EIA Expanded Geographic Coverage of Oil and Natural Gas Production: EIA-914 Survey Expansion
and its Implications on EIA Reporting and Forecasting*
Gary Long1, Jeffrey Little1, Barbara Mariner-Volpe1, Neal Davis1, Elizabeth Panarelli1, Emily Geary1, and Olga Popova1
Search and Discovery Article #70237 (2017)**
Posted February 27, 2017
*Adapted from oral presentation given at AAPG Eastern Section Meeting, Lexington, Kentucky, September 25-27, 2016
**Datapages © 2017 Serial rights given by author. For all other rights contact author directly.
1
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 1000 Independence Ave SW, Washington, DC ([email protected])
Abstract
In 2015 EIA has expanded its reporting of monthly oil (including lease condensate) and natural gas production by 10 additional
states. The addition of these states – Arkansas, California, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah,
and West Virginia – significantly enhances EIA's monthly coverage, which was previously limited to Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas, Wyoming, and the Federal Gulf of Mexico.
Accompanying EIA's expanded coverage has been a new webpage, Monthly Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, which
replaces the Monthly Natural Gas Gross Production Report. EIA will use it to report survey-based estimates for monthly crude
oil and natural gas production from the states covered by the new EIA-914 survey, including production data categorized by API
gravity, an important measure of crude oil quality.
Monthly oil and natural gas production estimates for 15 states, the Federal Gulf of Mexico, and the rest of the country
(aggregated and reported as “Other States”) are provided through February 2016. These estimates are based on data collected
from a sample of U.S. operators on the expanded Form EIA-914 survey, with the exception of Alaska, which directly reports its
volumes. Monthly production estimates for the expansion states, as with the original individually surveyed states and areas, are
available with only a two-month lag for example, the May release includes production estimates for February 2016. Previously,
estimates for these 10 states were delayed by as much as two years.
The expanded geographic scope of the EIA-914 survey is in response to significant increases in U.S. oil and natural gas
production over the past several years, as well as important changes in production sources over this period. For example, the
original EIA-914 survey, which was initiated in 2005, did not offer individual coverage for states such as Pennsylvania that have
undergone transformative natural gas production growth, or for other states.
Oil and natural gas production data collected on the EIA-914 survey are used as inputs to several EIA products, including the
Natural Gas Monthly and EIA forecasts such as the Short-Term Energy Outlook and the Annual Energy Outlook.
EIA expanded geographic coverage of oil and natural
gas production: EIA-914 survey expansion and its
implications on EIA reporting and forecasting
Gary Long, Jeffrey Little, Barbara Mariner-Volpe, Neal Davis, Elizabeth
Panarelli, Emily Geary, Olga Popova*
Department of Energy
Energy Information Administration
Eastern Section AAPG Annual Meeting, September 24-28 2016, Lexington, KY
* Presenting author
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
Overview
• The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
currently collects survey data directly from crude oil
and natural gas operators in 15 states, the federal
Gulf of Mexico (GOM), and other states
• uses the survey data to estimate total monthly
production for United States
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
Introduction
• EIA replaced its historical approach to modeling monthly
oil production and expanded coverage for natural gas
production
• After detailed review, EIA staff determined that estimates
based on its expanded EIA-914 survey provide a better
reflection of monthly state production than the previous
Average Lag Ratio approach (ALR)
• This updated methodology applies to estimates for oil and
natural gas production beginning with January 2015
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
Historically, EIA used the Average Lag Ratio Method (ALR)
to estimate state-level monthly oil production volumes
• ALR estimates are based mainly on data published by the state
– Historically, state data is incomplete when first published due to processing times,
and becomes more complete over time
– ALR predicts what the eventual state total will be, after a lag period. The ALR
method is a three-step process:
o Step 1. The lag time, measured in months, is determined for each state. This
is the number of months that it usually takes for data to be within 0.5% of the
final value.
o Step 2. An average-lagged ratio (ALR) for each state is calculated where the
ratio is the state reported data divided by the EIA-182 first purchase data.
o Step 3. State-level production is estimated. The state-level production
estimate is calculated by multiplying the ALR by the EIA-182 first purchase
production data.
