- June, 2019, US crude oil exports, an all-time high: 3.3 million bopd
- US net petroleum imports reduced to 1.3 million bopd
- total US petroleum exports, an astounding 8.4 million bopd, a June record
- an increase of almost 4% from May and 8% year-over-year
- And now get this -- (rig counts are meaningless, but not to be taken out of context) --
- record US crude oil production of 12.2 million bopd was sustained in June, 2019, "despite less drilling", [i.e., less active rigs]
- Reasons for record production:
- increasingly low breakeven prices
- strong productivity gains in key production regions
- incremental additions of new pipeline infrastructure
There is still "groupthink" and lack of understanding of shale production by many analysts, it seems to me. Hubbert's "peak oil" thinking continues despite the fact that the theroy has been proven wrong. I get pushback when I write that -- some say that Hubbert was talking about "conventional" oil not "tight oil." I don't know. I haven't read much of what he actually wrote. But what I have read suggests that was not the general consensus at the time, that when he developed his theory he was talking about conventional oil only. Interestingly, it appears to me that the theory will eventually be proven wrong in conventional oil also, but that's a blog for another time.
***************************************
Legacy Fund Deposits For July, 2019
Link here.
Down a bit from last month (June, 2019) but the single July, 2019, deposit was still greater than all but two yearly averages since the Fund began.
I have read the 1956 Hubbert paper. He left out tar sands and oil shale (not shale oil). This was because the numbers were too large for what he wanted for world amounts if he left them in AND he thought we would never use them.
ReplyDeleteHe ended up wrong on tar sands. So far, right on oil shale. As for shale oil, it counts. He just screwed up.
Actually to give him credit, he did mention how new technology causes repeaks (gave example of seismic in IL or IN). Which shows more thought than his followers typically give. He just doubted there would be more big technical breakthroughs. But he was wrong.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Delete