I'm not exactly an unbiased observer, since Khebab and I did an article predicting an imminent decline in Saudi oil production, but a few points:
(1) I have been pointing out that Cantarell and Ghawar are facing the same problem--a rapidly thinning oil column, between a rising water leg and an expanding gas cap. We know Cantarell is crashing;
(2) Petrologistics reports that Saudi production is probably now down below 8.9 mbpd--about 7% below last year's (EIA) level;
(3) Saudi Arabia (based on Khebab's HL plots) in 2005 was at the same point at which Texas started declining;
(4) Saudi Arabia has large amounts of oil in storage and they may have been supplementing their production with draws from storage;
(5) Saudi Arabia is vastly increasing their drilling program--just like Texas in the Seventies;
(6) Ghawar's production of about 60 Gb is getting close to the maximum URR of 70 Gb cited by a Saudi Aramco retired insider (Simmons);
(7) Remember the Saudi stock market crash--because of heavy insider selling?
It is quite possible that Ghawar has been in decline for years and Saudi has been ramping up all over the rest of the Kingdom, for years, to make up the difference. And now the other fields have peaked and they are in deep dodo.
Yes, it is quite possible that Ghawar is only producing around 3 mb/d.
"Yes, it is quite possible that Ghawar is only producing around 3 mb/d."
Yes, and it's also almost possible that Ghawar is producing 10 barrels a day....or 6.5 mb/d a day. This is an absolute shot in the dark, and any guess is "quite possible". (brief aside, I have to love the fact that now Petrologistics is considered an expert and being quoted as an authority on TOD when Simmons in "Twilight" laughs them off the block! :-), and in the "old days" they were the object of ridicule here...strange bedfellows indeed!
There is a bit of a hitch in the giddy up though....if we accept that:
#The Atlantic North Sea is suffering declines of some 8% to double digits, (known double digit drops on the British side), and I do accept that,,,
#That Canterell in Mexico is dropping (some say at large rates), and I do accept they are dropping at least some, we don't how how much
#That Venesuala is flat for various political and labor reasons, along with incompetent management and technical work in the field, and I do accept that
#That Bergen in Kuwait has peaked, and that Kuwait is at best flatline on production, if not dropping, and I do accept that
#That Nigeria is flat or dropping due to political instability and militant attack, and I do accept that
#That Iraq is essentially out of the picture as a major producer for the foreseeable future, and I do accept that.
And now, the icing on the cake, that
#That Ghawar, the biggest of the big is not only flat but has dropped some 2.5 million barrels a day below what it was thought to be producing (!!!) to around 3 m/bd....do you see where I am going with this?
If we accept all the above as true, then either we have to believe
*World consumption has hit the ground like a sack of shiit and we just don't know it, or
*Saudi Arabia is pulling off a MASSIVE miracle away from the Ghawar field, or
*They are pulling down storage at a rate that means their tank farms will soon be empty, or
*Other OPEC producers are making up the gap (who???), or
*Non OPEC nations are making up the gap, (who???),
or....the unbelievable, massive, complete meltdown would have began, oh, about 20 minutes ago, and $75 bucks a barrel for oil and $8 bucks a MM/btu for natural gas would be the GREATEST THEFT of oil and gas at the most unbelievably stupidly cheap price in the history of the world! The massive shortfall depicted by the above stats would mean we should be seeing shortages at the pump NOW. It would mean that a Dow of anything over 5000 points would be a steller price. It would mean we should be seeing people doing what they did in the 1970's, giving their big vehicles to the dealers JUST TO GET ON THE LIST for a Toyota (back then, a Celica or Corola, now, a Prius or Camry hybrid.
It would also mean that well known "Peakers" are being far too optimistic. The "slow squeeze" scenario talked about by certain folks here on TOD would be out of the question. The 5 years before the collapse talked about by the Iranian minister of peak Bahktairi would not even be a hope of the greatest Pollyanna, and the "peak liquids post 2020, and then a 5% drop" depicted by Leharre would be lunacy. They would be further off the mark than Deffeyes "stone age by 2030" remark.
Yet, crude oil is still below $80 a barrel, nat gas below $9 per MM/btu the last time I looked, and Propane is a steal as a burnable portable fuel given the above scenario. The stock market, while taking some slaps, is certainly not yet at meltdown status, (think of the one day wipeout in 1987, when oil was so cheap it was being wasted for the fun of wasting it!) can you imagine the implications the peakers would read into that if it happened tomorrow?)
So, WHAT CAN I KNOW ABOUT WHAT I BELIEVE? (inside reference to Kevembuangga, I gave my closing opus and a thank you to our discussion the other day, by the way....my opus to "Stay away from the Dark Side, Luke...:-) http://www.theoildrum.com/comments/2006/7/26/133241/680/254#254
Just this: We have no idea where we are. The evidence at the top of this post indicates we could be on the absolute edge of cliff, with no time to prepare for anything. On the other hand, it could be an indicator that we simply do not know the amount and reach of manipulations going on in the production/statistcal shifting going on. Once more, I have to return to what is becoming my central point, my mantra, at least for now: WE ARE RUNNING COMPLETELY IN THE BLIND, and this makes the danger far greater than even many "peakers" realize (remember, this is coming from someone regarded here as an optimist over the longer haul).
I no longer try to convince my friends/family/acquintances of "Peak", whatever that means, but simply ask them about a half dozen simple questions:
Q. Do you know where our oil comes from, and how much they produce? Do you think anyone has real verified statistics on our major suppliers production?
Q. Do you know how much oil our major suppliers have, and do you think anybody has verified statistics on that?
Q. If we do not know the above two things, would there be any warning whatsoever if they cannot deliver for some reason?
Q. Do you think that it is safe for a nation that has to have as much oil as we do, to deliver food, to get to people to work, to hospital, to school, and to heat homes to run completely in the blind on something that critical, and not have any alternative should the worst happen without warning?
Q. For now, FORGET THE PEAK THREAT, and ask yourself, is the above situation not of the greatest immediate danger to a nation, running in the dark at full speed without lights?
What seals the above argument is when they try to find valid information on their own, about oil reserves, oil supply, oil production, and find out there is virtually no REAL information available. Whether they accept immediate "peak" or not, they get nervous fast!
You have described the fact that we are like a person driving blind, who may or may not drive off a cliff at any moment. What is the person to do? Keep driving? Oh,yeh! That's what we're gonna do. Keep drivin'. It's the Amurrican way of life you're talkin' about. Non negotiable, as they say.
In the mean time, I'm stockin' up on some more oil. I've already got the Prius. Thanks for the tip.
Bought 4 cases of Chevron DELO 400 15w-40 (6 gallons/case)last night. 1 1/2 years`ago I paid $32.something. 1 year ago I paid $38.99. 6 months ago i paid $42.99. lats night I PAID $48.99. Shit this is unreal. I cannot raise my prices to this extent.
Funny - there was a young 20 something guy at the door checking reciepts. He saw my cart full of oil and said "Next time it will cost you an arm". I told him the price story here and he said " it is only going to get worse"
I think people have a sense that it looks grim, but just like the people on Eastr Island, lets build more McMansions.
