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

[bratticus]

EIA Table

Crude & Condensate:
July 2008: 74,669.571 bpd
Dec. 2010: 74,795.725 bpd

But the year is still just shy of 2005:

2005: 73,712 bpd

Crude & Condensate & tap water & anything else we can think of.

Dude, if I showed you a chart of "Copper & Mercury production" with dropping copper production rates and increasing mercury production would that mean there was more copper being produced? Yet combining Crude & Condensate is supposed to be proof of more crude production. What utter nonsense.

WOO-HOO! We are producing more Oil plus Non-Oil (which doesn't have the properties of crude oil especially the energy density) combined! We have proven that you can call natural gas oil!

How to make Fool's Oil[tm]

1. take natural gas derived oil, call it "condensates" to confuse people about it only being natural gas.

2. make sure you don't report on BTUs, only on barrels because if you showed the BTUs you wouldn't be fooling anyone after all "energy density" is too complicated for fools.

3. combine it with real crude oil and report not on BTUs but on volume since it's like putting soy meat filler into meat to make it look bigger not actually be more meat. Fools love to eat it because you told them it was hamburger.

4. show them charts of Fool's Oil and how much there is now.

[dolanbaker]

A quick question about these headline "record" figures, What is the breakdown by type of oil that make up this grand total?

By type I mean, just how much of this production is the "cheap -n- easy" stuff and how much is the "unconventional -n- expensive/hard to extract" stuff.

I expect that the ratio has shifted towards the hard & expensive stuff since the previous highs in 2005.

[meemoe_uk]

Crude & Condensate & tap water & anything else we can think of.

Dude, if I showed you a chart of "Copper & Mercury production" with dropping copper production rates and increasing mercury production would that mean there was more copper being produced? Yet combining Crude & Condensate is supposed to be proof of more crude production. What utter nonsense.

OMG, here we go again. They're having another dummest doomer excuse for ignoring all evidence contrary to the PeakOilDoomIsNow religion.
Vts, and braticus have got there entries in. Any other entries? AirlinePilot? Your not gonna let these noobs beat you at your own game are you?

Let's give this latest entry by braticus the attention it deserves.
Condensate is not oil. Get that? Braticus says so.
Take some oil. Evaporate it. What you got? Evaporated Oil? Erm no. According to Braticus now it's something else. Something spooky and surreal?
In reality, It's just oil. The only difference is that the oil molecules aren't bound together in a liquid, they're free bouncing around as a gas. And they can be returned to liquid state by cooling it or pressurizing it.

Anyway lets have some fun with braticus new rule.
Got some water? Boil it, then then condense it again. What you got? Water? No! Cos by braticus' rule it's not water!
Got some molecules stuck together on the ground? Disperse them into the air, then gather them up again. Same group of molecules? No says braticus!
Got a ball on the ground? Throw it in the air. It comes back down to rest on the ground. Same ball? No! because it was a 'condensate' ball when it was in the air. And as we all know from braticus, condensates can't be returned to their solid\liquid form. Just like materials such as mecury, copper or tap water can't be turned into oil.
Jump in the air. Are you you? No you've jumped in the air! By braticus rule, you're someone else now. Pleased to meet yourself. Whats your name?

Jeezuz. That's the great fun thing about being a doomer. There is no lower limit. No amount of nonsense is idiot enough.
Dismissing oil in a gasous form as not oil, water in cloud form as not water etc, is only one more step in a long continuum of ever more absurd absurditys. Keep going! We're all watching. And laughing.

How to make doomer lack of oil amidst plentiful oil
1. Incrementally attack standards for fossil fuel that doomers have accepted for decades
2. Only attack this standard AFTER the desired peak date. e.g. if evaporated oil is suddenly an excuse to not call it oil, only strike out condesates after desired peak date.
3. Quietly stuff the pre-peak oil era with every oil substitute you can find.
4. Mix ingredients 2,3 carely to make the ideal hubbert curve.
5. As a goofy doomer kid, take authority over the worlds oil geologists engineers scientists and denouce their oil reports, such as EIA and IEA.
6. Only do 5 if their charts go up.

Hey presto! perfect doom cake every time!

[meemoe_uk]

>A quick question about these headline "record" figures, What is the breakdown by type of oil that make up this grand total?
Beyound distinguishing between oil and natural gas conversion to liquids, the EIA table doesn't say much in this respect. Therefore doomers are pretty free to speculate that it's all very expensive oil now.

Also, as of today, it seems doomers are free to say that evaporated oil is natural gas.
But unfortunately, if braticus rule is the standard, they are no longer free to recognise international standards that have been set for decades on the line drawn between natural gas hydrocarbons and oil hydrocarbons. Now it seems doomers these days have to believe the EIA includes natural gas in it's oil crude+condensate supply figures!
If your brain allows it, you might wonder why the EIA has seperate tables for natural gas to liquids, when according to braticus, they've already included natural gas to liquids in the oil and condensate figures.
Hmm, I think that's one query our resident analyst braticus won't be sending to the EIA anytime soon.

[Cloud9]

Higher prices will bring on marginal fields invcreasing over all production for a period of time. The raised cost of recovery is included in the higher price. At some point we reach demand destruction.

