23 comments on It would be nice, but . . . . . .
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
TI on October 25, 2005 - 8:58am
That's it. Because the production growth was very high in 2004, more than 1 billion bpd, it follows that 3.3% increase for 2005 means in fact decreasing production from the level at the end of last year. The increase is from average daily production during the year, which was lower than the peak in September. In every case the production has flattened. Even those new projects they are talking about cannot make much difference. They are not saying anything about depletion of their very mature fields. Russia is very important because it accounted for most of production increase in 2003 and 2004.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mikesimonsen on October 25, 2005 - 8:32pm
I'm expecting (with an admitted bit of schadenfreude) a Russian production-peak attribution error caused by Putin's power grab. The re-nationalization of production is certain to cause productivity declines over the long term. It'll appear a validation of natural course, but it'll be merely a function of political course.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stuart Staniford on October 26, 2005 - 4:26am
Yes - it's going to be very hard for outsiders to disambiguate the two.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TI on October 26, 2005 - 7:03am
To be exact the production decline was expected and we may strongly suspect that Yukos was overproducing a lot. The Russian peak was already in the end of the '80s. The big fields are very mature. Nothing special here. Nationalized oil companies are not worse than the others. All those big private ones are now in decline, as posted in this blog some time ago...
Comments can no longer be added to this story.




k Nation (Jim Kunstler)






GAIA Host Collective