These are excellent observations/questions that have bedeviled Peak Oil advocates for quite some time. If things are as bad as Heinberg and others are leading us to believe, wouldn't conditions be a lot worse by now? Why hasn't the entire deck of cards collapsed yet? Why is the idiotic Hummer crowd still able to harbor illusions about maintaining their wasteful lifestyles indefinitely?
I agree that Peak Oil is impending, as common sense says that any finite resource being depleted at the rate that oil is has to run out at some point. The question is when.
I've wondered for a long time if the current Peak Oil crisis isn't manufactured, and that while oil resources are certainly being depleted at a furious pace, if the situation isn't as bad as portrayed. Not that this is a conclusive point, but the fact that Matt Simmons is apparently linked to republican operatives like Cheney makes me decidedly suspicious of his motives. Is his drive to discredit the Saudi reserve figures a selfless warning to humanity, or part of an elitist propaganda campaign?
Serious depletion will be impossible to cover up for long, but until all illusions of its non-existence have been dashed, those who advocate for Peak Oil should continue to raise these types of questions.
"I've wondered for a long time if the current Peak Oil crisis isn't manufactured, and that while oil resources are certainly being depleted at a furious pace, if the situation isn't as bad as portrayed."
Of course, there is the fact that world oil production and Saudi oil production are behaving precisely as the mathematical and historical models predicted that they would, but most people are going to prefer to believe the conspiracy theories, partly because of the B.S. sent their way by the "Iron Triangle" members.
First, let me say that I hold high respect for your numbers crunching, and will accept your numbers quicker than most of the stuff I see from USGS or EIA, which seem to me to be "whistlin' past the graveyard" stuff, where never is heard a discouraging word...:-)
You say " The other three--North Sea; Kuwait and Mexico--are all around the 50% of Qt mark. Last year, Saudi Arabia was at 58%."
In the case of Suadi Arabia, to know what 58% Qt is, we have to know what Qt is. Franky, I am not sure we do, in fact, I am more convinced each day we don't. I have seen numbers differ from various sources by an order of magnitude of at least 2.5, and the difference of two and a half times of something would move the halfway point considerably.
" Of course, there is the fact that world oil production and Saudi oil production are behaving precisely as the mathematical and historical models predicted that they would, but most people are going to prefer to believe the conspiracy theories...
Of course, if we look at 1980 through 1985, we see a drop in Saudi and world production that would indicate (to many people, it did indicate) that we must have been over 50% of Qt then, drops in production that were far longer and more substantial than they are today. The drops would been been perfect for "peak 1980" when compared to HL models, but we now know that it was in fact a logistical/economic/political "peak". You are the one that demonstrated to me where to look for a real "geological" peak (Texas, Lower 48, North Sea are textbook cases), I am just not sure that we have any real knowledge of Saudi and OPEC in general, a very dangerous situation.
Lastly, on the "manufactured peak" theory, I don't buy into that but I must say, the constant fear and rumor of peak has certainly done no harm to the oil companies! :-)
Of course, if we look at 1980 through 1985, we see a drop in Saudi and world production that would indicate (to many people, it did indicate) that we must have been over 50% of Qt then, drops in production that were far longer and more substantial than they are today.
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. We had a little thing called the Iran-Iraq war. There was a thing called the "Tanker War". Tanker traffic in the Persian Gulf was cut to a fraction of what it was at its peak because of this war.
Saudi production started to drop in 1982 and reached its lowest point at the very height of the Tanker War in 1985.
Significantly, Iran became more aggressive in attacking shipping because of the U.S. naval presence.<106> Between 1981 and April 1987, when the U.S. reflagging was announced, Iran struck 90 ships; in the little over a year thereafter, Iran struck 126 ships.<107> As the Congressional study noted, "shipping in the Gulf now appears less safe than before the U.S. naval build-up began."<108> http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html
No one, I repeat no one thought the drop in Saudi production beginning in 1982 was because they might have peaked.
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?
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.
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.
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:
(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. :-)
"From 1973 to 2003...yes, the peak year IS INDEED 1981."
Matt Simmons discussed the early Eighties production in his book. He thinks that the Saudis may have damaged their fields with the very high production rates. There is an analogue, the East Texas Field, that had its absolute peak in the Thirties. Production was then curtailed by the RRC, because of the damage to the reservoir--and because the flood of oil had driven the price of oil down to 10 cents per barrel. The secondary, lower, peak was in 1972, followed by a terminal decline.
In any case, based on the HL method Saudi Arabia, in 2005, was where Texas, the prior swing producer, was at in 1972.
The Ghawar Field has already made about 10 times as much oil as the East Texas Field--the largest oil field in the Lower 48.
Ghawar has already made about five times as much oil as Prudhoe Bay will ever make--the largest oil field in North America.
According to Simmons, a retired Aramco executive said that maximum URR would be 70 Gb for Ghawar. The Saudis have produced about 85% of that. We know that the remaining oil column is between a rising water leg and an emerging gas cap.
A decline/crash in oil production in Ghawar has been one of the most widely predicted events in petroleum history. Why should any of us be surprised when we receive reports of that very thing.
Everyone is asking for confirmation of Dr. Heinberg's report. I think the fact that total Saudi oil production is down about 7% since last year, while oil prices are up by 15% to 30% is more than sufficient confirmation.
(The following is set to the tune of "The Music of the Night" from "Phantom of the Opera.")
Roger, for starters I don't know why you posted almost the same post twice. You must have been really pissed off.
I was in Saudi Arabia, working for Aramco, from 1980 until 1985. I read the newspapers and newsmagazines from home and I know everyone back home was concerned with the tanker wars and I know that all of us in Saudi were even more concerned. I was also concerned with the great gobs of tar that was washing up on the beaches at Ras Tanura at the time. But the point is Roger, if you will just look at the data from all other Gulf states, you will see that oil production from all Gulf States fell during that period. Now no one in their right mind would surmise that all the Gulf States were peaking at the exact same time.
Second I have read "Twilight in the Desert" and Matt clearly states that there was a fear that they were overproducing Ghawar and perhaps other fields, but nowhere does he discuss the possibility of Saudi peaking in those very early days.
Third, I have lived and followed the oil situation very closely for the last 25 years. Everyone that knew anything knew that OPEC held oil production low during the 90s to keep prices low. OPEC inched up on production during the late 90s and prices collapsed. Then they shut the taps again beginning in 2001 and held them low for a little over two years. Then they all started to produce full tilt and have been ever since.
True we were concerned with peak oil in 2000 but we anyone that knew anything knew OPEC still had their hand on the choke valve and were not producing at full tilt. Now they are and that is the difference. The vast majority of us peakers, in 2000, were expecting the peak some time between 2005 and 2010. (Actually there were not very many of us back then.) I was a member of the Running on Empty list, and the Energy Resources list which started, I think, in 2001, and only one man on the whole damn list was arguing that OPEC's swing producer, Saudi Arabia, had peaked.