• Some states took several months to as much as two years to
report complete (final) data
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
Data side
• Daily U.S. oil production grew by more than 70% between
January 2011 and January 2015 (from 5.4 MMbbl/day to
about 9.4 MMbbl/day)
• Daily U.S. natural gas production (gross withdrawals) grew
by more than 20% between January 2011 and January 2015
(from 74 Bcf/day to 89 Bcf/day)
• This rapid growth increased public interest in hydrocarbon
production and led EIA to expand geographical coverage and
begin collecting monthly crude oil production data
• This information improves EIA reporting and forecasting, and
it informs policy makers and general public on topics such as
refining capacity, crude oil exports, and legislative initiatives
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
Rationale outlook
• Why did EIA expand the form?
-- Available production data are not current, state reporting delays for natural
gas and oil production are lengthy
-- Shale plays have increased the importance of U.S. oil production
-- “How much light/heavy oil is produced in the U.S.?” has become an
important question
-- The growing importance of many states included in the previous “Other
States”
• What has been added to the previous survey ?
-- More individual states
-- Oil and lease condensate production
-- Oil and lease condensate volumes by API gravity categories
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
Geographical coverage
• The EIA-914 began collecting natural gas production data in 2005 from
5 states (Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming ),
federal GOM, and other states (as a group). Oil production was not
included (5+GOM)
• In 2015, EIA improved the EIA- 914 form to add more states: additional
individual states are Arkansas, California, Colorado, Kansas,
Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, and West
Virginia (10)
• “Other States” is much smaller now, reduced from 28 to 17, and only
includes Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Oregon,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia (17) and federal Pacific Offshore
• EIA does not collect any data for Alaska on this survey
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
Geographical coverage
•
WA
OR
j
;'
ME
VT
MN
"
NH
SO
NE
IA
IL
IN
MO
,-'
SC
AL
."
NC
TN
GA
/
EIA-914 Survey
Pre·2015 ,tates{areas surveyed
fOf natural gas production (6)
Expansion 6tates (10)
Prod1Jcing slates/areas not directly surveyed ( 18)
Nonproducing . tat... (16)
SOurce. U S. Energy InfOf'mabOn Admlnstratlon.
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
Current EIA-914
• 15 states + GOM +Other States, about 400 operators
Information collected by this Survey:
•
Natural gas information (accounts for 92% of total U.S. production)
•
Crude oil and lease condensate information (accounts for 92% of total
U.S. production)
•
Oil volumes by API gravity category
•
Acquisitions, divestitures, and subsidiaries
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
Protection of Confidentiality and Deadlines
• Names of companies are confidential and cannot be disclosed by any EIA
employee or any of its contracted employees
• Information submitted by companies is confidential and cannot be disclosed
by any EIA employee or any of its contracted employees
• Protection is perpetual and company data will not be shared with state or
federal regulatory agencies
• Data can be shared for statistical analysis only, so long as company-level
data are protected
Deadlines
• Companies are to report their 914 data for the “reporting month” 40 days after
the end of the “reporting month”
• For example, September 2016 data are due 40 days after the end of
September , which is typically November 9
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
Sampling perspectives
• Collect data from only a subset of all oil and gas production
companies
• EIA-914 is designed to provide 85 percent coverage for both oil
and gas production for the lower 48 states and GOM
– EIA collects data from a sample of less than 400 out of 13,000 currently active
operators of oil and natural gas wells
• In fact, EIA-914 covers more than 92 percent of both oil and gas
production for lower 48 states and GOM
• Data from this relatively small number of operators make it
possible to generate statistically representative estimates of
production within two months of the production month
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
How does EIA estimate monthly production for all
individually sampled states?
• EIA estimates monthly production for all individually sampled
states by modeling the relationship between data from states and
data from other federal agencies assembled by DrillingInfo, Inc.
(DI) and data reported on Form EIA-914. The relationship between
DI data and Form EIA-914 data is modeled using a Weighted
Least Squares (WLS) linear regression.
Summarizing the estimation process in terms of approximate
percent of U.S. oil production:
– 92% of U.S. production is estimated with WLS using Form EIA-914
data
– 5% is state-reported data from Alaska
– 3% is estimated using the previous method because these states are
not individually sampled on Form EIA-914
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
Publications: 914 report: https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/production/#ng-tab
CRUDE OIL (thousand barrels per day)
Monthly Crude
Release date: August 31 , 2016
~~ext
Statelarea
U.S.
