This is a post by ACE!!! that was buried far down in the thread yesterday that deserves a new life...apologies in advance for bungling it (copied it from the source and removed stray HTML):

ace on April 2, 2007 - 12:53am

The Decline of Saudi Arabia: Updated Forecast and Field by Field Analysis Report
Hi Westexas,
That’s a great article that you’ve found – Riyadh bank predicts that Saudi oil production is expected to fall…to 8.44 million bpd in 2007.
My current forecast is showing Saudi oil production to be about the same at 8.43 million bpd in 2007.
Figure 1 – Saudi Arabia Production Forecast

Given that it is becoming more likely that Saudi has no surplus capacity the importance of the near term big projects Shaybah and AFK (Khursaniyah) becomes critical.
This Nov 2006 CSIS presentation by Obaid makes the following statements:
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/events/061109_omsg_presentation1.pdf
Khursaniyah (AFK) was ”originally scheduled for December 2007” but in Nov 2006, Obaid says that it will be earlier: ”by June 2007 to reach 500,000 b/d”.
Shaybah expansion was ”originally scheduled for January 2009” but again Obaid states an earlier date: ”by April/May 2008: 250,000 b/d will come on stream”.
On Mar 4, 2007, Phil Hart said that ”Khursaniyah group of fields..is not expected on stream until the end of 2007.”
http://www.energybulletin.net/26755.html
I’ve assumed Khursaniyah (AFK) first oil is Feb 2008.
The desperation to deliver first oil earlier from AFK and Shaybah together with Riyadh’s downgraded oil forecast shows that Saudi Aramco is struggling to increase production rates. The forecast in Figure 1 from 2008 to 2011 may be too optimistic.
The following presentation by Hans Jud from Switzerland performs a field by field analysis for Saudi Arabia:
http://www.peakoil.nl/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/sa-oilprod_field-by-fie...
Figure 2 – Small Saudi Fields show “Great Future”?

The figure above is partly based on information also from Obaid’s CSIS presentation. The figure shows that there is justified scepticism over Aramco’s promise to suddenly produce huge amounts of oil from old small fields. Look at Manifa and Khurais – huge production rate jumps!!
Figure 3 – HL for Saudi Giant Fields

The figure shows a cumulative HL plot for the giant fields of Ghawar, Abqaiq, Berri, Safinaya, Zuluf and Marjan. The URR is 125 Gb. Jud also does HLs for each of these fields in his presentation.
Figure 4 – HL for Saudi Arabia – all fields

The figure above shows a URR of about 165 Gb.
Figure 5 – Two cycle HL

For this chart, Jud optimistically assumes that Saudi Arabia has an additional 40 Gb of secret oil to produce. This gives the dashed blue line. This is added to the dashed red line (URR 165 Gb) to give the dashed green line as a forecast for Saudi production.
In the last few years, note also in the figure above the production drop in the 6 giant fields while total production is increasing. Are the MRC wells in the giant fields starting to show accelerated decline rates due to increased water cut?
Figure 6 – Where are the missing fields?

This last figure shows that Jud’s optimistic assumption of an additional 40 Gb is most likely false. This means that Saudi’s URR is about 165Gb. Fig 5 shows the dashed red line for the URR 165 Gb which might be the best HL fit for Saudi.
The forecast in Fig 1 assumes that old small fields such as Khursaniyah (AFK), Khurais and Manifa can deliver huge increases in production. Fig 5 shows these forecasts to be overoptimistic (Matt Simmons would probably agree).
It is highly unlikely that Saudi Arabia will ever produce more than 8.5 million bpd (C[and]C). This means that if any supply disruption or sudden demand increase occurs, do not assume that Saudi Arabia can be “called” upon to supply extra oil. Assume that price shocks are likely to occur starting the middle of this year.

It is really useless to post pictures this way. Make them clickable. No, there is no way around that.

I just posted this on yesterday's thread, but please consider using the

width="100%"

attribute for the images so they size themselves to your browser window instead of getting cut off on the right.

I think it deserves a guest post!

You're right.

Ace, I've just sent you an email.

There is another post by ace, further down in the same older Drumbeat that expands upon this even more. That should be included too.

Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett

Re: Major Saudi Bank Predicts Accelerating Decline in Saudi Crude Oil Production

One of the largest Saudi banks is predicting that the year over year decline in average annual Saudi crude oil production will increase from 4.2% in 2006 to 7.5% in 2007.