Bottom line Roger, you are trying to say that we could very easily though Saudi Arabia peaked much earlier because of their up-down pattern of oil production. Well, perhaps a few idiots did make that mistake. But the vast majority of us knew very well that OPEC was manipulating production and that the production swings was due to OPEC control and not anyone peaking.
You opened with the line, "Roger, for starters I don't know why you posted almost the same post twice. You must have been really pissed off."
Have no fear of the pissed off thing, I am too busy chopping on a bigger tree than than that! :-)
The twin post was an organizational thing, because I was making two seperate cases in my own mind, the first discussing our difference of opinion about the "perception" of Saudi and world "peaking" and the effect of the "tanker wars", you see the latter as the bigger percieved threat at the time, and the former as non discussed, while I see the former as virtually non-existant as a percieved real threat, while the latter (although in those days, we did not have the "Peak" word or concept in the popular press, we are so media savvy these days, and people back then used the mis-applied phrase "running out" almost exclusively)
And seperately, the "historical sourcing" showing that, well, Saudi Arabia did indeed peak in 1981, at least on out to 2003. (Something, astoundingly, most people do not seem to know) so I divided the two main points as two posts, as the posts were going long anyway, as you must have noticed.
-----------------------
Now, back to the present, and the point you denote as "third" and you closing sentence, which is at the heart of where I am chopping!
You indicate a whole lot of "tap" turning there, Darwinian, loosening, closing, raising, lowering production at will on the part of the Saudi's. Then, at 2001, you say, "Then they all started to produce full tilt and have been ever since."
(think of what a miricle of consistancy the all became, and at once! :-)...and just as the price shot off to the sky....weren't they lucky, one more time?!) :-)
Let me make my point directly: on that sentence, "all started to produce full tilt and have been ever since." I don't think there is a way in the world we can know that to be true in any way, ( It may be. It may not be) and I would be willing to BET THEY ARE STILL CRANKING AROUND ON THE TAPS. It may be.
You yourself have shown a history all the way through the 1980's and 1990's of moving production at will by the Saudi's, up down, on and off, shifting from field to field, that indicates that from our end, there is NOT A POSSIBLE WAY to connect Saudi production to Saudi geology. I just don't think it can be done. And I am willing to bet that the rest of the OPEC countries are just as confusing and convoluted in their production picture, TODAY.
You say, "Bottom line Roger, you are trying to say that we could very easily though Saudi Arabia peaked much earlier because of their up-down pattern of oil production. Well, perhaps a few idiots did make that mistake."
Well of course, if it was so easily a mistake then, it could just as easily be a mistake now. Those who dismiss "peak" sure enough call the folks today who use oil production as an indicator of production capability are indeed regarded by the world as the current "few idiots" making that mistake again, the same one made in the 1980's. I mean really, no offense, would anyone except only the very niave say, " "Then they all started to produce full tilt and have been ever since."...(and the world lived happily ever after....
------------------------
Except for oil production charts here on TOD, what other real evidence can we produce? There actually is one, the one that Westexas references so often, and the heart of the "Peak" metric, HL. The Hubbert method works, but only if you can be absolutely certain about total quantity of URR. I make the argument that no one has any real idea of Saudi, OPEC, and by extension, world URR. I have said before that the the URR numbers given would range, as an example, somewhere between the volume of a beer can and the volume of a tanker truck (folks, this is only slightly an exageration, the difference you see in published reports are VAST). The great reason that Texas, U.S. lower 48, and even to a slightly lesser extent, the Atlantic North Sea are such great examples of the Hubbert method's effect is because there was such an open reporting of what was originally there, and the changes in URR (technology does make it a moving number) over the years. In the OPEC regions, we are now out at a third of century of almost absolute secrecy, and the better part of a century of convoluted and misleading and confusing stats.
Darwinian, let me tell you where you EXACTLY HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD, and exactly what has caused me to to spend valuable time at work on this now: YOU SAID:
"But the point is Roger, if you will just look at the data from all other Gulf states, you will see that oil production from all Gulf States fell during that period. Now no one in their right mind would surmise that all the Gulf States were peaking at the exact same time.
AND YET, that is exactly what is being surmised today, and in fact, not just every field in the Gulf, but almost every field IN THE WORLD. If you have seen my prior posts on this, it is this that SET OFF THE ALARM BELLS FOR ME NOW!
Suddenly, the press has jumped on the bandwagon, and we see claims that the reserves that were percieved to exist only a few years ago in the world are suddenly, without even being drilled, ALL GONE! Russia, Siberia, offshore Australia, offshore South America, on and off shore Africa, polar oil, deep offshore ocean, offshore and onshore Canada, remaining reserves in the U.S., the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, and all the oil once percieved still available in the Persian Gulf and offshore there, SUDDENLY GONE!! And not only that, even vast amounts of once percieved natural gas is GONE! Stranded gas, tight gas, deeper well gas, all GONE!, in a heartbeat, without even being explored for!
Now I know the above is an exaggeration to make by me to make a point, but if you read the popular press and the most hysterical of the peakers sites and writings, it PALES as exaggeration to what you see spreading in the media (and the MOST hysterical seem to be gaining very rapidly as a percentage of the total) ...this is the kind of perception they are putting out there to the masses. If one were suspicious (I am) it would seem that a completely catastrophic panic is exactly what is wanted, and based, as yet, on no evidence of collapse (maybe tommorow, but not today...)
In other words, the production stats and the HL, both based on honest straight up production by the Persian Gulf nations and the world to get a clear picture to work with, in my view can rely on NEITHER OF THE ABOVE, and further, the HL model relies on a trustworthy number as an assumed URR, which I don't see existng, at least in much of the world (and the percent of the world that is given to that type of openness is declining very fast)
---------------------------------
Your closing sentence was the icing on the cake:
"But the vast majority of us knew very well that OPEC was manipulating production and that the production swings was due to OPEC control and not anyone peaking."
Fascinating that you would use those words, "manipulating production", and "OPEC control". (when those who had doubts as to whether what we see now can be used as any kind of evidence of a geological peak, they were dismissed rudely as being "duped" by the "iron triangle".
And yet, if control and " "manipulating production" then could create a situation where as you point out, every Gulf state and in fact world production could drop for a half decade, and Saudi Arabia could stand at "plateau" for the full decade of the 1990's ("plateau" is now being painted by some here as something all new and threatening, but would you mind going back to the 1990's on fuel price and economic conditions?)
My argument is simple: THE TIME HAS COME TO BE GRAVELY SUSPICIOUS OF MUCH MORE THAN JUST GEOLOGY.
Darwinian, in one of those great little moments of irony, just as I am finishing this post, with the ABC News going on in the background, and having read your sentence about those war days of the 1980's, I quote you,
"I read the newspapers and newsmagazines from home and I know everyone back home was concerned with the tanker wars and I know that all of us in Saudi were even more concerned. I was also concerned with the great gobs of tar that was washing up on the beaches at Ras Tanura at the time."
