The OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report (MOMR) for January 2025 was published recently. The last month reported in most of the OPEC charts that follow is December 2024 and output reported for OPEC nations is crude oil output in thousands of barrels per day (kb/d). In the OPEC charts below the blue line with markers is monthly output and the thin red line is the centered twelve month average (CTMA) output.
Output for October 2024 was revised lower by 9kb/d and November 2024 output was revised higher by 58 kb/d compared to last month’s report. OPEC 12 output increased by 26 kb/d with most of the increase from Libya (53 kb/d.) Nigeria also increased by 30 kb/d while UAE saw a decrease of 44 kb/d. Other OPEC members had small increases or decreases of 23 kb/d or less.
The chart above shows output from the Big 4 OPEC producers that are subject to output quotas (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iraq, and Kuwait.) After the pandemic, Big 4 average output peaked in 2022 at a centered 12 month average (CTMA) of 20849 kb/d, crude output has been cut by 2599 kb/d relative to the 2022 CTMA peak to 18290 kb/d in December 2024. The Big 4 may have roughly 2599 kb/d of spare capacity when World demand calls for an increase in output.
Most of the increase in the Other 8 OPEC nations (those OPEC 12 nations that are not part of the Big 4) came from Iran and Venezuela (about 423 of the 503 kb/d average annual increase), with the remaining 6 nations that were subject to quotas having relatively flat output over the 37 month period covered in the chart above (December 2021 to December 2024) . See chart below for OPEC Other 6 (OPEC 12 minus Big 4 minus Iran minus Venezuela) with an average annual increase of only 80 kb/d over past 3 years.
OECD Commercial petroleum stocks remain near the bottom of the 5 year range from 2019 to 2023, so far the market seems to need less oil than earlier periods as oil prices remain relatively low.
OPEC expected growth in 2025 is unchanged from last month’s report and the 2026 estimate for World liquids growth is the same as the 2025 estimate at 1.4 Mb/d, this month is the first estimate for 2026 demand growth and non-DOC supply growth.
Chart above shows the significant difference between EIA STEO forecast for World Oil demand from 2024 to 2026 compared with the OPEC forecast which is 1.5 Mb/d higher in 2026 and 1.1 Mb/d higher in 2025. Much of the difference in 2025 and 2026 is accounted for by the higher demand estimate by OPEC for 2024 (about 930 kb/d higher than the EIA estimate).
The chart above is based on the EIA’s Jan 2025 STEO estimates for World liquids and World crude, with non-crude Production equal to World liquids minus World crude. From 2018 to 2024 World crude output decreased by about 2 Mb/d while non-crude liquids output increased by 4.2 Mb/d. A significant portion of the non-crude output is ethanol (lower energy density than crude) and bottled gas such as ethane, propane and butane which are useful, but less so as transportation fuels compared to crude oil and the products refined from crude oil.
The chart above is included to show that demand for crude oil (input of crude to refineries constitutes most of crude oil demand) has increased from 80.8 Mb/d in 2023 to 80.84 Mb/d in 2024, an increase of only 40 kb/d.
The chart above is from the January 2022 MOMR and shows that World crude refinery throughput averaged 81.7 Mb/d in 2018. World demand for crude has decreased by roughly 860 kb/d from 2018 to 2024, though the estimate may change a bit over time.
Chart above uses data from OPEC MOMR Jan 2016 to Jan 2025, World refinery crude throughput has not yet returned to the 2018 peak.
The tight oil estimate for 2024 was revised higher by 60 kb/d compared to last month’s report, the 2025 tight oil output estimate was also increased by 60 kb/d, this is the initial estimate for 2026 tight oil output at 190 kb/d higher than 2025 output. In the chart that follows is my estimate and forecast for US tight oil output, for 2024 I have tight oil output at 9.3 Mb/d, about 500 kb/d higher than the OPEC estimate, for 2025 I have 9.5 Mb/d and for 2026, 9.6 Mb/d. The increases in tight oil in my forecast are about 100 kb/d smaller in both 2025 and 2026 than the OPEC forecast.
The next 3 charts all use the same vertical and horizontal scale so they can be more easily compared (16000 kb/d on vertical scale from minimum to maximum and 9 years on the horizontal scale.)
