![]() | DrumBeat: February 14, 2007 | The Oil Drum | Anaerobic Digestion (AD) in Ontario – A Regulatory Obstacle Course | ![]() |
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
- The 2008 IEA WEO - Production Decline Rates
- The EU Strategic Energy Review: maybe not so depressing after all
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
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
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.”
—H. G. Wells, 1904
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- 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
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.





GAIA Host Collective
Saudi Arabia on Track for 12-14M B/D.
I really liked to read that. No speculations about 2030 or so. They announce to virtually double their output within less than 24 months. So we will see soon. Either way, if they'll be able to fulfill or not, the outcome will be significant.
I didn't post this one up top, because it's subscription-only, but maybe someone who has a subscription can give us details...
Aramco Adds More Projects to Upstream Push
Greenspan on oil
So in two to three years time Saudi will be claiming around 7 million barrels a day of spare capacity in the midst of falling global production and rising demand!
Note the two caveats: Beyond that it's a bit unclear & 'though the exact number is uncertain'
Rad: Interesting headline- then in the article, KSA claims a minimum capacity by the end of 2009 of 12 mbpd, while claiming a current capacity of 11.6. I guess this headline is better than "KSA says production capacity will not decline before the end of 2009 as new investments are planned".
I think it is a double bluff. They have admitted to an unattended 8% decline on existing fields
which supposedly has been held to 2% decline via advanced recovery/increased rigs.
The double bluff is making people think that they wouldn't dare lie in reporting such outrageously high future production rates.
in my opinion.
Marco.
Note that the EIA C+C report for 8.8 mbpd in November and the Saudi report for about 8.5 mbpd in February are both consistent with a net 8% decline rate per year since 9/05.
I have previously pointed out how odd it is that the "voluntary" cuts in production are--so far at least--consistently in the 8% per year range.
And they will try to string out the misinformation for as long as possible (punctuated by the odd chime in from the MSM in agreement).
I can see the FT headlines already:
"oil tumbles on Suadi oil projections"
Marco.
I'm as bearish on Saudi production/reserves as you. This is one big bear that everyone wants to stick their head in the sand about. Once the cat gets out of the bag that Ghawar is producing close to 3.5mbd AND that position is made official, then people will realise what the current scramble is about. I will say no more.
Marco.
Can anyone link to the production graph of KSA including the increases in drilling rigs(@3x). I think khebab did it 2-5 months ago I don't know for sure. It fits well with the current discussion above. The chart is worth a thousand words.
I don't know how to search and link or I would do it.
Thanks,
D
I dont think there is much point in looking for an increased pulse in flow (just yet).
The ramping up of rigs - which is impressive started in earnest in 2006. The effects will take some time.
Some will be for in-fill and field enhancement drilling, some will be for workovers of existing wells, some will be for exploration and appraisal, and then development of any (if any ) newly discovered fields.
Infill and field enhancement has a small lag, exp , appraisal and development is less certain, and governed by proximity to existing infrastructure and the amount of development drilling that follows.
Infill, enhancement and workovers help sustain the life of a field, but does not increase beyond peak production / peak flow. Look to the North Sea : it keeps us alive for longer, but does not add oil flows that then exceed the 1999 peak flow rate.
No. Only successfull exploration can do that.
The only contrarian argument would be that KSA has been sitting on secret supergiants which are now going to be developed in the next 1-5 years.
So, that is the question: Have KSA held the best back for last?
As always, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
I'm bullish on KSA production. Just look at their historic production profile (BP Stats) which has been all over the map as they have increased and throttled back production for various political and economical reasons.
OTOH I tend to be bearish on Russia. After all, it is the Russia Bear, isn't it? I do have difficulty with the notion that they can maintain their current production flows much longer.
"I'm bullish on KSA production. Just look at their historic production profile"
I've seen the production profile and one thing always sticks in my mind. That there is a new flavour to the current production. Multilateral with water injection, 3x rig count than a few years ago. These relatively new techniques only need to be employed when pressures drop and push the production from bell shape to ramp and cliff shape. Not to mention their apparent inability to effect a change in global oil price via production quota where before they were able to easily. It's all gone so frantic.