RETURN TO 2006: ABC NEWS reporting on Sunday night, August 6th, that there is grave concern on the part of environmentalists due to the oil spills washing ashore in Lebenon and the coast of Israel due to war damage from missile and air strikes on coastal ports and shipping, and in the Persian Gulf, due to massive damage of oil supply pipelines, tanks, and pumping facilities in Iraq, now coming down the rivers, there is an rapidly increasing amount of crude oil washing ashore on the coasts of all Persian Gulf nations. The United Nations and the Arab League, according to some, are being asked for emergency meetings/action.
Compare 1981 to 2006. BUT THIS TIME, we say, IT'S DIFFERENT. This time, the war has nothing to do with it, geology is everything. This time, unlike 1978 through the early 1980's, THERE IS NO MANIPULATION OF PRODUCTION, why they are so sweet to us, all pumping "flat out". Do we really believe that? (I wil remind of 9/11 and turn you to a source http://www.setamericafree.org
THIS TIME, IT'S DIFFERENT. The truth is, it really could be, there is evidence indicating it is. At some point the geology HAS TO CATCH UP, and the global warming issue is becoming crucial to address or ignore, WE HAVE TO CHOSE, right now we are taking the worst of all possible paths
THIS TIME, THERE IS NO CHANCE OF IT NOT BEING THE REAL THING. PEAK (or as many magazines and books still say, just as in the 1970's, we're running out...)
But it will be almost impossible, no let me re-say that, COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW. Most of the public do not accept THE DIFFERENCE. They are sure that just as the 1990's followed the 1980's, the price WILL COME BACK DOWN, the tide will turn, and we will be back to "Morning in America" (the most horrific, terrible thought of course to the peakers is, (sacrilige alert) WHAT IF THEY ARE RIGHT? (chills, brrrr, please, please DON'T EVER SAY THAT!
(but.....shiver.....could it be.....geopolitical, logistical, economic, turning up and down the taps by the OPEC gang, and the world.....as you say, "manipulation and control".....as it was in the 1980's......is there even a fine thin chance, that we could see people acting agains as they have acted before, they they have not somehow become honest and clean? Is there?
Editorial here:
IF the "peak crisis" comes, even the peak aware will be surprised by when, where and how, and no scenario will be able to predict it. It will be like a thief in the night, and just as cagey as one. These so called "prep plans" will look idiotic compared to the event as it unfolds.
And on the other side, if peak crisis is averted, the future will be so dazzling, so confused, so in flux, with careers and options so confused, overchoice of options being almot mind bending, technology so bizarre, social arrangements and political and energy arrangements so convoluted that many will pray that the peak had happened, that they would have gotten the "New Dark Age", the simpler life of Gothic hunger, labor and penury, that would seem like a quiet peaceful paradise compared to the mix of "Brave New World", "1984", and "Blade Runner" plus that will be in wait for us.
Raw terror and "Future Shock" will be a bigger threat than this so called "Peak thing" could have ever been.
-----------------------
And you will be running, AS WE ARE NOW realizing we are today, COMPLETELY BLIND. That is the greatest danger.
(like I said, I am chopping on a bigger tree, so thanks for bearing with me and the feedback and opposing view. Darwinian, are you and is anyone other than me starting to get suspicious of the "simple stories" we are given from all sides?
"OPEC oil output fell an average 250,000 barrels a day to 29.61 million barrels a day, according to the survey of oil companies, producers and analysts. June production was revised 60,000 barrels a day lower. OPEC's 11 members pumped 30.54 million barrels a day in October 2004, the highest since 1979.
``Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and Nigeria all posted minor declines in output,'' said Tim Evans, an energy analyst at Citigroup Global Markets Inc. in New York. ``It's unusual to see so many members' output move in the same direction.''
Despite Darwinian's assertion that it couldn't have happened, that "only an idiot would believe it" in the 1980's, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE ARE ALL PEAKING AT THE SAME TIME AGAIN! :-)
Is this JUST GETTING TOO RICH OR NOT? Gee, I wonder how many "idiots" believe it this time?
....oh, they suddenly noticed the Alaska pipeline was rusty!! hee, hee, and had no warning before yesterday, despite constant daily inspection!!
give me a break....... (you know what I just noticed, by the way....despite all the predictions by the hysterics we are pushing to the edge of autumn and crude wouldn't go over $80 bucks, much less the assured $100 dollars a barrel.....and now some folks are by golly going to SEE THAT IT DOES, WHATEVER IT TAKES!! :-O
BP has been affected by a trading scandal, a refinery explosion in Texas City, Texas, subsequent fines imposed because the refinery was run with violations of federal laws and safety regulations, and at least 2 prior pipeline spills in Alaska in the last 12 months. After those last 2 spills they probably looked at the entire pipeline, something that can take months to do properly, and found far more maintenance defects. Facing the potential for yet more fines and further legal action if another large spill occurred, they chose to shut it down and fix it. And you act like this was a surprise?
Let's look at Kuwait. Burgan is in decline. It's admitted by Kuwait itself now, something that did not happen in the 1980s. We've also been discussing this here for a year.
Nigeria is suffering from a civil war that is simply preventing supply from reaching the market. This has happened throughout the world since we began pumping oil. The only difference is this time the market is tight. And this civil war has been going on for a while now. No surprise here.
Iran's output is roughly steady and any decline there is probably political payback to George Bush and the European nations.
Mexico's problems have been discussed for going on two years and now they are starting to come to fruition. This is no surprise.
Finally, as for Saudi Arabia, it's output is declining as oil prices are rising. Why? During the early 1980s, Saudi Arabia's prices declined during the so-called tanker wars as prices declined. Yet the Saudi fields have been under scrutiny and questioned heavily for over a year now as well. Again, this is no surprise.
You are so enamored of conspiracy theories that you refuse to see the forest for the trees. You also forget that the first decade of the 21st century was Hubbert's prediction for global peak, which would mean that many fields would have peaked before or about this time.
And then you have the gall to call anyone who disagrees with you "idiots". Are you going to tie in the North Sea declines to your conspiracy fetish? How about the last 30 years of US declines? And before you give the "running blind" rant again, if you can choose to discard all the evidence so far, then we can choose to discard you as well. Without some proof that the current data is so badly flawed as to be useless, your assertions lack substance. So far in all your rants you've given us nothing but rhetoric. If you have evidence, then share it for us to evaluate. And if you don't, then excuse me while I ignore your mile long repetitive and empty rants.
most people are going to prefer to believe the conspiracy theories, partly because of the B.S. sent their way by the "Iron Triangle" members.
That's a tad unfair. Rest assured that I'm not trying to denigrate the great charts and detailed depletion figures that you post, but just engaging in a bit of speculation. For those who aren't as intimately associated with the oil industry as yourself, it is natural to question Peak Oil and the way its playing out.
Not everyone who doesn't trust Big Oil deserves to be labeled a "conspiracy theorist." Examining issues from different angles is a good thing, I think.
I've wondered for a long time if the current Peak Oil crisis isn't manufactured, and that while oil resources are certainly being depleted at a furious pace, if the situation isn't as bad as portrayed.
