 | Where Should We Try Congestion Pricing First? | The Oil Drum | The forecasting record of CERA and other commentators |  |
DrumBeat: December 12, 2006
Posted by threadbot on December 12, 2006 - 9:55am
Topic: Miscellaneous
EIA still sees world oil demand up 1.5M barrels/day in 2007
NEW YORK - The Energy Information Administration said Tuesday that it still expects world oil demand to grow by 1.5 million barrels a day in 2007. The EIA, the official energy statistics arm of the U.S. government, said it expects U.S. petroleum consumption to rise by 300,000 barrels a day in 2007 after a flat 2006. The agency is expecting surplus world crude oil production capacity to increase only slighty. "However, OPEC's production cuts mean that, for the first time in months, surplus production capacity is no longer restricted to just Saudi Arabia," it said.
Qatari minister: Angola to become OPEC member this week
ABUJA - Angola, sub-Saharan Africa's second-biggest oil producer, could be approved as the 12th member of OPEC at a meeting of the oil exporters' group on Thursday, Qatari Energy Minister Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah said.
Need a parking place? Good luck
In the past four decades, the number of registered vehicles has risen nearly 170% and the ranks of licensed drivers have doubled, Federal Highway Administration figures show.The infrastructure is struggling to accommodate the crush. Many cities are experiencing downtown rebirths with new condos, hotels and office buildings, but the amount of parking on streets remains largely a fixed asset.
New-car miles-per-gallon estimates will drop next year - but only because they are changing the way they are calculated. Mitsubishi worries that the new formula will hurt the Lancer, the first car that will be rated under the new system.
Cost of gas falls for first time in five weeks
US lawmakers exit with a last nod to oil drilling
As one of its final acts, the 109th Congress Friday approved opening to oil and gas development 8.3 million previously protected acres off the Gulf Coast - a last bid to influence energy and environmental policy before the Democrats assume control.
Long Beach LNG Proposal Caught in Political Squeeze
While its sponsors continue to talk confidently, the proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving terminal in the Long Beach, CA, harbor Monday was suspended in a political vise about to be squeezed between the city political leaders and the separate Port of Long Beach. Port officials are dragging their feet on completing a final environmental impact statement and report (EIS/EIR) jointly with FERC. That final report now is not expected to be released until the first quarter next year, if ever.
Can't Handle the Truth? - Updated
While the NSTA rejected the Truth DVDs on the grounds that accepting them would violate its 2001 policy against endorsements, David points out that the policy "didn't stop them from shipping out 20,000 copies of a whopping 10-part video funded by ConocoPhillips in 2003." The series, which credits NSTA Executive Director Gerald Wheeler as an executive producer, cites only one scientist in its "largely dismissive global warming section," according to David. The scientist is Dr. Robert Balling, "a well known global warming skeptic" who has acknowledged taking at least $400,000 from the fossil fuel industry.
Arctic Ice Melting Faster Than Expected
New studies project that the Arctic Ocean could be mostly open water in summer by 2040 — several decades earlier than previously expected — partly as a result of global warming caused by emissions of greenhouse gases.
Risks of exploiting low-quality sources of oil
Soaring oil prices and demands for energy security are boosting the attractiveness of low-quality sources of petroleum, such as tar sands and coal, at the risk of causing significant environmental damage and increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, according to a new study.
The Cost of an Overheated Planet
The iconic culprit in global warming is the coal-fired power plant. It burns the dirtiest, most carbon-laden of fuels, and its smokestacks belch millions of tons of carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas.So it is something of a surprise that James E. Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy, a coal-burning utility in the Midwest and the Southeast, has emerged as an unexpected advocate of federal regulation that would for the first time impose a cost for emitting carbon dioxide. But he has his reasons.
Opec’s daily output to rise by 2m barrels
RIYADH: The decades old policy of thinning the ranks of Opec has gone sour. Three countries, Angola, Sudan and Ecuador are knocking at the oil cartel’s doors in Vienna with membership applications and the fourth one, Cuba, may not be far off too. These new members will add two million barrels to the Opec’s daily output.Things have indeed turned a full cycle. Gone are the days, when some were itching to get out of the Opec on one pretext or the other and the world’s largest consumer, the United States may not be, too, happy with the proposition.
