Page added on April 19, 2014
“Wait a minute,” you must be saying. “Haven’t we been hearing from the oil industry and from government and international agencies that worldwide oil production has been increasing in the last several years?” The answer, of course, is yes. But, the deeper question is whether this assertion is actually correct.
Here is a key fact that casts doubt on the official reporting: When the industry and the government talk about the price of oil sold on world markets and traded on futures exchanges, they mean one thing. But, when they talk about the total production of oil, they actually mean something quite different–namely, a much broader category that includes all kinds of things that are simply not oil and that could never be sold on the world market as oil.
I’ve written about this issue of the true definition of oil before. But Texas oilman Jeffrey Brown has been bending my ear recently about looking even deeper into the issue. He makes a major clarifying point: If what you’re selling cannot be sold on the world market as crude oil, then it’s not crude oil. It’s such a simple and obvious point that I’m ashamed to have missed it. And, Brown believes that if we could find data that separates all these other non-crude oil things out, the remaining worldwide production number for crude oil alone would be flat to down from 2005 onward.
Brown says the current dual approach to price and supply is like asking the butcher the price of steak, and then, instead of finding out how much steak he has to sell, you inquire about how much beef in total he has on hand–which will, of course, include roasts and ground meat. And, then you proceed to calculate the butcher’s total supply of steak by lumping everything together and simply calling it steak.
“Basically, crude oil peaked [in 2005], but natural gas and natural gas liquids [including lease condensate] didn’t,” he believes. Natural gas production has continued to grow, and as it has, its coproducts have also grown–many of which have been lumped in with the oil production statistics.
The general message from the oil industry is that the free market should determine what’s best for our energy economy. There is much to dispute in this view. But, if we take the industry at its word, then we should see what Mr. Market has to say about all the things the industry lumps into total oil production.
Here’s what’s being added to underlying crude oil production and labeled as oil by the oil companies and reporting agencies:
Let’s see if any of these non-oil things are acceptable as oil at major exchanges. Perhaps the most recognizable oil futures contract is the so-called Light Sweet Crude Oil contract. The exchange sponsoring that contract details in seven pages (of a much longer rulebook) what is acceptable to deliver to those who choose to take delivery on their contracts.
A search for three of the four items (and their subitems) listed above predictably comes up empty. But, the search for lease condensate produces a hit. Here’s what the exchange says about lease condensate when discussing acceptable delivery of oil: “For the purpose of this contract, condensates are excluded from the definition of crude petroleum.”
It’s true that some lease condensate does make its way into the crude oil production stream of refineries. But, its contribution is small and because of its chemical structure, it’s not very versatile compared to crude oil which can be refined not only into gasoline, but also diesel and jet fuel which are more valuable to refiners. Typically, crude oil blended with lease condensate is discounted to refiners in recognition of its lower value. (For the technically minded, this excellent article explains the growth and uses of lease condensate.)
It’s worth noting that the same futures exchange that sponsors the Light Sweet Crude Oil contract has separate contracts for biofuels.
Maybe across the ocean in Great Britain where the world’s other premiere crude oil futures contract is traded, the exchange is a bit more forgiving. Alas, the exchange sponsoring Brent Crude is exceedingly picky about what it will accept as proper delivery to those who take delivery on their contracts. The exchange accepts crude from only four North Sea fields: Brent, Forties, Oseberg and Ekofisk.
This look at what the market actually prices as oil tells us a lot about why Brent Crude, for example, has been trading at the highest average daily price ever for three years running, higher than even 2008, the year of the nominal all-time price peak.
So, if oil production hasn’t really been growing or at least not growing much in the last several years, what’s all the hoopla about? As petroleum geologist and consultant Art Berman likes to say, it’s a retirement party. There is one last, very difficult, costly and energy-intensive store of oil in low-quality deep shales containing crude. These shales–which are accessed using hydraulic fracturing or fracking–would never have been tapped if we were not already seeing a decline in the production of conventional, easy-to-get crude oil, the kind I refer to as Beverly Hillbillies bubbling crude as seen in the opening credits of the popular 1960s sitcom of that name.
The oil from deep shales (properly called “tight oil”) is allowing production to grow in the United States even as production sinks elsewhere in the world. Other countries having shales containing oil will likely try to exploit them. But, the retirement party will only be a few years later for them as a result.