At the end of the day, these are just electronic bits pouring out of the Internet. You never know what is "true" and what is mostly a load of bull bits.
No one knows for sure what lies undiscovered beneath the ground. There is an outside chance the Cornucopians will turn out to have been right. There is a possibility the doomers are right. We will probably never know for sure one way or the other.
No.
Not you and I.
We will both be dead before "they" admit the doomers were right.
And "they" will perform an honorable disappearance act, riding off into the sunset, before ever admitting they might have been wrong.
When was the last time "they" admitted they were wrong?
Korea?
Vietnam?
Iraq?
Brilliant Pebbles?
Ronald Raygun?
When was the last time Doomers got to crow: We was right?
Pompei?
Maya?
Easter Island?
It just doesn't happen that way.
(1) I have been pointing out that Cantarell and Ghawar are facing the same problem--a rapidly thinning oil column, between a rising water leg and an expanding gas cap. We know Cantarell is crashing;
(2) Petrologistics reports that Saudi production is probably now down below 8.9 mbpd--about 7% below last year's (EIA) level;
(3) Saudi Arabia (based on Khebab's HL plots) in 2005 was at the same point at which Texas started declining;
(4) Saudi Arabia has large amounts of oil in storage and they may have been supplementing their production with draws from storage;
(5) Saudi Arabia is vastly increasing their drilling program--just like Texas in the Seventies;
(6) Ghawar's production of about 60 Gb is getting close to the maximum URR of 70 Gb cited by a Saudi Aramco retired insider (Simmons);
(7) Remember the Saudi stock market crash--because of heavy insider selling?
(2) Petrologistics reports that Saudi production is probably now down below 9.0 mbpd--about 7% below last year's (EIA) level;
(Great charts by Khebab)
http://www.energybulletin.net/16459.html
Note that BP has slightly different production numbers than the EIA
Is it credible, in your view, that the remaining Saudi fields could be making up for 2.5 million barrels per day in lost production from Ghawar?
From reading Twilight, I didn't get that impression.
Yes, it is quite possible that Ghawar is only producing around 3 mb/d.
It's spelled " DOO DOO " dodo Is the bird. (not the index finger one, the extinct one) -;) -;)
"Yes, it is quite possible that Ghawar is only producing around 3 mb/d."
Yes, and it's also almost possible that Ghawar is producing 10 barrels a day....or 6.5 mb/d a day. This is an absolute shot in the dark, and any guess is "quite possible". (brief aside, I have to love the fact that now Petrologistics is considered an expert and being quoted as an authority on TOD when Simmons in "Twilight" laughs them off the block! :-), and in the "old days" they were the object of ridicule here...strange bedfellows indeed!
There is a bit of a hitch in the giddy up though....if we accept that:
#The Atlantic North Sea is suffering declines of some 8% to double digits, (known double digit drops on the British side), and I do accept that,,,
#That Canterell in Mexico is dropping (some say at large rates), and I do accept they are dropping at least some, we don't how how much
#That Venesuala is flat for various political and labor reasons, along with incompetent management and technical work in the field, and I do accept that
#That Bergen in Kuwait has peaked, and that Kuwait is at best flatline on production, if not dropping, and I do accept that
#That Nigeria is flat or dropping due to political instability and militant attack, and I do accept that
#That Iraq is essentially out of the picture as a major producer for the foreseeable future, and I do accept that.
And now, the icing on the cake, that
#That Ghawar, the biggest of the big is not only flat but has dropped some 2.5 million barrels a day below what it was thought to be producing (!!!) to around 3 m/bd....do you see where I am going with this?
If we accept all the above as true, then either we have to believe
*World consumption has hit the ground like a sack of shiit and we just don't know it, or
*Saudi Arabia is pulling off a MASSIVE miracle away from the Ghawar field, or
*They are pulling down storage at a rate that means their tank farms will soon be empty, or
*Other OPEC producers are making up the gap (who???), or
*Non OPEC nations are making up the gap, (who???),
or....the unbelievable, massive, complete meltdown would have began, oh, about 20 minutes ago, and $75 bucks a barrel for oil and $8 bucks a MM/btu for natural gas would be the GREATEST THEFT of oil and gas at the most unbelievably stupidly cheap price in the history of the world! The massive shortfall depicted by the above stats would mean we should be seeing shortages at the pump NOW. It would mean that a Dow of anything over 5000 points would be a steller price. It would mean we should be seeing people doing what they did in the 1970's, giving their big vehicles to the dealers JUST TO GET ON THE LIST for a Toyota (back then, a Celica or Corola, now, a Prius or Camry hybrid.
It would also mean that well known "Peakers" are being far too optimistic. The "slow squeeze" scenario talked about by certain folks here on TOD would be out of the question. The 5 years before the collapse talked about by the Iranian minister of peak Bahktairi would not even be a hope of the greatest Pollyanna, and the "peak liquids post 2020, and then a 5% drop" depicted by Leharre would be lunacy. They would be further off the mark than Deffeyes "stone age by 2030" remark.
Yet, crude oil is still below $80 a barrel, nat gas below $9 per MM/btu the last time I looked, and Propane is a steal as a burnable portable fuel given the above scenario. The stock market, while taking some slaps, is certainly not yet at meltdown status, (think of the one day wipeout in 1987, when oil was so cheap it was being wasted for the fun of wasting it!) can you imagine the implications the peakers would read into that if it happened tomorrow?)
So, WHAT CAN I KNOW ABOUT WHAT I BELIEVE? (inside reference to Kevembuangga, I gave my closing opus and a thank you to our discussion the other day, by the way....my opus to "Stay away from the Dark Side, Luke...:-)
http://www.theoildrum.com/comments/2006/7/26/133241/680/254#254
Just this: We have no idea where we are. The evidence at the top of this post indicates we could be on the absolute edge of cliff, with no time to prepare for anything. On the other hand, it could be an indicator that we simply do not know the amount and reach of manipulations going on in the production/statistcal shifting going on. Once more, I have to return to what is becoming my central point, my mantra, at least for now: WE ARE RUNNING COMPLETELY IN THE BLIND, and this makes the danger far greater than even many "peakers" realize (remember, this is coming from someone regarded here as an optimist over the longer haul).
I no longer try to convince my friends/family/acquintances of "Peak", whatever that means, but simply ask them about a half dozen simple questions:
Q. Do you know where our oil comes from, and how much they produce? Do you think anyone has real verified statistics on our major suppliers production?
Q. Do you know how much oil our major suppliers have, and do you think anybody has verified statistics on that?
Q. If we do not know the above two things, would there be any warning whatsoever if they cannot deliver for some reason?
Q. Do you think that it is safe for a nation that has to have as much oil as we do, to deliver food, to get to people to work, to hospital, to school, and to heat homes to run completely in the blind on something that critical, and not have any alternative should the worst happen without warning?
Q. For now, FORGET THE PEAK THREAT, and ask yourself, is the above situation not of the greatest immediate danger to a nation, running in the dark at full speed without lights?
