Global Oil Production

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Global Oil Production

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Global Oil Production

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Global Oil Production - 2/15/2008 8:18:34 PM

engineer

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline

In the stock game the SRA is key for the Japanese and there's a lot of oil down there (Palembang, Brunei, Tarakan, Balikpapan, Amboina, etc.). Perth has a little oil, but Australia is dependent on imports. The US produces a little and Middle Eastern oil is off the table (though I think is mostly shows up abstracted as fuel in Karachi and Bombay).

According to contemporary records US Mineral Yearbook for 1941 The USA was producing about 63% of world crude back in 1941 and California accounted for roughly 1/6 of US production, 10% of world production. In other words, California by itself was about 3x the output of the SRA.

Setting aside play balance considerations for the moment, doesn't that suggest that the oil output in LA should be boosted so it is easier for the Allies to set up a SLOC to provide crude to Australia to keep their industry humming? Even with a boost, the lion's share of California's production would still be abstracted as US war material production and the fuel showing up at the west coast.

Post #: 1

RE: Global Oil Production - 2/15/2008 8:42:55 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

There are no historically accurate scenarios for WitP when it comes to allied production. CHS helps, but even it is far lower than a historically accurate production model would be. I think it is done for play balance reasons, no one would want to play Japan if the allies had their historical production.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to engineer)

Post #: 2

RE: Global Oil Production - 2/15/2008 9:12:03 PM

niceguy2005

Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

I would agree that the US oil production is well below what it should be. The US was, at that point in time, still one of the largest oil producers in the world. Texas would probably dwarf the SRA.

However, I've suggested it before on the forum. Worrying about sending oil to Oz does not make sense to me. Send fuel and send supplies. It's much more effecient.

_____________________________

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 3

RE: Global Oil Production - 2/15/2008 9:14:05 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: engineer

In the stock game the SRA is key for the Japanese and there's a lot of oil down there (Palembang, Brunei, Tarakan, Balikpapan, Amboina, etc.). Perth has a little oil, but Australia is dependent on imports. The US produces a little and Middle Eastern oil is off the table (though I think is mostly shows up abstracted as fuel in Karachi and Bombay).

According to contemporary records US Mineral Yearbook for 1941 The USA was producing about 63% of world crude back in 1941 and California accounted for roughly 1/6 of US production, 10% of world production. In other words, California by itself was about 3x the output of the SRA.

Setting aside play balance considerations for the moment, doesn't that suggest that the oil output in LA should be boosted so it is easier for the Allies to set up a SLOC to provide crude to Australia to keep their industry humming? Even with a boost, the lion's share of California's production would still be abstracted as US war material production and the fuel showing up at the west coast.

In 1941 California produced 230 million barrels of crude

To convert to game terms - divide by 7 = 32.8 million metric tons = 89863 metric tons per day = 89863 divided by 6 oil points = 14977 oil centers.

But here is the rub ---a large portion of that crude was consumed domestically and would be unavailable for export.

In fact prior to the war California consumed more crude (232 million barrels) than it produced (230 million barrels) resulting in a 2 million barrel deficit to stocks. The crude was consumed by shipping to domestic stills and refineries...which means it generated supply points and/or HI.

< Message edited by treespider -- 2/15/2008 9:28:51 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to engineer)

Post #: 4

RE: Global Oil Production - 2/15/2008 9:42:18 PM

engineer

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline

These are all good points: play balance - Jim, fuel and supply are more efficient - niceguy2005, and exports are small fraction of domestic production - treespider.

In the state by state totals, Texas pumped the most oil and accounted for about a third of US production so Texas would be about 6x the SRA when it comes to crude.

The data show that the US was exporting about 5% of its production (and importing about 2% from Latin America). A lot was going to the UK. Until the summer of 1941, the US was also exporting oil to Japan so there would be infrastructure of provide a similar amount of oil exports to other Pacific destinations, and it's pretty clear that Australia is a much smaller customer than Japan.