.-el
Jun-16
May-16
Percent
change
8,701
8,894
-2 .2 +
9,320
-6.6 +
22
22
-1.9 +
27
-19.0 +
470
505
-6.9 +
447
5.3 +
0
0
0.0
0
-94.2 +
Alaba ma
Alaska
Arizona
Crude oil
Natural gas
Jun-15
Percent
change
a
Arkansas
14
14
OA +
17
-15.8 +
a
California
492
510
-3 .6 +
549
-10 .5 +
Colorado
309
311
-0 .9 +
348
-11A +
Federal Offshore
Gulf of Mexico
1,542
1,614
4 .5 +
1,413
9.1+
Federal Offshore
Pacific
20
23
-15 .5 +
24
-18 .6 +
Florida
5
5
0. 1+
7
-19.2 +
Illinois
25
23
6.0 +
26
-5A +
Indiana
5
5
8.5 +
6
-12.8 +
Kansas
101
101
-OA t
136
-25.9 +
Kentucky
11
3
227.5 +
6
72.0 +
Louisian a
157
161
-2.8 +
171
-8 .5 +
Michigan
16
16
2.3+
18
-7.8 +
61
59
3.2 +
70
-11 .8 +
U.S. crude oil production
thousand barrels per day
10,000
8 ,000
6 ,000
4,000
2 ,000
2008
-
u.
Mississippi
ru e
I
ousan
arre s per
U.S. Energy Information Administration
ay
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
Publications: 914 report: https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/production/#ng-tab
Additional data and
methodology
NATURAL GAS (million cubic feet per day)
p
Monthly Crude Oil
Release dat e: August 31 , 2016
Crude oil
m
m
Next .-elease
m
m
I Natural gas I
Statelarea
Jun-16
May-16
u.s.
87,799
89,292
Alaska
7,793
8,684
Arkansas
2,243
2,315
Californ ia
575
584
Colorado
4,551
4,665
685
698
5,042
5,068
143
144
Ka nsas
Louisiana
Montana
U ,S. nat ur a l gas production (gr
New Mexico
3,548
3,508
m illion cu bi c feet per day
North Dakota
1,618
1,612
Ohio
3,840
3,922
Oklahoma
6,722
6 ,813
Pennsylvan ia
14,478
14,242
Texas
22,399
22,460
998
1,026
West Virg inia
3,439
3,691
Wyom ing
4,844
4,796
Federal Offshore
Gulf of Mexico
3,347
Other States
1,533
-
100,000
90,000
80,000
~'"'~
70,000
V
60,000
2008
-
m
m
m
m
m
Utah
c
Table 1. Crude oil and lease
condensate prod uction in the United
States
~ ~
Table 2. Crude oil and lease
condensate production in the United
States with monthly and annual
changes
~ ~
Table 3. Natural gas gross
withdrawals in selected states and the
Federal Gulf of Mexico
~ ~
Table 4. Natural gas gross
withdrawals in selected states and the
Federal Gulf of Mexico with monthly
and annual changes
~ ~
Table 5. Crude oil and lease
condensate production by API gravity
category in selected l ower 48 states
and the Federal Gu lf of M exic o ~ ~
~. U
~ , ' U'
-~ . L
1.0 +
5,293
-8.5 +
3,504
-4.5 +
3,716
-9.9 +
1,558
-1.6 +
1,661
-7.7+
u .S. Natural Gas Gross W ithdrawals (Million Cu bic Feet per Day)
I
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
EIA-914: The value of the data
EIA uses the information submitted on Form EIA-914 to create key EIA’s products:
Monthly Crude Oil, Lease Condensate, and Natural Gas Production Report
Natural Gas Monthly
Petroleum Supply Monthly
Monthly Energy Review
Natural Gas Annual
Petroleum Supply Annual, Volume 1
Petroleum Supply Annual, Volume 2
Annual Energy Outlook
Short-Term Energy Outlook
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
Petroleum AEO 2016
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
Reductions in energy intensity largely offset impact of gross domestic
product (GDP) growth, leading to slow projected growth in energy use
U.S. primary energy consumption
quadrillion Btu
120
2015 AEO2016 Reference
Projections
History
No CPP
2015
Projections
100
29%
80
8%
60
40
33%
Petroleum and other liquids
Renewables
36%
(excluding biofuels)
14%
Liquid biofuels
1%
20
0
1980
1%
1990
2000
2010
Nuclear
Coal
8%
10%
16
2020
2030
12%
33%
34%
9%
32% of
U.S. total
Natural gas
2040
2020
2030
1%
8%
14%
2040
Source:
EIA, Annual
Energy Outlook 2016
Adam
Sieminski,
Johns
Hopkins SAIS June 28,
2016
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
Near-term crude oil price scenario is lower in AEO2016
Brent crude oil spot price
2015 dollars per barrel
History
250
2015
Projections
High Oil Price
200
150
AEO2015 Reference
100
AEO2016 Reference