What seals the above argument is when they try to find valid information on their own, about oil reserves, oil supply, oil production, and find out there is virtually no REAL information available. Whether they accept immediate "peak" or not, they get nervous fast!
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
You cited six examples of flat to declining production. Three are clearly related to political problems--Iraq; Venezuela and Nigeria.
The other three--North Sea; Kuwait and Mexico--are all around the 50% of Qt mark. Last year, Saudi Arabia was at 58%.
In the mean time, I'm stockin' up on some more oil. I've already got the Prius. Thanks for the tip.
Funny - there was a young 20 something guy at the door checking reciepts. He saw my cart full of oil and said "Next time it will cost you an arm". I told him the price story here and he said " it is only going to get worse"
I think people have a sense that it looks grim, but just like the people on Eastr Island, lets build more McMansions.
One and a half years ago, crude was about $50. Now it's about $75. Maybe there's a connection?
These are excellent observations/questions that have bedeviled Peak Oil advocates for quite some time. If things are as bad as Heinberg and others are leading us to believe, wouldn't conditions be a lot worse by now? Why hasn't the entire deck of cards collapsed yet? Why is the idiotic Hummer crowd still able to harbor illusions about maintaining their wasteful lifestyles indefinitely?
I agree that Peak Oil is impending, as common sense says that any finite resource being depleted at the rate that oil is has to run out at some point. The question is when.
I've wondered for a long time if the current Peak Oil crisis isn't manufactured, and that while oil resources are certainly being depleted at a furious pace, if the situation isn't as bad as portrayed. Not that this is a conclusive point, but the fact that Matt Simmons is apparently linked to republican operatives like Cheney makes me decidedly suspicious of his motives. Is his drive to discredit the Saudi reserve figures a selfless warning to humanity, or part of an elitist propaganda campaign?
Serious depletion will be impossible to cover up for long, but until all illusions of its non-existence have been dashed, those who advocate for Peak Oil should continue to raise these types of questions.
Of course, there is the fact that world oil production and Saudi oil production are behaving precisely as the mathematical and historical models predicted that they would, but most people are going to prefer to believe the conspiracy theories, partly because of the B.S. sent their way by the "Iron Triangle" members.
Westexas,
First, let me say that I hold high respect for your numbers crunching, and will accept your numbers quicker than most of the stuff I see from USGS or EIA, which seem to me to be "whistlin' past the graveyard" stuff, where never is heard a discouraging word...:-)
You say " The other three--North Sea; Kuwait and Mexico--are all around the 50% of Qt mark. Last year, Saudi Arabia was at 58%."
In the case of Suadi Arabia, to know what 58% Qt is, we have to know what Qt is. Franky, I am not sure we do, in fact, I am more convinced each day we don't. I have seen numbers differ from various sources by an order of magnitude of at least 2.5, and the difference of two and a half times of something would move the halfway point considerably.
" Of course, there is the fact that world oil production and Saudi oil production are behaving precisely as the mathematical and historical models predicted that they would, but most people are going to prefer to believe the conspiracy theories...
Of course, if we look at 1980 through 1985, we see a drop in Saudi and world production that would indicate (to many people, it did indicate) that we must have been over 50% of Qt then, drops in production that were far longer and more substantial than they are today. The drops would been been perfect for "peak 1980" when compared to HL models, but we now know that it was in fact a logistical/economic/political "peak". You are the one that demonstrated to me where to look for a real "geological" peak (Texas, Lower 48, North Sea are textbook cases), I am just not sure that we have any real knowledge of Saudi and OPEC in general, a very dangerous situation.
Lastly, on the "manufactured peak" theory, I don't buy into that but I must say, the constant fear and rumor of peak has certainly done no harm to the oil companies! :-)
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
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. We had a little thing called the Iran-Iraq war. There was a thing called the "Tanker War". Tanker traffic in the Persian Gulf was cut to a fraction of what it was at its peak because of this war.
Saudi production started to drop in 1982 and reached its lowest point at the very height of the Tanker War in 1985.
No one, I repeat no one thought the drop in Saudi production beginning in 1982 was because they might have peaked.
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
Darwinian
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
Matt Simmons discussed the early Eighties production in his book. He thinks that the Saudis may have damaged their fields with the very high production rates. There is an analogue, the East Texas Field, that had its absolute peak in the Thirties. Production was then curtailed by the RRC, because of the damage to the reservoir--and because the flood of oil had driven the price of oil down to 10 cents per barrel. The secondary, lower, peak was in 1972, followed by a terminal decline.
In any case, based on the HL method Saudi Arabia, in 2005, was where Texas, the prior swing producer, was at in 1972.
The Ghawar Field has already made about 10 times as much oil as the East Texas Field--the largest oil field in the Lower 48.
Ghawar has already made about five times as much oil as Prudhoe Bay will ever make--the largest oil field in North America.
According to Simmons, a retired Aramco executive said that maximum URR would be 70 Gb for Ghawar. The Saudis have produced about 85% of that. We know that the remaining oil column is between a rising water leg and an emerging gas cap.
A decline/crash in oil production in Ghawar has been one of the most widely predicted events in petroleum history. Why should any of us be surprised when we receive reports of that very thing.
Everyone is asking for confirmation of Dr. Heinberg's report. I think the fact that total Saudi oil production is down about 7% since last year, while oil prices are up by 15% to 30% is more than sufficient confirmation.
(The following is set to the tune of "The Music of the Night" from "Phantom of the Opera.")
"It's over now, the lifestyle we once knew. . ."
I was in Saudi Arabia, working for Aramco, from 1980 until 1985. I read the newspapers and newsmagazines from home and I know everyone back home was concerned with the tanker wars and I know that all of us in Saudi were even more concerned. I was also concerned with the great gobs of tar that was washing up on the beaches at Ras Tanura at the time. But the point is Roger, if you will just look at the data from all other Gulf states, you will see that oil production from all Gulf States fell during that period. Now no one in their right mind would surmise that all the Gulf States were peaking at the exact same time.
Second I have read "Twilight in the Desert" and Matt clearly states that there was a fear that they were overproducing Ghawar and perhaps other fields, but nowhere does he discuss the possibility of Saudi peaking in those very early days.
Third, I have lived and followed the oil situation very closely for the last 25 years. Everyone that knew anything knew that OPEC held oil production low during the 90s to keep prices low. OPEC inched up on production during the late 90s and prices collapsed. Then they shut the taps again beginning in 2001 and held them low for a little over two years. Then they all started to produce full tilt and have been ever since.
True we were concerned with peak oil in 2000 but we anyone that knew anything knew OPEC still had their hand on the choke valve and were not producing at full tilt. Now they are and that is the difference. The vast majority of us peakers, in 2000, were expecting the peak some time between 2005 and 2010. (Actually there were not very many of us back then.) I was a member of the Running on Empty list, and the Energy Resources list which started, I think, in 2001, and only one man on the whole damn list was arguing that OPEC's swing producer, Saudi Arabia, had peaked.
Bottom line Roger, you are trying to say that we could very easily though Saudi Arabia peaked much earlier because of their up-down pattern of oil production. Well, perhaps a few idiots did make that mistake. But the vast majority of us knew very well that OPEC was manipulating production and that the production swings was due to OPEC control and not anyone peaking.
