The King appears to be saying that he doesn't buy into significant reserve growth for his country, that future high prices won't have the effect of creating additional reserves. In other words, he appears to be skeptical of the theory (unproven, of course) that the world economy and the future well-being of billions now rely upon. From a mainstream economist's perspective, the King is truly radical.

Related to this is that he seems to be suggesting Saudis won't be raising production. Ever.

I thought that the King's statement about leaving the oil in the ground for the children was very smart. If Saudi oil production later this year is below 9 mbd then the King can simply say "we are saving some oil for our children".

Here is a chart from Zagar's ASPO 2005 presentation which shows some static fields in green which could be saved for the children.

Saudi Arabia Discoveries OIIP - click to enlarge
source
Saudi Arabia Can It Deliver?
Jack Zagar, MHA Petroleum Consultants
ASPO Conference - Lisbon, Portugal, May 19-20, 2005
http://www.cge.uevora.pt/aspo2005/abscom/ASPO2005_Zagar.ppt

The static green fields may be small in size and harder to develop than large fields but could be significant. The 65 static fields contain about 17% of OIIP of about 100 Gb. Assuming a conservative recovery factor of 30% this gives 30 Gb URR in total. The average URR per field would be just over 0.45 Gb.

Assuming that the King's statement is a warning that Saudi's oil production is now in slow decline, or at best on a 9 mbd C&C plateau, then I have no doubt that the world's crude oil and lease condensate production is now in irreversible decline as shown below.

click to enlarge
Please note that the chart above includes Alberta tar sands production but excludes biofuels, natural gas liquids and refinery processing gains.
For more info please see http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3623
and http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3665

Given the attitude exhibited in the top article, even when inklings do occur to the MSM, their stake in BAU will, shall we say, color their interpretation. What begins as a bashing of ASPO shifts into some recognition of the problem: the liquids that can pass for “oil” cannot grow fast enough in a business-as-usual case. But I find this paragraph to be disgustingly arrogant (emphasis added):

Even if oil does peak and demand remains positive, the effects might not be all that bad. Alternatives would begin to come on strong, as market forces, while lagging, would nevertheless kick in with surprising speed. Sure, we might have to get used to “stagflation” again for awhile. And if energy prices go through the roof, and gasoline costs $12 a gallon, that will still be OK to those of us who can afford it. Plus, it will have the highly desirable side effect of keeping the Third World in their...well, let’s just say in third place. (After all, if everybody gets rich enough to buy a car, who will make my $80 tennis shoes for $1 in labor?)

xeroid ,your arguments don’t convince me at all.
What demand increase are you talking about ?

As expected by normal economic theory, when the demand suddenly increases the spot price goes up.

If one refinery is out of operation there is LESS DEMAND UPSTREAM (that refinery simply cannot take oil for practical reasons) and probably their DOWNSTREAM op. is hampered as well (not necessary short term, emptying stocks may take a week or so ..)

World- wide there is one place less to deliver oil, so oil underway to this terminal has to find another place/ taker (nearby) ….. if you were the CEO at the next-door refinery , would you suddenly pay more for this unexpected and unplanned for oil ? Can you squeeze it in between all the regular stuff in scheduled oil-tankers coming your way?

OTOH I would expect an increase at the local pump (downstream), b/c there will be less gasoline available short term.

Fantastic! I think I'll write my own story about this one. Thanks for the link, Alan.

Best hope for more electrified rail instead ;)

Cheers

I'll tell ya what big guy, of all the folks who post here, you are by far the most delusional. Yeah, we're all gonna rally and build in all the railworks required to keep bau up, running, and sweet. Right. Get off your pillow. We are no more going to rescue Amurika with railway than we are putting out a forest fire by spittin' on it.

Do you realize that your dreaming is NOT going to happen, or do you just like to read your own posts. Oh sure, let's all just vote for rail, that'll make all our troubles go away.

I get the impression you are a very energetic and sharp person. You've a brain. Short supply 'round here. Use it for something other than masturbation.

Jeff

Rob,

I'm okay fine with people who want to grow their own food, eat vegetarian, etc. But I work with and direct people doing engineering work. My own response is to want to develop solutions. Not ultimate solutions that make the post-peak adjustment painless. I do not expect such solutions to come in time.

But I certainly think we can develop tech that will make the adjustments less painful than they'd otherwise be and also to start laying the ground work for an eventual turning of the corner when thing start to get better.

Ahh Rob, you forgot type three. Type three are those who deny their impotence to save the world as we know it. They believe that if they just keep making suggestions as to "what we must do" then eventually everyone will get the message, put their efforts into this project, then we could simply mitigate the decline of fossil fuels with only a slight amount of suffering, or at least avoid any massive dieoff in the fifty years.

But there are those here who think that certain actions on the part of governments, communities, businesses, and individuals can help control the damage.

Actions that governments, communities, businesses, and individuals could do and what they will do are two entirely different things. What we will do to mitigate the disaster is exactly what we are doing right now, absolutely nothing. People will not be convinced that anything needs to be done until it is way too late. In fact it is too late right now. We should have started years ago.

That being said, there is nothing we can possibly do that will feed almost seven billion people without the massive energy input from fossil fuel.

Denying the impending disaster is the greatest denial of all. I am often guilty of it myself. But I cope. I have good bourbon.

Ron Patterson

"There are two kinds of denialists -- both equally dangerous.

Type one -- ignores the presence of crisis.
Type two -- assumes crisis is inevitable and there is nothing that can be done to mitigate the crisis. "

Clear evidence of you being a jackass.

I expected no less from you marston, especially since you are forever on your knees in front of A from BE.
It's strange but I don't ever remember saying that there is nothing that can be done to mitigate the crisis.
As a matter of fact didn't I just say we have to power down.

As I have said previously, maintaining the ability to react in the best way possible to the inevitable crises, which will occur in the coming decades is IMO the best possible position to take.
That means conservation now, not using resources which could be sorely needed by future generations.

We know our grandchildren will suffer. Will they be assured of sufficient energy and food. Will they have nice cars homes and vacations?
What do you suggest we should do now, to allow future generations to simply survive, not prosper just survive? We need to ensure future generations can provide a life for their offspring, just like you had the opportunity to do.
Being proactive right now is inefficient and a gamble, resources could be urgently required in areas completely unknown to us right now.
I also understand conservation and powering down is as much a dream as those with solutions such as yours.
At least I'm not in denial.

Idealistic consumerism is still charging along at full speed for some...

From above (gotta love the BS {Bear Sterns) bit)
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/14/america/14partying.php?page=2