Despite what the public is being led to believe, oil wells in deep shales suffer from very high annual production decline rates–40 percent per year compared to the worldwide average of 4 percent. This implies that swiftly rising production will be followed by equally swiftly declining production in a compressed time frame–a classic boom-bust pattern.
Okay, so what do the worldwide oil production numbers actually look like if we strip out all the non-oil components? Well, we don’t actually know. Brown has been unable to find such numbers anywhere. While the search continues, he thought he’d do a back-of-the-envelope calculation of his own. Here’s what he came up with:
Estimated Global Crude Oil Production
2002 to 2012 in million barrels per day
2002: 60
2003: 62
2004: 65
2005: 67
2006: 65
2007: 65
2008: 66
2009: 64
2010: 66
2011: 65
2012: 67
(For the technically minded, here are the assumptions behind his numbers: The global condensate to crude plus condensate ratio was 10 percent for 2002 to 2005–versus 11 percent for Texas in 2005–and condensate production increased at the same rate as the rate of increase in global dry processed gas production from 2005 to 2012, 2.8 percent per year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Crude oil is defined as oil with an API gravity of 45 or less per RBN Energy. Data are rounded off to two significant figures.)
This is really a guess based on incomplete information. But if Brown is roughly correct, his estimate explains why crude oil prices remain near record levels (based on the average daily price) despite all the talk about abundance and an oil renaissance in the United States. Simply put, there is no new abundance. Oil supplies remain constrained.
This does not deny that natural gas production continues to grow and that natural gas and its coproducts (butane, ethane, propane and pentanes) are useful. But our current infrastructure is desperate for oil, particularly the transportation sector which is still dominated by oil derivatives. Some substitution in various areas including transportation and chemical feedstocks is taking place. But the rate is slow and the conversion can be costly.
Moreover, the energy content per unit of volume is significantly lower for natural gas plant liquids, between 30 and 40 percent lower than crude oil. To say that barrels of butane are equivalent to barrels of crude oil is more than just a rounding error.
Brown says the reason for the seeming stall in world oil production is actually quite simple. The remaining oil is harder to extract. We’ve taken the easy oil out of the Earth first. He explains that in the seven years ending in 2005, the oil industry invested $1.5 trillion on finding and developing new oil and natural gas fields and the capacity to refine and distribute the products that come from them. During that period oil production consistently rose. In the seven years after 2005 the industry spent $3.5 trillion for what Brown believes is no net increase in the production rate of actual, honest-to-god crude oil.
The notion that oil is becoming abundant all over again is contradicted by the levitating price and by the evidence that actual worldwide crude oil production is either flat or growing at an infinitesimal rate. But the industry doesn’t want the public or policymakers to know this because the current belief in abundance tends to slow down an energy transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewables.
That transition must come sooner or later. But the industry would like to see it come later. And, if policymakers are fooled by the abundance story, that transition will almost certainly come later.
7 Comments on "Has crude oil production already peaked?"
Pops on Sat, 19th Apr 2014 12:04 pm
Good job Mr Brown!
westexas on Sat, 19th Apr 2014 1:10 pm
Thanks, but although I contributed some data, Kurt Cobb wrote the very good article.
westexas on Sat, 19th Apr 2014 1:17 pm
Some supplemental comments:
Global Crude + Condensate (C+C) production increased at about the same rate as global dry processed gas production from 2002 to 2005, but then we saw a significant divergence between the rates of increase in global gas production and in global C+C production from 2005 to 2012, 2.8%/year versus 0.4%/year respectively.
According to the EIA, global gas production increased by 22% from 2005 to 2012, and I think it’s a reasonable assumption that condensate–a byproduct of natural gas production–increased by about the same amount, especially given the large increase in condensate production in the US. The problem is that other than OPEC and Texas, no one appears to track crude versus condensate, but the Texas RRC shows that the Texas condensate to C+C ratio increased from 11% in 2005 to 15% in 2012. Note that OPEC, which accounted for 43% of global C+C production in 2012 showed no material increase in crude oil production from 2005 to 2012 (31 mbpd in both years).
