Frrst, let's take a visual look at Saudi oil production history from the EIA "official numbers

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/images/saudioil.jpg

Now of course, we see something interesting  right off the bat.  We notice that talk of a "plataeu" should have been raging through the 1990's, when oil was at record lows, inflation adjusted.  Such talk was no where to be found.

Now, let us back up to approx. 1982.  What we see is a catastrophic drop for almost a half decade, then a rebound1985 to 1986, a setback of some magnitude again to 1988, and then a flattening yet again to 1990.  Now we have to recall the history here.  Fuel was so cheap in most of this period that the oil industry was bleeding to death.  There was no such thiing as TOD or http://www.peakoil.net, and Matt Simmons was still a happy oil investment banker, not the phophet of the end fo the oil age.

The discussion we are on at the moment is that the Saudi drop was caused by the "Tanker Wars".  Now I remember that period, and remember some discussion of the "Tanker Wars" but was not aware of that particular issue being given responsibility for the Saudi Drop in production.  We do know they must have indeed been some kind of tanker war, if we look at that period and see the worldwide drop these "Tanker Wars" must have been responsible for.  A look at the standard ASPO chart shows the "big valley" of the early 1980's:
http://home.iprimus.com.au/spmack/Hubbert%20Peak2004Scenario.png
http://www.answers.com/topic/hubbert-world-2004-png

I ask anyone to help try to square that history (and again, these would have been the known numbers) with HL models (and they did exist then, but where known to maybe three dozen people in the world)  without coming to the conclusion that Saudi Arabia was peaked, and in fact, so was the world (and I remember VERY CLEARLY reading, and believing that at the time, it was the birth of my fascination with energy and alternative energy technology).  Look at Saudi Arabia again:  Complete collapse, attempt to recover, and then, fall back mild brief recovery, then fall back again.  Would anyone really have assumed this was from the so called "tanker wars" at the time?

Now of course, a slightly different set of numbers comes from The Saudi Amrerican Forum, a well known lobby group for Saudi Arabia.
http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/Newsletters2004/SAF_Item_Of_Interest_2004_05_27.htm

(under the year, the top number is M/barrles a day, the bottom one is price per barrel)
1973 Average
7,596 mbd
5.37  $

1974 Average
8,480  mbd
11.63 $

1975 Average
7,075 mbd
12.50 $

1976 Average
8,577 mbd
13.06 $

1977 Average
9,245 mbd
13.69 $

1978 Average
8,301 mbd
13.94 $

1979 Average
9,532 mbd
18.95 $

1980 Average
9,900 mbd
29.80 $

1981 Average
9,815 mbd
34.20 $

1982 Average
6,483 mbd
34.99 $

1983 Average
5,086 mbd
29.27 $

1984 Average
4,663 mbd
29.20 $

1985 Average
3,388 mbd
24.72 $

1986 Average
4,870 mbd
12.84 $

1987 Average
4,265 mbd
16.81 $

1988 Average
5,086 mbd
13.37 $

1989 Average
5,064 mbd
17.34 $

1990 Average
6,410 mbd
21.82 $

1991 Average
8,115 mbd
17.22 $

1992 Average
8,332 mbd
17.48 $

1993 Average
 8,198 mbd
15.40 $

1994 Average
8,120 mbd
15.11 $

1995 Average
8,231 mbd
16.84 $

1996 Average
8,218 mbd
20.49 $

1997 Average
8,362 mbd
17.52 $

1998 Average
8,389 mbd
11.16 $

1999 Average
7,833 mbd
17.48 $

2000 Average
8,404 mbd
26.58 $

2001 Average
8,031 mbd
20.98 $

2002  Average 
7,634 mbd
24.77 $

2003  Average 
8,848 mbd
27.44 $

One can find no number as high as 10mbd which the EIA chart seems to indicate, however, one sees again that long "plateau" through the 1990's.