50
Low Oil Price
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
Source: EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2016 Reference case and Annual Energy Outlook 2015 Reference case
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
U.S. crude oil production rises above previous historical high before
2030; alternative price and resource/technology cases can differ
U.S. crude oil production
million barrels per day
20
15
High Oil and Gas Resource
2015
2015 and Technology
Reference
2015
Projections
Projections
History
Projections
High Oil and Gas
Resource and
Technology
High Oil Price
U.S. maximum production level of
9.6 million barrels per day in 1970
10
Reference
Tight oil
Low Oil Price
5
Low Oil and Gas Resource
and Technology
Lower 48 offshore
Alaska
0
1990
2000
Other lower 48 onshore
2010
2020
2030
2040
2020
2030
2040
2020
2030
2040
Source: EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2016
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
Combination of increased tight oil production and higher
fuel efficiency drives projected decline in oil imports
U.S. liquid fuels supply
million barrels per day
History
25
High Oil and Gas Resource
and Technology
2015
Reference
2015
Net exports
Percent of
supply
20
19%
24%
15
Net petroleum and other liquids
imports
10
5
25%
Tight oil
production
1980
1990
2000
25%
23%
17%
10%
0
1970
44%
21%
23%
Other crude oil production
(excluding tight oil starting in 2000)
+21%
2010
2020
Natural gas
plant liquids
Other
2030
23%
24%
12%
9%
2040
2020
2030
U.S.
supply
100%
2040
Note: “Other” includes refinery gain, biofuels production, all stock withdrawals, and other domestic sources of liquid fuels
Source: EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2016
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
Natural gas AEO 2016
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
U.S. natural gas production dominated by shale resources; alternative
price and resource /technology assumptions could be quite different
U.S. dry natural gas production
billion cubic feet per day
trillion cubic feet
History
60
2015
U.S. dry natural gas production
trillion cubic feet
Projections
160
140
50
Projections
60
High Oil and Gas Resource
and Technology
50
High Oil Price
2016 Reference
120
40
100
30
80
Shale gas and
tight oil plays
60
20
40
Low Oil Price
2015 Reference
30
20
Low Oil and Gas Resource and Technology
40
10
Other lower 48
onshore
Lower 48 offshore
0
1990
2000
2010
Tight gas
Coalbed methane
Alaska
20
0
2020
2030
2040
10
0
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
Source: EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2016
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
U.S. natural gas production will soon exceed consumption,
making the United States a net exporter
U.S. energy production and consumption
quadrillion Btu
History
50
Projections
2015
2040
2020
Net exports
40
-22%
Net imports: 3%
30
Consumption
20
Domestic supply
10
0
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
Source: EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2016
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
The U.S. has experienced a rapid increase in oil and natural gas
production from shale and other tight resources
Eagle Ford (TX)
U.S. tight oil production
U.S. dry shale gas production
million barrels of oil per day
billion cubic feet per day
Bakken (MT & ND)
Spraberry (TX & NM Permian)
Bonespring (TX & NM Permian)
Wolfcamp (TX & NM Permian)
Delaware (TX & NM Permian)
Yeso-Glorieta (TX & NM Permian)
Niobrara-Codell (CO, WY)
Haynesville
Utica (OH, PA & WV)
Marcellus (PA,WV,OH & NY)
Woodford (OK)
Granite Wash (OK & TX)
Austin Chalk (LA & TX)
Monterey (CA)
8
48
Marcellus (PA,WV,OH & NY)
Haynesville (LA & TX)
7
42
Eagle Ford (TX)
Fayetteville (AR)
36
Barnett (TX)
6
Woodford (OK)
Bakken (ND)
5
30
