It's official: New monthly world crude oil production record

[seenmostofit]

The cost of production affects the price at the pump. It is as simple as that.

Fine. So in the bad old days of plentiful light sweet crude, we paid $0.25/gal. Then we used more crappy oil, and the price went to $1/gal. Nowadays, because we continue to use yet more and more crappier crude, it is now $4/gal. The advantage being, the crappier the stuff we make it out of, not only does it get more expensive, but there is more of the crappy stuff than the good stuff, allowing even more supply?

Certainly at the rate the canadian tar sands are producing, it is like having the energizer bunny of oil sitting right here close by, requiring not much more than a politician who doesn't mind the jobs which come with building a pipeline (or two).

[pstarr]

Too bad that much of that bumpy plateau is made up of crappy oil that was passed over decades ago due to its crappy quality, not the light sweet crude we all grew up with.

You never mention that though.

If you put the results of it in your gas tank, in various octanes, why would it matter at all? If we could build 87 octane gasoline from marshmallows, I doubt the average consumer would care or notice. As long as he can get some, put it in his car, and drive around on it. Is this the wrong way to think about it?

yes

[PeakingAroundtheCorner]

Here's the latest chart. Notice that last data point is clearly above the previous peaks.

Nice chart. Too bad that much of that bumpy plateau is made up of crappy oil that was passed over decades ago due to its crappy quality, not the light sweet crude we all grew up with.

You never mention that though.

Unfortunately for PeakingAroundtheCorner, the only really "crappy" oil he can complain about is the tar sands. All the other oils being produced nowadays are of no different quality than the stuff produced 50 years ago. Sorry to disappoint you. He, like all the other McPeakers, is continuing to buy into the peaker mythology that all the oil drilled during Days of Yore was all light sweet crude when, in fact, it wasn't. And yes, I *have* mentioned this before - in fact I did a whole thread on a similar topic three years ago. Maybe you didn't pay attention.

But y'know what's really funny? Now that the peaker's claim from a few years ago that we were "past peak" has now been proven ... quite embarrassing ... they are now forced to change the subject to the quality of the oil. It's the old, "Oops I was wrong so now I have to divert attention elsewhere" tactic.

You realize, don't you, that it was peakers that called the bumpy plateau before it ever got started. Now, here we are. 8 years of flat production later. Certainly minimal growth considering consistently high oil prices since 2007. And it's no surprise to anyone that the first peak of this plateau was not the last. At least I'm not. As far as I'm concerned the plateau is the peak. And when it's far behind us and we draw that chart back to show the entirety of the Oil Age this plateau will surely take the shape of a peak. Followed by a decline.

Another thing that will come as no surprise to even the most hard-core peak oiler is that, once peak oil was apparent, all human effort would be expended to keep the charade up as long as possible and to keep the oil flowing, resulting in subsequent peaks characterized by the adding of crappy oil to the totals. No one ever said a "bumpy plateau" would not feature occasional new peaks that I can remember.

The fact that oil is now consistently over $100.00, a new normal, is all the proof I need that we have to come a point of unprecedented challenge representing a paradigm shift in our energy reality.

[seenmostofit]

Is this the wrong way to think about it?

yes

Okay, so this is the wrong way to think about it. Is it because of the consequences of thinking about it this way, for the Joe on the Street? Or because there is a moral issue involved with what we use to put in our gas tanks?

[ralfy]

Also, one should note the significant increase from 2002 to 2006 compared to the increase from 2006 to 2012. In addition, there's also demand vs. production:

http://www.economist.com/node/21519035

coupled with forecasts in 2009 from the KSA of around 15 mb/d by 2011, I think.

There's also oil production per capita, which according to BP peaked in 1979. (This might be more helpful than just production as it considers an increase in population.)

[meemoe_uk]

This thread has gone quiet for 4 days. Wonder why? Could it be the monthly event which sends peakers running in horror has happened again?
Yep.
The monthly IEA oil market report was publically released yesterday, and the news was again grim ( for peakers ).
http://omrpublic.iea.org/omrarchive/12apr12full.pdf
page 59

New all time record quarterly average oil production has been set. In the 1st Quarter 2012, the world average oil production was 90.56Mbpd , over a million barrels higher than the previous record ( set in 4th quarter 2011 ).

We are still at the foot of the mountain. This is still the odd spot of rain before the monsoon. The oil from the 2001 middle east bonanza is only just starting to flow.
The golden age of cheap plentiful energy is unfolding.

Preemptive Reply to tired old PO religion objections
- The new oil is from filthy dirty dried up tar.
Nope, most is high quality conventional crude.
- It's record high oil prices that will cause society to collapse
Nope. For most of history, oil prices have been increasing, forcing the market to adjust. Never been a problem before. The world economy has grown fast during the history of oil.
- New oil sources are unconventional, so dont count
1st, wrong, most of the current oil supply is conventional, 2nd why shouldn't the small fraction of unconventional supply count? It's oil. Aren't we allowed to identify new sources of oil and exploit them? Who says? Was it written in the 12 commandments? If new sources aren't allowed, then peak oil happened 150 years ago when bucket and spade from the surface seep oil supply peaked and was being superceded by this new fangled 'dig down thru rock with a pick axe' oil.

