Talk:List of countries by oil production

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess . Energy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Trade Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

As noted below, Texas, Alaska, California and N. Dakota are hardly countries. In addition US Offshore should counted with the US total. I find two very different total US numbers here:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html (US = 9,688,000 barrels/day)

and here

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_a.htm (US = 5,694,000 barrels/day)

The first is probably too high. The second too low (e.g. does not contain natural gas liquids).

Figure 5 here

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/04/09/what-the-new-2011-eia-oil-supply-data-shows/

does seem to show that one goes from a US crude oil production of 6+ mbd to 10+ mbd through the addition of NGPLs, Other Liquids, and Processing Gain.

Page 24 of the primary citation for the US (FN3) actually lists us production in the 8,000,000 barrels/day range. (http://omrpublic.iea.org/omrarchive/12may11sup.pdf). Also the department of energy's total (including all liquids) puts US production in the 10,000,000 barrels/day range (http://www.eia.gov/countries/index.cfm?view=production). I can't figure out where the figure for the US came from, but it is very wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjk81 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not wrong, not in early 2013. It is however outaded. The US now produces 12.1 million blls of oil, not crude oil mind you, but oil. This includes synthetics and converted materials such as liquid gases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.164.254 (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. This Wikipedia article calls itself a "List of countries", so it currently includes the US and UK but not their component entities. See below for a section discussing the sensible Recommendation: Oil Production = Crude Oil including Lease Condensate, using the annual EIA update for all countries. —Patrug (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 12:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. Much of this has been covered by now; see Category:Energy-related lists by country. —Patrug (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article about the list of oil production by countries is a complete sham of facts and makes absolutely no sense. Opec, the Arab League and European Union are not countries. They each are a collection of countries. OPEC includes Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Jordan, etc. and also including Venazula a South American country, definitely not an Arab country. The Arab League also is a collection of Arab countries, but not all Arab countries belong.

Also, Texas, California, North Dakota and others are states of the United States not seperate countries. Please change these things and correct your mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyr55 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. This Wikipedia article calls itself a "List of countries", so it currently includes the US and UK but not their component entities, and excludes separate line-items for Arab League, OPEC, EU, etc. —Patrug (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about conventional crude oil, or do we count tar sands, oil shale, natural gas liquids, biofuels, and other non-conventional sources of oil?

It says 'crude from drilling', but that's not quite precise enough for my liking. Can we be as specific as possible about what we do include, and what's not included?

My reasoning is that non-conventional sources of petroleum energy are compose a growing percentage of total "oil" produced. In Canada, for example, roughly 25% of all 'oil' production is from the tar sands of Alberta, producing so-called syncrude, not conventional crude. Biofuels, too are growing in their production to significant levels. Therefore, it is pertinent to question the type of oil being produced. —fudoreaper (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least on the basis of Factbook data, we are talking about crude oil pumped up plus the volume increase that happens when this is turned into consumable petrochemical products (refinery gains/losses), and the liquids distilled from natural gas condensation/"other liquids". So I would think that definition also covers the unconventional petrochemicals that you describe, but surely it excludes biofuels (which are more often considered agricultural products anyway).

The all-inclusive description poses a problem in itself, since I suppose few readers would be interested in the "technical" definition of petroleum production, and more interested in where the crude oil is actually extracted. The crude oil data is available at the EIA website http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/data.cfm , if anyone wants to give this article an overhaul or write a new one. —Jon Toivo (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is refined oil included? I'm pretty sure Singapore, for example, does not have oil, though they import crude for refining and sell to ships. —Már K — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.37.107.131 (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. See below for a section discussing the sensible Recommendation: Oil Production = Crude Oil including Lease Condensate, using the annual EIA update for all countries. —Patrug (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA source has been updated[1]. The data need to be updated accordingly.Bcs09 (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. See below for a section discussing the sensible Recommendation: Oil Production = Crude Oil including Lease Condensate, using the annual EIA update for all countries. —Patrug (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

someone has some explaining to do or elses provide the other source being used.Grmike (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)grmike[reply]

It is ridiculous that in 2009 India had an equivalent oil production with Iran and China, the fourth and fifth oil production states in the world. .Ligand (talk) 13:55 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Basically this whole list is suspect. If we are just reprinting what the CIA list says, what's the point of this article? If we have just a single source, Wikipedia is not adding any information that could not be found with a single external link. My point is that we should have a reference for each country, so that a discerning reader could verify each data point.

