Saturday, March 10, 2012

Inter-Regional Trade Movements of Petroleum: Part 2 Global Trends in Exports and Imports

With the house-keeping chores of Part 1 out of the way, let’s look at the global trends.  In subsequent parts of this series, I will described the petroleum export and import trends for each of the nine regions, which I have already analyzed and summed up in order to arrive at the world-wide trends described here. 

These data suggest that gross and inter-regional global imports and exports of petroleum and crude oil peaked five years ago in about 2007, or earlier in some cases.

Global Trends in Total Petroleum and Crude Oil Production and Petroleum Consumption
I will start with the world-wide total petroleum and crude production statistics, as reported by the BP review (2011) and the EIA (Figure 1).


BP and the EIA report production in units of thousands of barrels per day, but I find it more easier, or maybe I am just used to, expressing production in units of billions of barrels per year (bby) which is how I report all of the production, consumption, import and export data here and future parts of this series.

The EIA’s International Energy Statistics division reports production as “total oil supply,” from 1980 to 2010.  The EIA defines the total oil supply as including, “the production of crude oil, natural gas plant liquids, and other liquids, and refinery processing gain” (See Table Notes).  Crude Oil data for Canada include oil processed from Alberta oil sands.

The BP review provides production statistics from 1965 to 2010, but I only present the data from 1980 to 2010 here. BP defines production as: “crude oil, shale oil, oil sands and NGLs (the liquid content of natural gas where this is recovered separately)” and it “Excludes liquid fuels from other sources such as biomass and coal derivatives.”  (BP review 2011 footnote, p.8).  However p.39 of that same review says “Consumption of fuel ethanol and biodiesel is included in oil consumption.”  Therefore, to be consistent with BP’s consumption numbers, I added “biofuels” production (newly added in the 2011 review but backdated to 2000) to BP's oil production statistics, to produce a "total production" statistic, a sum that is probably closer to the “total oil supply” reported by the EIA. 

Turning to Figure 1, EIA’s total supply, consumption and BP’s consumption are all in good agreement with each other.  The BP total production is slightly lower (about 1 bby or 3% in 2010) as compared to the other three statistics, and, this is despite adding in the biofuels.  The discrepancy bugs me (as it has in the past), but I can’t see a calculation error on my part. 

Regardless of which production statistics we are looking at, however, the fall-off in the rate of production increase (i.e., deceleration) since about 2005 is notable.  For instance, using the EIA production data, for the 5-year spans from 1986 to 1990, 1991 to 1995, 1996 to 2000, and, 2001 to 2005, production increased by a total in a range of 1.5 to 2.5 bby per each of these 5 year spans.  The corresponding BP production data indicates similar 5-year increases in the range of 1 to 2.5 bby.  For the last 5-years, however, from 2006 to 2010, the increase is only 0.8 (EIA data) or 0.5 bby (BP data). 

For crude production, the deceleration is even more prominent: the 5-year changes from 1986 to 2005 range from 1 to 2 bby, but in the last 5-year period, the increase was only 0.2 bby per 5-year period (EIA data only available); essentially then, global crude oil production has been in a plateau since 2005.

The greater slow down in crude oil production as compared to total petroleum production means that those other liquid fuels, “natural gas plant liquids, and other liquids, and refinery processing gain” and biofuels, are likely making up a larger proportion of production, and crude oil, a smaller proportion, than in the past.  For instance, using the EIA statistics, crude oil accounted for 91% of total petroleum production in 1985.  By 2010, crude oil accounted for 85% of total petroleum production.  Not a big change but the trend is there.

Global Trends in Total Petroleum and Crude Oil Exports and Imports
While the BP review only reports total production statistics, and not crude oil production, as I discussed in Part 1, it does report total and crude exports and imports.  And, as also discussed in Part 1, these numbers can be corrected to provide an estimate of inter-regional export and import trade movements for each of the nine regions of interest to me.   Here I only report the world-wide numbers, which is the sum of these nine regions.  The individual regions, I will report on later.

The EIA also "used to" report statistics on both total petroleum and crude oil exports and imports, but as discussed in Part 1, these are “gross” exports and imports, which means that they do not exclude intra-regional trade movements. 

Figures 2 and 3 present the import and export data, respectively.  For reference, I retained the solid lines corresponding to the petroleum and crude oil production statistics, previously shown in Figure 1. 


I will not spend any time comparing Figure 2 to Figure 3, other than to note that the BP inter-regional total, crude, and product exports, are all identical to their import counter-parts.  The EIA gross total petroleum and crude oil import and export data are very similar, but not quite identical. 

For the rest of this post, I will just focus on the export data represented in Figure 3.

The most noteworthy thing about the trends in Figure 3 is that the gross total petroleum exports and inter-regional total petroleum exports peaked out in 2006 and 2007, respectively.  Gross crude oil exports peaked in 2005, and inter-regional crude oil exports peaked in 2007. 

Gross product exports, calculated as the difference between the EIA’s total petroleum exports and crude oil exports, peaked in 2006, while the inter-regional exports have not peaked, although there are signs of a plateau since 2007 (e.g., 2010 product exports of 4.03 bby is only 0.01 bby greater than the 2007 product exports).

Figure 3 presented the export data as absolute values in units of bby.  Figures 4, 5 and 6, respectively, present the gross and inter-regional exports of total petroleum, crude oil and products as percentages of total production.  The EIA-derived gross exports were calculated as a percentage of the EIA-reported total oil supply as shown in Figure 1, and the BP-derived inter-regional exports were calculated as a percentage of total production determined from the BP data, as shown in Figure 1. 

The peaks in relative gross and inter-regional total export petroleum in 2006 and 2007 are quite prominent in Figure 4, as are the analogous peaks in crude oil exports, in 2004 and 2007, respectively in Figure 5. 


I find it interesting that gross exports, that is, intra-region plus inter-region exports, peaked out at such a high percentage of total production; about 77% in 2007!  Not only is petroleum vital to supporting global trade, petroleum itself is a highly traded commodity, it seems.  Peaking in 2004, the gross crude oil exports corresponded to 52% total production, an incredible high proportion of a raw material to be exported from one country to another country or region. Similarly, the inter-regional trade movement of petroleum, that is, trade between more distant countries, peaks at 57% of total petroleum production and 44% of crude oil relative to total petroleum production. 

The long-term upward trend in petroleum product exports, both gross and inter-regional, is evident in Figure 6.  Although the gross product exports peaked in 2006-07 at 26% of total petroleum production, the inter-regional exports continues to increase, and most recently equaled 13% of total production in 2010. 

As I mentioned at the end of Part I, the differences between the EIA’s gross exports, and BP’s inter-regional exports should equal intra-regional exports.  These two data set overlap for several years from 2000 to 2008/9 and so we can derive some insights into intra-regional exports for these years, at least. 

The differences between the gross and inter-regional total petroleum exports (Figure 4), crude oil exports (Figure 5) and petroleum product exports (Figure 6) are all summarized in Figure 7.

Total intra-regional exports (red circles and line) peaked in 2004, as did crude oil intra-regional exports.  Petroleum product intra-regional exports peaked in 2006. 

Summary and Discussion
The results of this analysis suggest that peaks in the exports of total petroleum and crude oil occurred in about 2007 or earlier (Figure 3).  Gross petroleum and intra-regional product exports peaked in 2006 (Figure 7), although inter-regional product exports has not yet peaked (Figure 3).

Expressed as a percentage of production for each year (Figures 4-5), the sharpness of the peaks in total petroleum production and crude oil production are generally more prominent than the trend in absolute values (Figure 3).  This likely reflects the observation that, while rates of production have leveled off over the past 5 years, rate of exports have actually declined over this period, at least for total petroleum and crude oil production.  The "other" petroleum product production and exports is lagging this trend, and so as a percentage of production, the peak is not as evident.

I find it interesting that the trend is for intra-regional exports to have peaked earlier (Figure 7), and to have peaked more sharply, than for the peaks in inter-regional exports (Figure 3, squares).  Gross exports (circles in Figure 3), as the sum of the intra- and inter-, of course, is somewhere in between.

I find this interesting because it run counter to one of the assumptions I made in my earlier series, Estimating the End of Global Petroleum Exports, done nearly a year ago.  In that series, my "Regionalism" assumption was that all intra-regional petroleum consumption is met by intra-regional petroleum consumption and then the excess is exported or the deficiencies are imported.  I knew at the time that this was an approximation of the reality of exports and imports, but a reasonable one.  Reasonable because of the added cost of exporting oil or products outside of one’s geographical region, and, the benefit promoting political and social stability with one’s closer intraregional neighbors.  If that was what hade been happening recently, however, then intra-regional exports would have been maintained in favor of inter-regional exports.  That is does not appear to be happening, perhaps suggests a way to improve my previous estimate of the end of global petroleum exports and its implications.

