Extraction Rates Fall At Major Oil Companies

clv101 · **Posted:** Fri Oct 21, 2005 2:57 pm

Petroleum Review have produced a report (available from the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre here) looking at the annual and quarterly production from publicly quoted oil companies. Their study looks at the average daily extraction rates for oil and gas from the top 22 publicly quoted oil companies from 2002 up to the second quarter 2005.

Quote:

Quite remarkably, in the first half of 2005 the top five, the top ten and the top 22 publicly quoted oil companies all produced less crude and NGLs than they did in 2004 and only slightly more than they did in 2003 and 2002.

Given the global increase in production and demand over the last three years it is clear that, in aggregate, the largest private oil companies are losing market share. For ten of the top 22 companies, and for four out of the five largest private companies, the first half of 2005 saw lower crude and NGLs production than in 2004.

Ten companies also produced less in first half 2005 than they did in 2003, while nine companies produced less than in 2002. Clearly, it is no exaggeration to say that the world’s largest publicly quoted oil companies are now really struggling to hold production levels, with only a few managing to maintain their market share of global production.

seldom_seen · **Joined:** Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:00 am **Posts:** 2333

wow, nice find. thanks for sharing.

rogerhb · **Posted:** Fri Oct 21, 2005 3:01 pm

Quote:

Ten companies also produced less in first half 2005 than they did in 2003, while nine companies produced less than in 2002.

Yeah, I'm sure there is a technical term for producing less than you did previously. :roll:

OilsNotWell · **Joined:** Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:00 am **Posts:** 1257

Quote:

These news stories were backed up by analysis of quarterly reports from the organisations by Peakoil.com member, Ladyruby. It really looked like the oil majors had peaked

Kudos to LadyRuby!

MattSavinar · **Joined:** Sun May 09, 2004 12:00 am **Posts:** 1984

OilsNotWell wrote:

Quote:

These news stories were backed up by analysis of quarterly reports from the organisations by Peakoil.com member, Ladyruby. It really looked like the oil majors had peaked

Kudos to LadyRuby!

Yes, LadyRuby's research was quite impressive. I attempted to duplicate it by doing as she advised and going directly to the quarterly reports but simply have not had the time.

If Lady Ruby or somebody else could provide links to the exact reports for each stat, I would gladly compensate them monetarily for the time and effort.

Whoever's interested, just PM me.

Best,

Matt

LadyRuby · **Posted:** Fri Oct 21, 2005 6:45 pm

MattSavinar wrote:

OilsNotWell wrote:

Quote:

These news stories were backed up by analysis of quarterly reports from the organisations by Peakoil.com member, Ladyruby. It really looked like the oil majors had peaked

Kudos to LadyRuby!

Yes, LadyRuby's research was quite impressive. I attempted to duplicate it by doing as she advised and going directly to the quarterly reports but simply have not had the time.

If Lady Ruby or somebody else could provide links to the exact reports for each stat, I would gladly compensate them monetarily for the time and effort.

Whoever's interested, just PM me.

Best,

Matt

Thanks Oilsnotwell and Matt! Another thing that I thought was important about the data is that while production has fallen (for Chevron it's fallen steadily for at least the last four years), the price of oil has risen quite a bit as we all know. Just demonstrates that throwing money at it doesn't automatically result in more oil. Matt, I'll PM you to get a better idea of what you're looking for.

Revi · **Posted:** Fri Oct 21, 2005 7:56 pm

Aren't we fed by these major oil companies? Is this similar to the peak of Russian production in that all of us living in the US are now definitely past the peak, even if the rest of the world isn't? Does this signal the beginning of post peak times for us? I'm buying more wooly socks!

fossilnut2 · **Posted:** Fri Oct 21, 2005 10:09 pm

I suppose one could read anything they want into it. Oil production is more diversified... or major oil companies are more into the building of oilfield infrastructure in Russia, etc. but don't own or sell the oil produced... or government-run corporations in some countries are more involved than in the past in production... or companies don't work some fields not because of supply but because of cost, etc.

What counts at the end of the day is how much oil is coming on the market and being consumed.

Pops · **Posted:** Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:12 am

It’s a funny thing about them using the term market share. It kind of implies that if they just could get consumers to believe their oil was new and improved, with a fresh clean scent, then demand for their product would rise and so would their production.

