[westexas]

Rock,

Let's focus on the three central facts (rounding off to two significant figures for oil production), regarding the 2 mbpd increase in global C+C production from 2005 to 2012 (EIA):

(1) OPEC, which accounts for 43% of 2012 global C+C production, reported no increase in crude oil production from 2005 to 2012;

(2) RBN Energy, presumably using their 45 or greater API gravity definition of condensate, estimated that circa 2011, condensate accounted for about 11% of global C+C production, which would be about 8 mbpd of estimated condensate production, circa 2011;

(3) The EIA reports that global dry (processed) gas production increased by 22% from 2005 to 2012, and as you know, operators in the US (and presumably around the world) have been deliberately targeting liquids rich gas plays.

Given these facts, can you tell me why you think that a 22% increase in global gas production would not result in at least a 22%* increase in global condensate production?

If we had shown no material increase in global gas production, I would agree that the reported 2 mbpd in global C+C production would probably show no material increase in the condensate percentage, but that is not what the data show, since we did in fact show a large increase in global gas production.

In all honestly, given a 22% increase in global gas production, I don't see how one can seriously argue that the vast majority of the reported 2 mbpd increase in global C+C production did not come from condensates, especially given the OPEC crude oil only data.

*And probably greater given the emphasis on wet gas plays

[ROCKMAN]

Exactly Pops. And the ability of the hydrocarbons to "readily flow" into the well bore is a primarily function of the quality of the reservoir. Thus the distinction between A conventional RESERVOIR as opposed to a conventional OIL. But there's still a little wiggle room: there are some conventional reservoirs that would readily flow oil...if it's not nasty thick oil. Thus the need to use thermal methods, like steam injection, to get the crap to flow. Thus the SAGD method used in the Canadian oil sands: the oil readily flows from these conventional reservoirs but only once it's heated. And, of course, all the CA steam floods of high quality reservoirs. And then there are those conventional oil reservoirs that readily flow oil...initially. But once the reservoir pressure drops low enough they won't flow even 1 bbl per day. But then you inject N2 into the top of the reservoir re-pressuring it and those downdip wells will once again readily flow...alla Mexico's Cantarell Field.

But I'm not really slamming folks for going with the more colloquial use of the terms. But it's makes it difficult to meaningfully answer some questions when the apples and bananas are tossed together.

[ROCKMAN]

"...can you tell me why you think that a 22% increase in global gas production would not result in at least a 22%* increase in global condensate production?" Easily: a certain number of those new NG wells had no condensate yield. IOW "dry gas". For you non-geonerds out there condensate yields from reservoirs vary greatly: from none to just a few bbls per mcf (1000 cubic feet) to several hundred bbl/mcf. So without knowing the condensate yields from those fields significantly more or less than then a 22% condensate increase could be realized.

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '&')quot;...can you tell me why you think that a 22% increase in global gas production would not result in at least a 22%* increase in global condensate production?" Easily: a certain number of those new NG wells had no condensate yield. IOW "dry gas". For you non-geonerds out there condensate yields from reservoirs vary greatly: from none to just a few bbls per mcf (1000 cubic feet) to several hundred bbl/mcf. So without knowing the condensate yields from those fields significantly more or less than then a 22% condensate increase could be realized.

[ROCKMAN]

Sub - Yep...the yield is the key. When we were still drilling NG wells we only targeted reservoirs with high yields. Needed the liquids to make it economic. Even when NG prices were higher the dry gas reservoirs didn't make the cut. Which is why most of the Eagle Ford wells are drilling in the shallow high yield area and not the deeper drier area. They call them the oil and gas windows.

[westexas]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '&')quot;...can you tell me why you think that a 22% increase in global gas production would not result in at least a 22%* increase in global condensate production?" Easily: a certain number of those new NG wells had no condensate yield. IOW "dry gas".

[Loki]

Maybe y'all could dumb it down a bit for me. What percentage of concentrates will end up in my truck's gas tank?

Westexas, I think the case you've laid out here makes sense, that "virtually 100% of the increase in global liquids production since 2005 has been condensate, NGL’s and biofuels."

NGLs play a marginal role as a transportation fuel (<3% of global passenger car fleet), same can be said about biofuels (especially corn ethanol) when EROEI is considered. But I've never been clear on what condensate is and how much of it ends up as gasoline or diesel.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', 'M')aybe y'all could dumb it down a bit for me. What percentage of concentrates will end up in my truck's gas tank?

Westexas, I think the case you've laid out here makes sense, that "virtually 100% of the increase in global liquids production since 2005 has been condensate, NGL’s and biofuels."

