumptions,as Rokman says below) will no longer be viable, and may be closed (as at least one refinery in Australia was, about ?2005).
Ultimately, this must squeeze regional refinery capacity. China, which was - until about 2003 - a major gasoline exporter to Asia, can no longer help. Therefore, more distant light crudes have to be found. 'Draw-off' of low sulfur crudes from non-traditional sources support global sweet crude prices, including US prices. The Asian region can no longer supply its own needs. So long as regional governments have the money, Asia will increasingly look to import sweet oil from outside the region.
This may create an upward spiral on prices beyond the Asian region. Only very large demand destruction in Asia (and/or beyond) can collapse it.
We await the end of subsidized petrol in Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Taiwan, India, Philippines and Vietnam.
In effect, we await the very severe decline in these Asian economies. Oh, all right, financial collapse.
China, as someone here observed, has enough US dollars as reserves to subsidise gasoline for many decades, so must be 'stood out'.
The price consquence of all this? Oil companies that both produce and refine their own sweet crude within Asia have the 'whip hand', they have a handsome degree of freedom to expand the profit margin for their products to the limits of tolerance of their market.
Given the inevitable drive-down in oil product prices in a coming Asian economic collapse, who can blame them for making hay while the sun shines?
And if they drive those refineries without 'company owned' supplies of crude into the red, then out the back door, so much the better!
Ironically, they can substantially 'phat up'the wholesale price of gasoline to the street-side retailer, knowing that the gas station owners will be blamed for the price hikes - even when retail margins remains static!
You will notice that oil companies always point to 1. the price of crude, and 2. thin retail margins as proof they aren't price gouging.
They don't mention the refinery profit margin in the middle of upstream + downstream integrated operations!
Cheers,
Lorenzo
Lorenzo,I can't see how you justify saying that China must be "stood out" of what you rightly call the coming financial collapse of some Asian economies.China does have a lot of reserves in foreign currency but the $US part of it is declining in value and seems set to continue in that direction.I'm not so sure that other currencies are too secure either.
In addition the value of Chinese exports is set to decline as the main buyers of their goods enter what seems to be an inevitable depression.
I am not very knowledgeable about these matters.I'm sure somebody has a contrary view.However,I've been around long enough to have upgraded my bullshit detectors to a fairly high level.When I read all these enthusiastic reports about China's miraculous growth presented as the conventional wisdom I tend to step back a bit and try to examine the underlying factors.What I see makes me suspect that China's economy is,at bottom,extremely fragile.
On the specific suject of Jerome's article it would appear that there needs to be some serious efforts,apart from price,to cut demand in the West.What are the odds on rationing?
Call me crazy, but I thought people rationed as prices increased- like use in the U.S. dropping 2.9% compared to last year as prices increased.
update July 3, Minas light is $US153.98. Tapis is also high, at $US153.03.
Lorenzo
Jerome,
Your reliable source who says that the US administration has ordered IEA to suppress information until after the US election, can this source say if these instructions are in writing and over whose signature? This might be something congress would want to look into though their subpoenas are often ignored. More details would be helpful. Contacting Waxman's committee might be the best path.
Chris
It's way too late to stop $200 oil. The combination of low mileage vehicles and millions of new homes in outer suburbia has cinched the deal.
Let's say that $40,000 (new) SUV getting 12 mpg that is now three years old would have a $30,000 resale value at $3/gal gasoline. At $5 gasoline the resale value goes down, all other factors being equal, such as odometer miles.
So instead of getting parked, or in some cases even driven less, the resale value goes down. If you figue 12,000 miles driven per year, for three years, the discerning buyer wants to be compensated as follows: $2/gal ($5 - $3) times 36,000 miles divided by 12 mpg. That is only $6,000!!!
Even if gasoline goes to $6/gal, that only knocks $9000 off the value of the SUV. So if you fear the price of gas is going to $6, but you want that SUV, you offer $21,000 for what was a $30,000 vehicle, or wait for a distressed seller and offer even less.
In any event, these vehicles will be on the road until they are banned or gasoline goes way above $6/gal.
You are making a really wild assumption that the average SUV owner will, or could, make such a rational calculation.
edit: verb tense
It is not the OWNER of the SUV that will make the calculation, but rather the BUYER of the used vehicle. Let's assume that the OWNER is forced to park the vehicle, or chooses to do so by having a bicycle, another (better mileage) car, etc.
If the vehicle is fully paid for, it is a depreciating asset that is incurring fees, such as lincense plates, insurance, etc. Why not sell it?
The BUYER doesn't have to know 3rd grade math. He knows the SUV will cost double per week/month to operate, compared to a sedan. Can he get a good enough price to justify this purchase?