Elephants and Quagmires: Peak Oil and the Bush Denial
While the Bush administration, the media and nearly all the Democrats still refuse to explain the war in Iraq in terms of oil, the ever-pragmatic members of the Iraq Study Group share no such reticence.
That the "shy mullahs" of Iran are seeking a nuclear bomb is axiomatic for Palast. After all, "Iran has zero need of 'peaceful’ nuclear-generated electricity. It has the second-largest untapped reserve of natural gas on the planet, a clean, safe, cheap source of power. There’s only one reason for a 'nuclear’ program." This glaring contradiction comes from the same Palast who devotes a sizeable chunk of his currently promoted book, Armed Madhouse, to Peak Oil. Apparently, Iranians are not affected by Peak Oil. But maybe the Shah of Iran was when the US assisted Iran in starting up its nuclear power program.
Trouble in the Russian oil patch
Royal Dutch Shell PLC is poised to yield control of its troubled $20-billion (U.S.) Sakhalin-2 project to state-owned OAO Gazprom, as the Kremlin continues to tighten its grip on Russian oil and gas assets in the world's emerging energy superpower.
Eni Lifts Force Majeure on 60,000-bpd Nigeria Oil
Russian oil: a slippery substance: Moscow's thin coating of petrodollar wealth may wash off all too easily.
Halliburton Workers Attacked in Algeria
Assailants hurled a bomb and shot at two vehicles carrying employees of an affiliate of U.S. company Halliburton near Algiers Sunday, killing one driver and injuring nine people....The attack threatened to stain the oil-rich North African nation's international security image just as it is enjoying an oil boom and increased foreign investment after a bloody insurgency that wracked Algeria in the 1990s.
In recent years I have written articles with titles like “Dark Clouds Over America” and “Torture Memories.” Our nation’s war-making and other threatening behavior have disturbed me. My study of Peak Oil and Climate Change has convinced me that we are in for a dark time as we run low on fossil fuels and over-heat this special planet. At first, I found this depressing. I have come to see that the loss of cheap energy can also be a great opportunity, depending on how we respond.
The Basis of Sustainable Community Energy Policy
Renewable energy policy and sustainable community issues place an enormous strain on society and its institutions. For good or ill, the fossil energy economy created a sense of independence. But times are changing. There is an increasing awareness that energy supply is somehow connected to nearly all aspects of modern life: diplomacy; international conflict; health care issues; environmental quality; international development; food supplies; and sustainable living conditions in general.
Survey: E&P Spending to Cool Off in 2007
After two years of massive increases, the pace of oil and gas capital spending growth will slow down in 2007, as U.S. companies temper their North American budgets in the wake of weakening natural gas prices, according to a survey released Monday by Lehman Brothers.
Exxon, Chevron far from topping out: Merrill Big Oil is poised to get even bigger.
Even with cheaper oil, energy hot in '07
...many analysts are looking for crude-oil futures next year to average more than $60 a barrel, but to hover below the 2006 average (through November) of almost $67 a barrel. Oil peaked above $78 in July.
Oil habit hard to break, experts say
Energy experts agreed Thursday the U.S. won't wean itself off imported oil any time soon even in the face of growing national-security threats in the Middle East and concern about global warming.
Nation's energy grid could power almost 185 million electric cars
Why a hydrogen economy doesn't make sense
Cutting The Carbon-Energy Cord: Unplug From (Or Sell To) The Central Grid
Sustainable nuclear energy moves a step closer
Wilfred van Rooijen's research, conducted at the Reactor Institute Delft, focused on the nuclear fuel cycle and safety features of a Gas-cooled Fast Reactor (GFR), one of the so-called 'fourth generation' nuclear reactor designs. These designs have a sustainable character: they are economical in their use of nuclear fuel and are capable of rendering a great deal of their own nuclear waste harmless. The ability to actually build such reactors is however still in the very distant future.
By PAUL THARP
December 7, 2006 -- America's corporate chiefs are unloading their own stocks at one of the boldest paces in 20 years.
In cases of the very rich, such as Microsoft's Bill Gates and Google's top brass, the executives are selling a whopping $63 for each $1 of stock they bought, says a report by Bloomberg.
