Yes, let the doomer spin cycle begin! Its funny how when the 'voluntary reduction' ends, you guys still point out that they are shipping less oil out then they were before. KSA, supposedly on its 18th month or so of 8% annual decline, magically finds away to halt their supposedly unstoppable decline.

Honestly guys, their announcement completely contradicts everything you have been saying, and confirms everything that RR, FH and myself have been saying. Its sad that a bludgeoning to the head like this wont snap you all out of your doomer centric world view.

Oh well...

What end to voluntary reduction? Cutbacks in deliveries to one market are being marginally reduced, but cutbacks continue.

A doomer discussion would turn on the anticipated impact of a change in conditions, such as declining energy availability, or climate change, or a general decline in human intelligence, your contribution to TOD providing an indication of the latter. It does not turn on an critique of the reporting of comments of a Saudi official.

When you first appeared on TOD, I wondered aloud if you were a paid disinformer. I have concluded that on balance it is more likely that you are akin to an untalented graffiti 'artist', who takes pleasure in destroying things, in this case, informative discussion.

Something tells me that Mr. Rapier will shudder at his inclusion in your trio.

Hey Hothgor:

Would it be possible for you to express your views without insulting 90% of the readers of TOD in every post??

I don't read the threads every day like I used to. Too much of this sort of crap! So if your intent is to simply drive people away from this site, you're doing a fine job!

"Would it be possible for you to express your views without insulting 90% of the readers of TOD in every post??"

Seems to be "the" goal.

Um, those 18 missing Nigerian tanker loads have nothing to do with 'voluntary' cutbacks - and they have nothing to do with how sharp the business skills of Aramco are.

And the numbers from the article of real cuts to real customers in the real world concerning real contracts with real refineries involving real money are reality.

Please, don't try to impute any motives - sometimes I truly miss Oil CEO, with all his flaws, as he seemed to understand just how incredibly complex this discussion truly is - for example, I am still personally convinced that the world economy is about to suffer a large decline, akin to the 1920s boom/1930s bust, and it wouldn't surprise me if some very smart business people are doing their best to profit from it, including creating scarcity to drive prices higher before the bottom falls out. So what? As noted, my measure of peak oil is what comes out of the pipeline, and nothing else.

But a cut of 7-8% compared to a cut of 10-13% in deliveries is not a rise in deliveries, it is a reduction. Force majeure on a commodities contract is not a voluntary cutback.

Welcome to Feb. 12, 2007. But that flood of oil is just about to arrive, right? But it looks like the date got pushed back a month or two more, unless we find a few full tankers ready to go - maybe the Saudis misplaced a few that got lost on their way to those short changed Asian refineries?

Agreed.

Where is Oil CEO?

And can he come out to play?

Re: Mr. Naimi said that beginning in May 2004, the kingdom "went almost all out" to produce 9.5 million barrels a day to satisfy rising demand.

The significance of this remark is that Saudi Arabia went to virtually 100% of capacity at the same stage of depletion that Texas went to virtually 100% of capacity. The Texas RRC went to a 100% allowable in early 1972 (except for the East Texas Field and one field in West Texas--thus Texas "went almost all out" in 1972).

As I have pointed out several times, Saudi Arabia also started declining at the same stage of depletion that Texas started declining.

The reversal of exports was discussed last week, Jeffrey, with Charles Mackay's posting of a report that OPEC Exports had increased by 2-mbd in early February. I know this thread screws up your recent stance but your continual restating of your tired tirade will not make it come true...

"Exports from 11 OPEC members were 24.64 million barrels per day in the week ending Feb. 4, Lloyd's said. January exports averaged 22.6 million bpd, down from 22.8 million in December."

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2259#comment-158156 (see previous post by Charles Mackay also)

The topic was Saudi exports, not OPEC as a whole. That said, both Saudi and OPEC-10 exports have been dropping:

Country January December November October September
Saudi Arabia 8.750 8.790 8.800 9.070 9.100
OPEC-10 26.950 27.000 27.070 27.730 27.810

It's no surprise that exports are dropping after the announced November 1st OPEC cut. The only real question is why OPEC decided to cut exports during a period of sky-high prices (at least historically), and that I believe is what WT has been asking. It might be just to boost the price, as they've stated, but it would also be a great way to conceal a production problem. Of course they also could be bracing for something like this:

They said state oil company Saudi Aramco may have put aside upwards of a million tonnes of the aviation fuel for possible use by the US military this year, compared with around 200,000 tonnes in 2006.
“I believe that Saudi Arabia was warned in advance of the increased US military activity starting early 2007 and may have allocated 1mn to 1.2mn tonnes of jet fuel for possible use by the US military during 2007,” one source said.

Time will tell.

Hothgar-

Please let the us know what is the set of facts and standard of proof required for you to acknowledge that the world has reached peak oil production.