[radon]

... and the news was again grim ( for peakers ).
...

Hardly so. Your brilliant analysis shows that the peakers are doomed - but this is what they have been dreaming of anyway.

[dorlomin]

Is this thread not supposed to be about C&C? Why is everyone hyping all liquids.

Two different discussions. Its not that to know the difference and keep them seperate.

[AirlinePilot]

dorlomin,

Believe me many of us have tried to clarify this. Alas some folks just dont want to see the forest for all the trees. I've given up at this point. A concept so simple as the difference between Total liquids and Crude and Condensate seems very easy to me.

Obviously this is not the case for everyone.

[ralfy]

Also, a more logical indicator might be production per capita, i.e., to reflect increasing population and certainly resource demand. According to BP, that likely peaked in 1979.

[dolanbaker]

Figures for consumption per capita in the west would be an even drop!

[pstarr]

Also, a more logical indicator might be production per capita, i.e., to reflect increasing population and certainly resource demand. According to BP, that likely peaked in 1979.

And don't forget the overall decline in global net exports, which exceeds production declines.

3rd-world countries with great oil profits become wealthy consumer-based societies. (some to share the wealth, in order to avoid their own 'Arab spring'.) Dallas geologist Jeffery Brown (aka westexas) explains it all quite well using his Export Land Model Indonesia is a classic. Was a member of OPEC, now buys petroleum.

[meemoe_uk]

A concept so simple as the difference between Total liquids and Crude and Condensate seems very easy to me.

Obviously this is not the case for everyone.

You included it seems.
Cornies understand the difference between TLs and C&C perfectly well. In terms of production, they are good proxies to each other.

Peakers on the other hand, try to conjure up a delusion that TLs and C&C are as different as can be. You have played behind the pathetic excuse for years.

In a thread supposed to be exclusively about C&C records, peakers will decoy with any lame measure to distract from C&C - such as ' production per capita' , 'demand vs. production' , 'forecasts in 2009 from the KSA of around 15 mb/d by 2011' , oil prices etc. If its got any doom stuck to it, its shoved infront of C&C on this thread, to help ignore the fact C&C is breaking records right now.
The Mods such as ALP let to all happen.

But what happens when the best proxy to C&C is mentioned? - Total Oil production -. On a site called 'peak oil', one could be forgiven that this would be a respected measure. But no, just like C&C, its got no doom going for it at the mo, so every mention of Total Oil gets the standard nonsequetor - ' You don't understand the different between C&C and TLs ' dismissal.
This site should be called peakdoom. As JD said, the peakoil religion isn't about oil, its about doom.

[dolanbaker]

Saying that the absolute quantity has risen is one thing, but the real problem is available energy per consumer.

That is dropping because the quality of the oil is declining as "other liquids" are being included, plus the fact that the number of consumers is increasing, both of these factors means that heavy users either use less or pay more, light users either pay more or do without!

[dorlomin]

Cornies understand the difference between TLs and C&C perfectly well. In terms of production, they are good proxies to each other.

No they are not.

In fact its amazing anyone would say this then claim some kind of credibility.

And chemically things like corn ethanol are very different from something like heavy crude. They are worlds appart in how they are produced as well.

The total liquids figure and the C&C figures are pretty different beasts if you want to drill down and understand the worlds energy markets whether you are a peaker or a cornie or just out to make some money in the markets.

[misterno]

I took your suggestion and used the new EIA data to make the following graphs.

I used these assumptions:
C&C yields 5.9 MBTU/bbl;
NGPL yields 3.8 MBTU/bbl;
Other Liquids yields 4.0 MBTU/bbl;
EROEI declines linearly from 25:1 in 1980 to 15:1 in 2011.

The story is quite clear: net energy from liquid fuels plateaued in 2005, and net energy per capita has been dropping rapidly ever since.

[/quote]

I am confused. If C&C yields 5.9MMBTU/bbl and as we all know crude oil is 5.6MMBTU/bbl, then how come adding C&C to the world oil production is not accepted and looked down as a lower value compared to crude oil?

By the way what is C&C really and how come it has more energy content than crude oil?

[OilFinder2]

Another new record!?!?!?!!!

>>> 75.581 million bpd C&C in January <<<

And December was revised ... upward!!

[seenmostofit]

Another new record!?!?!?!!!

>>> 75.581 million bpd C&C in January <<<

And December was revised ... upward!!

Your information must be faulty. The EIA must be just clueless. Hasn't anyone told them that increasing oil production is no longer possible? Is there a website we can go to which will give us the answers we want, rather than forcing us into waiting for the next peak oil?

[OilFinder2]

Is there a website we can go to which will give us the answers we want, rather than forcing us into waiting for the next peak oil?

As a matter of fact, there is!

>>> CLICK HERE <<<

[ralfy]

Actually, the Economist article linked earlier is more than enough, as it shows demand not being met by conventional sources. Thus, we see "another new record" for energy production being met by "another new record" for energy demand, with more expensive non-conventional sources being used to fill the gap. And that's for a global economy that remains in trouble.