Perhaps the earlier peaking of intra-regional exports reflects the ability of the exporting countries, or regions, to command a higher price, and hence profit, through inter-regional exports, as compared to intra-regional exports.  I certainly can imagine how this could be the case for exporters located in South America (SA) and Africa (AF), and maybe even the Middle East (ME) and Former Soviet Union (FS).  For instance, net exporters like Brazil and Venezuela in SA, and, Nigeria and Angola in AF, can probably fetch a higher price for their oil by selling to North America (NA), Europe (EU), Japan, China, and the rest of Asia (APr) than selling to other net importing countries in SA and AF, respectively.  Likewise, net exporters like Saudi Arabia can maybe sell their oil at higher price out outside of their geographical region than to net intra-region importers in the ME like Israel, Jordan or Lebanon.

My hope is that each of these regions will have a discernable trends in intra- and inter-regional exports, and that I could use these trends to more accurately predict how petroleum exports will change, and therefore how total petroleum consumption will change, going forward.

Another assumption that I had made in my earlier series from a year ago (Part 5 Predicting regional petroleum consumption in a post-export world) was that going forward, the proportions of petroleum imports to AP, EU and NA would all stay the same as they have been over the part 5 years.  This simplifying assumption has some basis, in that NA’s and EU’s import trends were fairly flat.  AP’s import trend was increasing but, my assumption was that this would have to flatten out too, if the exports from bet exporter regions, like the ME, AF, FS and SA, were to all flatten out, or go down, as I expected. 

My hope is to explore each region for trends in changes in the inter-regional trade movements of petroleum and project these trends forward to enable a better prediction of how each region’s imports and exports will change in the future. 

-------------------------------
next up, Inter-Regional Trade Movements of Petroleum in North American

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Inter-Regional Trade Movements of Petroleum Part 1: Introduction

Global flows of petroleum are vital to supporting a global economy, as petroleum is the key transport fuel that allows the movement of people, raw material and finished goods between distant regions of the world.  If the inter-regional flows of petroleum slow down, then so to must the global trade of goods.

This is the start of a new series of posts to summarize my analysis of changing trends in inter-regional movements of petroleum, including crude oil and petroleum products.  In this post, I summarize my data sources and methods of analysis.

Data Sources
1) The BP review
Every year BP (aka British Petroleum, aka Beyond Petroleum) for at least the last decade,  publishes on-line its “Statistical Review of World Energy” (hereinafter, BP review), a 40 to 50 page extensive summary of all the major energy sources and their consumption for all of the regions of the world and selected individual countries.   Included in the Petroleum section of this report are two tables entitled, “Inter-Area Movements” “Imports and Exports”  reproduced below from the 2011 review:


Accompanying these tables is a rather complicated chart summarizing some of the Inter-Area Movements. 

There is just way too much going in this chart to make much sense of it.  After staring at it for a while, you can get the sense that there are flows from Africa and the Middle East to North America and Asia Pacific regions, and extensive flows between North and South America and within the Asia Pacific region and a large region called Europe & Eurasia, which includes European and the Former Soviet Union countries.  But, after awhile my eyes glaze-over, I promise myself to go back and make more sense of this chart and these tables, but never do. 

Until now, that is.

I am interested in analyzing the details of inter-regional changes in petroleum imports and exports over time.  That is, how much petroleum is flowing between the major regions of the world and what is the time-trend of these interregional flows? 

The BP review does provide a third table entitled, “Trade Movements” which shows time dependent imports and exports for selected regions.  However, this table only shows imports for the USA Europe and Japan, with the rest of the world all lumped into one category.  A more extensive list of exporting regions or countries are also presented in this table, but, without knowing the imports into these regions or countries, one can’t see the total picture of what is happening within each region, or between regions, over time.  That kind of information is only provided in the “Inter-Area Movements” table. 

The most important and unique feature about the “Inter-Area Movements” table is that it excludes intra-regional movements of petroleum between countries within each of the regions.  This is vital if you want to truly track the inter-regional movements. 

The “Imports and Exports” table is also useful in that it provides a break down of crude oil and products imports and exports, from which I think I can make some reasonable estimates of the inter-regional movements of these quantities, as I explain below.

BP does not provide a public archive of its past BP Reviews, but fortunately, ASPO international has provided a freely available archive of the microsoft excel files corresponding to the 2002 to 2010 reports, and a pdf file format of the 2001 report.