You opened with the line, "Roger, for starters I don't know why you posted almost the same post twice. You must have been really pissed off."
Have no fear of the pissed off thing, I am too busy chopping on a bigger tree than than that! :-)
The twin post was an organizational thing, because I was making two seperate cases in my own mind, the first discussing our difference of opinion about the "perception" of Saudi and world "peaking" and the effect of the "tanker wars", you see the latter as the bigger percieved threat at the time, and the former as non discussed, while I see the former as virtually non-existant as a percieved real threat, while the latter (although in those days, we did not have the "Peak" word or concept in the popular press, we are so media savvy these days, and people back then used the mis-applied phrase "running out" almost exclusively)
And seperately, the "historical sourcing" showing that, well, Saudi Arabia did indeed peak in 1981, at least on out to 2003. (Something, astoundingly, most people do not seem to know) so I divided the two main points as two posts, as the posts were going long anyway, as you must have noticed.
-----------------------
Now, back to the present, and the point you denote as "third" and you closing sentence, which is at the heart of where I am chopping!
You indicate a whole lot of "tap" turning there, Darwinian, loosening, closing, raising, lowering production at will on the part of the Saudi's. Then, at 2001, you say, "Then they all started to produce full tilt and have been ever since."
(think of what a miricle of consistancy the all became, and at once! :-)...and just as the price shot off to the sky....weren't they lucky, one more time?!) :-)
Let me make my point directly: on that sentence, "all started to produce full tilt and have been ever since." I don't think there is a way in the world we can know that to be true in any way, ( It may be. It may not be) and I would be willing to BET THEY ARE STILL CRANKING AROUND ON THE TAPS. It may be.
You yourself have shown a history all the way through the 1980's and 1990's of moving production at will by the Saudi's, up down, on and off, shifting from field to field, that indicates that from our end, there is NOT A POSSIBLE WAY to connect Saudi production to Saudi geology. I just don't think it can be done. And I am willing to bet that the rest of the OPEC countries are just as confusing and convoluted in their production picture, TODAY.
You say, "Bottom line Roger, you are trying to say that we could very easily though Saudi Arabia peaked much earlier because of their up-down pattern of oil production. Well, perhaps a few idiots did make that mistake."
Well of course, if it was so easily a mistake then, it could just as easily be a mistake now. Those who dismiss "peak" sure enough call the folks today who use oil production as an indicator of production capability are indeed regarded by the world as the current "few idiots" making that mistake again, the same one made in the 1980's. I mean really, no offense, would anyone except only the very niave say, " "Then they all started to produce full tilt and have been ever since."...(and the world lived happily ever after....
------------------------
Except for oil production charts here on TOD, what other real evidence can we produce? There actually is one, the one that Westexas references so often, and the heart of the "Peak" metric, HL. The Hubbert method works, but only if you can be absolutely certain about total quantity of URR. I make the argument that no one has any real idea of Saudi, OPEC, and by extension, world URR. I have said before that the the URR numbers given would range, as an example, somewhere between the volume of a beer can and the volume of a tanker truck (folks, this is only slightly an exageration, the difference you see in published reports are VAST). The great reason that Texas, U.S. lower 48, and even to a slightly lesser extent, the Atlantic North Sea are such great examples of the Hubbert method's effect is because there was such an open reporting of what was originally there, and the changes in URR (technology does make it a moving number) over the years. In the OPEC regions, we are now out at a third of century of almost absolute secrecy, and the better part of a century of convoluted and misleading and confusing stats.
Darwinian, let me tell you where you EXACTLY HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD, and exactly what has caused me to to spend valuable time at work on this now: YOU SAID:
"But the point is Roger, if you will just look at the data from all other Gulf states, you will see that oil production from all Gulf States fell during that period. Now no one in their right mind would surmise that all the Gulf States were peaking at the exact same time.
AND YET, that is exactly what is being surmised today, and in fact, not just every field in the Gulf, but almost every field IN THE WORLD. If you have seen my prior posts on this, it is this that SET OFF THE ALARM BELLS FOR ME NOW!
Suddenly, the press has jumped on the bandwagon, and we see claims that the reserves that were percieved to exist only a few years ago in the world are suddenly, without even being drilled, ALL GONE! Russia, Siberia, offshore Australia, offshore South America, on and off shore Africa, polar oil, deep offshore ocean, offshore and onshore Canada, remaining reserves in the U.S., the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, and all the oil once percieved still available in the Persian Gulf and offshore there, SUDDENLY GONE!! And not only that, even vast amounts of once percieved natural gas is GONE! Stranded gas, tight gas, deeper well gas, all GONE!, in a heartbeat, without even being explored for!
Now I know the above is an exaggeration to make by me to make a point, but if you read the popular press and the most hysterical of the peakers sites and writings, it PALES as exaggeration to what you see spreading in the media (and the MOST hysterical seem to be gaining very rapidly as a percentage of the total) ...this is the kind of perception they are putting out there to the masses. If one were suspicious (I am) it would seem that a completely catastrophic panic is exactly what is wanted, and based, as yet, on no evidence of collapse (maybe tommorow, but not today...)
In other words, the production stats and the HL, both based on honest straight up production by the Persian Gulf nations and the world to get a clear picture to work with, in my view can rely on NEITHER OF THE ABOVE, and further, the HL model relies on a trustworthy number as an assumed URR, which I don't see existng, at least in much of the world (and the percent of the world that is given to that type of openness is declining very fast)
---------------------------------
Your closing sentence was the icing on the cake:
"But the vast majority of us knew very well that OPEC was manipulating production and that the production swings was due to OPEC control and not anyone peaking."
Fascinating that you would use those words, "manipulating production", and "OPEC control". (when those who had doubts as to whether what we see now can be used as any kind of evidence of a geological peak, they were dismissed rudely as being "duped" by the "iron triangle".
And yet, if control and " "manipulating production" then could create a situation where as you point out, every Gulf state and in fact world production could drop for a half decade, and Saudi Arabia could stand at "plateau" for the full decade of the 1990's ("plateau" is now being painted by some here as something all new and threatening, but would you mind going back to the 1990's on fuel price and economic conditions?)
My argument is simple: THE TIME HAS COME TO BE GRAVELY SUSPICIOUS OF MUCH MORE THAN JUST GEOLOGY.
Darwinian, in one of those great little moments of irony, just as I am finishing this post, with the ABC News going on in the background, and having read your sentence about those war days of the 1980's, I quote you,
"I read the newspapers and newsmagazines from home and I know everyone back home was concerned with the tanker wars and I know that all of us in Saudi were even more concerned. I was also concerned with the great gobs of tar that was washing up on the beaches at Ras Tanura at the time."
