The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: June 18, 2006

83 comments on DrumBeat: June 18, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Oil CEO on June 18, 2006 - 9:25am

This first chart shows the monthly numbers for crude oil production from the EIA. The upper series is for "Total Liquids." This includes Crude Oil + lease condensate, Natural Gas Plant Liquids(NGPLs), Refinery Processing Gain(RPG), and "other liquids." It also includes Canadian Tar Sands(Oil Sands) - currently about 1 mmbpd.

The lower series contains only crude+lease condensate. I also subtracted oil produced from tar sands.

This second chart includes only the 13-month averages for the two data series and a trendline for each. In order to more easily see how they are diverging, the lower, non-conventional oil line has been "raised" to overlap the total liquids. In 1995 the two figures differered by about 7.5 mmbpd. I simply added 7.5 million to every point on the non-conventional line to raise it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

peakearl on June 18, 2006 - 10:51am

Thanks, very interesting.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

AlanfromBigEasy on June 18, 2006 - 12:50pm

My guess is that most of that extra 4 million barrels/day comes from lease condensate that was previously flared (I think some OPEC members began making capture or reinjection mandatory. Common sense told them that massive 24 hour/day flares were a waste that they would want one day).

Perhaps 1 million from tar sands (1995-2005), a few hundred thousand for "improved asphalt" from Venezula and ethanol. The rest just better lease condensate recovery IMHO.

How much more lease condensate can be captured ? And how long before oil recovery slows to such a low point in a field as recovery drops off and production shifts to NG and condensate that was reinjected years ago. The condensate may actually jump the "All Liquids" recovery for a while.

I suspect that, as Peak NG approaches, many oil fields will shift to reinjected NG, further dropping oil recovery.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oil CEO on June 18, 2006 - 12:56pm

Actually the lease condensate is included in the lower series, so it doesn't account for the 4 mmbpd change. It is all an increase in the percentage of tar sands, NGPL, RPG, and "other liquids."

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Freddy Hutter on June 18, 2006 - 12:52pm

Somebody is very wrong. Using your same definitions, ASPO shows the divergance as 16-mbd in 2010, not 6-mbd.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oil CEO on June 18, 2006 - 1:00pm

Freddy, it's June 18th, 2006. I think. I'm not trying to predict the future. I added the trendlines for visual effect. The numbers are EIA's historical data, not projections.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Substrate on June 19, 2006 - 12:39am

Actually... just eyeballing it, there appears to be a roughly 5 year doubling period, with approx 4mbpd difference at 2005...so by 2010 just blindly following the trendline would find the difference at 8mbpd. Then add back in the 7.5mbpd that you originally took out for visualization's sake... 8 + 7.5 = 15.5mbpd. Which is pretty close to Freddy's ASPO number of 16mbpd.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

nero on June 19, 2006 - 1:22am

There is nothing to hint that this might increase exponentially so the application of a doubling time is highly suspicious.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Substrate on June 19, 2006 - 2:17am

You say potato, I say potato...(ok, so that doesn't exactly work in text)

It's a nomenclature snafu and quick writing. I was simply after the fact that 5 more years from 2005 (aka 2010) that by following the trend line, the number will have doubled (from 4 to 8mbpd). Also that Oil CEO had artificially closed the gap in 1995 by 7.5mbpd. So adding the trendline number and the artificial gap closing number, it comes CEFGW to the ASPO number, whether that means anything or not.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tommy on June 18, 2006 - 2:47pm

Could you plot the conventional oil as a percentage of the Total liquids? I think that this would result in an almost constant line.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oil CEO on June 18, 2006 - 2:54pm

I will do that maybe sometime in the near future, but that is basically what I was trying to show with the widening spread. It hasn't been constant. To give you a rough idea, the percentage in 1995 would have been about 90%, it has moved down steadily to about 86%. How significant this is is up to you.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

83 comments on DrumBeat: June 18, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Search The Oil Drum with Google

Support The Oil Drum

Click the button to learn about supporting The Oil Drum with a secure donation.

Peak Oil Primers

Beware email scams!

Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.

“So one may almost say that the theory of universal suffrage assumes that the Average Citizen is an active, instructed, intelligent ruler of his country. The facts contradict this assumption.”

—James Bryce (1909, 35)