If we cross correlate the OPEC (Crude only) and EIA (C+C) data bases for the OPEC 12 countries for 2005 to 2012, their Condensate/(C+C) Ratio doubled–from 3% in 2005 to 6% in 2012. OPEC accounted for 43% of global C+C production in 2012, which is a pretty good (and conservative) sampling of global crude and condensate production, especially when one considers the fact that the large increase in US condensate production would be in the remaining 57% of global C+C production.
In any case, the data bases that we have that track condensate versus crude, Texas RRC and OPEC/EIA, both show large increases in their Condensate/C+C Ratios from 2005 to 2012, 11% to 15% and 3% to 6% respectively.
If we extrapolated the OPEC crude versus C+C data, and assumed that OPEC was a representative sampling of global data, it would imply that global condensate production increased by about 2.1 mbpd from 2005 to 2012, which would account for all of the EIA’s reported 2 mbpd increase in global C+C production from 2005 to 2012.
My approach has been to assume that the global Condensate/(C+C) Ratio was about 10% in 2005 (partly based on an RBN Energy estimate that put the ratio at about 11% in 2010), and I assumed that global condensate production (a byproduct of natural gas production) increased at about the same rate as the rate of increase in global gas production, from 2005 to 2012.
Based on these assumptions, global condensate production would have increased from about 7.4 mbpd in 2005 to about 9.0 mbpd in 2012, an increase of 1.6 mbpd, accounting for virtually all of the EIA’s reported increase in global C+C production from 2005 to 2012.
Based on the foregoing, the global Condensate/(C+C) Ratio would have increased from about 10% in 2005 to 12% in 2012, versus 11% to 15% for Texas and versus 3% to 6% for OPEC.
ghung on Sat, 19th Apr 2014 2:30 pm
Too bad Cobb didn’t take the next step: factoring in the ELM/GNE numbers. Overall flat production with declining net exports to global markets gives us an even more concerning picture of our petroleum future. Perhaps a follow-up article is needed to give people a sense of what’s really going on.
shortonoil on Sat, 19th Apr 2014 5:55 pm
“a much broader category that includes all kinds of things that are simply not oil and that could never be sold on the world market as oil.”
According to EOG, 70% of what has recently been produced out of the Eagle Ford is “condensate”. According to RBN Energy 30% of what is produced out of the Bakken is “condensate”. That implies that at least one half of the shale production in the US is “condensate”.
Condensate comes from three sources:
1) Field condensate: NG from oil production processed through a field stabilizer.
2) Plant condensate: from natural gas processing plants, know as natural gasoline.
3) Light naphtha, a product of crude refining.
All condensate is primarily pentane (C5H12) with impurities of butane, hexane, and propane included to varying degrees. Plant condensate is considered the purist of the three, and preferred by the chemical industry where it is used as a feedstock.
Condensate (pentane) is only used in very small quantities to produce fuels (as an additive to improve ignition properties). Unlike its heavier relatives, hexane (C6H14), octane (C7H16), and higher fractions that are sought out by refineries, its uses are as a diluent for Canadian bitumen, and as a chemical feedstock. Basically condensate is not sold to refiners who are interested in making fuels, it is sold to producers of plastic pipe. Refineries do not considerate it to be crude, the only one that does is the EIA.
Historically, about 3% of conventional crude production has been condensate. Because pentane is a liquid at standard temperatures and pressures (boiling point 97 deg F) and the quantity of it was small, the EIA dumped it into the crude category. Refineries don’t see as crude, chemists don’t see it as crude, wholesalers don’t see it as crude (it sells at a discount to crude based on its API) only the EIA, and the shale industry want to keep the old designation although its production is up by more than a million barrels a day.
If one took the production of condensate out of the US crude production stream, the numbers would look very much like what West posted. Even those are probably slightly inflated because of over reporting by the NOCs. “American energy independence” is a catchy little promo term for the shale industry, and DC lobbyist. It probably has no bases in reality.
http://www.thehillsgroup.org
meld on Sat, 19th Apr 2014 9:05 pm
yes it peaked in 2008, we are now substituting it for less and less energy dense energy sources and as such complexity will reduce over the next 100 years.
Harquebus on Sat, 19th Apr 2014 11:01 pm
You can not make renewable generators without fossil fuels. Renewable generators do not generate enough energy to replicate themselves.