[Pops]

What is the breakdown by type of oil that make up this grand total?

I think this is what you're looking for:



Not sure how factual it is or even how old, I've seen it around at least a year or more. In fact the WSJ recently said the Mid-East countries nee $95/bbl oil now in order to keep their citizens placated - a whole new wrinkle, no?

.

[pstarr]

No pop, your chart is useful and would help to explain to a "skeptic" like meemiei'mnotokay how different classes of crude reveal different pricing structures, energy returns etc. But that is not the question.

I believer dolanbaker is asking what percent of total liquids, in aggregate, across all regions, etc., was originally derived from natural gas. I doubt it is measured, as the equipment to condense out the a condensate from the gas and introduce it into the liquid pipeline would happen in the field, long before the accounts had their way.

[pstarr]

meemie, you've been here 4 years now. Have your always been this shrill?

[OilFinder2]

ATTENION BRATTICUS: Condensate has ALWAYS been included in the EIA's (and everyone else's) "crude oil" production figures. That bumpy plateau everyone here keeps talking about has ALWAYS included condensate.

Thank you, have a nice day, and please pay attention to stuff like this in the future.

[OilFinder2]

And here's the latest chart:

[Plantagenet]

..here's the latest chart:

Sure looks like a bumpy plateau to me----thats exactly what peak oil theory suggests should occur at the global oil production peak-----it fits perfectly with the idea that oil production peaked in 2005 and the current run up in price reflects tightening of global supply again.

[OilFinder2]

But ... but ... we were supposed to be down to, like, 67 million bpd by now!


LINK

[Plantagenet]

But ... but ... we were supposed to be down to, like, 67 million bpd by now!

In your fantasy world, maybe.

[dolanbaker]

What is the breakdown by type of oil that make up this grand total?

I think this is what you're looking for:



Not sure how factual it is or even how old, I've seen it around at least a year or more. In fact the WSJ recently said the Mid-East countries nee $95/bbl oil now in order to keep their citizens placated - a whole new wrinkle, no?

.

Yes, that is the chart I was alluding to when I asked the question, I suspect that the vertical bars have shifted to the left a bit, as in the percentages of the cheaper stuff is smaller as well as the scale on the Y axis being higher.

[OilFinder2]

But ... but ... we were supposed to be down to, like, 67 million bpd by now!

In your fantasy world, maybe.

LOL! That wasn't my fantasy world, that was the fantasy world of a prominent peaker on TOD - and fantasy world that most peakers at the time actually believed.

[pstarr]

ATTENION BRATTICUS: Condensate has ALWAYS been included in the EIA's (and everyone else's) "crude oil" production figures. That bumpy plateau everyone here keeps talking about has ALWAYS included condensate.

Thank you, have a nice day, and please pay attention to stuff like this in the future.

Yes. But condensates have not always contributed upwards of 50% of the liquid volume as they do today. That extra energy required to convert a diffuse gaseous component into a liquid fuel is quite expensive, energetically speaking. As with all unconventionals (including, but not limited to, NGC, shale, ethanol, TDP, etc.) the net energy returned is constantly dropping . . . toward ZERO.

Such is peak.

[Plantagenet]

That wasn't my fantasy world...

Jeez. You are the person who posted it.

Lets come back to the topic, please.

The bogus chart you posted in no way changes the reality that real data on real charts shows the world has been on a bumpy production plateau since 2005.

[sparky]

.
On condensates , my understanding is that it's the fraction of the hydrocarbon gas stream which is liquid at normal temperature and pressure ?

pstarr , your diagram is good but it forget the knock out array just before the plant
those are usually a set of interconnected length of pipes
their function is to decrease the velocity of the gas coming in from the pipeline
and let the liquids and hydrates drop off ,

The pipeline is a funny world , with velocity , temperature and partial pressure
quite different from the gas plant world ,
the knock down array is where the transition is made ,
a lot of the condensates are collected there

[pstarr]

.
On condensates , my understanding is that it's the fraction of the hydrocarbon gas stream which is liquid at normal temperature and pressure ?

pstarr , your diagram is good but it forget the knock out array just before the plant
those are usually a set of interconnected length of pipes
their function is to decrease the velocity of the gas coming in from the pipeline
and let the liquids and hydrates drop off ,

The pipeline is a funny world , with velocity , temperature and partial pressure
quite different from the gas plant world ,
the knock down array is where the transition is made ,
a lot of the condensates are collected there

I stand corrected, but my point remains; that condensate is "high hanging fruit" another non-conventional that has begun to replace light sweet oil at much greater expense in energy, production and cost. This, of course, incurs serious issues: more energy is used in producing said energy, the resulting fuel cost more money, there is less of said fuel left over for productive social work and our JIT industrial system/financial ponzi scheme which depends on cheap petroleum is thus faltering. And ready to implode.

[Keith_McClary]

But ... but ... we were supposed to be down to, like, 67 million bpd by now!


LINK

The graph is attributed to Skrebowski, but here is what Skrebowski said at ASPO 2006:

Slide 41 of this PDF
You don't give the original source for the graph so we can't tell what it represents (some scenario, perhaps?).