Revised Numbers: Total US Oil Consumption Dips in 05 But Transportation Demand Increases
16 January 2006
 |
| Total US Petroleum Consumption. Click to enlarge. |
Revised numbers in the DOE’s Energy Information Administration’s January Short Term Energy Outlook (STEO) indicate a drop in total US Oil Consumption in 2005 of 0.4% from 20.73 million barrels per day in 2004 to 20.65 million barrels per day in 2005.
Earlier data, published in the Annual Energy Outlook 2006 Early Release and weekly reports had shown an increase in total consumption for the year. (Earlier post.)
Part of the discrepancy comes from the variety of sources on which different reports are based, according to the EIA.
Each category of data and report uses different survey methodology. The weekly surveys are samples with a limited number of respondents and the data, due to quick turn around, are the most prone to error, according to the EIA. They also most often underestimate petroleum volumes.
The monthly surveys are based on all participants in the market, and the respondents have legal obligations to report the data. Accordingly, the quality of this data is much higher.
| Consumption Data | ||
|---|---|---|
| Jan 06 STEO | Sep 05 STEO | |
| 2004 | 20.73 | 20.73 |
| 2005 | 20.65 | 20.83 |
Annual data, represented in the Petroleum Supply Annual and the Annual Energy Review, reflect the highest level of accuracy and incorporate all refineries’ annual submissions and any revisions to monthly data.
The early release of the Annual Energy Outlook 2006 was based on the September STEO—i.e., before Katrina and Rita. The January STEO reflects revisions based on those impacts (among other things).
 |
| Demand for petroleum for gasoline, jet fuel and distillate fuel oil continues to rise. Click to enlarge. |
So with that in mind, turning to the January Short Term Energy Outlook (Table A5) reveals that while total oil consumption in the US dropped 0.4% in 2005 to 20.65 mbpd, consumption of petroleum for gasoline and distillate fuel oil increased 1% to a combined 13.26 mbpd.
Gasoline demand alone accounts for 44% of petroleum consumption. Gasoline demand rose from 9.11 mbpd in 2004 to 9.14 mbpd in 2005, with a projected rise to 9.45 mbpd by 2007.
We’ll check in on this again in February with the publication of the final Annual Energy Outlook 2006.
Resources:
Does that mean December's consumption has been revised down by 180,000 barrels or 3.5%?
If America's oil demand can be turned into reverse, which given the potential to increase fuel economy and the ever growing number of ethanol plants, should be possible the oil price will have a long way to fall.
Posted by: James | 16 January 2006 at 08:01 PM
It's really frustrating to have NO choice of battery-electric at this point in time from the big manufacturers, I thought we might be getting closer when they all were basically forced to innovate and create real EVs, and they did... but they also killed that off in a hurry, legally. Obviously EVs will carry a premium pricetag at first, and they won't be for everyone, simply because the current stable technology doesn't offer the kind of range and fast refilling that gasoline vehicles do, but the way I see it is the electric vehicle has got to become a choice for consumers, for many people the current technology will do and many of us have access to relatively abundant, clean electric power... hybrids are the stopgap, we need the real fix soon because for too many reasons it's time to evolve the automotive sector before it runs us over.
Posted by: Schwa | 16 January 2006 at 10:00 PM
If America's oil demand can be turned into reverse, which given the potential to increase fuel economy and the ever growing number of ethanol plants, should be possible the oil price will have a long way to fall.
There are higher fixed costs to consume less fuel per mile. As demand for gasoline comes down, demand for oil comes down, the price falls, and people stop buying high mpg vehicles -- thereby stabilizing the price of gas. It can't drop much, because when it drops a little the quantity demanded will increase.
Posted by: stomv | 17 January 2006 at 04:20 AM
One of the best way to keep sufficient pressure on oil demand is to keep the retail price high enough or up to the point where the pocket book feels it. As basic petroleum price historically goes up and down, between $18 and $70+ a barrel, a variable stablilsation pollution tax could be used to maintain the retail price to a predetermied stable level. Four dollars ($4) a gallon + 5% increase per year could be a good start. Some of this tax could be used to offset the cost of north american built lithium batteries and associated control systems for EV buyers.
Posted by: Harvey D | 17 January 2006 at 07:18 AM
Any reduction in US oil use will be offset by the growing demand in China and India there by keeping prices even higher.
Posted by: tom deplume | 17 January 2006 at 10:32 AM
It's quite unnerving that there are so many people that want to tax gas but obviously haven't considered the economic ramifications. What's worse is that many of these same people often profess a concern for the less fortunate even though retail taxes hurt the poor the most.
Taxing is the lazy man's solution to everything.
Posted by: dc | 17 January 2006 at 02:41 PM
A slow increase in taxes is no different than a slow increase in the actual cost of fuel, the difference is that the taxes can be put to use locally, [i]improving[/i] the economy whereas the eventual increase in the cost of oil and fuel goes out of the country and to corporations determined to keep us hooked on their products. People adapt to the change in the price at the pumps by moving to smaller vehicles that burn less fuel, it hurts in some ways (as do all changes) but in the long run we are better off because when the price of fuel increases in quickly the taxes can be adjusted temporarily to absorb the shock and spread it out over a period of time or until the price returns to it's previous norm, on top of being less dependent on the unfriendly oil producers. Reserves last longer when we don't use as much... when the sh*t hits the fan, things like that matter!
Posted by: Schwa | 17 January 2006 at 05:35 PM
Does this include the US Military which is located in hundreds of countries
and two wars in iraq and afghanistan.
Posted by: argod | 17 January 2006 at 08:21 PM
We'd be better off developing real alternatives to gasoline rather than artificially raising the price of it. True economic gain would be found in a nationally produced alternative, not a tax that doesn't address the core problem.
Economists worldwide have been jittery the past few years over the rising price of fuel and its effect on the economy, and you would raise the price of fuel even higher. Thankfully such a proposal would be political suicide for any elected official.
Posted by: dc | 17 January 2006 at 08:29 PM
"There are higher fixed costs to consume less fuel per mile. As demand for gasoline comes down, demand for oil comes down, the price falls, and people stop buying high mpg vehicles -- thereby stabilizing the price of gas. It can't drop much, because when it drops a little the quantity demanded will increase."
That simple law of economics didn't exactly work very well when oil price went from US$10 to US$70 over 5 years. There is also a ratchet effect, when the price is high governments and states can now pass laws to reduce oil consumption, such as 10% ethanol or biofuel mandates. When the price falls again these regulations remain in place resulting in a permanent fall in demand.
Posted by: James | 17 January 2006 at 09:59 PM
US$10 was an abnormally low price which nobody expected to hold. US$20 was a more normal cheap price for 1999 and in that case the price has only trippled
Posted by: Charly | 18 January 2006 at 01:32 PM