Ryder’s natural gas fleet surpasses 20 million miles
Nanodiamond-based thermal fluids outperform others

EIA: 5 states and the Gulf of Mexico produce more than 80% of US crude oil; shales drive the growth

Five states (Texas, North Dakota, California, Alaska, and Oklahoma) and the Gulf of Mexico supplied more than 80%, or 6 million barrels per day, of the crude oil (including lease condensate) produced in the United States in 2013, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Texas alone provided almost 35%, according to preliminary 2013 data released in EIA’s March Petroleum Supply Monthly. The second-largest state producer was North Dakota at 12%, followed by California and Alaska at close to 7% each and Oklahoma at 4%. The federal offshore Gulf of Mexico produced 17%.

Annual US crude production by state or region, 2008-2013. Click to enlarge.

Total US crude oil production grew 15% in 2013 to 7.4 million barrels per day.

Texas and North Dakota led that growth, with their crude oil outputs each increasing 29%, respectively, from 2012. Production gains in both states came largely from shales, especially the Eagle Ford in Texas and the Bakken in North Dakota. In the three years since 2010, North Dakota’s crude oil output has grown 177% and Texas’s output 119%, the fastest in the nation.

Three other states that were among the top 10 US producers in 2013 also experienced production growth rates above 20% during the past three years. Colorado, which overlies part of the Niobrara Shale, had 93% growth in production from 2010 to 2013; Oklahoma, with the Woodford Shale, had 62% growth; and New Mexico, which shares the Permian Basin with Texas, had 51% growth.

Crude oil is produced in 31 states and two offshore federal regions—the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Coast. Of those 33 producing areas, 10 supply more than 90% of US output. While 9 of those top 10 areas were also among the top 10 producers five years ago, their relative contributions have changed.

North Dakota has risen from the seventh largest oil producer to the second. The Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and California, which together in 2008 supplied nearly half of US crude production mainly from conventional oil reservoirs, provided less than one-third of national output in 2013. Output in those areas has declined at the same time that overall national production has expanded.



That's the Good news. The Bad: Oil products are shipped out to other countries because they bring a higher price. We still import oil products and are much dependent on foreign oil. The Hope: We are developing processes to reform natural gas and bio-feedstock into fuels.


We could make the 10% ethanol from corn stalks not corn grain, but that is not being done. If we wait for the private sector to do what is right, we will be waiting forever.


Lad, I'm not looking for an argument, believe me. But the US is less dependent on oil imports than it has been in a long time. Further, if we are importing crude and refining it into oil products to be sold abroad, so what? What is the difference between that and importing any other raw material and adding value through industrial processes to be sold as an export? US refineries as a whole are still the most advanced in the world -- why not sell the products from these "factories" as Boeing sells aircraft built from a variety of imported materials and parts?

SJC: are you saying that we could be producing cellulosic ethanol today? I don't think that's actually the case. (Note: I am NOT supporting grain-based ethanol at all, BTW. I think it's about the dumbest thing we do in our portfolio of energy subsidies. I'm simply questioning the viability of "ethanol from stalks".)


There are several ways to do cellulose ethanol. POET is doing it the fermentation way using corn stalks and cobs. You can gasify the stover and synthesize the fuel to make gasoline, diesel or jet fuel. It has been done in volume, there is just no investment money to do it in a big way.

The comments to this entry are closed.