The chart above compares the OPEC 12 monthly crude output estimates from the MOMR secondary sources charts with the EIA’s Jan 2025 STEO estimates from Jan 2018 to Dec 2024. The annual average estimates are based on the MOMR data up to 2024 and for 2025 and 2026 use the EIA STEO forecast. Note the small increase of only 294 kb/d in 2025 and somewhat larger increase of 448 kb/d in 2026, OPEC has spare capacity for further increases after 2026 if the STEO forecast is accurate.
The chart above is based on the EIA STEO from Jan 2025, non-OPEC crude output increases by 955 kb/d in 2025 and by 514 kb/d in 2026 according the the EIA.
This World crude estimate and forecast also comes from the Jan 2025 STEO. World crude output increases by 2058 kb/d from 2024 to 2026 according to the EIA. Given how slowly crude demand has grown since 2018 (demand has actually decreased by about 860 kb/d based on refinery throughput) this forecast seems quite optimistic.
Thanks, Dennis!
One note on non-crude production: a major portion of it is Condensate, which is close to crude and is often lumped with Crude. Condensate production has grown in recent years, because of the growth in natural gas production.
Kdmitrov,
Yes condensate output is forecast to increase by about 1400 kb/d from 2020 to 2026 and increased by about 896 kb/d from 2020 to 2024, I agree much of this is due to increasing natural gas production, but the percentage increase in condensate output was an annual rate of about 4.4% per year from 2020 to 2024, while World natural gas output increasd by about 1% per year from 2019 to 2023 so it seems the natural gas is getting wetter over this period.
From 2018 to 2026 condensate increases by about 1460 kb/d while non-crude liquids increases by 4200 kb/d, so the condensate increase is about 35% of the total non-crude liquids increase ( a significant portion indeed ).
gas from Quatar’s North Dome, the world largest gas field, is a condensate field which has Gas to Oil ratio at about 2~3:1, according to my isotope model,
https://youtu.be/BAb6-m0UX9c
whereas other reservoir simulation gives 3~5:1, which significantly lower the condensate production for certain amount of gas produced.
Perhaps if DJT also annexes Venezuela some heavy crude could be extracted from Orinoco, to be blended with the lighter blends from up a bit north? Not to give any ideas but it´s kind of an obvious business deal.
(If the Canadians with their tar sands get non-agreement capable, or such)
Just below the last graph:
“This World crude estimate and forecast also comes from the Jan 2015 STEO. World crude output”
Typo… should read Jan 2025 STEO
Thx for the correction
So OPEC is claiming 1.5MM bpd draws in 2024? Seems dubious….
Kdimitrov,
Yes that is what they claim in their balance of supply and demand and I agree this seems very dubious, I expect it will be revised. The EIA estimate for World demand is probably more accurate and would suggest a draw of 0.5 mmb/d in 2024.
“From 2018 to 2024 World crude output decreased by about 2 Mb/d while non-crude liquids output increased by 4.2 Mb/d. A significant portion of the non-crude output is ethanol”
Ethanol production requires crude oil input. In the US corn ethanol production is only weakly net energy positive.
Its more of an Ag sector jobs program/constituent subsidy than an independent energy source.
Including ethanol in the liquids production tally is an exercise double counting, to a considerable extent.
When it comes to oil production it seems that the World Refinery Crude Throughput is a more important aspect to track.
Hickory,
I agree, ethanol is not really an energy product from a net energy perspective. World consumption of biofuel was about 4.7 EJ in 2023 (includes biodiesel and ethanol) and total petroleum liquids consumption (excluding biofuel) was 196.4 EJ in 2023, so biofuel consumption was only 2.3% of the liquids total and ethanol consumption was about 2.48 EJ or about 1.2% of the total liquids energy consumption. Data from Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy.
Ethanol production requires crude oil input. In the US corn ethanol production is only weakly net energy positive.
Ethanol doesn’t really “require” oil input. Farms use diesel to operate – that could change (electrification, CNG, ethanol, methanol, syndiesel, ammonia, etc., etc). More importantly, diesel is only about 1/4 of the energy input of ethanol. Ethanol is about 5:1 liquid fuel ROI. The Liquid fuel ratio is a far more important metric than joules.
Don’t get me wrong: ethanol definitely started as an agricultural subsidy program, designed to soak up surplus corn. But it’s worth being realistic about the actual contribution to liquid fuel production.
