179 comments on And how is Saudi Arabia getting on? (or more evidence of a deteriorating situation...)
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
179 comments on And how is Saudi Arabia getting on? (or more evidence of a deteriorating situation...)
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Men argue; nature acts.”
—Voltaire
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Hello HO,
Thxs for this keypost. My question is this phrase re-quoted below:
"...when you include an anticipated 800,000 bd loss due to old fields declining...."
Who gave this depletion amount? Is it accurate, or is it considered a lowball SWAG quantity? Did they explain how they derived this number?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Bob:
That has come from a number of sources, it is quoted in the September pdf on the Saudi Energy Initiative, for example. The concern that I have is that in that source they are projecting this as a total loss over several years, while other sources that give about the same number project it as an annual figure. The Saudi's spend about $2 billion a year in trying to offset depletion in their existing fields, and this would suggest that if the annual figure is held to the 2-300,000 bd range that they are fairly successful at it. However to sustain that figure requires that they bring new wells on line, and that requires drilling rigs, and as they try to ramp up production the question becomes how many wells, at what production rates can they drill each year. If, for example, it is taking 300 wells to increase Khurais by 1.2 mbd that suggests they are getting 4,000 bd/well.
HO,
Thxs for the reply. If 800,000 is the annual figure--without discovering big, new virgin oilfields to exploit--that seems like an impossible depletion amount to overcome by infield workovers [no matter what the extraction tech level applied].
If this number is true-- can it be reverse-engineered, or more accurately, reverse calculated back into a HL graph to show what reserves can be expected to be extracted at a meaningful production level? Khebab & WT?
I am predicting a long term net decline rate of about 4% per year for KSA, perhaps more sharply at first if Ghawar is crashing.
Hi WT/Jeffrey,
And an export decline rate of...?
The decline in net exports from 12/05 to 12/06 will be, IMO, at least 13%, perhaps as high as 15% (in one year).
westexas,
In regards to declining exports brought about by rising internal consumption, what are your thoughts on the possible chaotic influences brought about by those decreasing exports and actual geological peak? That is, as exports decline and more is consumed internally, the producing nation generates less revenue such that its citizens are less wealthy, thereby softening demand. Past peak, those nations are going to want to keep their citizens happy, thereby given them first rights to the oil and perhaps causing a rapid drop in exports - again less revenue generated by the producing nation and softening internal demand. This drop in wealth may also push those producing nations into modes of internal conservation to protect their exports, and bring their revenue back. Do you see these scenarios as a valid reasons why declining net exports may not wind up particularly dramatic?
Substrate,
I cannot speak for Westexas, but I do see one huge questionable premise in your question:
Just because the quantity of oil that an oil-exporting country exports is declining does NOT mean that the revenue from these exports declines.
For example, exports decline thirty percent in volume while oil prices double: Result, declining volume of oil exports combined with great increase in export revenue.
Because oil is highly price inelastic (especially in the short run) such a scenario of declining volumes with increasing revenues is highly plausible.
And there is another problem with Substrate's reasoning. Lost revenue from exports due to rising internal consumption does not necessarily mean less wealth. It depends on how the oil is used.
I don't hold out much hope that many, or any, of the principal exporters of oil will find productive domestic employment for the source of work they currently export in massive quantities, but it remains possible that they will do so.
I've noticed that the EIA has made three different forecasts for SA Productive Capacity (PC) according to three prices scenarios (data here):
The high price scenario is actually forecasting a much lower productive capacity. I don't know the exact reason but it's probably lower demand.
Just because the quantity of oil that an oil-exporting country exports is declining does NOT mean that the revenue from these exports declines.
shhhhh!!...you weren't supposed to notice that. If the price of oil got high enough though, it'd probably dampen/destruct the economies in the importing countries bringing the price back down again. Also inflation throughout the world might render the new money less valuable.
Bob, it is found here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/saudi.html
He makes it clear that this is an annual decline rate. The 8 percent is simply the midway point between 5 and 12, or very near so.
Ron Patterson
Thxs Ron,
Sure hate to read how the oilfields all seem to deplete at such high rates unless we go nuts with workovers, new tech, and infield drilling for the pockets left behind in an effort to stem the inevitable extraction decrease. The 'Red Queen' has got to be getting severely winded trying to keep up with this pace.
It all seems to be pointing to a 'geologic' Hubbert Global Downslope that will be pretty steep, unless demand can somehow be decreased for decades: so as to lessen supply extraction and lengthen [fatten] the postPeak tail.
Perhaps the only way this demand destruction can be accomplished is for the 'Boomers', the world over, to willingly fall upon the 'Peakoil Grenade', thereby changing the world demographic to a much younger skew. This will increase the survival odds for the future kids as it will take them time to want to increase FF's extraction to the maximum again.
Full disclosure: I am a tail-end Boomer at 51 years, but I have no idea how to conceive and implement a global plan along these thoughts. Generally, the older a person gets: the more reluctant they are to accepting massive change and writing off their lifelong investments in property, cultural values, lifestyle mode, etc, etc. My Mom would quickly die from 'culture shock' if I had to forcibly relocate her from the Asphalt Wonderland to some other location in an effort to protect her from TSHTF.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?