As part of his tour of Australia, Christof Ruhl, BP Group Deputy Chief Economist, gave a presentation today in Perth on the 2007 BP World Energy Report. He highlighted how, with oil and gas, production has moved away from the major consuming nations (OECD etc) to nations with large geo-political issues (Angola, Nigeria, FSU). He also highlighted the major role of coal consumption over the past 5 years, and how some UK gas consumption had been replaced in 2006 by coal, hence higher CO2 emissions.

He denied world oil production had peaked, quoting figures for 'crude + NGL', rather than the 'crude+ condesate' that the EIA uses. HOWEVER, he did admit in answer to my question on peak oil, that world oil reserve figures in the 2007 report, which now include Canadian tar sands, DIDN'T mean the reserves were either accessible or economically recoverable. So they're in the diagrams but we may never get to use them! Thanks very much, economist sir.

It's interesting that Ruhl quoted crude + NGLs because the most recent report out of OPEC seems also to point toward the expectation that NGLs will play an even larger role in the future (with a note that NGLs and condensates do not count toward the OPEC quota values) to increase production levels.

Outside my office I keep an updated set of production charts on my wall for the US and global values. It's very clear how important NGLs (and other liquids) have become and how, for the moment they 'hide' the decline in the production of C+C. In the US, NGLs monthly production is about the same level as the GOM and Alaska combined. In terms of total production since the 1920's, NGL production has been twice as large as the total prodcution from Alaska and the GOM combined.

While NGLs are important contributing liquids, they are not "crude oil" or C+C.

Glad you got one question answered, though.