Besides that, the data on India is clearly wrong. ASPO Ireland & BP Statistical Review of World Energy put daily liquids production at roughly 750,000 bbl/day, not 3,720,000 as currently listed. I will correct this now to match the CIA data, which is precise. —fudoreaper (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. See below for a section discussing the sensible Recommendation: Oil Production = Crude Oil including Lease Condensate, using the annual EIA update for all countries. —Patrug (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a list of production by individual country, I suggest removing the European Union numbers and the World numbers. I realize that this list is pretty much copy and paste from CIA factbook and the EU is in the list, but it is not an individual country. The information could be included outside the actual list for comparison purposes. Something like "Worldwide oil production is estimated at..." and "All oil producing countries in the EU produce an estimated total of..." That's just my humble opinion though. --Brendanmccabe (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed numerous of times before. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries/Lists_of_countries. Jørgen88 (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Arab League still there? It isn't a country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.56.158 (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. This Wikipedia article calls itself a "List of countries", so it currently excludes separate line-items for Arab League, OPEC, EU, etc. —Patrug (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reasoning behind leaving China out of the charts in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.215.140 (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. China is currently included, quite high on the list. —Patrug (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please can someone add an 'is opec member' column to that production table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.128.75 (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as the member countries are already listed in the table, the OPEC entry could be safely deleted entirely, and a note made elsewhere to it. Even with an 'is OPEC member' the table lists oil production at over %100 of the worlds oil. Besides, the table itself is a list of COUNTRIES not countries and their affiliations, and as such, OPEC shouldn't even be listed in the first place. MrZoolook (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the individual states of the US are listed too. The table appears to be a list of any arbitrary land area that can be repeated as necessary with or without inclusion in a larger group or split up to smaller groups as required. We have Countries, Groups of countries, Individual areas within a country. I'm almost tempted to put in continental production and a sample of individual cities as well! MrZoolook (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. This Wikipedia article calls itself a "List of countries", so it currently includes the US and UK but not their component entities, and excludes separate line-items for Arab League, OPEC, EU, etc. —Patrug (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas needs to be highlighted on the map, its ranked between 77-78. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.58.249 (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. This Wikipedia article calls itself a "List of countries", so it currently includes the US and UK but not their component entities. —Patrug (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Iran out of order (as of 8/15 4:31PM)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.209.159.19 (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor updated Iran and Iraq production figures, but did not update the ranking. The figures provided do not match the CIA world factbook, it's not clear what th source is. The list ranking should match the production figures, this is an update needed on this article. —fudoreaper (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. See below for a section discussing the sensible Recommendation: Oil Production = Crude Oil including Lease Condensate, using the annual EIA update for all countries. —Patrug (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers given in this are really really off. Regardless of if we are examining raw crude output or all liquids output (the introduction suggests the latter) the entries are all completely wrong. Also, the previous citation given for Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US (http://omrpublic.iea.org/omrarchive/12may11sup.pdf) does not contain the figures given. In fact, none of the citations seem to.

Because I can't figure out where these very wrong numbers come from, I am wondering if this is being trolled or worse still manipulated for some objective?

--Sjk81 (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found the culprit. Someone completely muddled the numbers two weeks ago. I'm undoing back to the most reasonable, if still not accurate, figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjk81 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I followed edits by an IP to here, they added Scotland. It was removed, however I think they have a point, the article is "List of countries by oil production", and states "list of countries by oil production mostly based on CIA World Factbook data", yet this does not list US states independent of the country. So why are various states that dont meet the criteria being listed? Murry1975 (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also it deviates fro the standard used in other articles, such as List of countries by, electric, etc. Murry1975 (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. This Wikipedia article calls itself a "List of countries", so it currently includes the US and UK but not their component entities. —Patrug (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland produces around 90% of the oil production which is attributed to the United Kingdom (90% of the oil attributed to the UK is produced in Scottish adjacent waters which are under the jurisdiction of Scots Law and therefore "Scottish waters"). Every single attempt to include this fact on this article is instantly deleted with weasel comments regarding Scotland not being a sovereign country etc.