Note that year over year declines, on a month to month basis, are usually larger than year over year declines in average annual production.

http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/04/01/10115135.html

Published: 01/04/2007 12:00 AM (UAE)
Government spending to boost Saudi Arabia GDP
Reuters

Figure 23, Saudi production for "All Fields" seems to be missing 2006 data. Shouldn't that be noted?

Ron Patterson

If I am reading these graphs correctly for 2007, it is showing that Saudi has increased production by 800 million barrels per year over the past 3 years, while production in the 6 largest fields declined by ~300 million barrels per year. e.g. figure 5.

Is that accurate ? Since Saudi production reportedly was flat-to-declining over the past 2 years, these charts are confusing...

CW
Global peak: 2007 - 2010
Global decline rate, Post peak: 2%
Economic response: Severe global recession, ~5 years, then slow recovery

Is there any way I can view the whole graph? These are all drastically cut off on the right--the area I most want to look at!

Maybe you can put the mouse on the Graph, right click and save picture as. I chose bitmap and change the file name and put it in my OD picture folder. Then open my picture viewer and look at it full screen.

Okay Hummingbird, Click on “Start”, then click on “Control Panel”, then click on “Display” then click on “Settings”, then under “Screen Resolutions” move the arrow to the right toward “More”. 1280 by 960 pixels will do it. Then click on "OK". Then you will see the whole graph.

Ron Patterson

On Bill Gates machines perhaps.

Things don't work everywhere just because they work in one spot.

The only way to solve it is making every picture wider than 500 pixels a clickable hotspot. There is no other solution.

What! Do you mean to tell me that there is something that the almighty Apple cannot do. The Apple cannot change the screen resolution? I am shocked, shocked I tell you!

Well there is only one way to correct that problem. If the apple cannot change the screen resolution then switch to someone who can. Or write to Steve Jobs and beg him to correct this problem. If he knew that the PC can do something that the Apple cannot do, then I am sure he would turn heaven and earth until he corrected the problem.

However I am not convince you are correct HeIsSoFly. I was not joking, I am shocked that there is something tha PC can do that the Apple cannot. I must be convinced that this is the case. Do we have an Apple expert on board?

Ron Patterson

Do we have an Apple expert on board?

Yeah, me.

You know, Ron, we Apple people, unlike the rest, find it silly to have to click 10 times on all kinds of features, run twice around the block and sing the national anthem doing two 180 twirls on one leg, just to see a picture.

Okay Mister Apple Expert, are you saying Apple cannot change the screen resolution in order to view a wider document than your current resolution premits. Wow! If that is the case then Apple has a very serious problem. Again, you should impose upon Steve Jobs and the folks at apple to correct this very serious problem Apple has.

Fortunately us PC users do not have that problem. We have flexability! Yeah! We can change the screen resoultion in order to view any document that is transmitted.

You do not have that ability? Pity!

Ron Patterson

Ron, calm down a tad, ok? :o)

Of course screen res on a Mac can be changed. But most of us Mac users would prefer a method that's simpler.

I find that I can ctrl-click on the above images, which gives me a little menu of options, and have the graphics displayed in a new window in my browser. This gets rid of those artificial boundaries that the TOD display forces upon us readers and posters, and I can see the whole graphic. Nice and simple, and no screen res change required.

-best,

Wolf, half-baked Mac "expert" and Mac user for 15 years

Greywulffe, I am totally calm. I think this is halarious. I am laughing my ass off. It turns out that a Mac can view the graphs posted above, the whole damn graphs no less. I suspected all along that this was the case.

So there is no need for anyone to do anything except become more computer literate. And that goes for Mac users as well as PC useres.

Thanks again Graywulffe.

Ron Patterson

Ron,

Feeling right gets you too excited, too much of a little boy with much to prove. You're just overboard, and you know too little, but you'll never admit that. So be it.

I never said it couldn't be done. I merely indicated that there are better, simpler ways. As Leanan too says below, it should be solved at input, not output.

"IF you have this machine, IF you run this sytem, IF you are using this software, do this that and that," there's too many possible variables. 90% of Mac users don't know they can control-click, because they never have to.

Any idea how much all these huge pics piss off people with dial-up connections?
Totally unneccesary.

BTB: I worked as a developer of cross-platform interactive media for 10 years. Worked around a few issues. And you should lose that derogatory tone, it's nothing to be proud of.

HeIsSoFly, let me remind you that it was you who started bitching about non "Bill Gates" users not being able to easily read the full graphs. I was simply trying to tell PC users how they could easily view the total graphs with about ten seconds of effort devoted to change the screen resolution of their displays. I would have had absolutely no further input had not you piped in with your bitching about "Bill Gates" software.