In November alone, leaders of public companies dumped $8.4 billion worth of stock they owned as insiders, most of it awarded as compensation, bonuses or other management incentives.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12072006/business/top_level_insiders_selling_their_stock_business_paul_t harp.htm
OK you're the resident conspiracy guy on this site (not meant to be derogatory) Actually, I enjoy your posts and for a while thought you might be Jay Hansen, himself.
Any thoughts on the near simultaneous admission of Isreali nukes by Gates & Olmert?
Gates:
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20061210-073102-7363r
Olmert:
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1841092006
==AC
Why would the two adherents of "strategic ambiguity" -- US & Israel -- be fessing up now?
SNIP
Iranian Professor: US and Israel have Been Trying To Divide Iran For Years
Professor of geopolitics points the finger at US Neoconservatives and Israeli Zionists, Highlights past co-operation to make Iran a nuclear nation
http://tinyurl.com/yz4dum
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, December 11, 2006
An Iranian political science professor has said today that Iran and the US signed an agreement in 1978 which allowed Tehran to seek nuclear technology in order to meet its future energy demands but no one now talks about the agreement. He has also asserted that Zionists in Israel in co-operation with neoconservatives in the US have intentionally been trying to divide Iran for decades.
As reported by the IRNA news agency, Professor of Political Geography and Geopolitics at Tehran's Tarbiat Moadarres University, Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, said it was the US that encouraged Iran to develop nuclear energy.
Mojtahedzadeh asserted during a speech at an international conference of world geologists that in 1978 the US had proposed the former regime of the defunct Shah launch a nuclear program in order to prevent a future energy crisis some 50 years down the line.
Mojtahedzadeh also suggested that the repeated attempts to paint Iran's nuclear program up as a military program directly contradict the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) repeated confirmations that Iran has not violated any laws or regulations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Earlier this month he also gave an interview in which he asserted that Zionists and their neo-conservative colleagues in the US have for years been trying to divide Iran.
==AC
Sorry AC, it doesn't address why "....would the two adherents of "strategic ambiguity" -- US & Israel -- be fessing up now?"
Your arguments are usually stronger. Maybe we both need to ponder it a bit more.
BTW
Maybe Israel is nervous Iran will turn something up at the conference:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6167695.stm
They may just be putting the word out not to fuck with them "officially"...
==AC
You're misunderstanding "strategic ambiguity." Everyone has known -- for a long time -- they're nuclear capable; why would they/US fess up now?
Of course, we don't know, but I'd hoped you had an intriguing/ plausible theory.
OTOH, the one woman play "Golda" has an interesting scene where Golda Mier orders that nukes be placed on planes, and the planes placed on alert with pilots on-board (targets Cairo & Damascus, bombs enscribed Never Again) before even one tank enters Israeli soil. Israel was facing a tactical defeat on lands it had recently conquered, but far from a strategic defeat that would endanger national survival.
Not conclusive, but it was clear that the Israeli playwright knew her well (she spent lots of time at the underground Dimona nuclear research station in the Negev, one balcony was named after her supposedly).
Given the Iranian history during the war with Iraq (a variety of poison gases were used on Iranians, but they never retaliated in kind) and the Israeli history noted above (assuming it is true), an objective neutral observer would see Isreali nukes as the greater threat.
Add to this the rumored "Samson Option" to destroy all civilization in the Middle East if Jersuleum were to fall.
Best Hopes for Rationality,
Alan
Jimmy Carter's Kampf
by Jack Engelhard
Dec 08, '06 / 17 Kislev 5767
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=6757
That was Borat, not Jimmy Carter, who urged a crowd of lounge lizards in Tucson to join him in singing, "Throw the Jew Down the Well."
Carter has the same message, but (without the spoof) his narrative comes in a book that's just being released and is titled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.
Apparently the written word is not enough, so Carter has taken his grudge against Israel on tour. There he is with his brotherhood on National Public Radio, NPR, where Israel-bashing is always welcome; and here he is on C-Span; and he keeps on going and won't stop until he's got us all signing up for Holocaust Part 2.
==AC
Those british who fought british troops in our revolutionary war are our heroes. Palestinians that fight against US tanks and planes for the return of their land are terrorists. Israelis that bomb homes, with US planes and bombs, known to be occupied by families are the new heroes. Israelis who leave behind bomblets that will subsequently blow off childrens hands or feet are apparently civilized and certainly enjoy our full support.
It is not true that the palestinians are undergoing a holocaust. It is true that Israelis treat palestinians exactly as minority white south africa once treated the majority blacks. It is also true that Mandela was at one time called a terrorist and was jailed in solitary confinement for life.
How do you all feel about listing all the possible "signals" we could use to indirectly identify a Peak in production of crude?
I think we all have our own "pets" on this topic, but it would nice to list them out and monitor them as time progresses.
For example, WT has the Export Model, RR has supplies provided to refineries (oversimplication and not sure you are looking at one thing??), someone chooses to look at low-quality crude products like asphalt, miles driven per country per unit of time, escalation of war footings in key countries, etc.
I think it would be interesting to see all these together in one post.
There was a long-running thread over at PO.com that did pretty much what you are suggesting. It was called "The Canary In the Coal Mine," or something like that. A lot of people thought the airline industry was the canary to watch.
Maybe we have time, and won't see those signals for a while.
http://www.orangecountygasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx
We already have actual production figures for that, why would an indirect signal be better??
The problem with looking for indirect signals is confirmation bias, which makes such observations pretty much worthless.
I agree though that highly subjective things like "escalation of war footings in key countries, etc." are fraught with danger. Many things might lead "key" countries to a war footing, and separating oil as a driver is impossible. At best, one can say that it was "one of" the contributing factors.
In terms of reasonable, potential, leading, indicators ... I'd say go for the quantitative stuff (as Hubbert's curve does with past production). Price is another such signal ... but you know, if current price was a perfect signal for future price or scarcity, markets would implode in a millisecond.
Production does not help quantify demand destruction.
At the high price points we have today demand destruction may have a big effect on the amount of oil available.
And at the end of the day demand destruction is at the heart of the peak oil argument.
Since we are in a sense late looking for these indicators we need to find historical data sets of price vs. volume etc.
Stuff from the 50's to current would be really nice.
These numbers would have to also be tied into economic factors etc.
Industrial oil usage might be well documented and a good indicator of demand destruction.
I of course favor what I call the junk products asphalt, bunker fuel etc. First because supplies of these are reduced if more oil is being upgraded to refine higher value products so they have a negative refinery gain.
Next the market for these is price sensitive although we need to watch for prices being passed on like in the case of bunker fuel for example.
For demand destruction in say the bunker fuel market we would need to find goods that are so cheap that shipping costs make it uneconomic to move globally. I'm not what if anything is at that price level maybe low grade coal ?
http://www.amblondon.um.dk/en/menu/TheEmbassy/News/WorldsLargestContainerShipBringsChristmasGoodiesT oUK.htm
The report I heard on TV was that it used less energy to bring products from China to Europe, than to move them the next 100KM by roads in Europe.
(on "high" prices and demand destruction, we should try to disentangle inflation and look at what ... the cost of oil per hour of labor, or what?)
Ships like to be "underdimensioned" to locks by roughly a half meter on the sides, and some cm on thh draft.
One interested point on fuel conservation, exhaust is mixed with fresh air and reinjected into engines, supposedly improving fuel economy by a remarkable 12% !
I assume soot is what is being reburned.
Designed for max 25.5 knots, she is NOT slow, but I suspect that she will cruise slower than that most of the time. Primary engine is 80 MW, this would be marginal for a nuke powered ship. Few nuke reactors are even close to that size, but perhaps they could be efficiently made that size.
Post-Peak Oil, she should still be operating.
Best Hopes,
Alan
I assume soot is what is being reburned.
My guess would be that it preheats the mixture going into the engines so that it burns more quickly. They could never recycle -all- the exhaust, and there probably isn't a practical way to separate the sooty part from the clear part. But if the whole mess burns hotter, it might make less soot.
Airlines as mentioned can make some sense but a lot of air travel is discrentioary and I also think the Airline industry in general is not that efficient ( to many airlines ).
Asphalt is the one I like the most.
Its something that although important may be allowed to have shortages. And their is no replacment like NG/Fuel Oil.