However, the list also contains: 21 States of the United States of America (Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Louisiana, Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Montana, Mississippi, Illinois, Michigan, Arkansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, Kentucky, Florida, Indiana, West Virginia, South Dakota); 1 territory of the United States of America (Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) and 1 constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Aruba). So 23 other non sovereign states are included on this list due to the oil produced within their territory, but Scotland is not. What is the motivation and justification for this inconsistency? What is it about Scotland that means that country is subject to inconsistent treatment in regards to this article? If the precise figures on the amount of oil produced in Scotland are added to the article then will Scotland be able to remain on the list and no longer be arbitrarily deleted from it for baseless reasons? Either Scotland and all the 23 other countries and territories mentioned above are not allowed to feature on this list, or Scotland features on the list until all the 23 others are removed. I would say either of those two options are fair. Anything else is unfair, inconsistent, hypocritical and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.48.95 (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I see your argument, I'm not sure whether we should change this. The UK is an unusual case because the constituent countries are not exactly states in their own right. Following the 1707 union English and Scots law have always had variations, even before the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. The Scots Parliament has lawmaking powers, but is not fully autonomous in the same way that Florida or California are in the US. I think if Scotland were to secede from the UK then there would be a clearer argument for this.

talk) 19:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I disagree, I think we should change this to reflect the reality, Paul. I don't know why you are bringing political and constitutional arguments into an article over resources and the territory in which they are produced? Why do that? That isn't encyclopedic, factual or neutral. The UK is made up of constituent countries rather than just constituent states. Both Scotland and England were once independent countries, instead of having been colonies or autonomous states. I think it is a bit weak to claim that the UK is a special case and therefore Scotland shouldn't be mentioned. The uniqueness of the set-up in the UK and the fact that Scotland was once an independent country does, to my mind, make it even more appropriate that Scotland be included on the list alongside those states mentioned. Aruba is mentioned above also. That is a constituent country of a country (just like Scotland), but was never an independent country (unlike Scotland). There is an independence movement in Aruba (just as there is in Scotland) and an autonomous legislature that was set up within the last 30 years (just as there is in Scotland). So Scotland matches or "exceeds" the same criteria as Aruba and those states, but for some reason is not included on the list. Why? For all of the reasons mentioned in these three posts (including your own), it think it would indeed be hypocritical for Scotland to be excluded from this list, yet have Aruba or those states included. Couldn't you reach a compromise perhaps whereby Scotland is listed in brackets next to "United Kingdom"? That way Scotland would be included on the list and your political points would also be recognized.

Well now, isn't it interesting that the two people who want this change happen to have an ongoing interest in Scottish affairs? Let's have some wider input please.

talk) 11:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

With that last comment I think you just really gave yourself away Paul and the reasons why you are being so biased, hypocritical and political on this matter. Your comment also sounds rather discriminatory. Isn't it interesting that the only person who doesn't seem to want this change happens to have an ongoing interest in British affairs/UK politics? What political axe do you have to grind here? How can I complain to Wikipedia about your actions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.66.211 (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having an interest in politics doesn't make me biased. What I'm saying is that we need the thoughts of a few others, preferably some located outside Scotland to maintain a balance, otherwise it could start to appear like a campaign by pro-Independence Scots. The simple fact is that the UK government is responsible for overseeing oil production, not the government of Scotland. It may be that Texas, Aruba, etc, do have some authority over oil production in their respective countries, which is why they're included, but this would need more investigation.

talk) 19:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Up until recently, OPEC (a conglomorate of several otherwise unconnected countries) was also included in the list. It seems a fair proportion of this list is driven by political motivations in some way. As I said last December, we still have the individual US states, not even countries in their own right, listed individually (albeit without a numerical rank), while ignoring individual countries of the UK, which however you spin it are countries in their own right. There's even some greasing of the figures being done with the %age of oil production on a state by state basis it seems. If you exclude the individual states, the worlds oil production is %99.93 of the worlds total output. With them, it jumps up a whole %4+ to %104.08 of the worlds total output... a physical impossibility in itself. Additionally, the states listed account for far less then the total production of the US. So some other more productive states are being excluded, or the ones listed are not being credited with what they ACTUALLY produce. MrZoolook (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don't even live in Scotland, Paul. Secondly, Why do you keep talking about politics in relation to this article and this dispute? And why are you now bringing the issue of Scottish independence into the discussion? This article is about where oil is produced, not politics. Reading between the lines and from your not so subtle stance, I think your attitude on this matter seems to be driven by political motivation. How can I complain about this to Wikipedia and ask for a neutral editor to deal with this dispute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.182.187 (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion has been about seeking a wider opinion, but if you chose to see my comments as engaging in political bias then there's nothing I can do about that. FWIW I agree with MrZoolook that all states/territories/countries/dominions within countries should be removed from this list, or these arguments could be made about dozens of entries. Incidentally, my assumption you were from Scotland was based on your adding the address of a senior Scottish politician to her article, which suggested a good knowledge of the area. Your two other edits that day were also on Scotland-related topics. I apologise if I am wrong. If you're a regular editor you might want to consider

