Many post peak regions, e.g. Texas and the Lower 48, have shown post-peak periods of flat production or even year over year increases in production, but what refutes a peak is a new peak. In order to refute the 2005 peak, we would need to see Saudi Arabia produce an average of 9.6 mbpd or more for a calendar year.

Stuart was using month to month data in his article. The annual data are as follows (EIA, C+C):

2005: 9.6 mbpd
2006: 9.2
2007: 8.6 (year to date)

If Saudi Arabia averages 9.0 mbpd for the fourth quarter, the 2007 average would only be 8.7 mbpd.

Stuart is working on a new article about this.

I probably shouldn't say any more, but I'm really looking forward to seeing it.

It's a near certainty that Saudi Arabia will showing an accelerating annual decline rate from 2006 to 2007 versus 2005 to 2006. It kills me when people assert that "Stuart was wrong."

Having said that, as I noted in March it's quite possible that Saudi Arabia will show a temporary increase in production, after the initial decline, because they were so dependent on one field. In contrast, the East Texas Field only accounted for about 7% of Texas production at peak production in 1972.

Rounding off to the nearest 0.1 mbpd, Texas production around the peak was as follows:

1972: 3.5 mbpd
1973: 3.4
1974: 3.4

Saudi Arabia yet had major projects to replace depletion scheduled. By their own reports they were expecting to reach peak production capacity in 2009 when another million barrel a day project is brought online. So far their national depletion rates might not greatly exceed 10 percent. OPEC cut back production when the price of oil seemed to be heading to $50 a barrel. The plunge in production coincided with an OPEC cut. The OPEC cuts may have masked some production declines, yet the crude + condensates increases must offset part if not all of their declines.

OPEC cut back production when the price of oil seemed to be heading to $50 a barrel.

Opec actually peaked in September of 2005 when oil was, at that time, near an all time high.

Ron Patterson

Oh, come on guys-
let JD think he's finally gotten something right!

He's got 313 posts trying.
Think he's good for another 313?

What's wrong, JD -
Price of Oil can't quadrupple?
Dollar can't fall off the cliff?
Food prices can't take jumps because of increase in energy prices?

Oh, yeah, I forgot:
PEAK OIL IS GOING TO BE A NON EVENT.
Well, two years into it, you are right. It is a non-event. We're still getting ours.
WE are still getting OURS. How long, Mr. Prophet??

Is 5 f'n years a lifetime to you or what? We haven't even fallen off the cliff yet, and you've already lost patience?

Peak is here. But as long as I'm getting MINE, who cares what's going on in Africa?

Cheers, Dom

I've got my own theory about what causes what seems to be production crashes in waterdrive reservoirs outside of Saudi Arabia. Its not that the drilling causes the production to crash rapidly as the production goes to water, but rather that the overhead increases rapidly causing the water drive reservoirs to be abandoned a lot more quickly in the North Sea than in Saudi Arabia. Because Saudi is owned by the Kingdom it has an effective tax rate of 0% (or 100%), while the production sharing in the North Sea burdens the production with 25% to 50% tax rate. The Aramco guys can produce their wells perhaps twice as long before they become uneconomic. That makes the production appear to crash when its an artifact of the overhead.
Bob Ebersole

Did you see rkshepherd's post in the comments under Khebab's article (posted last Friday)? He described briefly how market forces lower URR outside the national oil companies.

Moe-Gamble'
I'll look. That's a good part of what I'm describing-Saudi is not forced to abandon their reservoirs early compared with multinational oil companies. So they will get a higher rate of recovery if they want to.They can shut in oil wells until they become profitable to operate them again rather than plug them out.

The multinational oil companies have a monstreous overhead cost component which is not spent by national oil companies or independents operating soley in the US or Canada. They require a steady diet of giant oil fields with the occasional supergiant coming on line to stay profitable, and they have screwed the pooch in reguards to operating in most of the world. If a company has a well deserved reputation for interfering in internal politics of producing countries any patriot would want them only in some other country. The chickens have come home to roost and the western european multi-nationals now can't explore in 88% of the potential acreage in the world, and they've just about drilled up the remaining acreage.

Independents have a lot higher EROEI than multinationals too. The don't hire geochemists-they hire service companies with geochemists and every dollar spent has a real prospect to justify the expenditure. So the IOCs are going to have to get out of the E&P business as they know it within the next few years, IMHO. Bob Ebersole

Yeah, I have to laugh when the IOC's push the idea to the press that they are what's needed to "save" Mexico, Venezuela, etc.

Thats right-the Marines invaded Vera Cruz and occupied the oil fields of the Golden Lane for 15 years while the oil companies didn't pay royalties to anyone with the excuse they didn't know which government to pay the royalties to the complained that Cardenas nationalising theforeigners was theft! Venezuela has had either two or three US sponsored coups, including a failed one against Hugo Chavez then complain when he wants to raise the heavy oil royalties from 1% to 25% and settled the matter by kicking out the US companies. The Iranians had the Shah imposed on them for 30 years and all of these countries were produced with the prices and production quotas set in the Texas R ailroad Commission Bob Ebersole

You are not being sarcastic here - right?

Bob, what you have described is definitely one element.

In addition, the North Sea is a tough and very costly environement. KSA onshore is not Texas and KSA in the Persian Gulf isn't near offshore GOM, but the variable costs of operating wells for either onshore or offshore has got to be vastly lower in KSA than for the North Sea.

A marginal operation can be kept operating onshore. Offshore and in a hostile environment ... turn out the lights and go home.

To misquote / faux paraphrase what isn't written on W.C. Field's headstone: All things considered, I'd sooner be onshore and in Texas [and to your point if possible with an 87.5 percent -- or lower -- lease.]

:<)