Article

2004-02-24

NYTimes says that Saudi oil fields are "tired," in decline

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Jennie Taliaferro 2004-02-24 8:16:53 AM|| || Front Page|| [11135 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Any oil field is in decline as soon as you start pumping from it. You abandon it only when the economics makes some alternative preferable. It's not time to shed tears for the poor Saudis. Their little welfare state will still be dripping with oil for many, many years to come. Unemployment and demographics is their problem. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. Of course, if we have to nuke the place, all bets on oil output are off.

Posted by Tom 2004-2-24 8:33:47 AM|| 2004-2-24 8:33:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Yes, its complete horses***t. The saudis have actively discouraged searching for new reserves, which they should have plenty of based on geology and previous experience with other oil provinces.

Posted by phil_b 2004-2-24 9:00:18 AM|| 2004-2-24 9:00:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I'm a programmer, not a petrofizzisist or other specialized oily creature. I once got paid to mangle modeling code -- and saw the input data. This latter item is my source of info. My info can be trumped by anyone who worked for Mobil in Reservoir Simulation during or after 1979 - or Aramco, once they took over their own sim code, whenever that occurred. Mobil was the developer of the Saudi Royal Model, so that's where this begins. As I said, I got a peek at the proven reserves of the 6 (at that time) Royal Saudi fields...

The terminology must be understood (and I'm sure others can explain it better... but I'll kick it off) to make sense of the numbers but, customarily, you can make the following assumption: "proven" reserves (there are other terms in use for those additional resources which are less certain; i.e. probable, possible, etc.) are quantities that are estimated to be recoverable using current (at time of estimate) technologies and if produced at current rate. Note: increasing prod rate may lower amt recovered overall. Since technology improves steadily, the "proven" number is usually conservative. On top of this, there are conditions wherein companies and countries understate or overstate their numbers - for financial and / or political reasons.

Okay, all of that said, I saw numbers in 1979 which indicated that, at the 1979 rates of prod, SA could continue production based on proven reserves alone for 120 years. This precluded other resource probability categories, any new resources located, new technologies which might yield a higher percentage return, and altered prod rates.

Several authoritative sources (Google yourself silly!), though varying on the numbers in a range of about 10%, seem to actually agree on a general theme: the world can sustain its oil economy until approx year 2100. This takes all of the obvious and not so obvious factors (trends of consumption, exploration, tech improvements, etc.) into account. Very likely true. And just about the last to be out of the game among current prod leaders will be the fields of Eastern Saudi Arabia.

I hope this muddies the water sufficiently so that someone who knows much more can come in and save the day with a simpler and more authoritative answer! My info is now about 25 yrs old! We're always in need of a hero! So c'mon down!

Posted by .com 2004-2-24 9:36:06 AM|| 2004-2-24 9:36:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 No, no! It's all about the SAND!... They're running out of SAND, you morons!

Sheesh. N'Yawkers...

Posted by mojo 2004-2-24 10:53:39 AM|| 2004-2-24 10:53:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 if we develop fuel cell technology they they will start worrying about running out of sand.

Posted by B 2004-2-24 11:35:30 AM|| 2004-2-24 11:35:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 As opposed to the New York Times being tired.

Posted by dataman1 2004-2-24 12:08:10 PM|| 2004-2-24 12:08:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 I worked in the oilpatch a bit, in seismic data processing - again, back in the 1970's. I have to agree: it'll be generations after my grandchildren are dead and gone before the world runs out of oil, if then. One of the reasons the Greens want to lock up so much real estate against exploration and development is because they KNOW there are humongous reserves, enough to last generations. They want to force the world to get off its oil diet not because we're running out, but because of other items on THEIR agenda that we're not privy to.

Just to complicate matters, there is enough coal in Colorado (not to mention Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, and elsewhere) to supply the WORLD with the current production of natural gas for 800 years (the conservative estimate). About half of it isn't profitable to mine, or is too risky (the entire southern half of Colorado has a coal seam about 500 feet thick - down about 26,000 feet).

Posted by Old Patriot 2004-2-24 12:14:45 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2004-2-24 12:14:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 I'm more worried about the motivation than the reality of how much oil is in the ground. I'm seeing more and more clues out there that the Saudis are getting ready to use the oil weapon again. Not like 1973. But in graduated response mode. If they can slow down our growth enough, make us turn inward like in the 1970's that gives them time. Time for us to lose interest in Iraq. Time for Israel to become demoralized. Time for the "population weapon" to kick in. Plus the extra revenue helps keep the youngsters out of trouble at home, too.

Graduated response didn't work for McNamara and it probably won't work for the Saudis. But what other choice do they have? They can't let any more 9/11's happen or they get crushed. It's our growth (cultural and economic) vs. theirs (cultural [dawa] and population).

Posted by 11A5S 2004-2-24 2:04:41 PM|| 2004-2-24 2:04:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 I'm not so sure it's gradual - they are keeping prices as high as they can without having the OPEC cartel show big cracks .....

Posted by rkb 2004-2-24 2:40:11 PM|| 2004-2-24 2:40:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 they just say that to rais oil prices.

Posted by muck4doo 2004-2-24 2:50:48 PM|| 2004-2-24 2:50:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 rkb: True, but hinting of a potential shortage helps to keep the cartel from cracking.

Posted by 11A5S 2004-2-24 5:47:28 PM|| 2004-2-24 5:47:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Economically speaking, it will be harder and harder for SA to produce oil competitively. For instance, how will they keep pace with the Iraqis now that Sadaam is gone. Carrying a non-transparent despotic regime on their backs is an incredible disadvantage to Aramco.

Nucor had the same type of advantage when they set-up mini-mills to compete with Bethlehem and US Steel. How could the old steelworks compete against a young challenger that didn't have to bankroll the hierachy of the Steelworkers union?

Saudi Arabia is going to need the help of all Western Nations. If we don't get large amounts of free money headed towards Saudi Arabia, how will they continue to fund the crushed velure upgrade to the captains chairs in the fleet of Leer Jets. They might have to cutback on safety and preventative maintenance on their piping systems. Next thing you know we'll be asking them to stop exporting worldwide terrorism.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-2-24 9:55:12 PM|| 2004-2-24 9:55:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 I seem to always get the headlines wrong. Must be reading too fast:

I read:
NY is tired of Saudis having oil fields...

Posted by True German Ally 2004-2-24 10:00:10 PM|| 2004-2-24 10:00:10 PM|| Front Page Top

18:06 Anonymous
08:57 Raptor
03:29 SON OF TOLUI
00:12 Lucky
23:59 Lucky
23:32 Lucky
23:24 AF Lady
23:21 CrazyFool
23:18 Just Me
23:10 CrazyFool
23:07 B
22:57 PBMcL
22:47 B
22:44 Super Hose
22:40 AF Lady
22:29 Super Hose
22:14 dataman1
22:07 dataman1
22:00 True German Ally
21:57 Super Hose
21:55 Super Hose
21:44 Alaska Paul
21:43 Super Hose
21:39 Alaska Paul