talk) 19:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

My twopence worth is above. Murry1975 (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. This Wikipedia article calls itself a "List of countries", so it currently includes the US and UK but not their component entities, and excludes separate line-items for Arab League, OPEC, EU, etc. —Patrug (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be wrong for me. --Ruwolf (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:80.111.235.193 noted the same [2]: "Noted that "Share of World" column does not match Production. Something is wrong. Bad math here someplace."

The answer: It isn't computed, just typed in. It was maybe accurate at one point in history of the article, but as newer figures rolled in, nobody bothered to update the share. Even if it were updated, it would be a math of apples and oranges: dividing e.g. a 2013 production with 2011 World total. We should either

1. get rid of the column altogether
2. find a newest source and scale all percents according to that (which will again be subject of the
   data rot
   in the upcoming time)
3. find a way to calculate the shares automatically, and put a large disclaimer to note the apples and oranges problem (i.e. that the shares are only rough indications).

No such user (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Belated thanks. Percentage shares are currently excluded from the table. —Patrug (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to handle the numbers as strings. 217.42.56.54 (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I... er, sorted that out. Just wondering if there is a way to keep the WORLD stat on the top, or at least have it not in the middle of the table when sorted alphabetically by country. MrZoolook (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using a hidden sort key, at least WORLD doesn't get mixed into the list of countries when sorting them alphabetically. I'd still rather it was at the top no matter what though. MrZoolook (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. "WORLD" is currently excluded from the table. —Patrug (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/15/us-oil-pira-idUSL1N0I51IX20131015 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-15/u-s-becomes-world-s-top-oil-producer-in-2013-pira-says.html http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/The-US-Passes-Saudi-Arabia-to-become-the-Worlds-Largest-Oil-Producer.html http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s-becomes-worlds-largest-oil-producer-passing-russia-and-saudi-arabia/

The chart labeled "Chart of oil producing nations by order of net exports, as of 2006 (Norway values are wrong, click to enlarge)" is so out-of-date that its inclusion can only be warranted if other historical charts are included. Let's bring things up-to-date.Kdammers (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that your citations include biofuels. I don't believe that biofuels are usually included in oil production statistics. I agree about a chart of 2006 data being outdated. Regards. Plazak (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AT http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s-becomes-worlds-largest-oil-producer-passing-russia-and-saudi-arabia/, the chart shows the U.S. number one for petroleum, as well as over-all. Kdammers (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, your cited source refers to the PIRA press release, which includes biofuels. Instead, let's go to an authoritative source: The US Energy Information Administration website, in their table on international petroleum production, if you look at production of "crude oil and lease condensate" for the latest month, October 2013, you will see that the US produced 7.75 million BOPD, Russia produced 10.05 BOPD, and the Saudis produced 9.84 BOPD. US production has been rising rapidly, and so if we go to another US EIA table on monthly US crude oil production, we see that in the latest month reported (December 2013), US production has increased to 7.86 million BOPD, gaining, but still far behind Russia and Saudi. This is why we should be wary of using press reports, which are sometimes sensationalized and misleading. Regards. Plazak (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Plazak. The chart I cited includes petroleum as a separate section. Your source, as far as I can see, though official, only refers to PRODUCTION, not to EXPORTS, which is the subject of the graphic I referred to. Of course we should use official over media sources. By the way, this http://www.eia.gov/countries/ U.S. government source for 2012 puts the U.S. a close second to Saudi Arabia and ahead of Russia in "oil production", but has SA and Russia one-two in NET EXPORTS of "oil," with the U.S. no-where in the top ten, though, as You note, the production by the U.S. has risen dramatically, leading to a rise in exports, so that, if I am not comparing apples and fruit, the U.S.'s exports in December 2013 were at a level that would have been third in the world if the other countries' rates were the same as they were for 2012 (http://www.eia.gov/countries/). On the other hand, the chart I cited above seems to have been lifted from this http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=13251 government site, which shows the U.S. expected to have been the number one petroleum producer. I don't know if "oil" normally includes biofuels, but if "petroleum" does, it seems possible. Do You have an authority that clarfies this? Kdammers (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, this Wiki article links "oil" to the article "petroleum," which contextually excludes biofuels (contrary to the govt. chart I referred to above).Kdammers (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. See below for a section discussing the sensible Recommendation: Oil Production = Crude Oil including Lease Condensate, using the annual EIA update for all countries. —Patrug (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. apparently #1 in crude oil production, exclusive of biofuels: https://www.spe.org/en/jpt/jpt-article-detail/?art=4621 & https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/12/investing/us-oil-production-russia-saudi-arabia/index.htmlKdammers (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russia: 10,550,000 barrels / day.
Saudi Arabia: 9,850,000 b/pd. Source: 1 Axxn (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. See below for a section discussing the sensible Recommendation: Oil Production = Crude Oil including Lease Condensate, using the annual EIA update for all countries. —Patrug (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To stop the edit wars over the production rates and rankings, we need to have a consensus on just what we are measuring here. Different sources are reporting different classes of liquid fuels.