Nick G,
Volume is a very poor way to look at things, a barrel of diesel has 50% more energy per barrel than a barrel of ethanol. So claiming that a barrel of ethanol is no different than a barrel of diesel is a mistake in my view.
Dennis,
Some thoughts:
1st, I didn’t say the ROI was based on volume. IIRC, these calculations are based on energy. If it’s based on volume, the ratio would indeed be 59% (76,100/129,500). Even if the energy ratio is 3:1, that could still provide the liquid fuel needed by a farm.
Finally, ethanol is one product of a process that also produces cattle feed, so a simple energy ratio isn’t complete.
Is ethanol an optimal use of farm resources? On the whole, I’d agree it’s probably not. OTOH, it’s one of many reasons that suggesting that agriculture is going to collapse due to lack of fuel (or that the farm population will have to greatly increase to compensate) is highly unrealistic.
Nick, please explain the energy content embedded in and used through out the year in tractors, farm equipment, fertilizers, seed, tractor mechanics, trucks, roads, the ethanol processing plants and all the workers from farmers, truck drivers to ethanol plant workers is included in your calculations…
If you can’t, then like every other EROEI calculation it is bunk…
In a fully free market, without any subsidies on ethanol, or taxes on oil, or official mandates on ethanol use, would ethanol production for fuel be happening at all??
This might be useful. Not exactly what you asked for, but relevant to the point I was trying to make.
Corn takes about 3.5 gallons of diesel per acre, year round, to produce (a range of 2 to 5, with no-till at the low end). An acre of corn can produce the equivalent of about 320 gallons diesel (160 bushels per acre, 2.8 gallons of ethanol per bushel and .7 gallons of diesel per gallon of ethanol), so that’s roughly 1% of corn production needed to power tractors.
Corn ethanol would make a lot more sense for tractors than for light passenger vehicles.
At 160 bushels per acre, 2.8 gallons of ethanol per bushel and .7 gallons of diesel per gallon of ethanol, that’s about .8% of corn production needed to power tractors.
This data was at the following link, but it seems broken. Seems like something that you could find from other sources.
https://pubs.ext.vt.edu/content/dam/pubs_ext_vt_edu/442/442-073/442-073_pdf.pdf
“Ethanol doesn’t really “require” oil input.”
I was talking about the conditions in this world.
Net energy production from corn ethanol is marginal, and a very poor use of prime farmland/wildlife habitat.
And also a very poor use of the oil/nat gas input.
In general, I agree. But, you didn’t address the difference between generic joules, and liquid fuel joules. Plus, the opportunities to replace farm diesel are indeed a part of “conditions in this world.”
Things change. E.g., EVs eliminating passenger and mass transit ICEs in China would have seemed unthinkable 10 years ago. Now, it’s in sight.
Judging by today’s expectations, utilising agriculture for energy is not good enough for living standards as it stands in most developed countries.
Still, as long as you only devote let us say one third of agricultural production for energy production it can be some possible routes; that is the maximum amount to play around with without jeopardising food security severely.
In these calculations there are several ways to cut energy expense no matter what energy source is utilised. Whether it is fertiliser, machinery or ways of getting rid of stones or weeds.
In the future I expect it to be useful to have many more jobs available for routine work in the country side that cities can not supply. Of course that could be a “pay cut”. Call it going backwards a few steps, but I can tell you that if enough services are provided – a lot of people would say it is a fair deal to move to the country side with the freedom it provides anyway.
If income disparities become to large however, that is setting up for unstability one way or another. And that is a growing problem (one of them).
In a comment in earlier post there was some discussion about US Shale Gas.
Below is a Hubbert Linearization using annual production and cumulatiive production.
Note that I think this estimate is likely far too low as the resource is likely to be 1400 TCF with a URR of roughly 1700 TCF with peak occurring at perhaps 850 TCF. The problem with a Hubbert Linearization at this early stage is the plot will be a curve rather than a line until annual production divided by cumulative production is under 4% or so.
Took a quick look at USGS continuous assessments and for my tight oil model the best guess URR is about 67% of USGS mean TRR, if we use this same number (67% of TRR for URR) for shale gas this would suggest a URR for US shale gas of 1090 TCF and if we assume peak occurs at 50% of URR (this is often a bad assumption) it would suggest about 545 TCF of cumulative production at the peak. Currently (end of 2024) US shale gas is at about 317 TCF for cumulative production, suggesting perhaps 228 TCF of production until the peak. Recently shale gas output has been about 31 TCF per year, so maybe 6 to 7 years until peak if we are near an undulating plateau in output for shale gas. So this suggests a peak around maybe 34 TCF per year in 2030 to 2032 for US shale gas.
Chart below has a very rough shale gas model for the US with very little detailed modelling behind it, unlike my tight oil scenario which has a great deal of underlying analysis for individual tight oil basins.
Up to 2023 is based on EIA data, 2024 is based on the STEO forecast for 2024, 2025 to 2052 is a WAG assuming 500 BCF per year increases to 2031 followed by similar decreases for 7 years from 2032 to 2039 and then 1800 BCF per year decreases mirroring the rate of increase from 2008 to 2022.
It goes without saying that this scenario/model is certain to be incorrect.
slightly modified shale gas scenario, URR=1100 TCF.
I came across this piece
https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/chinas-slowing-oil-demand-growth-is-likely-to-persist-and-could-impact-markets/
Excerpt:
During January–June 2024, China’s gasoline consumption grew by just 0.32 percent over January-June 2023, while diesel consumption decreased by 3.52 percent over January–June 2023.[11] Gasoline and diesel could cease to drive China’s oil demand growth in the next few years, if they have not done so already. A PetroChina research institute said that demand for both fuels peaked in 2023 (see Table 1). Other analysts expect gasoline and diesel demand to peak before 2030. Even if demand for liquefied petroleum gas and other products such as jet fuel and petrochemicals continues to grow for several years, China’s total oil demand may still peak before the end of the decade.
This Mornings Weekly Petroleum Status Report
Attached is a clip from this morning’s report which may be showing the effects of the falling Rig and Frac Spread counts that started in April and November 2024 respectively.
Domestic oil production was 13,240 kb/d down 237 kb/d from last week. In the week ending December 6, production was 13,631 kb/d. This week’s production is lower by 391 kb/d or 3%.
On the last line note NGPLs, 6,279 kb/d, down 328 kb/d from last week. For the week ending November 29th, production was 7,063 kb/d. This week’s production is lower by 784 kb/d, or 11%.
There could be a weather effect in this week’s numbers.
Dennis,
Thanks for this. Interesting stuff.
I got a couple of questions, excuse the ignorance on the topic. If we drew a Venn diagram with condensate in one circle and NG in another. Do they overlap on some isomers ? Basically when does condensate end and NG begin ?
And is it safe to assume that the vast majority of hydrocarbons in earths crust is natural gas ? Is there any guesstimates on what percentage of hydrocarbons in earths crust is oil, coal and natural gas ?
Iron Mike,
There are many different categories for Natural Gas, but typically the dry gas that is used for heating and cooking (which is called natural gas rather than propane or other LPG) is primarily methane (call this C1 for a single carbon atom per molecule in CH4), NGLs consist of ethane and isomers (C2), propane and isomers (C3), and butane and isomers (C4). Condensate condenses out of the natural gas at STP (25 C and 1 atmosphere of pressure) and consists of C5 and larger molecules often called C5plus for shorthand. This is my understanding, but I am not a chemist or chemical engineer, they can correct my mistakes if they read this or you can if you have a different understanding. I do not know if there is an estimate of the proportion of oil, natural gas, and coal in the earth’s crust.
Note that wet gas is the natural gas as it comes out of the ground and is allowed to cool to 25 C or less so condensate at the lease is removed. The NGLs are removed from the wet gas at NGPL plants and a small proportion of the NGL is C5 plus that comes from the NG processing plants. Most nations include this in their C plus C output numbers as there is no chemical distinction between lease condensate and NGL that is C5 plus, but the US does not and may be unique in this regard. The amount is small though, in 2023 for the US C5 plus output from NG processing plants was about 763 kb/d and in the most recent 12 months the average increased to 826 kb/d. If the US included this C5 plus form the NGPL output in their C plus C output estimates then output for the most recent 12 months would increase from 13193 kb/d to 14019 kb/d.