Ten seconds of effort is not too much to ask of anyone if they truly wish to view the graphs. And this goes for Mac usere as well as PC users. And after PC users make that simple change, it lasts forever. The next time that a graph is posted, they will need to do nothing because they made the changes permenant.

I think my advice should be viewed as constructive. I had no idea that it would not be so simple for Mac users, and for that I truly apologize. So please simply see my advice as only applying to PC users and leave it at that. And as far as dial up connections are concerned, once the screen resolution is changed, it will last forever, or until changed. Dial up connectors should never get pissed off again because every time a graph is posted, from this time forward, they should be able to view the entire graph, first time, every time.

And why do you bring up dial up users at all. After all, when you change the screen resolution it does not require a reloading of the page at all. It simply changes the screen resolution of what you have already loaded. Methinks you are just looking for something to bitch about HeIsSoFly.

Ron Patterson

The problem is that posting large images means everyone - whether they want to read the comments or not - has to download far more data than is reasonable. This is true regardless of your screen resolution. Making smaller images that are "clickable" links to large images solves that problem, as well as making it by default easy for just about anyone to see enough detail in the original post.

The way it is now is just annoying, with the right edge chopped off (due to the huge margin on the web page) on every graph if your browser is set to a width that is in a range that most people have available to them - anything under 1200 pixels, it looks like. Personally, I have a screen that is 1920 pixels wide, so I can just resize the window. 2 seconds, one click&drag - on a Mac or PC or pretty much anything using any graphical user interface written in the last 20 years. Your advice is useless to someone who has a screen with a maximum resolution 1024 pixels wide, now, isn't it?

(I'm old enough to remember screens with maximum resolution 320 pixels wide... heck, I'm old enough to have used a printing terminal with acoustic coupler modem at 110 bits per second. Imagine downloading just one of those graphs - 170792 bytes - at about 11 bytes per second!)

Just use FireFox.. Right-click on the image, then click "View Image" The image then opens up, consuming the entire browser window, and auto-scales to be the size of the window. Your cursor then becomes a magnifying glass, and you can zoom in or out. When you're done, just hit the back button, and it takes you back to the page you were on, at the place you were at. (You don't have to scroll back to find where you originally were.)

The solution works for Windows or Mac OS X. (I use both systems. MSIE is simply too dangerous to use, no matter what computer you're on.)

Or open a microsoft word window. Set margins to the minimum on your blank document. Then select, copy and paste the post. If the picture is still too wide, right cliclick, select format picture, size and reduce to 7 inches. Or change layout to landscape.

Thanks Darwinian. I appreciate the specific instructions.

If you use Firefox, there are "view image" and "copy image location" options.

(You can do it with IE, too, but it's not as convenient.)

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p237/1ace11/1SaudiForecast.jpg

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p237/1ace11/2JudSmallFieldsBigNow.jpg

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p237/1ace11/3HLGiants.jpg

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p237/1ace11/4HLAll.jpg

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p237/1ace11/5HLAllandnew.jpg

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p237/1ace11/6MissingFields.jpg

However, I agree with HISF. The correct thing to do is thumbnail the images. Using the 100% tag isn't really a solution. It still forces people to load the full size image every time the page is loaded. And if the user has a large screen, forcing the image to 100% can produce pretty ugly results, especially with charts/graphs.

Good gourd. Somehow that particularly good post became a platform to start an IE/Firefox, Mac/"PC" war.

The trouble is that the post was set up to look the way it looks and to flow with the graphs easily visible, and considering that it was good, it was worth the bandwith. I am on dial-up and some things are just worth letting load. I look forward to it gaining guest post status so that it can get some credibility for its content and not derision over its format.

P.S. I still don't understand the one-button mouse on Macs. That second button is just so bloody quick and useful.

The trouble is that the post was set up to look the way it looks and to flow with the graphs easily visible

All the more reason to thumbnail them, because as posted, they are NOT easily visible.

Thumbnailing is the obvious answer. It only takes a minute or so. It gives the author control over how the reduced image displays (unlike the 100% tag), and ensures everyone, on every platform, can see the images.

Actually, you can do even better than this in Firefox.

There is an extension called "Image Zoom" which adds a "Zoom Image" option to the Right-click menu. Has lots of preset % zoom values. It's really excellent.

Along with "Linkification" it's one of my 'must-have' set of Firefox extensions.

Another one that really helps with inserting common blocks of text or sets of HTML tags is "Clippings" - check it out.