We do see the 10 m/bd per day number again in the glowing Saudi Forum link which says, "Current daily production capability stands at 10 million barrels of crude oil and 9.6 billion cubic feet of  natural gas."
http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/newsletter2004/saudi-relations-interest-08-25.html

By the way, this is an astounding link to read, with the dateline, August 24. 2004, and the byline, "Saudi Arabian Oil Fields Brimming"

It has to be admitted that if the Saudi's were lying, they were doing so in such a bold fashion as to be absolutely criminal, as they took on the Simmons argument, the water cut argument, and boldly declared they could supply the world for 50 to 70 more years, raising production, in their words
"If called upon, the company  can sustain daily crude production levels of 10, 12 and 15 million barrels per day through 2054 and beyond."  (!!!)

We are now two years down the road from 2004, post one of the most catastrophic hurricane seasons in the GOM, post wild growth in consumption in China and India, post declines in the North Sea, far into an Iraq war that has turned out far more damaging and long lasting than expected, and now into yet another Isreali/Arab war that is threatening to spread, and we still have not seen the "SHTF" (stuff hit the fan).

Again, we could go for days with the various "expert and authoritive" sources giving us Saudi Arabian and world recoverable reserves, and possible daily production figures, all of which differ by vast amounts.  This is the greatest threat, FAR greater than "Peak Oil" itself, that being the danger of running completely blind.

But,  we should return to the issue of the tanker wars.  If that is given credit for the giant world wide valley, then we must assume that it is possibly true today.

Today, If I say, "could it be that the price increases in oil are not a geological supply problem, but a geo-political logistical problem caused by (a) Fear factor of 9/11/01, (after all, the planners of the attack, and the killers were Saudi, a point often forgotten now) followed by (b) the Iraq war, followed by (c) increasing tension with Iran, followed by (d) Nigerian tensions, followed by (e)Venesualan tensions, followed by (f) The Israeli Arab war in Lebenon...
the peakers would say,  "that's all window dressing, your just being sucked in by the propaganda, it's PEAK, guarenteed!!  It's here, it CANNOT BE REFUTED!!, but then....

When the last "Peak" scare is pointed out (the late 1970's, early 1980's) they will say, "NAW, don't be a rube, NO ONE thought that was peak, despite the half decade of VERY large production drops AROUND THE WORLD, it was all the Iran/Iraq war and the tanker war, it was geopolitics...(snicker, snicker, we all knew it then..."

Well of course, just as we knew all along who would win a ball game AFTER the game is over, we can say what we please now after the fact, but my memory of that time was that virtually NO ONE thought it was a temporary geopolitical shortage at that time.

A fascinating document discussing the effect of geopolitical crisis on oil price change
http://www.cesifo.de/pls/guestci/download/CESifo%20Forum%202006/CESifo%20Forum%202/2006/forum2-06-fo cus3.pdf

It's just as easy and supportable now, if you could demonstrate the case that the 1970's/80's crisis was geopolitical and in no way peak, to be able to say that the current crisis is purely geopoloitical.  One is as consistant as the other.

What we are trying to figure out, in the interest of personal planning, is "is it different this time?"  Many people pulled in their horns in the late 1970's, and lived cheap, tawdry lives on a minimum thinking that the catastrophic end had come....(I looked at getting an engineering degree in those days.....I had dreamed of working with GM or Ford....my friends and even teachers laughed..."shiit, they won't even be here in 5 years!" they assured me.  Hmmm, sounds like Diji Vu all over again, as Yogi said....)

We have absolutely no way of knowing that this current price run up and hysteria is not simply another geopolitical cycle. After all, it was the last time, and it looked  virtually duplicate to now.  This might finally be the real thing, but if we guess wrong, we won't have to worry about being made poor by peak oil...we will make ourselves poor waiting for it, in missed opportunities, while our friends, family and neighbors race out far ahead of us.

