Calorie, thanks a million. This clears it up. I was accessing the archives copy. That copy is dated Feb 13, and apparently there have been some changes since then.

As for the different figures in different places, I think the lower figure is crude oil only and the higher figure is all liquids.

Thanks again

Ron Patterson

I'm sorry to repost that, but I think it may interest somebody.

This is the hypothetical Saudi decline, following a 8% decline rate since 9/05:

9/05 (0% decline): 9,5 mbpd
11/06 (9,34%): 8,6127
2/07 (11,34%): 8,4227
3/07 (12%): 8,36
4/07 (12,67%): 8,29635
5/07 (13,34%): 8,2327
6/07 (14%): 8,17
7/07-(14,67%): 8,10635
8/07-(15,34%): 8,0427
9/07-(16%): 7,98

I'm sorry to repost that, but I think it may interest somebody.

This is the hypothetical Saudi decline, following a 8% decline rate since 9/05:

9/05
9,5 mbpd (0% decline)
11/06 8,6127 (9,34%)
2/07 8,4227 (11,34%)
3/07 8,36 (12%)
4/07 8,29635 (12,67%)
5/07 8,2327 (13,34%)
6/07 8,17 (14%)
7/07 8,10635 (14,67%)
8/07 8,0427 (15,34%)
9/07 7,98 (16%)

Manmax, I do not think anyone expects Saudi to continue to decline at 8%. I think their existing giant fields are indeed declining at a rate of 8% but they are bringing some new oil on line. But the argument is, at least my argument is, this new oil will not make up for the decline in their old giant fields. They will decline, in my opinion, every year for many years, but not necessarly by 8%.

Ron Patterson

I understand, it was just a guideline to follow the numbers of the Saudi production, in order to know how far they are from a 8% decline.