Consumer Energy Report is now Energy Trends Insider -- Read More »

By Robert Rapier on Jun 20, 2014 with 10 responses

The Top 10 Oil Producers in 2013

This week BP (NYSE: BP) released their Statistical Review of World Energy 2014. I have been diving into the report, and as always will write a series of articles based on the latest results. Today I want to provide an update of the world’s Top 10 oil producers for 2013 based on the BP report.

Top 10 Oil Producers in 2013
Top 10 Oil Producers in 2013. Figures are “million barrels per day.” 

Note that BP’s definition of “oil” includes crude oil, tight oil, oil sands and natural gas liquids (NGLs — the liquid content of natural gas where this is recovered separately). Their definition excludes liquid fuels from other sources such as biomass and derivatives of coal and natural gas (e.g., coal-to-liquids, or CTL).

Many people may not realize that while the US and China are the world’s leading oil consumers, they are also major oil producers. It’s just that both countries consume more than they produce. Thus, among the Top 10, they are the only two countries that are net importers of oil.

One caveat is that while the “Delta” gives an idea of whether a country is a net importer or exporter, it doesn’t include the impact of finished product imports and exports. In 2013 the US exported 3.2 million barrels per day (bpd) of finished products like diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel, and imported 2.1 million bpd of finished products. This 1.1 million bpd net export of finished products partially offsets our crude oil imports. Or, another way to think about it is that if we didn’t import or export finished products, our crude oil imports would have been lower in 2013 as some of those oil imports were used to refine products for export.

(See my related article Where The US Got Its Oil From in 2013).

Link to Original Article: The Top 10 Oil Producers in 2013

You can find Robert Rapier on TwitterLinkedIn, or Facebook.

  1. By Tom G. on June 21, 2014 at 10:49 am

    Very interesting data. If the United States was able to receive ALL of the oil Canada and Mexico produced, it still wouldn’t equal our consumption delta.

    Wasn’t there a time when Mexico produced far more oil?

    [link]      
    • By Robert Rapier on June 21, 2014 at 11:13 am

      Mexico peaked at just under 4 million bpd about 10 years ago.

      [link]      
      • By Tom G. on June 21, 2014 at 11:44 am

        Thank you Robert. If the quantity of oil we get from Iraq decreases, how much of that decrease could be made up by Canadian tar sands oil or is that already factored into the 1.5 mbpd delta.

        I assume [I love that word] you will be doing a follow up discussion regarding the Middle East turmoil.

        [link]      
    • By Jacob David Tannenbaum on July 16, 2014 at 9:39 am

      Don’t forget that all these production values have been artificially boosted by the inclusion of NGLs, which means that you could fit another few countries in there too. There’s no real reason to include NGLs by the way. As the EIA observes with reference to OPEC’s decision not to include them in their reports: “Natural gas liquids (NGLs) are not included in OPEC production allocations and can provide substantial additional volumes to world liquids supply”

      There you have it. The only reason you would include them is to add volumes to the world’s liquids supply. I think only the petroleum industry has decided to go with such a useless metric. If the Californian department of agriculture ever decides to post how they have become a world leader in agricultural liquids, including juice, milk, and fluids from carcass processing, let me know.

      [link]      
  2. By Benjamin Cole on June 22, 2014 at 5:41 am

    People say “Peak Oil” but of this list of top 10 producers, I think all 10 could ramp up production (and will in the USA and Canada) except for political reasons. Iran and Iraq obviously, but also Mexico, Russia and the rest. Maybe not China.

    [link]      
    • By ThomasXxs on June 28, 2014 at 8:41 pm

      This seems to be a very common belief, especially among Republican politicians (as in “Drill Baby Drill” etc). But why exactly do you hold this belief? And what makes you so certain that you know more than those oil industry people who say that good new drilling targets in the continental USA are becoming very scarce.

      Yes, I know about the restricted areas of the Arctic Wilderness Refuge and the US Pacific coast. But all of the estimated oil in these areas could only support current rates of US oil consumption for a few months, or possibly a year or two at the upper estimates.

      And what can you possibly know about the other countries mentioned? Do they also have new deposits that you are certain must contain endless amounts of oil? Don’t you think that someone would already be exploiting all of this easy oil at $100 per barrel?

      [link]      
  3. By Forrest on June 23, 2014 at 9:04 am

    The caveat a big factor in as much so many products derived from crude oil. Barrels a good measure for crude oil liquid measure, but can’t be translated per economic terms or energy terms. Finished consumer products the only measure important. Hopefully, we import more crude oil to process and export higher value products. And to that, dollar cost may be the best measure. Our nation runs on energy, basically to produce a standard of living. We produce needs and wants of consumers per highly efficient open market trading. Are we efficient in energy dollars to power this economy? If comparing ourselves to rich oil sultan economy were doing great. Also, with poor dirt farmers of Africa. We want to power the economy to maximize enjoyment of citizens and do so at the least cost and hopefully that cost will include pollution element cost. We can decide on cost of pollution per real world analysis and factual accounting of improvements. I do think we need to keep R&D efforts energized as well as progress of promising lower cost energy build outs. What we should avoid is management of energy sector by democratic aka popularity control. This is technical difficult to evaluate and understand decision making stuff. Were currently suffering to much per political corrosion and kiss up to government tyrannic influences. “I think wind energy is free and will vote for any politician whom agrees with me”, “coal is dirty”, “oil is to expensive”, “we can easily power our country on wind”, “nuclear is to dangerous”. It’s like running a car company per public committee voting for politicians whom they agree with. “GM should make all micro battery cars”.

    [link]      
  4. By BonzoDog1 on June 23, 2014 at 9:58 am

    I’m suspicious of the Russian Federation’s consumption number, which seems low considering its population and geographical size. Easier to fudge that number?
    As for another comment, no one would be happier that I if all subsidies were removed from the U.S. energy market. At present we subsidize coal within health spending, insurance and agricultural losses, commercial nuclear is nothing less that a socialist experiment that has failed in the marketplace and if the cost of the past three oil wars were added to the pump price we’d be seeing a lot more electric runabouts on the road.

    [link]      
    • By Robert Rapier on June 23, 2014 at 11:10 am

      If you include countries that were formerly part of Russia, which are denoted “Former Soviet Union” — consumption is listed at 4.6 million bpd. Higher, but not immensely higher. But Russia’s per capita oil consumption is listed here at a quarter of US per capita consumption: http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=91000

      [link]      
  5. By Pieter Siegers on July 28, 2014 at 2:53 pm

    Nice figures but what I would like to know is if the oil production of each country is going up or down. Then comparing with a world total production we’d know if we’re going the correct way (for me this means reducing both oil production and consumption).

    [link]      
Register or log in now to save your comments and get priority moderation!