Being wrong on this can be life altering, and the funny part is, if we assume that peak is not coming and it does, we really don't have much to lose, it will cost us everything no matter what.....but assuming peak is here, if it is not, can  COST US EVERYTHING because the opportunities will be there, we will just miss them all (and so will our children and families, by the way.

Once more, WHAT IS THE GREAT KNOWN DANGER?
Running in the blind, with absolutely no usable information.  It is the most dangerous of all possible situations.

To your closing remark, "No one, I repeat no one thought the drop in Saudi production beginning in 1982 was because they might have peaked."

With all due respect, and meaning no personal rancor, I say, poppycock.  Go to Simmons "Trilight" and read the accounts of the very deep concerns about Saudi Arabian production at that time, leading to secret testimony by Aramco and Saudi officials before the U.S. Congress, read the suggestions that still make the rounds to this day that the Saudi's backed off production then due to fear of rate sensitivity that could be damaging their fields and risking reduction of the URR due to "overflood" leaving vast amounts of oil behind and unrecoverable-(Simmons still contends that it may have happened)

If "no one, I repeat, no one" believed that peak was a real danger then, given the situation, the production tables, the water flood, the fear of rate sensitivity and oil left in place, then "no one, I repeat, no one" should seriously fear peak now...we have been there, done that....and by that way of accounting, it don't mean beans.

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

coup de grâce

In my prior long post, in which you and I were discussing the idea that the 1982 large drop in oil production could have been mistaken easily as Peak Oil and that there could have been no way not to believe that, you made the assertion...
"Sorry Roger, but that is simply not so. Everyone knew why Saudi oil production dropped in the early 80's and no one thought it was because Saudi had peaked."

 You then went on to assert that EVERYBODY knew the drop in Saudi production was due to a thing called the "tanker war" that is the attacks on commercial and oil shipping in the Persian Gulf by Iran as part of the Iran/Iraq war.

Your closing left no room for debate..."No one, I repeat no one thought the drop in Saudi production beginning in 1982 was because they might have peaked."

In my long reply, you mut have wondered why I went through the trouble of putting in a long set of columns, showing Saudi Arabian oil production from
1973 forward, as provided by the Saudi Arabian lobby group Saudi American Forum, soursed from the EIA of the DOE. What was that for, what did it have to do with anything?

It was for one purpose only...to find out if it is your contention that the "tanker wars" were over yet, or had gone on uninteruppted since 1982 right down to 2003?  Below is my excerpt:

Now of course, a slightly different set of numbers comes from The Saudi Amrerican Forum, a well known lobby group for Saudi Arabia.
http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/Newsletters2004/SAF_Item_Of_Interest_2004_05_27.htm

(under the year, the top number is M/barrles a day, the bottom one is price per barrel)
1973 Average
7,596 mbd
5.37  $