Very good condition used vehicles will come down in price to make up for their poor fuel economy, I predict, rather than sitting idle.
I agree Pipefit. My coping paln for the next decade includes driving a large SUV that I am going to buy when there are many distressed sellers. I have calculated that $5 (AUD) per litre will still be economical to run for road trips with full family passengers and luggage. Daily commuting however will be by cycle (both motor and bi), bus and walking. Our road trips may not extend beyond a 500km radius from home but where we live we can access beaches, forests, snow, mountains, large metro cities, farmland, pretty much everything you could want to visit. Don't think I'll be making too many overseas jet flights though.
My brother bought a SUV for pulling a camper trailer, that they had yet to buy. Why he did buy it was not because of wanting an SUV perse` but wanting to pull a camper trailer for camping, which they do enjoy. Now he is regretting it, because gas prices are so high, with no sign of going down.
I know a local lady that parks her car to take the bus, just started doing it last month.
There will be a lot of changing habits, as we see in the US higher gas prices and longer waits for them to go down. Look at the Local news that Ford F-150 sales are down for the frist time in 17 years. I don't have a URL for checking that quote.
Paradigms are shifting still, lots of things are still going to be in flux.
Charles,
Still running for US President, as a write in candidate.
Psychoanalyzing the SUV driver is an inexact science, but I'll throw out my educated guess. I think most SUV drivers were psychologically clinging to the days of $1.50 gas. When gas hit $3, people complained, but there was a wait-and-see attitude hoping for the good old days to come back. Now that people have finally accepted permanently high prices, they're really adjusting from $1.50 mindset to a $4.50 mindset. Because of that the drop in price exceeds any rational calculation from the difference between $3 and $4.50 gas.
If you want to research actual selling prices of used vehicles, Ebay is a great resource. You need to log in to see completed auctions. I just looked at auctions of SUVs. A lot of them with 0 bids. A lot more with bids that didn't meet reserve price. Of the few that were sold, they're thousands off blue book price (from kbb.com, no idea how often they're updated). Here's one: 2001 Ford Excursion, 120,000 miles, 5.4l gasoline V8. KBB private party retail $9300, offered at Buy It Now price of $7900, sold for $6500.
Wow! That is a good example.
But, let me convey my experience as a California SUV owner:
My mindset is not stuck on gas at $1.50/gal. Or even something higher ~ $3/gal. But then again, I feel I am informed. I am in the transportation industry, know the cost of operations, and have always followed developments. I also visit this site. So, I am not the least bit ignorant relative to the average Joe.
But then again, I do not feel the average Joe SUV Owner is not all that dumb, either.
I feel the large majority of SUV owners only talked (ie. complained) about the price of gas around the water cooler at work or dinner table at Thanksgiving. Perhaps fewer than 5% took complaints to elected officials or posted on message boards or blog sites. Perhaps less.
As for me, I've had my SUV for 10 years. It's been paid for for many. Last month the transmission went out. I thought about what to do pretty often; replace it with a more fuel effecient car... hybrid or scooter. Or, join a carshare org like Zipcar. After all, I drive fewer than 5,000 miles a year and I really am not too dependant on having a personal vehicle at the ready. And, there are no less than 3 bus lines near me serving nearby major destinations. I also happen to be centrally located near downtown San Diego... which can explain why I do not accumulate many miles and pay through the nose for fuel.
With that said, I got the transmission fixed for $3000. This is more than what I could have sold it for IF the transmission had been working. Had I known what it would cost upfront, I may have reconsidered the decision. But, my SUV is paid for and I do not need to pay any large upfront cost for a replacement vehicle. The convenience and price is worth it.
Additionally, I have no idea where fuel prices are going. It could be that fuel will not be a bargain for any vehicle in the mid-term future... even for hybrids. So, I decided to ride the pump for the time being... and advocate for alternative fuels and energy sources.. and minimize my driving as much as practical. At current rate... my driving could dip below 3600 miles a year; or 300 miles a month.
When the future appears a bit more clear, I'll make a decision about what to do with transportation. More hybrids should be available in the next 2-4 years... providing a greater range of choice and lower prices (I suspect).
(edit: inserted important word)
Wholesale values for SUVs and pickup trucks dropped 25% in May alone. Dealers have largely stopped taking them in trade, since they choke their lots. A lot of them may get kept around as "third cars," to be used only when there are loads that require them, since they essentially can't be resold at a price that's worth it to current owners, except in financial emergency. Those in the last category will end up selling a few to teenagers and the like, but most teenagers are sensitive about gas price, so they still won't get driven much. Except for tradesmen who need their trucks for work, and for the SUVs of the truly rich, this rolling stock is all going to quit rolling quite soon.