Biofuels - the USEIA web page on International Energy Statistics, under "Total Oil Supply", includes "other liquids", which, according to the Notes section, includes ethanol, biodiesel, and liquid fuels manufactured from coal and oil shale. The CIA World Factbook appears to be taken from this US EIA table. By including biofuels, the US is put in the #1 position. If we deduct the 1.2 million barrels/day of biofuels (listed by the USEIA in another table), the US falls to second place behind Saudi Arabia, but ahead of Russia. I myself believe that most people reading this article assume that "oil" here means fossil-fuel oil, and not biofuels, and the inclusion of biofuels causes only confusion. For that reason, I believe that we should not be using either the CIA World Factbook or the USEIA table of "Total Oil Production."

Refinery processing gain - This is the increase in volume during refining. It is included in the USEIA web page on International Energy Statistics, under "Total Oil Supply", as well as in the CIA World Factbook apparently based on the USEIA "Total Oil Supply" table. If the US imports crude oil for refining, the refinery processing gain presumably is credited to the US rather than the country which produced the petroleum. This is why Singapore, which has no oil or gas wells, but does have refineries, is credited with production on the CIA Factbook and EIA "Total Oil Supply" tables. This is not what people commonly think of as "oil production", and so I believe that it does not belong in this article.

Natural Gas Plant Liquids - These are light liquid hydrocarbons that are extracted from natural gas at gas processing plants prior to delivering the gas to consumers. Most sources do not report these data. The USEIA table "Total Oil Production" includes them, as does the CIA World Factbook taken from the USEIA "Total Oil Supply" data. If we include NGLs, the top three producers in order are: Saudi Arabia, United States, and Russia. If we leave out NGLs, the ranking is: Russia, Saudi Arabia, United States. My own opinion is that because NGLs are not usually reported, we should leave them out.

Crude Oil and Condensate - These are the hydrocarbons that separate out as liquids at the wellhead. Because these are the most easily measurable and most commonly reported, I believe that this is the best measure to include in this article. Sources can be either the OPEC statistical bulletin, or the USEIA website under "Crude oil and lease condensate"; the two sources differ only slightly in their numbers (with one exception, see below), and either source would be good. The top three producers(in order) for this category are: Russia, Saudi Arabia, United States.

Canadian Oil Sands - The OPEC statistics exclude petroleum from Canadian oil sands, presumably because the oil is mined rather than produced from a well. The US EIA statistics include Canadian oil sands. If we include mined oil sands, Canada is the #5 crude oil producer in the world; if not, Canada drops to #15.

If we can have a consensus on which categories to include, we can stop the quibbling and give readers a clear article with consistent numbers. What does everyone think? Plazak (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the edit war, all I was doing was updating the Crude Oil Production data from the CIA World Factbook as it was already the cited source in the first line of the article. Seoul1978 saw it more preferable instead to revert back to the old data (that which is no longer showing on World Factbook...), citing as his support a talk page discussion which I do not see a consensus on and the EIA site which is not a primary source for this page. Farolif (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My intent was not to point fingers. I just wanted some comments, hopefully leading to a consensus, as to which of the above classes of liquid HCs should be included in this article. My concern is that most readers will assume, as I had, that "oil" in this article refers only to petroleum produced from the ground. When I took a close look at the CIA World Factbook list, I realized that it mirrored the US EIA table that includes significant volumes of biofuels and refinery gain (the EIA table is actually more up to date). My own opinion is that it would be better to choose a source that reflects only petroleum. If the article is to keep the CIA Factbook as its primary source, then the text should at least explain that the numbers include, and the ranking is seriously affected by, these manufactured liquid fuels. Perhaps the solution will be to start another article: "List of countries by petroleum production". Regards. Plazak (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although the CIA table is labelled "Crude oil production", the numbers in it appear to be taken from the US EIA table "Total Oil Supply", which includes much more than just crude oil. Some comparisons from various sources, all of United States production in 2012:

US EIA "Total Oil Supply": 11,107,300 Bbl/Day (includes biofuels, NGLs, and refinery gain}

CIA "Crude oil production": 11,110,000 Bbl/Day (appears to be rounded off from the US EIA number)

US EIA "Crude Oil and Lease Condensate": 6,485,300 Bbl/Day

OPEC "Crude Oil Production": 6,484,600 Bbl/Day (closely agrees with US EIA number)

BP Annual Statistical Summary: 8,892,000 Bbl/Day (Crude oil, condensate, and NGLs)

US EIA addition of tables "Crude Oil and Condensate" and "Natural Gas Plant Liquids": 8,893,300 Bbl/Day (close to BP figure).

Normally I would certainly take the CIA World Factbook at face value that it lists "Crude oil production", but other reliable sources (US EIA, OPEC, and BP), all three consistent with one another, all agree that US crude oil production in 2012 was significantly lower than the figure in the CIA World Factbook. Plazak (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another clue: An old version of this page included a 'methodology' section which specified "oil production" as including all the pieces which EIA counts towards "Total oil supply" and parallels CIA's "Crude Oil Production". (Last version of the page before 'methodology' was removed) Farolif (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever we show, we should clearly and explicitly state that definition at the outset of the article and as a subtitle on the rankings. I think a broad definition of oil is most meaningful. IMO, if you can run it through some refinery somewhere and get gasoline, diesel, etc., out of it, then it is oil, whether it came from oilsands, shale, or a conventional oil well. Ethanol from corn and diesel from soybeans are more complicated. Perhaps two different charts should be provided, with one focused more on downstream products. This may become more complicated in five or ten years if vast quantities of diesel-equivalent fuels are produced synthetically from cellulose using microbes, or from coal or natural gas.Tetsuo (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the edit wars are still going on, as each editor substitutes his own preferred source, incompatible with the preferred source of other editors. This will not stop until we come to some consensus of what we are measuring as "oil production" (see discussion above). Plazak (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tetsuo and Plazak are both right. As the former writes, "Whatever we show, we should clearly and explicitly state that definition at the outset of the article and as a subtitle on the rankings." While I agree with Tetsu that " a broad definition of oil is most meaningful," the most important thing is to give a definition/explanation of what we are talking about -- as long as it is at least one of the sensible options. Kdammers (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. See below for a section discussing the sensible Recommendation: Oil Production = Crude Oil including Lease Condensate, using the annual EIA update for all countries. —Patrug (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note the discussion above and the concerns about the sources of the information indicating that the US was the top producer in the first quarter of 2014. However, it is a serious act of omission to display information that is in all probability no longer accurate without at least a caveat before the chart noting that 2014 figures, when available, will likely show a different ranking. Tetsuo (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it depends on if you include such things as biofuels. No doubt there will be differences when 2014 data is available, but the top 3 ranking for Crude Oil and Lease Condensate will probably not change (See this link to US EIA website). The latest available monthly EIA data for crude oil and lease condensate are: Russia 10,095 MMBOPD (June 2014), Saudi Arabia 9,690 MMBOPD (June 2014), and United States 8,531 MMBOPD (September 2014), gaining, but still firmly in third place. Which specific rankings are you referring to? Regards. Plazak (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The original article seems to rely on CIA data as primary source, but CIA are not providing updated data. The EIA data is actually being updated regularly (updated monthly I believe) and has since become more relevant than the CIA data. I would propose revising the tables and charts to source the EIA data a primary, and to source CIA data as secondary. mjl2319 (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. See below for a section discussing the sensible Recommendation: Oil Production = Crude Oil including Lease Condensate, using the annual EIA update for all countries. —Patrug (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the first two show 2006 data. Another shows 2009. Various paragraphs refer to 2009 and 2012. Tetsuo (talk) 05:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the graphs are outdated, and should likely be updated with data from IEA source mjl2319 (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone has redone the list to reflect the US EIA's list for "Petroleum and other Liquids". Unfortunately, the casual reader may take the title ("oil production") at face value, and not realize that this EIA list also includes biofuels and refinery gain. Most people would not consider biofuels such as ethanol to be "oil". Also, most would not count refinery gain (the increase in volume in converting crude oil to refined products) to count as "oil production". Because this ranking includes refinery gain, we find here such non-petroleum producing nations as South Korea (#53), Singapore (#78), U.S. Virgin Islands (#82), Switzerland (#99), and Hong Kong (#118).