NGLs play a marginal role as a transportation fuel (<3% of global passenger car fleet), same can be said about biofuels (especially corn ethanol) when EROEI is considered. But I've never been clear on what condensate is and how much of it ends up as gasoline or diesel.

[sparky]

.
"So not fracked, not mined, not grown on a stalk, LOL."
About as good as one can expect

[westexas]

Some more data follow. I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation that global condensate production increased at about the same rate as the rate of increase in global NGL's and at about the same rate as the rate of increase in global gas production:

2005 to 2012 Global Data (EIA):

C+C: 74 mbpd to 76 mbpd (+0.4%/year rate of change)

NGL's: 7.6 mbpd to 9.1 mbpd (+2.6%/year rate of change)

Dry Processed Gas: 270 BCF/day to 328 BCF/day (+2.8%/year rate of change)

Condensate: ?

12 OPEC Countries (Crude only) 2005 to 2012 (OPEC data), accounting for 43% of Global C+C production:

31 mbpd to 31 mbpd (0%/year rate of change)

A recent article about Qatar's plans for condensate production follows. Qatar accounted for 4.6% of global dry gas production in 2012 (EIA).


Qatar the World Largest Condensate Producer by 2015
http://www.english.globalarabnetwork.co ... -2015.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Q')atar (Doha) – Qatar ''will be established'' as the world's largest condensate producer by the year 2015, Qatar's Minister of Energy and Industry Dr. Mohammed Bin Saleh Al Sada said here Monday.

Addressing the gathering after inaugurating the two-day 15th Annual Condensate and Naphtha Forum here, Dr. Al Sada said, "Qatar's condensate production will reach 780,000 bpd by 2015 and establish Qatar as the world's largest condensate producers and will build one of the world's largest condensate refinery."

[westexas]

The crux of my argument is that the global Condensate/C+C Ratio increased from 2005 to 2012, enough to account for virtually all of the 2 mbpd increase in global C+C production from 2005 to 2012.

RBN Energy estimated in early 2012 that condensate as a percentage of global C+C was 11%, presumably based on 2010 data.

For Texas, condensate as a percentage of C+C was 11.1% in 2005 and 15.3% in 2012*.

I am assuming a Condensate/C+C ratio of about 10% globally in 2005, which would imply condensate production of about 7.4 mbpd globally in 2005.

To get to 9.4 mbpd of condensate production in 2012 (thus accounting for the 2 mbpd increase in global C+C from 2005 to 2012) would require an increase in the Condensate/C+C ratio of only 2.4 percentage points, from 10.0% in 2005 to 12.4% in 2012, or a 24% increase in the ratio (as dry global gas production rose by 21% from 2005 to 2012), versus the 38% increase in the ratio that we saw for Texas, from 2005 to 2012.

Or in the alternative, globally, if we saw a 38% increase in the Condensate/C+C ratio (assuming 10% in 2005), condensate production would have increased from 7.4 mbpd in 2005 to 10.5 mbpd in 2012, an increase of 3.1 mbpd, implying a crude oil production decline of about 1.1 mbpd from 2005 to 2012.

*44/393 in 2005 to 109/712 in 2012 (million barrels per year, Texas RRC)

[sparky]

.
the rise in Condensates is certainly striking ,
it could be linked to more gas being extracted or the characteristics of some fields

[westexas]

As noted up the thread, condensate is a byproduct of natural gas production, and given a reported 21% increase in global dry (processed) natural gas production from 2005 to 2012, it seems likely that we have seen a significant increase in global condensate production.

Here’s a summary, from lightest to heaviest hydrocarbons, of the known and unknown data points for 2005 to 2012 volumes and rates of change in global data:

2005 to 2012 Global Data (EIA):

Dry Processed Gas: 270 BCF/day to 328 BCF/day (+2.8%/year rate of change)

NGL’s: 7.6 mbpd to 9.1 mbpd (+2.6%/year rate of change)

Condensate: ?

Crude: ?

C+C: 74 mbpd to 76 mbpd (+0.4%/year rate of change), an increase of 2 mbpd

As outlined above, using various approaches, in my opinion it seems likely that we have not seen a material* increase in actual global crude oil production**, despite a doubling in the annual price of Brent crude from 2005 to 2012.

In a nutshell, it seems likely that crude oil production virtually stopped increasing in 2005, while gas production continued to (so far) increase.