2)  EIA International Energy Statistics
The USA’s Energy Information Agency’s International Energy Statistics Division was another useful source of statistics on petroleum and crude imports and exports. 

Unfortunately, as I reported several months ago in There will be no Epilogue, the USA can no longer afford to gather and report international energy statistics, and so the international export and import data stops around 2008/2009. 

As an aside, if these data are of interest to you, then you might want to download them now before they disappear altogether or the EIA becomes a pay-per-view site.  Similarly, my feeling is that the BP review’s days are numbered.  While BP’s risk of bankruptcy seems to have faded for now, it is likely only one more Deepwater type of oil spill disaster away from vanishing.


Methods of Analysis
Although this might seem like a simple exercise in data collation, some detailed analysis is needed to put these data condition in order to consistently and properly compare one year to the next and to understand what is being compared.

The BP review’s “Inter-Area Movements” and “Imports and Exports” tables are most decidedly not set up for a year by year comparison. 

The problem is that the regions being reported from year to year are almost continuously changing.  In the 2001 BP review, the year 2000 data separately reports petroleum movements for Western Europe and Central Europe, but in subsequent years just reports Europe.  The 2001 review takes the Asia-Pacific and divides and separately reports “Australasia” (Australia and New Zealand) Japan and China and reports the reminder as “other Asia Pacific.”  But by the 2007 review, the 2006 data further divides out Singapore, and, in the 2009 review, the 2008 data further divides out India.  For all of the available BP reviews, Africa is divided into North, West and East Africa and the trade movements into and out of Africa as a whole, with the exclusion of intra-regional movements between the North West and East, is not reported.  Similarly, the USA, Canada and Mexico are separately reported, and trade movements into and out of North America with exclusion of intra-regional movements between these three countries, is not reported. 

Based on these considerations, I decided to define nine regions and to correct the “Inter-Area Movements” and “Imports and Exports” tables for intra-area movements, as needed: 

1) North America (NA)
2) South America (SA)
3) Europe (EU)
4) former Soviet Union (FS)
5) Middle East (ME)
6) Africa (AF)
7) China (CH)
8) Japan (JP)
9) Asia-Pacific remainder (APr)

As a separate region, Japan is somewhat smaller in area and population compared to the other regions, but, its data is consistently divided out (unlike India and Singapore), and its trade movements of oil are comparable in size to the other regions.  Plus comparing the trade movements of Japan and China over the past decade makes for an interesting story as, you will see.

Corrected Inter-Area Movements
Some of these regions (SA, FS, ME, CH, JP) are as-reported in the BP review, and therefore are assumed to properly exclude intra-region trade movements between the countries with each region.

For the “Inter-Area Movements” table it is straight forward to correct the combining of sub-regions or countries to form my larger regions, by simply adding the sum of the Exports or Imports of the countries now being combined into one value.  For instance, using the data from the 2011 review, NA exports to SA will equal the sum of US, Canada and Mexico exports to SA (from the green box in the “Inter-Area Movements” table shown above) to each of these countries:

NA exports to SA = (Ex US to SA) + (Ex Canada to SA) + (Ex Mexico to SA)
NA exports to SA = (769 kbd) + (2 kbd) + (30 kbd)
NA exports to SA = 800 kbd

and, the sum of imports from SA (from the blue box in the “Inter-Area Movements” table)

NA imports from SA = (Ex SA to US) + (Ex SA to Canada) + (Ex SA to Mexico)
NA imports from SA = (2211 kbd) + (91 kbd) + (26 kbd)
NA imports from SA = 2327 kbd

where kbd is defined as thousands of barrels of petroleum per day

Analogous corrections can be made for APr, AF and for EU region, as needed for each of the “Inter-Area Movements” tables supplied in the BP reviews from 2000 to 2010.

Corrected Crude and Product Imports and Exports
For my newly defined regions (NA, EU, AF, APr) the total Crude and Product imports reported in the “Imports and Exports” table cannot be the simple sum of the formerly separate countries now being combined, because this would not exclude intraregional trades.  Further corrections are need.