Antrim (MI, IN, & OH)
Utica (OH, PA & WV)
4
24
Rest of US 'shale'
3
18
2
12
1
6
0
0
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
Source: EIA
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
Estimated U.S. tight oil production was 3.9 MMbbl/d in August
2016 about 47% of total U.S. oil production (8.5 MMbbl/d)
Tight oil production
Tight oil production
as a percent of total oil production
million barrels of oil per day
9
8
7
100%
Rest of U.S. Oil Production
Eagle Ford (TX)
Bakken (MT & ND)
Spraberry (TX & NM Permian)
Bonespring (TX & NM Permian)
Delaware (TX & NM Permian)
Yeso-Glorieta (TX & NM Permian)
Niobrara-Codell (CO, WY)
Haynesville
Utica (OH, PA & WV)
Marcellus (PA, WV, OH & NY)
Woodford (OK)
Granite Wash (OK & TX)
Austin Chalk (LA & TX)
Monterey (CA)
Tight oil % of total
90%
80%
70%
6
60%
5
50%
4
40%
3
30%
2
20%
1
10%
0
2002
0%
2004
2006
2008
U.S. Energy Information Administration
2010
2012
2014
2016
Independent Statistics & Analysis
Estimated U.S. shale gas production was 41.9 Bcf/d in August 2016
about 57% of total U.S. dry production (73.9 Bcf/d)
Shale gas production
Natural gas production (dry)
as a percent of total gas production
billion cubic feet per day
70
60
Rest of US gas production
Marcellus (PA, WV, OH & NY)
Haynesville (LA & TX)
Eagle Ford (TX)
Fayetteville (AR)
Barnett (TX)
Woodford (OK)
Bakken (ND)
Antrim (MI, IN, & OH)
Utica (OH, PA & WV)
Other US 'shale'
Shale gas % of total
100%
90%
80%
70%
50
60%
40
50%
30
40%
30%
20
20%
10
0
2002
10%
0%
2004
2006
2008
U.S. Energy Information Administration
2010
2012
2014
Independent Statistics & Analysis
2016
www.eia.gov
Most of the incremental shale gas production growth since 2012 in the
U.S. has come from Appalachia with Utica playing a bigger role
Total U.S. and Appalachian shale dry natural gas
production since 2012
Incremental shale gas production growth in
Appalachian and Rest of U.S. since 2012
Billion cubic feet per Day
Billion cubic feet per Day
45
40
20
35
30
15
25
20
10
15
10
5
5
0
0
Utica
Marcellus
Rest of US shale gas
Utica
Marcellus
Rest of US shale gas
Sources: EIA
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
Key takeaways from AEO2016
• Reductions in energy intensity largely offset impact of GDP
growth and slow down projected growth in energy use
• Market forces drive up oil prices throughout the projection and
U.S. production increases in response
• Natural gas production increases despite relatively low and stable
natural gas prices
• Technological improvements are key drivers of U.S. oil and gas
production
Adam Sieminski, Johns
Hopkins SAIS June 28,
2016
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
For more information
U.S. Energy Information Administration home page | www.eia.gov
Annual Energy Outlook | www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo
Short-Term Energy Outlook | www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo
International Energy Outlook | www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo
Today In Energy | www.eia.gov/todayinenergy
Monthly Energy Review | www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly
State Energy Portal | www.eia.gov/state
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov
Acknowledgement
The authors thank State Agencies for colaboration: Kristin Carter of PA
Bureau of Topographic & Geologic Survey; Susan Pool, Phillip Dinterman,
Mary Behling, Jessica Moore and Eric Lewis of WV Geological & Economic
Survey; Ron Riley, Matt Erenpreiss, and Dr. Mohammad Fakhari of OH State
Geological Survey; James Leone of NY State Geological Survey, and Dr.
Scott Tinker of the BEG, TX.
The authors are grateful for EIA internal peer-reviews provided by John
Staub, Jack Perrin, Chris Peterson, Jozef Lieskovsky, Troy Cook, Aloulou
Faouzi, and Shirley Neff.
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov