Saudi Production & Consumption: To Infinity & Beyond?

I have previously compared a HL plot (showing a steady linear progression with a plausible P/Q intercept) to an airplane on final approach for landing. If the plane falls below the glideslope, the pilot (hopefully) pulls the nose up until the plane is back on the glideslope. If the plane rises above the glideslope, the pilot pushes the nose down until the plane is back on the glideslope, on track for a landing (see an example in the article linked below).

I have frequently posted the Texas & North Sea production graphs, with their respective peaks lined up with each other. My point is that peaks happen, even in the best of circumstances:

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/TexasAndNorthSea.png

The pre-peak Texas HL plot is quite noisy, but the overall plot shows a steady linear progression. The North Sea pre-peak plot is quite consistent, as are the post-peak data.

I have previously described how the post-1970 and post-1984 cumulative Lower 48 and Russian production numbers are basically what the HL models predicted, using only data through 1970 and 1984 to respectively construct the models.

Last year, in March, one of the objection to the Saudi HL plot was that the observed production decline was sharper than what the HL model predicted. I responded that I therefore expected to see a production increase.

This year, one of the objections to the Saudi HL plot is that we are seeing increasing production. I have responded that I expect to see a resumption of the production decline, probably in 2009.

We can say that is quite likely that Saudi Arabia will have shown three straight years of annual production below their 2005 rate, at about the same stage of depletion at which the prior swing producer, Texas, peaked.

Which brings us to consumption.

The revised 2006 and 2007 data show an annual rate of increase of about +7.2%/year, which makes extrapolating future consumption pretty easy (at this rate, it doubles every 10 years). Extrapolated out, it would like look this, on 10 year intervals (total liquids production from Saudi Arabia in 2005 was 11.1 mbpd, EIA):

2005: 2 mbpd
2015: 4 mbpd
2025: 8 mbpd
2035: 16 mbpd

You see the problem. Of course, it’s usually a mistake to extrapolate an exponential increase forever (especially when one resides in a finite world), but there are some powerful forces driving the increase in Saudi consumption, at least for quite some time.

In any case, for the sake of argument, from 2005 to 2015, the Saudis would have to add about 200,000 bpd per year, just to meet domestic consumption.

Subsequent decades would look like this:

From 2015 to 2025, 400,000 bpd per year.

From 2025 to 2035, 800,000 bpd per year.

From 2035 to 2045, 1.6 mbpd per year.

The Saudi HL plot is showing a steady linear progression, with a plausible P/Q intercept. After 2008, Saudi Arabia will show lower production, flat production, or increasing production. My bet is on lower production, but time will tell.

But any way you look at it, I think that it is hard to make a case for a steady increase in net oil exports from Saudi Arabia.

In Defense of the Hubbert Linearization Method (June, 2007)
http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com/2007/06/in-defense-of-hubbert-linearizat...

Out of Gas

To Infinity & Beyond?

Suzuki expands SUVs in Saudi
http://www.ameinfo.com/161077.html

Suzuki Saudia announced its plans to boost the availability of its sport utility vehicles (SUV) and family cars in Saudi Arabia. Suzuki Saudia will focus on its Grand Vitara, XL7, SX4 and Swift models to accommodate both single and family lifestyles.

Ah yes, the SUV lifestyle.

Future generations can use their camels to pull their SUV homes around. We, of course, don't have to worry since we have all that oil in Alaska and off shore.

China has also announced its intention to increase its auto industry's penetration of the Saudi market. IMO, this is an overlooked aspect of China's industry, as we often look just at China's domestic vehicle sales rate, which is on a pace to increase 14.1% Y/Y during 2008. I've posted links for the fisrt two items already; this link provides some additional info, particularly it indicates how Ford is able to stay in business through its China sales. Something to remember is that while the price of transport fuel continues to rise, many people around the world continue to buy vehicles that use them.

WT,

I love the work you have done on the ELM, but I think you are way off on Saudi. But let me be clear:

1. They do not now have 12.5 mb/d capability.

2. They do have the ability once they build the infrastructure.

3. They do not have the ability to go above 12.5 without damaging their fields.

4. They can go above 12.5 if they want to damage their fields.

I base this primarily on the comments of al Husseini last October and since, which I am sure you are familiar with. There is little point in arguing over and over exactly what KSA *can* produce since they will never go above 12.5 in order to preserve their fields and their future... unless at gun point, which is entirely possible. Or at the end of a wheat pitchfork, also highly possible.

My point really is that your work on the ELM is good enough. Playing prognosticator on one nation's fields and risking being wrong isn't worth the damage it does to your other work. Understand this: general intelligence is falling, not rising. There are too many people who either don't have the ability or are politically inclined to attack all your work for failure on a separate issue.

Besides, I am 95% certain you are wrong on the KSA ability to produce. Caveats: Ghawar being in seriously deep decline and lack of steel/rigs to keep drilling new wells.

But all that is moot given so much of the rest of the world is going into decline, so who cares of the KSA can go up to, say 15mb/d? It changes a peak by, what?, a year?

Cheers

I'm afraid it's a little late to be taking a more cautionary stance on Saudi Arabia, especially given the near certainty that their 2008 annual production will be below their 2005 annual production rate, which would mean three three straight years of production below their 2005 rate, at about the same stage of depletion at which Texas started declining.

As I have said many times, Peak Oil does not mean that we stop finding new fields, the problem is that we can't fully offset the decline from the larger, older oil fields. The problem that the Saudis have is that the bulk of their production comes from a collection of large, old oil fields.

Consider the simple fact that, though March, 2008, the Saudis have produced more than half a billion barrels less oil than they would have produced if they had simply maintained their 2005 annual rate of 9.6 mbpd (C+C, EIA).

When I combine WT's analysis with the Saudi's behavior, that is, plans to diversify away from dependence on oil revenue by building an industrial base (4 new cities), this tells me that the KSA knows the end is near, very near. Otherwise, they could just sit back and rake in the $$$$ like they've been doing for 60 years.

building an industrial base (4 new cities), this tells me that the KSA knows the end is near, very near.

Says to me that KSA is looking to 'value add' to the energy - by producing finished goods.

ASPO predicted global peak oil in 2010.

Some people on this board declared 2005 as world peak oil, only to be rebuked when oil production increased in 2008.

OPEC indicated they wanted to build 5 million barrels of spare capacity.

Saudi Arabia may have spare capacity being held for emergencies or to offset declines between projects. NGL's are not considered to be crude under the OPEC quota system. Iran, Algeria, and others were increasing NGL's production. Did you not consider NGL's in your Texas and North Sea models?

NGL's were counted in total world liquids production.

How many years of declining production must occur before you declare peak oil?

Some people on this board declared 2005 as world peak oil, only to be rebuked when oil production increased in 2008.

How many years of declining production must occur before you declare peak oil?

I don't think TOD'ers 'declare' things very often. Rather they suggest and give their reasons. Most of which are often very good.

Hubbert peak concerns reservoir based crude oil, not the silly total liquids EIA is counting. World crude oil production peaked 2005 and since we have managed to hold it steady while being slightly successful in doing magic tricks with tar sands and NG. However in this we are dangerously fooling ourselves as we should know that such tricks have a hugely low EROEI and their potential flow rates can never replace the huge flow rates that the old depleting reservoirs have provided us until recent years. For all practical purposes in the real world peak oil was when sweet light crude production peaked - after that civilization became ever more expensive to maintain - 'the party was over'...

Hubbert peak occurs when the reservoir peaks, occurring approximately halfway along the depletion curve or later depending on the technology used to pump it, this is the flexible and confusing bit for many - however the law sais that 1. it will occur eventually, always, and 2. the later you trick it to occur the steeper will the decline be for the rest of the way.

However many people consider peak oil from a wider perspective such as peak energy, or even peak civilization. For many it is irrelevant if peak oil comes in, lets say, 2010 at 500 dollars a barrel - for the airline industry peak oil is now here already. It's up to you to make the subjective choice where you draw the line for yourself. Or perhaps the exact date of the peak is really irrelevant and we should concentrate on doing something about the problem...

Some people on this board declared 2005 as world peak oil, only to be rebuked when oil production increased in 2008

Didn't increase by much, though. Worldwide C+C has only increased by just over 1.1% since the 2005 peak.

Do I think they hit some unexpected difficulties in '06 and '07? Yup. But there really is a lot of oil there. There are untapped fields. They could, manpower and other resources permitting, get those numbers up. How long? Who knows. But I am sure they could.

It was just a little friendly advice. I know you feel they are pumping all they can. I think they are *almost* pumping all they can. In the end, the difference between the two is not going to change anything, so why sweat it? The difference between where they are now and 12.5 is one years depletion rate. That is far more important to get across to people than whether they have actually hit peak because in the long run it just doesn't whether they have hit peak already.

I also believe that an attempt might be made to unify the PO message. It seems to me we are reaching a critical point or window of opportunity to do something about PO. As you can see from this little charade in the desert, the propaganda machine is gearing up. The same sort of machine that denied AGW for so long. If that is allowed to occur again, we are all well and truly screwed.

Maybe the battles need to be picked more carefully?

Cheers