I found this link.
http://www.argusonline.com/wwwroot/pa-html/methodology/Asphalt/asphalt_latest.htm
And this from a previous post.
http://www.conndot.ct.gov/asphalt/asphalt.aspx
Note the price is still quite high !
Which may or may not be important.
Sorry to post again but this article on Asphalt strait from the industry says what I've been saying.
http://www.buildingteamforecast.com/blog/1410000141/post/1310003531.html
So I think Asphalt is the Canary in the Coal mine for peak oil. Or is that the first peak oil road kill ?
I just found this also. It seems asphalt is still very high
here are 2005 numbers.
http://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/newsletter/05-4/highprice.php
Some recent talk of shortages.
http://pitandquarry.blogspot.com/2006/07/asphalt-shortages.html
And more
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=306517
This one in Hawaii is very very intresting.
It claims the new low sulfur requirements as the reason for not producing asphalt
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?e9b225f7-e642-41f4-98f1-27003c985a47
Oh, ok. Peak Oil to me just means peak production, that is the encyclopedia definition. Demand destruction may or may not be a consequence of PO, but it is not the same thing.
Just to be clear, what is the exact definition of demand destruction anyway? I didn't find an adequate definition. Is it just a more sensational way of saying demand reduction?
Here is the link you've asked to repost.
Totalizing crude imports in the USA for 12 months backwards from sept 2006, Mexico has been the second exporter in volumes of crude for the US (16%), behind Canada (17%) and before KSA (13%). With Venezuela (11%) the top four exporters account for 58% of total imports in the US.
If Cantarell is going to crash as fast as this article hints, then who is going to redirect its production ?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mexcolatax12dec12,0,5548785.story?coll=la-home-headlines
As I have repeatedly pointed out, IMO all four of the current super giants--Ghawar; Cantarell; Burgan and Daqing--are in decline or crashing.
Unlike the operators of the other three fields, Saudi Aramco has not admitted to a decline at Ghawar, but their total 12/06 production is about 7% below their 12/05 production, and they seem to be coming up with a constantly changing set of reasons to explain their declining production. The absolutely best case for Ghawar is that it is producing one-third water--after being redeveloped with horizontal wells. This is not a stable situation. Once the water hits the horizontal wells, you are looking at a production crash. IMO, that is what is happening today at Ghawar.
Deffeyes estimated that the world had consumed half of its conventional crude + condensate (C+C) reserves as of 12/05. Therefore, the most likely decline year was 2006, and that is what we are seeing. Depending on how fast production is falling in the fourth quarter, world C+C production will probably be down by 0.5% to 1.0% (year over year average). 12/05 to 12/06 production will probably be down by close to 2%. Based on Deffeyes' estimate, the world, at the end of 2006, was about 53% depleted, and we consumed about 2.7% of all remaining conventional C+C reserves in 2006. Note that the initial Lower 48 decline, the first two years after it peaked, averaged less than 1% per year.
Based on Khebab's plots, I picked 2006 as the most likely year for the beginning of a production decline in Saudi Arabia. The year over year average decline will probably be about 4%, with the 12/05 to 12/06 decline being about 7%. I estimate that Saudi Arabia is now about 60% depleted, and I estimate that in 2006 they consumed about 4% of their remaining conventional C+C reserves.
Excluding the prior swing producer, Texas, insofar as I know no large producing region with a Qt of 60 Gb or more has shown sustained production increases after the 50% of Qt mark. Saudi Arabia is declining at the same point at which Texas started declining--after crossing the 57%/58% mark.
Those who are predicating higher world oil production and higher Saudi oil production are predicting that we which we have never before seen in any comparable large producing region, and the early production data are precisely supporting the HL models. Furthermore the data are showing, as I predicted, lower exports. Saudi Arabia alone is probably exporting 13% less oil in 12/06 than in 12/05.
keep hammering away at these points. Memories are awfully short most of the time. Even here at TOD.
I see from the posts below that Saudi Arabia and Iran are proposing production cuts because of over supply on the market.
Clearly if we "pro-actively" say we will cut production (even though the drop is due to geology) than everyone stays confused and CERA et al can claim the drop in volume is politically/economically motivated. Some people will never admit to problems and will always try to cover them up or explain them away.
Clearly if Mexico has admitted their output is, and will be, declining than the world is going to need to make up that short fall. It makes no logical sense for OPEC to be considering cuts in this environment unless they are also declining and want to hide the fact.
If we look at monthly spot prices, the lowest price in the past few years was $11 per barrel in 12/98.
Oil prices crossed the $59 mark in 7/05, 440% higher than 12/98. This was about a 25% per year average long term rate of increase.
Since 7/05, oil prices have traded in a range that is 440% to 570% higher than the $11 level we saw in 12/98. The monthly high this year was $74 in July.
I think that the $59 to $74 range was high enough to kill off some demand. In any case, since world production is declining--someone has to be conserving.
But, as production and exports continue to decline, market forces have to kill off more demand, to equalize suppy and consumption.
Great post!!
Based on EIA crude oil and lease condensate production data at http://www.eia.doe.gov/ipm/supply.html
Saudi Arabia peak production was on a peak plateau of 9.6 million barrels/day from April 2005 to September 2005. It has been declining ever since down to 9.0 million barrels/day in September 2006.
Given Ghawar's decline rate, the high number of oil rigs, new projects in Saudi and talk about "voluntary" production cuts, Saudi total oil production will continue on a slow irreversible decline of at least 1% per year till Dec 2010.
Immigration agents investigating ID thefts raid meat processing plants in 6 states
Thxs for being the early bird and reposting this info. Here is the another link:
------------------------------------------------------
Trouble for PEMEX May Spell Problems for the U.S.But if there's one thing a developing economy needs, its energy-especially for transportation. So it's no surprise that since 2000, Mexico's gasoline demand has been growing at a steady average rate of about 5% per year.
Gasoline demand is expected to continue to grow over the next ten years as well. Mexican gasoline demand is forecasted to grow an average annual rate of 3.8% a year from 712,000 barrels per day (bbls/d) to 992,000 bbls/d by 2015.
But there's one big problem. All this may spell bad news for the U.S.
PEMEX currently produces about 3.2 million barrels of crude per day (MMbbls/d), exporting about 1.7 million barrels daily and is our third-largest oil supplier, with more than 80% of exports going to the U.S.
But with Cantrell in irreversible decline and the growing Mexican economy demanding more and more oil and refined gasoline each year, we will not be able to depend as heavily on Mexican crude as we have in the past.
-------------------------------------------------
Just more info for TODer Westexas to use to buttress his ELM model. I think taxing the Mexican poor for soda pop to try and make up for Cantarell's decline is laughable, yet tragic:
Taxing human-usable calories & water to try and keep oil calories as readily available and as cheap as possible for those Mexicans that can afford vehicles.What's next--tax refried beans, tortillas, and bottled water to further subsidize Mex. gasoline prices? Most Mexicans don't trust using the available tapwater.What will be interesting is the looming bidding war between the US & Mexico for the ever-declining Mexican exports. Since a barrel of oil = 25,000 man-hours of physical labor, and 90% of that energy is wasted here in America to prolong infinite growth: if I was Calderon and/or Bush, every barrel exported to the US should include 12 Mexican laborers/yr to relocalize permaculture and build bicycle paths and mass-transit. This would be using the detritus energy more efficiently in a long term fashion towards sustainability, since Americans seem reluctant to paradigm shift.
If Americans see the true human labor costs of Mex. imports, then it will be much easier for us to refuse the importation, then get truly serious about stopping infinite growth & waste, and jumpstarting Detritus Powerdown and Biosolar Powerup. Time will tell, but I suspect the US will instead resort to draconian military measures against Mexico at crunchtime to keep the oil coming North. Even this strategy will not offset geologic decline.
"Poor, poor Mexico!--so far from God, yet so close to the USA"-- Porfirio Diaz
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
It looks like year over year exports from Mexico are down 12% (10/05 to 10/06).
Sounds a lot like the estimated decline in Saudi exports--13% from 12/05 to 12/06.
Some similarities:
(1) IMO, the largest fields in both countries--large prolific active water drive carbonate reservoirs with gas caps--are in decline or crashing;
(2) Both countries are past their respective 50% of Qt marks.
(3) Both countries have rapidly growing domestic consumption (very, very rapid in the case of Saudi Arabia);
(4) Single digit production declines + rising domestic consumption = double digit declines in exports.
Best wishes from other side of ocean