*Which I would probably define as at least a one mbpd increase, given data uncertainties

**45 or less API Gravity, per RBN Energy

[sparky]

.
Getting hard numbers for condensates is madleningly dificult
I've found some under Crude , but mostly they are under natural gas
the complicating factor is that condensates are often used locally first ,
passed through splitters with a minimum of processing , it provide natural gasoline and Naphta easily enough
often too it is blended with heavy crudes

a partial answers from Platts the premier site for hydrocarbones trade
they keep mentionning "East of Suez" , that seems to be an accepted industry term

condensates traded in the Asia Pacific market is about 900,000 b/d consultant FACT Global Energy said in its November report.
Last year, some 35% of the total 2.5 million b/d of condensates produced East of Suez was traded in the international market

Qatar, Iran and Australia have been the key suppliers of condensate in this region for a while, accounting for more than 80% of condensates traded in the export market,

Qatar and Iran will each have supply increases, but it will be used locally

An interesting development is the emergence of Russian condensate from West Siberia. In August last year, a tanker carrying condensate from Vitino in the White Sea journeyed through the Northern Sea Route to the Pacific and China. More than 400,000 mt of the material moved over the same route between July and October.

Thailand was one of the outlets for the condensate. The volume could reach 1 million mt/year (27,000 b/d) if and when the Russian Yamal LNG gets developed, FACT said.

Sakhalin condensate, produced from Russian gas in the Far East, gets blended into crude and is not traded in the international market.

[westexas]

As noted up the thread, RBN Energy estimated in early 2012 that condensate as a percentage of global C+C was 11%, presumably based on 2010 data.

For Texas, condensate as a percentage of C+C was 11.1% in 2005 and 15.3% in 2012.

I am assuming a Condensate/C+C ratio of about 10% globally in 2005 (which seems reasonable based on the Texas data for 2005 and based on the RBN Energy estimate), which would imply condensate production of about 7.4 mbpd globally in 2005.

If condensate production increased at the same rate as the rate of increase in global dry gas production, we would be looking condensate production of 9.0 mbpd in 2012, an increase of 1.6 mbpd from 2005, accounting for most of the 2.0 mbpd increase in C+C production from 2005 to 2012. If we extrapolate the OPEC data, which accounted for 43% of global C+C production in 2012, we get similar results.

Note that when one asks what the price of oil is, we get the price of 45 or lower API gravity oil, but when we ask about volumes, we get some combination of the volumes of crude + condensate + NGL’s + biofuels + refinery gains. It’s as if you ask a butcher what the price of beef is, and he gives you the price of steak, but if you ask him how much beef he has on hand, he gives you total pounds of steak + roast + ground beef.

In any case, as noted above, any way you slice it, given a 21% increase in global gas production from 2005 to 2012 it seems very likely that global crude oil production has not shown a material increase since 2005, while gas production has (so far) continued to increase.

In other words, welcome to Peak Oil.

[sparky]

.
That sound pretty close to it ,
bar a great big new province within the next decade ,we will hear increasingly of wonderful new fuel development
the merit of frugal driving and the righteousness of increasing taxes on gasoline

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('westexas', 'A')s noted up the thread, condensate is a byproduct of natural gas production

[ROCKMAN]

Keith - Are you distinguishing a difference between NGL's and condensate? There is no fixed number for either. I can have one well making 2000 mcfpd dry gas with no condensate ($9000 gross) and another well making 2000 mcfpd and 300 bcpd ($9000 + $25,000 gross). Or 2000 mcfpd ($8000 gross) and have a deduct because there is so little NGL that it has low Btu. Or 2000 mcfpd with 300 gallons of NGL stripped per day from the NG ($8000 + $1500).

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'K')eith - Are you distinguishing a difference between NGL's and condensate? There is no fixed number for either. I can have one well making 2000 mcfpd dry gas with no condensate ($9000 gross) and another well making 2000 mcfpd and 300 bcpd ($9000 + $25,000 gross). Or 2000 mcfpd ($8000 gross) and have a deduct because there is so little NGL that it has low Btu. Or 2000 mcfpd with 300 gallons of NGL stripped per day from the NG ($8000 + $1500).

[ROCKMAN]

Keith - "...NG is a byproduct of liquids (="oil") production"." Often that is exactly the case be it a gas/condensate reservoir or an oil reservoir. Before the demand for LNG trillions of cuft of NG was flared from gas/condensate fields. When I was working offshore Africa I could look out the window and watch 20 million cuft of NG flared every day from the processing ship. And at night look towards Nigeria and see the flares of hundreds of millions of cuft.

And some time, fortunately, that "worthless" was reinjected back into the reservoir to maintain pressure and increase the recovery of the condensate.