Just estimating Australia at about 2000 - 3000 heavy industry that means you need an 18,000 point tanker a week ballpark in shipping delivery. With a month each way, that means about 8-10 tankers are needed to keep Oz oiled up and number goes up if Japanese push SE and force big detours to stay out of Betty range.

This is probably not worth the bother. No oil means no industrial feedstock (presuming fuel covers transportation requirements). Idle factories lead to unemployment and unrest in Oz. A real world downside is there, but it's outside the terms of WitP unless you addressed it with house rules or some sort of elaborate coding that would result in political point penalties or some sort of effect that would slash the production of planes like the Kittyhawks and delay Aussie LCUs/air units.

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 5

RE: Global Oil Production - 2/15/2008 11:11:12 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

I'm not sure that I agree with the statement that shipping fuel and supply is more efficient than just shipping oil. Australia has fairly good resource production, so if you ship oil to its heavy industry you will get both fuel and supply from a single shipload. This certainly seems to be more efficient to me than shipping them separately.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to engineer)

Post #: 6

RE: Global Oil Production - 2/15/2008 11:27:00 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I'm not sure that I agree with the statement that shipping fuel and supply is more efficient than just shipping oil. Australia has fairly good resource production, so if you ship oil to its heavy industry you will get both fuel and supply from a single shipload. This certainly seems to be more efficient to me than shipping them separately.

Well historically Australia had all of two oil refineries....Neither of which operated for very long during the war because their source of crude was occupied by the Japanese. The Shell refinery received its oil from Balikpapan. When in operation the two refineries were able to provide for about 20% of Australias domestic petroleum produvt needs.

So in a strictly historical sense...crude oil wasn't shipped to Australia...supply was in the form of gasoline and avgas.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 7

RE: Global Oil Production - 2/15/2008 11:47:25 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

Now, if you guys are going to include refineries as an industry in AE, then that will change the way I play the game...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 8

RE: Global Oil Production - 2/15/2008 11:56:34 PM

engineer

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline

Or in the narrow context of WitP, Australia has too much heavy industry with the basic model oil + resources = fuel + supply.

I thought about adding some resources to Alaska (probably Anchorage) to make it a more attractive target, but the data show that mineral exports from Alaska were miniscule. It did have a major part of platinum production, but there were multiple sources in the lower 48 states so . . .

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 9

RE: Global Oil Production - 2/16/2008 12:03:25 AM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Now, if you guys are going to include refineries as an industry in AE, then that will change the way I play the game...

And indeed you will be changing the way you play....

...I see fuel in your future....not oil.

< Message edited by treespider -- 2/16/2008 12:04:08 AM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 10

RE: Global Oil Production - 2/16/2008 2:04:02 AM

ctangus

Posts: 2153
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I'm not sure that I agree with the statement that shipping fuel and supply is more efficient than just shipping oil. Australia has fairly good resource production, so if you ship oil to its heavy industry you will get both fuel and supply from a single shipload. This certainly seems to be more efficient to me than shipping them separately.

I agree with both you & niceguy. Shipping oil, particularly in the first 6 months, can be useful - it can provide both supply & fuel to many bases in Australia and takes up less cargo space.

But once I begin offensive preparations I want to ship the fuel & supplies to directly where it's needed. I want a lot of supply at my bomber bases, a lot of fuel at my forward/emergency fleet bases and even more supply & fuel at my staging bases (where I'm prepping my LCUs & gathering my ships).

I have two allied games now where I'm on the offensive - one July '44 and another Jan '43. Merchant shipping is probably the limiting factor to my offensives in both games. (Well, a lack of CVs in the '44 game doesn't help, either, but that's a different story.

) In the '43 game, as an example, I've got 300K+ supply and 100K+ fuel at Melbourne, but it's not doing me any good there. I need it at confidential, confidential and confidential right now. I'm working my merchants overtime but with all the demands I'm trying to fulfill it'll still be months before that fuel/supply is at the front lines.

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 11