This subject of SUVs seems to be rather emotive.We call them Urban Assault Vehicles in Australia.
It is true that a lot of urban dwellers in particular who own them certainly don't need that type of vehicle.It is a bit of an ego trip.
However,a lot of owners have a legitimate reason for driving them,especially in the bush.I have a Toyota Landcruiser diesel purchased new in 2001 for around $50,000 and I have added gear to bring it up to scratch.I would probably be lucky to get much over $20,000 for it now and I would need to buy another 4 wheel vehicle to replace it.In fact it really can't be replaced because of the specialized uses I have.The sums just don't add up even at the current $1.70/litre for diesel and that will get worse,I know.There would be a lot of people in a similiar situation.
I have reduced expenses a little by using it less and driving more economically.An old habit anyway,just needs reinforcing.
I have bought a 250cc trail bike to do the work that the 4WD is not needed for.It returns better than 30km/litre.So,at the moment I am getting by.Who knows what the future holds.
I don't really think that owning an SUV or 4wd vehicle is really an
ego trip when it comes to Australia suburban dwellers.
A lot of people in Australia own 4wd's simply because of the standard of the roads roads.
Australia has a 12th of the population in roughly the same area as the US. So Aus has to maintain the same length of road with 1/12th of the budget.
As a result Aus doesn't have high quality roads. Most sealed roads are aggregate with a 2 coat (+primer) bitumen seal. Only in the cities and on main roads do you use a cementitious hot mix asphalt which is a better wearing product. As a result our roads are subject to a higher incidence of potholes.
I own a Toyota Rav 4 and live 30km outside of Brisbane, Queensland in what would essentially be called the suburban sprawl and where the SVU owning 'egoists' live. I don't go bush bashing with my car. I don't even rack up the kilometers. The car is 7 years old and has just done 100,000 km. I drive 7km each way to the closest train station each day to get to work into Brisbane. I would pretty much do the same trip on the weekends to shop and I also travel to visit family about 100km away every second weekend.
For the travel distances I cover and the fact that for 99% of my trips it is only me in the car I could probably buy a 4 cylinder Toyota Yaris with perhaps almost half the fuel economy.
I don't drive an SUV because of ego, I drive it because it is the most economical option. A Yaris would be wrecked within a couple of years becuase of he road quality. Unless I want want to buy a new car every two years I need a vehicle with higher underside clearance.
I belive this is probably one of the most important points that the economists haven't figured out about oil supply and demand curves. They keep on trying to tell us that the 'rules' of economics 101 tell us that we should be dropping demand when the price rises and that we should be pursuing substitutions which are now economically viable.
Unfortunately we can't subtitute because there is no form of substititution available. Essentially I drive to get to work and back. The public transport in my area does not exist in any significant form and will not perhaps exists for over a decade.
I haven't worked out how uneconomical petrol would have to be for me to stop driving because it would also mean that I would essentially not be working. If petrol goes to $2 per litre or even $5 per litre I will still be driving. I will be eating cat food before I stop driving.
Essntially we will all keep doing what we are currently doing until the system ultimately collapses and then perhaps we can rise from the ashes anew.
You bring to mind an interesting twist on how our current plans to deal with the future can be impacted severely by unanticipated changes. For example, maintaining our road and bridge infrastructure has never been economically simple. If funds for road and bridge maintenance are cut substantially as the economy becomes chaotic, we will be caught in a downward spiral. I'm going out on a bit of a limb as I'm not an engineer, but my understanding is the rate at which roads and bridges deteriorate accelerates as maintenance is delayed.
Our current (and planned) energy efficient vehicle designs may be rendered obsolete just when we need them the most:(
Well given that on average our roads need serious maintenance every 15 years at least in the US.
I don't see much sense in buying a EV until we find out if we will have roads to run them on.
Given most will probably be in poor conditions the current hybrids/ev are probably not all that useful.
Given the extra weight of a truck like EV not sure they really work out. So for me at least my approach has been to eliminate driving as much as possible and simply not rely on any car.
Much later depending on how things go I'll look at post peak transportation options.
I'd like to get a diesel motorcycle that can run on soybean oil.
But diesel bikes are rare.
http://www.dieselbike.net/
If traffic does indeed decrease then only a fraction of the current road network would need maintaining anyway, dual carriageways would become single, a lot of roads would simply be gravel, which is fine at low speed etc.
Heavy lorries also do around 1,000 times as much damage to road surfaces as cars, so your thesis that goods transport by road will decrease greatly makes maintenance much easier, and a shortage of asphalt would lead to far more durable concrete being used.
So if EV's do not work out then the roads would not be needed anyway, but to the extent that they do then it would not seem an overwhelming problem to keep roads to use them on.