Dennis,
“in 2023 for the US C5 plus output from NG processing plants was about 763 kb/d and in the most recent 12 months the average increased to 826 kb/d.”
— this is a 8% increase almost, and at the same time oil increased only 5%, clearly shows that the light oil in the reservoir separates into lighter part (NGL Condensate) and heavier oil.
https://youtu.be/2hxyNIhxmnQ
Is crude from tar sands under appreciated or flying under the Radar?
” What really saved the US was the oil sands in the north. Here’s why : The history of what changed. ”
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2025/01/matt-taibbi-on-tucker-carlsons-show.html?cid=6a00d8341c640e53ef02e860f81e12200d#comment-6a00d8341c640e53ef02e860f81e12200d
We know lots about fracking. How about recovery of the super heavy? Anyone know the Volume or Tonnage (mass) of Canadian crude in southbound pipelines?
Longtimber,
According to the EIA about 3984 kb/d of crude was imported from Canada in October 2024, my guess is that most of this would have been from Alberta’s oil sands.
More information on Canadian exports at link below
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/market-snapshots/2024/market-snapshot-almost-all-canadian-crude-oil-exports-went-to-the-united-states-in-2023.html
Dennis/Longtimber
Canada produces a full range of products from the heavy crude. Canada also has some tight oil. In the link below one can download a spreadsheet that shows the breakdown oil of by province and type.
To save the trouble of working your way through a very detailed breakdown spreadsheet, attached is a summary of the bigger production numbers.
Canada produces close to 5,000 kb/d. Around 1,000 is used in Canada and 4,000 go to the US as Western Canada Select (WCS), Sweet Synthetic Crude (SCO) and light/tight oil. WCS is a mixture of heavy crude and a diluent to make it flow through the pipelines. SCO is an upgraded crude with a bias toward making diesel and occasionally sells at a premium over WTI.
Units are kb/d. AB = Alberta SK = Saskatchewan BC = British Columbia
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-commodities/crude-oil-petroleum-products/statistics/estimated-production-canadian-crude-oil-equivalent.html
Pricing Squeeze in Oil Patch
Top U.S. oilfield services firms are facing weaker pricing and revenue this year as oil producers become increasingly efficient and keep a cap on spending, according to oilfield executives and analysts
The number of active frac fleets totaled 183 in the week to Jan. 23, its lowest since March 2021, according to data from consultancy Primary Vision.
This year, the oilfield services sector is set to be squeezed again as operators eye weaker crude price forecasts due to oversupply.
Roughly half the Texas and New Mexico-based oil executives surveyed by the Dallas Fed in December said they were using $70-$75 a barrel for capital planning.
Rivals are also feeling the pinch. JP Morgan expects Liberty Energy will see its EBITDA per frac fleet decline to $19.9 million in 2025, from $24.7 million in 2024 as pricing pressures hit margins.
“The combination of significant improvements in shale completion efficiency and a softer macro picture is leading to further weakness in the frac market,” the analysts said.
https://boereport.com/2025/01/28/us-oilfield-firms-face-pricing-squeeze-as-fracking-demand-slumps/
I was looking for an analysis of ethanol, and ran across a detailed article comparing synthetic fuels, with conversion efficiencies, etc.
Seemed interesting…
Abstract
Synthetic fuels produced with renewable surplus electricity depict an interesting solution for the decarbonization of mobility and transportation applications which are not suited for electrification. With the objective to compare various synthetic fuels, an analysis of all the energy conversion steps is conducted from the electricity source, i.e., wind-, solar-, or hydro-power, to the final application, i.e., a vehicle driving a certain number of miles. The investigated fuels are hydrogen, methane, methanol, dimethyl ether and Diesel. While their production process is analyzed based on literature, the usage of these fuels is analyzed based on chassis dynanometer measurement data of various EURO-6b passenger vehicles.
Conventional and hybrid power-trains as well as various carbon dioxide sources are investigated in two scenarios. The first reference scenario considers market-ready technology only, while the second future scenario considers technology which is currently being developed in industry and assumed to be market-ready in near future. With the results derived in this study and with consideration of boundary conditions, i.e., availability of infrastructure, storage technology of gaseous fuels, energy density requirements, etc., the most energy efficient of the corresponding suitable synthetic fuels can be chosen.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235248471830266X