My own opinion is that this article should either use the EIA list: Crude oil and lease condensate, or rename this article "Oil and other liquid fuels production" in the interest of accuracy. In the meantime, perhaps we should start another article: "List of countries by crude oil production", to accurately list countries without the misleading additions of biofuels and refinery gain. Thoughts? Plazak (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the article misinforms readers. If the target is to list the countries by oil production only crude oil and condensates (i.e. liquids from natural gas processing) should be included. Using this definition productions are much smaller with Russia being currently the first producer at 10.8 mbbls/day (December 2015). Also note many graphs are outdated. Indeed, the article should be written again from scrap.Silvio1973 (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right now we have an internal conflict in the article. The lead sentence refers to the CIA's list of countries by crude oil, which has been corrected to count crude oil and lease condensate only. By the CIA list, the top three (in decreasing order) are 1-Russia, 2-Saudi, and 3-US. However, the list itself is sourced by the US EIA list for "Total Oil," which, as discussed above, includes biofuels, etc. The "Total Oil" list has the top three as 1-US, 2-Saudi, and 3-Russia. I propose to resolve this conflict by using the USEIA list for crude oil and lease condensate, from which the CIA list for crude oil is taken. Any objections? Plazak (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it – and if you wait a couple more weeks, I think the 2015 figures will be available. —Patrug (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Unless I hear any objections by the time USEIA 2015 figures out, I will use them - or anyone else is also welcome to do so. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Plazak: After a database transition at EIA, the annual numbers for 2015 are finally available at http://www.eia.gov/beta/international/ (Select Data; Petroleum (annual); Production; Crude Oil including Lease Condensate; View Data; All Countries; Download Table). This is indeed the most common definition of Oil Production, with Biofuels and Refinery Gain sensibly excluded. I updated the numbers for the OPEC article (including newly returned member Gabon), but I don't have an efficient way to update all the numbers for this List article or the similar ones in Category:Energy-related lists by country. Do you want to try? —Patrug (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Plazak: This is finally updated here, with 2016 numbers and careful explanatory text. I hope it helps stabilize the endless stream of chaotic edits. I'll try to check the page more frequently. —Patrug (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from User Talk page)

Thanks very much for going in and fixing the list, and clarifying what it includes. But I note that NGLs are not mentioned in the 1st paragraph. Please consider the modification below, which mentions NGLs, and includes some rationale for why crude and condensate are different from the others. Regards. Plazak (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of countries by oil production, as compiled from the

natural gas liquids

).[1] Compared with shorter-term data, the full-year figures are less prone to distortion from periodic maintenance shutdowns and other seasonal cycles.

@Plazak: Excellent, thanks. On a related issue, do you have any recommendation about the inconsistencies between "Oil by country" and the individual List pages for the component columns? Would it make sense to merge & re-direct these Lists into "Oil by country" and focus our limited maintenance efforts in one place? Or maintain just the individual Lists and convert the rarely-visited "Oil by country" into a data-free disambiguation page linking to them? Or continue muddling through with different versions on different pages? —Patrug (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was not even aware of Oil by country until you pointed it out. Thank you. It would be nice to avoid conflicting Wiki articles by putting all the lists into one, but in the case of proven reserves, there are conflicting estimates between different expert sources, and that merits more than one column. I would keep the proven reserve list separate, at any rate. Regards. Plazak (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Plazak:I'm confused by the data posted as according the EIA for production of "Crude Oil including Lease Condensate" Saudi Arabia has been producing more than the US for the past three years at least, yet US is at the top. Is there something I'm missing? Same with Russia, the EIA lists them as producing more than the US as well. From the EIA list it shows the US somewhere around 3rd place in terms of "Crude Oil including Lease Condensate" production.