So maybe they are sitting on untouched supergiants, but I am 99.9% sure I know why they are not: they would not go to all the trouble/cost of secondary recovery if they were.
All my opinion.
" ...So maybe they are sitting on untouched supergiants, but I am 99.9% sure I know why they are not: they would not go to all the trouble/cost of secondary recovery if they were."
I hope that you are wrong. If KSA and Russia and Mexico all entered declines within the same year or two... along with export declines we would indeed be in for interesting times.
Since so much of this is not knowable until after the fact, I wish that our present administration would start educating us on energy efficency... a little preventative medicine.
Just driving about 10% less a year would mean about a 1 mbp/d decrease in our petroleum use.
Not many years ago around 60% of the American public smoked. Then the prices started going up and the tobacco industry was forced to attach the now famous warnings that their product will kill you. Now about 20% of the public smokes.
Certainly energy efficiency could be "sold" the same way. We could put warnings on gas pumps like, "Using this product may result in your kid dying in Iraq" or "Using this product will require you to wear a personal floatation device and breathe through a snorkle."
Hi Byron,
"Not many years ago around 60% of the American public smoked. Then the prices started going up and the tobacco industry was forced to attach the now famous warnings that their product will kill you. Now about 20% of the public smokes."
I appreciate your thinking about education/action. Maybe along the lines of http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/DesignatedDriver/, we could have "Friends don't let friends drive..."
IMO: there is the proof of the pudding.
Why go to rig-intense, injection and infrastructure intense activity, if they are sitting on highly geopressured virgin reservoirs requiring fewer wells to generate high flows with minimum effort ? - this was the story of KSA from the 50's and beyond.
In the history of oil, we have always taken the fastest, cheapest route to the resource (low hanging fruit first)
At the end of the day, we will all know soon enough
Texas alone has over 54,000 wells. KSA barely has 1,500. A 3x increase isn't much when you compare the two regions like that.
Hothgor, glad to have caught you (off topic your current post, sorry). I want to take you up on your dismissal of DU in yesterday's Drumbeat, and of New Account's response to you suggesting you actually looked at it.
I'll repeat his link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
and add the most recent I know review of studies on the teratogenic effects:
http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17
I would like you to read them thoroughly before you say anything about DU again.
I agree with you that uranium outside one's body in low concentrations is virtually harmless. However, once particles are ingested (oral or respiritory) the situation is very different. There are both radioactive and toxic effects.
DU projectiles are designed to vapourise and burn the DU on impact. That widely disperses the DU in small particulates, ideal for distribution and ingestion.
I also agree that the evidence and studies are far from conclusive, but there is sufficient evidence already to strongly suggest adverse effects. How long should we wait for conclusive results - the half-life of U235 (the active bit of DU) is about the same as this planet to date?
I'll leave you with the last sentence of my second link above:
"Regarding the teratogenicity of parental prenatal exposure to DU aerosols, the evidence, albeit imperfect, indicates a high probability of substantial risk. Good science indicates that depleted uranium weapons should not be manufactured or exploded."
Source and link ?
That is VERY different from my understanding of the role of the designed role of DU munitions. And absent PROVING this point, much of the rest falls as well.
Alan
From the wikipedia article
and
also
A pyrophoric substance is a substance that ignites spontaneously, that is, its autoignition temperature is below room temperature. from wikipedia
It's fully explained in the links I posted.
Thanks Rethin.
And thanks for bringing this forward to Hothgar's attention again. I gave up when he linked genetic birth defects to poor pre-natal training.
The radioactivity of depleted uranium (half life of 3+ billion years for the depleted fraction) is not a significant concern. The ore that uranium miners deal with everyday for decades is as radioactive.
I have read a number of articles on mortality & health effects of uranium miners (smoking & uranium mining is VERY bad for your health, lung cancer risk increases by order of magnitude ! 1950s era uranium miners that do not smoke have lung cancer rates slightly less than 1/2 pack to 1 pack/day smokers).