1974 Average
8,480  mbd
11.63 $

1975 Average
7,075 mbd
12.50 $

1976 Average
8,577 mbd
13.06 $

1977 Average
9,245 mbd
13.69 $

1978 Average
8,301 mbd
13.94 $

1979 Average
9,532 mbd
18.95 $

1980 Average
9,900 mbd
29.80 $

1981 Average
9,815 mbd
34.20 $

1982 Average
6,483 mbd
34.99 $

1983 Average
5,086 mbd
29.27 $

1984 Average
4,663 mbd
29.20 $

1985 Average
3,388 mbd
24.72 $

1986 Average
4,870 mbd
12.84 $

1987 Average
4,265 mbd
16.81 $

1988 Average
5,086 mbd
13.37 $

1989 Average
5,064 mbd
17.34 $

1990 Average
6,410 mbd
21.82 $

1991 Average
8,115 mbd
17.22 $

1992 Average
8,332 mbd
17.48 $

1993 Average
 8,198 mbd
15.40 $

1994 Average
8,120 mbd
15.11 $

1995 Average
8,231 mbd
16.84 $

1996 Average
8,218 mbd
20.49 $

1997 Average
8,362 mbd
17.52 $

1998 Average
8,389 mbd
11.16 $

1999 Average
7,833 mbd
17.48 $

2000 Average
8,404 mbd
26.58 $

2001 Average
8,031 mbd
20.98 $

2002  Average
7,634 mbd
24.77 $

2003  Average
8,848 mbd
27.44 $

Your remarks:  "Saudi production started to drop in 1982 and reached its lowest point at the very height of the Tanker War in 1985."  Astute on your part, and the chart I provide above agrees with your contention on Saudi production, made before I replied, so you must be working from the same stats....but that leaves a mystery....to repeat, you say, "No one, I repeat no one thought the drop in Saudi production beginning in 1982 was because they might have peaked."

THEN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN BADLY MISTAKEN and horribly confused.
LOOK OVER THE CHART, AND PICK THE HIGHEST PRODUCTION YEAR.

From 1973 to 2003...yes, the peak year IS INDEED 1981.

Until 2003. Saudi Arabia's PEAK YEAR WAS 1981 AT 9.815 MILLION BARRELS PER DAY.

For those who somehow believed that Saudi peak was caused by "the tanker wars", it must create a problem in their logic to explain that the Iranian tanker wars continued uninteruppted until 2003.  :-)

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

You certainly could be right; indeed I hope you are. I just tend to be cynical when it comes to politicians and the "powers that be."

On your last point, I couldn't agree more. The pickle that we're in is getting more bitter by the second. I've read Heinberg's Powerdown and The Party's Over, and feel frustrated because the peril we face is so clearly presented, but nothing will ever be done in time to allow for any kind of soft landing.

I'm certainly willing to accept your point on Simmons. Part of my distrust came from something I read which indicated that he was part of Cheney's infamous "Energy Task Force" meetings that took place early in 2001, for which the records still have not been revealed. What a huge, stinking mess this all is.

I'm certainly willing to accept that point of view, and I appeciate your feedback. Despite my earlier statements I do think you're right about Peak Oil -- I just like to play the "devil's advocate" and examine different scenarios to see if they make sense.

I'm just impatient for the evidence of our predicament to become so clear that virtually no one can miss it, thus shattering the conspiracy to encourage us all to continue to be good little consumers in order to "help" the economy.

"ThatsItImOut" is saying that we're missing opportunities -- but this way of life ISN'T sustainable -- it's ridiculous!  How can we expect to make 8% or more a year on the stock market, waste tons of energy and food, etc.?

The way of life "Peakers" advocate is simpler, more stress free, more natural, and better for all parties concerned.

What's wrong with not being materialistic (=buying junk) and worrying more about things that matter (knowing how to make things for yourself, cultivating local and family relationships, etc.)

And what's wrong with having the mortgage paid off, getting out of debt, and having a smaller car?

The fact is, the source of the oil shortage (geology or politics) is so beyond us, it is a good idea to simply become LESS DEPENDENT on oil and everything derived from it.

We can never lose this way.

Matthew

First, there is Khursaniyah, Abu Hadriyah, and Fadhili, which is scheduled to come online in 2007 and produce 500,000 barrels of oil per day.

Then, Khurais should come on line sometime in 2008-2009 and produce as much as 1.2 million barrels per day of oil.

Simmons questions these numbers more in terms of sustainability than in terms of being able to produce these amounts for a short period of time.

So, assuming a continued 800,000 barrel of oil yearly decline in SA's other mature fields, we could expect to see SA production as low as 8,700,000 by the end of this year.

Next year, they would lose another 300,000 (800,000 in declines minus the 500,000 added from new production) and be at 8,500,000.

Over the course of the following two years they would lose another 1,600,000 in declines, but add 1,200,000 from Khurais.  This would put production at 8,100,000 by the end of 2009.

So, 8,100,000 by the end of 2009.  I know this is just a rough estimate and my methods are simplistic, but sometimes simplistic methods are the best.  And I trust Simmons' data.

If we start to see numbers which are far worse than these, there will be no other explanation than a catastrophic decline at Ghawar.