Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on December 10, 2013
Russia expects post-Soviet record for oil production
Energy Minister Alexander Novak said oil output from the country for 2013 should reach a post-Soviet record of 3.8 billion barrels.
Russian state news agency RIA Novosti reported Russia in 2012 increased oil output from the previous year by 1.3 percent to 518 million metric tons, approximately 3.79 billion barrels.
“This year we expect oil [output] to be about 520 million tons, despite setting a goal of pumping between 505 [million] to 510 million tons,” he was quoted as saying Saturday during a meeting in Washington with U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration lists Russia as the No. 3 energy producer in the world, behind Saudi Arabia and the United States.
There was no statement from the U.S. Energy Department about the visit by Novak.
Last week, Russian energy company Rosneft, one of the largest energy companies in the world, signed an agreement with its Norwegian counterpart Statoil to explore the shale oil potential in the Ural mountains of Russia.
Statoil Chief Executive Officer Helge Lund said the basin, the Domanik shale formation, “could be a world-class shale oil asset” if early exploration efforts prove successful.
The EIA in its country profile says Russia holds the world’s largest deposits of technically recoverable shale oil.
10 Comments on "Russia expects post-Soviet record for oil production"
BillT on Wed, 11th Dec 2013 1:11 am
“…The U.S. Energy Information Administration lists Russia as the No. 3 energy producer in the world, behind Saudi Arabia and the United States…”
2012: Using EIA numbers…
United States = ~2,400,000,000 barrels
Saudi Arabia = ~3,500,000,000 barrels
Russia = ~3,700,000,000 barrels
Mis-information from EIA or UPI or both?
I see it as:
Russia #1
Saudis #2
U.S. #3
At lest that is according to the math I was taught. Maybe the EIA needs some math education?
I have no doubts that Russia is the resource giant of the 21st century and may be the only country that could be totally independent of the rest of the world for resources. And it is nuclear so it doesn’t have to worry about being invaded, even though the US is trying their tricks with NGOs.
BillT on Wed, 11th Dec 2013 1:15 am
BTW: The ‘bait and switch’ caught me…lol. Too early in the morning here. But they are speaking of oil production and that is what I debated. If they truly mean ‘total ENERGY’ my comment may be off base, but I think they did mean just oil. More deliberate misinformation propaganda?
Arthur on Wed, 11th Dec 2013 9:39 am
More proof that ASPO-2000 and thus Heinberg were wrong with their timing. The peak-oil story remains essentially correct, but the ‘Bell-curve’ of liquid fossil production is wider than we all thought it would be.
westexas on Wed, 11th Dec 2013 1:45 pm
Russian net oil exports hit 7.2 mbpd* in 2007 and for 2007 to 2012 inclusive, their net exports ranged between 6.9 and 7.2 mbpd. Their ECI Ratio (ratio of production to consumption) fell from 3.7 in 2007 to 3.3 in 2012.
The 2007 to 2012 decline in the ECI ratio suggests that Russia may have already shipped close to one-fifth of their post-2007 CNE (Cumulative Net Exports).
However, this method of estimating CNE (based on initial declines in the ECI ratio) was too optimistic for the Six Country Case History (the six major net oil exporters that hit or approached zero net oil exports from 1980 to 2011).
*million barrels per day, total petroleum liquids + other liquids, EIA
westexas on Wed, 11th Dec 2013 1:46 pm
Small correction: Should read, “The six major net oil exporters that hit or approached zero net oil exports from 1980 to 2011, excluding China.”
BillT on Wed, 11th Dec 2013 2:37 pm
Arthur, it is NET ENERGY, not barrels of oil cousins that count. We passed the production peak of standard oil around 2005. Calling moonshine ‘oil’ does not change anything.
Bob Inget on Wed, 11th Dec 2013 5:58 pm
CRUDE LOOP
The undeniable success of American oil is such that the Bakken Shale region could declare independence (Bakkenistan? Shalezuela?), rock up to the next OPEC meeting and demand a seat on the board.
A million barrels a day are being pumped in North Dakota, something unthinkable as recently as five years ago. A similar amount is being pumped each day at Eagle Ford and Permian, both in Texas.
There was a time when that North Dakota crude would build up at Cushing, Okla. Now, thanks to new and improved pipeline routes south, a new glut is forming on the Gulf Coast.
Now, this situation isn’t going to last forever. The International Energy Agency sees a production plateau from 2020 and a slow decline beginning five years after that. So, naturally, those with money in the game want to make hay while this sun shines.
The result: a record number of permits for export of crude have been granted this fiscal year. By law, there is only one place that crude can go and that is Canada. It can be a profitable trade–the crude can be purchased at Gulf prices, and sold at international prices.
Canada is on the sharp end of this stick. Albertan oil-sands crude is incredibly cheap–recently more than $50 a barrel cheaper than Nymex WTI–and even Syncrude, the lighter, refined version, is consistently cheaper.
And why is this? Because there is nowhere for it to go, and as much as Alberta loves oil it doesn’t need as much as it has.
Here’s a paradox in action. New pipeline capacity means crude oil can now be pumped from North Dakota, near the Canadian border, all the way to the Texan port of Corpus Christi from where it can be sent to Canada.
There is one proviso to all this. That a record number of export licenses have been dished out doesn’t mean there will be a record number of companies sending crude to Canada. Unleashing U.S. crude into the rest of the world is the subject of some murmuring–as the glut builds on the Gulf Coast, expect this to go from a whisper to a scream.
As ever, traders are positioning themselves for any future scenario.
From an energy bull board
Arthur on Wed, 11th Dec 2013 6:45 pm
Bill, I did not get the impression that I made less miles per gallon over the past 30 years.
BillT on Thu, 12th Dec 2013 1:06 am
Maybe you need to keep better records? ^_^
But if it took 1 1/2 gallons of oil to get that gallon of gasoline to your tank, when it only took a few ounces extra not too long ago, maybe there is a decline in NET energy?
Arthur on Thu, 12th Dec 2013 10:23 am
That indeed is true and is reflected in the rising fuel prices at the pump. But even in 2013 the chemical content of gasoline is the same as that of 1983, expect perhaps for the obligatory addition of biofuel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline
The fuel quality of an octane C8H18 molecule does not degrade over time.