I’m not as sanguine as fossil is about where oil comes from tho. You can usually rely on a corporation to try to keep the market supplied, that’s what they are there for, not so governments.

BabyPeanut · **Posted:** Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:13 am

clv101 wrote:

Extraction Rates Fall At Major Oil Companies

excerpt:

Code:

                  2nd QTR   2nd QTR
                   2004      2005
Total Top Five     10,935.1   10,708.9
Total Top Ten      14,718.7   14,463.9
Total Top 22       16,909.6   16,717.3

Looks like 2004 will be a peak year.

peaker_2005 · **Joined:** Fri Sep 02, 2005 12:00 am **Posts:** 727

BabyPeanut wrote:

clv101 wrote:

Extraction Rates Fall At Major Oil Companies

excerpt:

Code:

                  2nd QTR   2nd QTR
                   2004      2005
Total Top Five     10,935.1   10,708.9
Total Top Ten      14,718.7   14,463.9
Total Top 22       16,909.6   16,717.3

Looks like 2004 will be a peak year.

If I recall correctly, the ASPO's prediction for non-OPEC peak was 2004.

Looks like they were right on the money... :cry:

Pops · **Posted:** Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:30 am

Pops wrote:

You can usually rely on a corporation to try to keep the market supplied, that’s what they are there for, not so governments.

I guess I should have said, "You can usually rely on a corporation to try to keep the market supplied, thereby making money since that’s what they are there for; not so governments.

rockdoc123 · **Joined:** Mon May 16, 2005 12:00 am **Posts:** 1886

I am not entirely convinced by this comparison. Quaterly production comparisons are a snapshot. There are a host of reasons why production might be down in a certain quarter which do not signal anything dire...eg: workovers on wells to remove scale, reperforate; shutdown to upgrade plants and other facilities; temporary shutdown to tie in extra capacity are a few. I think to look at this properly you need to take apart each annual report...remove sold assets, add new assets on production, realize what was shutin during what period for what reason.
I'm not saying the production rates haven't dropped, I don't know....it's just that this sort of a comparison is not total proof of that.

LadyRuby · **Posted:** Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:23 am

rockdoc123 wrote:

I am not entirely convinced by this comparison. Quaterly production comparisons are a snapshot. There are a host of reasons why production might be down in a certain quarter which do not signal anything dire...eg: workovers on wells to remove scale, reperforate; shutdown to upgrade plants and other facilities; temporary shutdown to tie in extra capacity are a few. I think to look at this properly you need to take apart each annual report...remove sold assets, add new assets on production, realize what was shutin during what period for what reason.
I'm not saying the production rates haven't dropped, I don't know....it's just that this sort of a comparison is not total proof of that.

True but for some companies we're not just talking about quarterly production declining for one quarter. Here's Chevron's production data for the last several years for million barrels/day produced. See any trends?

Code:

2Q05    1,649 
1Q05    1,647 
4Q04    1,656 
3Q04    1,678 
2Q04    1,749 
1Q04    1,756 
4Q03    1,803 
3Q03    1,776 
2Q03    1,829 
1Q03    1,823 
4Q02    1,844 
3Q02    1,848 
2Q02    1,920 
1Q02    1,975 
4Q01    2,014 
4Q00    2,020 

fossilnut2 · **Posted:** Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:26 am

Pops wrote:

You can usually rely on a corporation to try to keep the market supplied, that’s what they are there for, not so governments.

I guess I should have said, "You can usually rely on a corporation to try to keep the market supplied, thereby making money since that’s what they are there for; not so governments.

I agree except the goal of a corporations isn't to keep 'a market' supplied but to make money. 'The market' doesn't have to be producing a barrel of oil to sell on the market but the market can be developing infrastructure for others, selling production capacity, etc.

Ford and GM don't attempt to make vehicles for the entire market. There is too much competion in Korea, Japan,etc. Ford and GM will concentrate production on those vehicles and geographic regions where they can make a profit. Also put resources into vehicle servicing, financial credit services, etc. (I don't know if it's stil the case but in the 80's GM made more profit off of GMC finanace than new car sales.)

The same pattern has emerged with companies like IBM etc. IBM makes less computers but that's because that's no longer their market niche.

Extraction Rates Fall At Major Oil Companies

Who is online