The data in the “Inter-Area Movements” can provide such a correction, of sorts.  Specifically, the “Inter-Area Movements” table provided the total intra-regional flows for each of my newly defined regions.  For NA, for example (from the red box in the “Inter-Area Movements” table):

Intra-regional Exports = (Ex US to Cd  & Mx) + (Ex Cd to US & Mx) +  (Ex Mx to US & Cd)
Intra-regional Exports = (124 kbd+477 kbd) + (2532 kbd+7kbd) + (1280 kbd + 32 kbd)  
Intra-regional Exports = 4452 kbd

Intra-regional Imports = (Im US from Cd  & Mx) + (Im Cd from US & Mx) +  (Im Mx from US & Cd)
Intra-regional Imports = (2532 kbd+1280 kbd) + (124 kbd+32kbd) + (477 kbd + 7 kbd) 
Intra-regional Imports = 4452 kbd

Of course, the Intra-regional exports and imports are equal to each other, and these represent the correction factor that needs to be applied to the “Imports and Exports” table, as further explained below.

First, we need to recognize that for the “Imports and Exports” table, the sum of Crude and Product exports (or imports), is equal to the total petroleum exports (or imports) as reported in the “Inter-Area Movements.”  For example, for 2010, the USA's total exports in the “Inter-Area Movements” table (orange box in the “Inter-Area Movements” shown above) equals 2154 kbd.  For the USA, Crude Exports and Product Exports reported in the “Imports and Exports” table equal 28 kbd and 2126 kbd, respectively (orange box in the “Crude and Products Imports and Exports table shown above), which sums up to 2154 kbd.

Similarly, for NA the gross sum of Crude and Product exports equals the sums these respective amounts for USA, Canada and Mexico, which for 2010, equals 6292 kbd (violet box in the “Crude and Products Imports and Exports table shown above).  But, we know from the above calculations, that 4452 kbd of this gross sum is due to intra-regional exports.  Therefore, the sum of inter-regional total petroleum exports equals gross exports – intra-regional exports, which in this example is equal to 6292 kbd minus 4452 kbd, or 1840 kbd. 

In other words, of the gross total exports derived from the crude and product export data in the “Imports and Exports” table, only 29.2 percent (i.e., 100x1840/6293) of that corresponds to inter-regional export from NA to elsewhere in the world.  In my analysis to follow in the subsequent posts in the series, I have assumed that this correction factor can be equally applied to estimate the true inter-regional exports of crude and products.  For instance, for NA in 2010, the sum of gross crude and product exports equal 3381 kbd and 2912 kbd, respectively.  I have corrected these values by multiplying each of them by 0.2925 to derived estimate inter-regional crude and product exports of 988 kbd and 852, respectively. 

Analogous correction factors have been estimated and applied to NA as well as the APr, AF and EU regions, as needed for each of the “Imports and Exports” tables in each year of the BP reviews from 2000 to 2010, as needed.

Gross Export and Import Trends from the EIA
The Import and Export data provided by the EIA are more comprehensive than the BP data in that they go back to 1986 and report data for nearly every country in the world.  Therefore it is possible to take the sum of the imports and exports for all of the countries that comprise the corresponding to NA, SA, EU, FS, AF, ME and APr regions identified above.  In fact, except for APr, the EIA provides the sums for these regions already, so it is a relatively simply matter to calculate APr by subtracting the values from the EIA’s “Asia & Oceania” region which corresponds to BP’s “Asia Pacific” region.

But, the EIA import and export data for these regions, is that as the simple sum of the individual countries in each region this is this is the same as what I called the “gross” imports or exports for NA, that is, imports and exports without exclusion of intra-regional movements between the countries within the region. 

As such the EIA data which includes intra-regional and inter-regional movements, presents an interesting counterpoise to the BP data, which specifically excludes intra-region movements.  Indeed for several regions like SA ME and FS the EIA data provides the only estimate of gross exports or imports, since the BP data totally excluded this.  Even the other regions, like APr or AF, don’t give estimates of the total gross imports or exports because the trade within e.g., West, East and Southern Africa or with other Asia Pacifica have presumably excluded any intra-regional trade occurring within these regions. 

I say interesting counterpoise, because the EIA and BP data set overlap in time from 2000 to 2008. The differences between the EIA’s gross exports and imports, and BP’s inter-regional exports and imports should provide insight into the intra-regional imports and exports for each of these regions. 

------------------
Alright, my house keeping chores are out of the way, and I am ready to present my results.  I’ve decided to start with a broad overview of global trends for the global flows of petroleum imports and exports.  As you will see these results show that both gross and inter-regional global imports and exports of petroleum and crude oil actually peaked in about 2007.   See you next time.