Given the long term exposure with minimal precautions (1950s/1960s) to high concentrations of uranium by miners, I am not overly concerned about the direct risks from single exposure except in vary rare exceptional cases (i.e. DU shell enters house and does not remain intact but burns completely). OTOH, uranium miners of that era were all male, and not a good measure of teratogenicity. One study of wives & children of uranium miners showed no negative effects (US) but another Australian study showed that effects on the edge of statistical signficance (vague memory, 90% but 95% significance). Exposure to poorly controled tailings (which contain daughter radioactive products not present in DU) in Australia.
Since uranium (not depleted) and daughter products are present in many environments naturally, I am not concerned about diffuse, long term exposure. Lead, Colorado residents (town with highest background radiation in US, much from uranium & daughter products) have greater risks.
Alan
Hrothgar:
They did not need to drill 54000 wells to find the oil.
54000 wells will not find oil where there aint any.
Thank god you aint in exploration: your oil company would go bust
For what it's worth
As I posted yesterday, I have been out of town for a week now and must drive across town to borrow my brother in law's computer to post. So if this note on Saudi Arabia was posted Sunday when it was fresh then I do apologize for the re-post. But in Sunday's Parade Magazine, there was a list of "The World's 10 Worst Dictators." Here is #5:
As I said, I apologize if this has already been posted. But I would just wish to point out there are multiple reasons that Saudi Arabia would wish the world to believe that they are sitting on the world's largest reserves of oil when in fact that is a complete myth. Well, it's a myth unless about 70 billion barrels are the world's largest reserves.
Got to go now. Hope to check in again in a day or two.
Ron Patterson
Why is the USA denying KSA all the benefits of Democracy?
Good question. The citizens of Saudi Arabia must look with envy at their northern neighbor and wish that the United States of America would perform a similar service for for the Saudis.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
KSA's previously announced plans were to increase production capacity to 12 mbpd in 2009 and 15 mbpd in 2012. What I gather from this latest statement is that they are on target to meet the first goal, but that they are losing confidence in their ability to reach the 2nd goal. Instead of increasing production capacity by 3 mbpd during 2009-2012, they are revising that expectation downward to 0-2 mbpd in that timeframe.
Their stated post 2012 plans are not to increase production. They have said that they will plateau from 2012 onward. That's the part of their prediction that it most questionable. It's quite reasonable (not to mention alarming) that they will peak in the 2009-2012 timeframe, but do they really expect to avoid production declines for decades afterward?
Now that they are on record as bringing in their peak timeframe from 2012 to 2009, we may expect some explicit statement on post peak decline rates. So far they have been avoiding public statements about it.
I read it similarly. It seems (to me) to be saying that KSA now envisions an upper limit of 14 mbpd on its productive capacity in the foreseeable future, and may be unable to commit to above 12 mbpd.
U really should check the archives before posting silly stuff like this. Several Aramco and KSA documents have been posted in the last few weeks that clearly show that the 12-mbd MSC was scheduled for completion in 2016 (Presentation, CSIS-2004 et al). These are plainly rehashed reannouncements of their accelerated schedule that we have discussed ad nauseum.
2016. Read it and weep kids.
I must 'yes, but'.
The only new thing I felt from that is the 14 mbpd upper ceiling that KSA now seem to be suggesting - and it seems to be a 12-14 mbpd ceiling - in the foreseeable (10 year?) future. That does have implications.
2016? If PO is as late as then I will weep with joy - provided we (humanity) start getting our act together soon!
Also please consider the source, Agric. Obaid is a KSA Security guy. Altho informed (except on the diff betw decline & depletion ... much like our own RP ... which only proves anyone can make mistakes), we just has a flurry of KSA and Aramco presentations that i posted that are crystal clear on a 12.5-mbd MSC while Obaid's persuasive and detailed presentation was in early November.
As TOD scrutineers, are we going with the engineers or with the story from a Security guy at a CSIS event?
I prefer the 12.5-mbd MSC and the 10-mbd production rate. Methinx the KSA budget is based on $43/barrel. There is no need to ramp up when a stable and surplus based economy is already assured.
I can understand the accelerated pace. Surplus world capacity had evaporated. The rising price was most certainly going to bring on a global recession and that would have prolonged the deficit budgets that KSA were mired in only a short time ago. A secondary reason would be the available ample capital funds that were fleeing from the stock market and residing temporarily in bonds and other financial instruments.