It should be noted that in-wheel motors and the lack of a need for mechanical connection mean that truly independent suspension is possible in EVs. A criticism was made against this idea on the grounds of weight, but on this site here it was argued that the weight is about the same as for mechanical brakes, so the additional mass would not seem critical.
Electric scrambling bikes etc would do the job fine.
My sister lives outside Brisbane, and I've been there myself. Can't say I've noticed much of a road problem. Funny about how people rationalize their current choices but I suspect when you start in on the cat food you may be thinking about moving closer to work or more creative ways of not wasting so much. I know I prefer good food far more than happy time commuting.
There are some SUV hybrids right now that get pretty solid mileage. In the US, the Ford Escape hybrid is over 30 miles per gallon. I believe the Toyota Highlander hybrid is close to that.
I can tell you that while I live in a suburban location, my weekend trips can take me places that high road clearance is mandatory. Very few cars have such road clearance. If I could get a hybrid Rav4 or hybrid CRV, I'd certainly consider it.
Cat food is not that cheap. If you live in a semi rural area, maybe you hould considerasamll garden and maybe tethering a fe goats in the back yard.
Farmers, tradies and the like may need 4WD's (we have an old 'Cruiser trayback), but most owners buy them for Ego or a mistaken belief that they 'need' them.
But we don't have to maintain the same length of road. Our sealed roads are predominently in a narrow coastal strip running from Cairns in the north to Sydney/Melbourne, and across to Perth, with secondary roads north and west. We don't have a massive network of Interstates linking everywhere with everywhere else.
I live an hour out of Brisbane. I drive a small four-cyclinder which has no issues with road quality. In fact, the last time I hit anything bigger than a small bump was when Main Roads widened the main drag here, and left a 5cm edge between the new and old surfaces over the weekend. Without knowing more closely where you live, I'd say you're making excuses.
If you want better economy with higher ground clearance, buy a 4cyl Toyota or Nissan ute and put a small lift-kit in it.
Most UAVs/SUVs/4WDs only leave the sealed road to park on the front lawn so they can be hosed down.
It was either here or over at wwww.autobloggreen.com that, I read of an unfortunate soul who, had bought a Ford Expedition a year or two ago for 50k and was trying to get it traded in based on the Kelly Blue Book value of 23k. He was offered 8k by a dealer. The numbers might be off but, the basic jist was that the differnce between what he bought the vehicle for and the price he was offered as a trade in, could have bought a Prius.
Now if gas goes to $6/gal and that only knocks $9,000 of the value, you offer -$1000 for what was a $8000 vehicle??? Oops. Lets try again. You offer $14000 for what was a $23000 vehicle. Hmmm. It seems that, the dealer that offered 8k, is expecting gas to go to a bit more than $6.
Alan from the islands
Scrap value is probably higher than this. The battery and a lot of the other parts probably work in a number of models etc. The steel scrap value and copper has to be a few hundred bucks.
Above this if its a diesel then for some of these I'd give you a few thousand as a farm truck.
So see they have a lower price of between 50-2000k
Not zero :)
Whats amazing as hell is that some are still being built. Thats whats mind boggling.
Brings to mind the option of 'Piecing out' your SUV to those who are trying to keep theirs running.. that, or waiting to see if the scrap value blossoms with time, as the vehicle values nosedive. (Keep the Battery and the Muffler (Cat Conv) inside.
I actually linked that Autobloggreen story in a comment. He had bought an Excursion (even bigger than an Expedition). It cost $50000 new, but he either bought a demo or an off-lease used, so let's say he paid $40000. http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/06/18/trapped-in-a-ford-excursion/
Also, the Blue Book lists three resale values: dealer retail (asking price at a dealer), private party retail (likely selling price in private party sale), and dealer trade-in. Don't try to compare trade-in value to private party resale value directly.
I'm a US citizen with very little respect for the current administration, but really - is it believable that US ordered the IEA to delay publication of a report AND that IEA responded by actually delaying the report? IEA is in Paris. Do IEA people have so little respect for French legal system that they actually fear US in Paris? Or is the reality that French actually run the World and have conned US into doing their dirty work?
Possibly the superrich have influence in both France and the USA, just possibly.
The IEA is an inter-governmental organisation. You know, like NATO or the OECD. It does what its members want it to do, and it works on the basis of consensus, usually on the basis of expert advice. If one member, the most powerful of all, is hellbent on having one prognosis remain the official version (especially if it simply means keeping the existing prognosis, which everybody is used to, in place), who will fight them?
Most European governments are either waiting for Bush to go or are actively trying, for some unfathomable reason (see Sarkozy, Berlusconi) to please him - or at least to not piss him off.