RETURN TO 2006: ABC NEWS reporting on Sunday night, August 6th, that there is grave concern on the part of environmentalists due to the oil spills washing ashore in Lebenon and the coast of Israel due to war damage from missile and air strikes on coastal ports and shipping, and in the Persian Gulf, due to massive damage of oil supply pipelines, tanks, and pumping facilities in Iraq, now coming down the rivers, there is an rapidly increasing amount of crude oil washing ashore on the coasts of all Persian Gulf nations. The United Nations and the Arab League, according to some, are being asked for emergency meetings/action.
Compare 1981 to 2006. BUT THIS TIME, we say, IT'S DIFFERENT. This time, the war has nothing to do with it, geology is everything. This time, unlike 1978 through the early 1980's, THERE IS NO MANIPULATION OF PRODUCTION, why they are so sweet to us, all pumping "flat out". Do we really believe that? (I wil remind of 9/11 and turn you to a source
http://www.setamericafree.org
THIS TIME, IT'S DIFFERENT. The truth is, it really could be, there is evidence indicating it is. At some point the geology HAS TO CATCH UP, and the global warming issue is becoming crucial to address or ignore, WE HAVE TO CHOSE, right now we are taking the worst of all possible paths
THIS TIME, THERE IS NO CHANCE OF IT NOT BEING THE REAL THING. PEAK (or as many magazines and books still say, just as in the 1970's, we're running out...)
But it will be almost impossible, no let me re-say that, COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW. Most of the public do not accept THE DIFFERENCE. They are sure that just as the 1990's followed the 1980's, the price WILL COME BACK DOWN, the tide will turn, and we will be back to "Morning in America" (the most horrific, terrible thought of course to the peakers is, (sacrilige alert) WHAT IF THEY ARE RIGHT? (chills, brrrr, please, please DON'T EVER SAY THAT!
(but.....shiver.....could it be.....geopolitical, logistical, economic, turning up and down the taps by the OPEC gang, and the world.....as you say, "manipulation and control".....as it was in the 1980's......is there even a fine thin chance, that we could see people acting agains as they have acted before, they they have not somehow become honest and clean? Is there?
Editorial here:
IF the "peak crisis" comes, even the peak aware will be surprised by when, where and how, and no scenario will be able to predict it. It will be like a thief in the night, and just as cagey as one. These so called "prep plans" will look idiotic compared to the event as it unfolds.
And on the other side, if peak crisis is averted, the future will be so dazzling, so confused, so in flux, with careers and options so confused, overchoice of options being almot mind bending, technology so bizarre, social arrangements and political and energy arrangements so convoluted that many will pray that the peak had happened, that they would have gotten the "New Dark Age", the simpler life of Gothic hunger, labor and penury, that would seem like a quiet peaceful paradise compared to the mix of "Brave New World", "1984", and "Blade Runner" plus that will be in wait for us.
Raw terror and "Future Shock" will be a bigger threat than this so called "Peak thing" could have ever been.
-----------------------
And you will be running, AS WE ARE NOW realizing we are today, COMPLETELY BLIND. That is the greatest danger.
(like I said, I am chopping on a bigger tree, so thanks for bearing with me and the feedback and opposing view. Darwinian, are you and is anyone other than me starting to get suspicious of the "simple stories" we are given from all sides?
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
Well, well, well....it's happening again...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=aiUH45sTA2og&refer=energy
"OPEC oil output fell an average 250,000 barrels a day to 29.61 million barrels a day, according to the survey of oil companies, producers and analysts. June production was revised 60,000 barrels a day lower. OPEC's 11 members pumped 30.54 million barrels a day in October 2004, the highest since 1979.
``Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and Nigeria all posted minor declines in output,'' said Tim Evans, an energy analyst at Citigroup Global Markets Inc. in New York. ``It's unusual to see so many members' output move in the same direction.''
Despite Darwinian's assertion that it couldn't have happened, that "only an idiot would believe it" in the 1980's, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE ARE ALL PEAKING AT THE SAME TIME AGAIN! :-)
Is this JUST GETTING TOO RICH OR NOT? Gee, I wonder how many "idiots" believe it this time?
....oh, they suddenly noticed the Alaska pipeline was rusty!! hee, hee, and had no warning before yesterday, despite constant daily inspection!!
give me a break....... (you know what I just noticed, by the way....despite all the predictions by the hysterics we are pushing to the edge of autumn and crude wouldn't go over $80 bucks, much less the assured $100 dollars a barrel.....and now some folks are by golly going to SEE THAT IT DOES, WHATEVER IT TAKES!! :-O
do they see us as too stupid to see this?
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
Let's look at Kuwait. Burgan is in decline. It's admitted by Kuwait itself now, something that did not happen in the 1980s. We've also been discussing this here for a year.
Nigeria is suffering from a civil war that is simply preventing supply from reaching the market. This has happened throughout the world since we began pumping oil. The only difference is this time the market is tight. And this civil war has been going on for a while now. No surprise here.
Iran's output is roughly steady and any decline there is probably political payback to George Bush and the European nations.
Mexico's problems have been discussed for going on two years and now they are starting to come to fruition. This is no surprise.
Finally, as for Saudi Arabia, it's output is declining as oil prices are rising. Why? During the early 1980s, Saudi Arabia's prices declined during the so-called tanker wars as prices declined. Yet the Saudi fields have been under scrutiny and questioned heavily for over a year now as well. Again, this is no surprise.
You are so enamored of conspiracy theories that you refuse to see the forest for the trees. You also forget that the first decade of the 21st century was Hubbert's prediction for global peak, which would mean that many fields would have peaked before or about this time.
And then you have the gall to call anyone who disagrees with you "idiots". Are you going to tie in the North Sea declines to your conspiracy fetish? How about the last 30 years of US declines? And before you give the "running blind" rant again, if you can choose to discard all the evidence so far, then we can choose to discard you as well. Without some proof that the current data is so badly flawed as to be useless, your assertions lack substance. So far in all your rants you've given us nothing but rhetoric. If you have evidence, then share it for us to evaluate. And if you don't, then excuse me while I ignore your mile long repetitive and empty rants.
That's a tad unfair. Rest assured that I'm not trying to denigrate the great charts and detailed depletion figures that you post, but just engaging in a bit of speculation. For those who aren't as intimately associated with the oil industry as yourself, it is natural to question Peak Oil and the way its playing out.
Not everyone who doesn't trust Big Oil deserves to be labeled a "conspiracy theorist." Examining issues from different angles is a good thing, I think.
At the end of the day, these are just electronic bits pouring out of the Internet. You never know what is "true" and what is mostly a load of bull bits.
No one knows for sure what lies undiscovered beneath the ground. There is an outside chance the Cornucopians will turn out to have been right. There is a possibility the doomers are right. We will probably never know for sure one way or the other.
If the doomers are right EVERYBODY will know!
No.
Not you and I.
We will both be dead before "they" admit the doomers were right.
And "they" will perform an honorable disappearance act, riding off into the sunset, before ever admitting they might have been wrong.
When was the last time "they" admitted they were wrong?
Korea?
Vietnam?
Iraq?
Brilliant Pebbles?
Ronald Raygun?
When was the last time Doomers got to crow: We was right?
Pompei?
Maya?
Easter Island?
It just doesn't happen that way.