The number on the table for the US is completely bogus. Unfortunately, the cited EIA source gives only the production as of 2016, while the numbers on the table are apparently from 2017. According to other parts of the EIA website, US crude + condensate was 9,355,000 barrels per day in 2017. Unfortunately, the EIA website is so poorly designed that I cannot find 2017 production for other countries. The difficulty of finding things on the EIA website is a long-running problem. And unfortunately, ignorant or malicious editors go in corrupt the table with bogus numbers, such as the phony US production you pointed out. Plazak (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the table entries are highlighted in green but it doesn't say why anywhere, anyone know? 184.161.106.203 (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• OPEC countries Paul  Bradbury 20:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. Now this is explained in the text and noted directly in the table. —Patrug (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, Ecuador is missing from the list! That must be a mistake (or a troll). Ecuador is an OPEC member and just cannot be absent, regardless of how much it produces. And as shown in List_of_countries_by_oil_production, it should figure somewhere in place 37-38, between Gabon and Peru. Can somebody fix that?! Thanks! Ilyacadiz (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be at 28, which in fact is missing! Kdammers (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. It looks like Ecuador disappeared with this careless edit by an unregistered user. Now it's all cleaned up. —Patrug (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps almost as strange, Oman is missing from the list. Though Oman is not an OPEC member, according to the Wikipedia article Economy of Oman, it still produces oil. Here's a quote from the article: "By mid-2000, production had climbed to more than 900,000 b/d where they remain." If true, this would place it right above Azerbaijan, ranking it at #20. Emerald Evergreen 20:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa Beck (talk • contribs)

Still missing and other problems with the long list: Today Oman is still missing. The chart's lede / title gives a footnote to a source, but that source only lists the top ten countries. What are the sources for the other countries? Also, some of the countries have a blue background, and there is no readily visible explanation (they are not all the OPEC countries, and I don't know what other thing they have in common).Kdammers (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. It looks like Oman disappeared with this careless edit by an unregistered user. Now it's all cleaned up. —Patrug (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Indonesia have a unique color on one of its bars in the graph? I guess this is a coding error, but maybe not?Kdammers (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By clicking on the graph and then its source link, I see that it came from an article analyzing Indonesia's short-lived 2015 decision to rejoin OPEC. I expanded the caption accordingly. Since Indonesia's OPEC membership is obsolete, and since exports are off-topic for this page, feel free to remove the graph if you think it's unhelpful. —Patrug (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to EIA frequently asked questions, "What countries are the top producers and consumers of oil," the #1 is United States for 2016.

See: ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barntowood (talk • contribs) 21:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take a close look at the EIA article, and read the footnotes. The figures include biofuels and petroleum processing volume gain, neither of which are usually included in crude oil production. The EIA is misleading the casual reader. Plazak (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, title says it all. Alot has changed since the graph which is from back in 2016. So... someone should probably update the list of countries by petroleum production. >_> 191.89.109.121 (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natural gas must be diferentiated from the oil production, or the graphic must be renamed as fossil fuels,... --46.128.247.109 (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no number 30 on the list.--Bornsommer (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the USA output of 12m barrels per day come from? Neither of the sources say this. EIA say 10.962m while Expressnews say 11.3m. Are we rounding? If so, rounding up to the nearest million, or just adding an extra million on for some reason before rounding up? Why not just round to the closest million as it's more accurate? Is this table ever going to be devoid of manipulation? 88.104.81.236 (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is over 1mbpd of crude production — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.207.203.2 (talk) 09:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil oil production now beat records every day and surpassed even Opec countries ! you guys must search more about brazilian oil production

Now the list is completely different from the sources. Even using different sources. I will try to fix soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandresk (talk • contribs) 02:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

This article is in bad shape. The data is simply different from the data that you can get on reference 1, either from the html or if you download the csv. The numbers are completely different, the year doesn't really matter. Some revisions, like the 02:39, 25 June 2019 one seem to be pure vandalism. I propose either someone fix the page and then it be frozen or that the article be simply deleted. I like the second option better. Can some admin do it? --Frohfroh (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't specifically require an administrator; if you believe this article should be deleted and can make a case to do so, you are free to start an

Articles for Deletion discussion; click that link for instructions, please read the information on that page carefully before starting a formal discussion. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I will try to fix this article soon, later someone should lock it, It is important and should not be cancelled. - User Alexandresk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandresk (talk • contribs) 02:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

someone keeps vandalizing the table, had to fix the order. 2600:1702:9F0:D140:A075:E90C:EB28:60D1 (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The intro paragraph says condensates are counted, but the IEA data for OPEC+ countries in September 2023 says it is not counting condensates, only crude oil. I have no idea if the September 2023 data for USA, Canada, Brazil and China includes condensates in it. If they do, the September 2023 table is misinformation and completely useless. Northside95 (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]