NationStates Jolt Archive

DAMMAM, Saudi Arabia - The world's only oil superpower boosted output last month, launching a pair of projects that are part of a massive $55 billion endeavor to keep pace with the world's ever-intensifying thirst for oil.

But demand for the world's premiere source of energy is rising so fast — by around 2 million barrels per day each year — that even Saudi Arabia's vast resources will be unable to cope without drastic help, oil executives and analysts say.

Remarkably, even Saudis, who control over a quarter of the world's known oil, are calling for relief from relentless consumption.

"The current out-of-control demand is not good for us," Ghazi Al-Rawi, head of private equity at Gulf One Investment Bank, said in a recent interview. "When you have this kind of demand, you're forced to supply beyond the optimal rate. That's not a positive thing."

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060403/ap_on_bi_ge/saudi_more_oil_bizspotlight_1;_ylt=Aih_003w62rRM1sDuTdWy5SAsnsA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCU l)

It's happening...

Good thing we didn't elect some environmentalist wimp like Gore who might have funded alternative energy research.

It's happening...

So are you telling me the Swedish were right! of course not oil will last for awhile yet don’t be so dramatic its just that the Saudis haven’t built any more oil production facilities

So are you telling me the Swedish were right!
Are you ask a question!

More...
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B5ECB43B5%2DC468%2D4E56%2D92CC%2D1AFD838E662E%7D&siteid=mktw&dist=nbk

Oh no! Run for the hills! The Unabomber had it right! Grab a bag of trail mix and dig yourself a hidey-hole! The end times are here!

So are you telling me the Swedish were right! of course not oil will last for awhile yet don’t be so dramatic its just that the Saudis haven’t built any more oil production facilities
They need to do more than build more facilities. They need to produce enough oil to cover decline rates in their major oil fields and to raise total output. That's a tall order. My bet is that they can't do it. My bet is that no one can.

don’t be so dramatic its just that the Saudis haven’t built any more oil production facilities
Actually there is a limit to how quickly you can extract oil without damaging the reservoir rock. Building another production facility would be pretty stupid, and in fact they have been producing at above the optimal rate for most of the last a quarter century. But hey, that's just me being acquainted with the facts. :p

Good thing we didn't elect some environmentalist wimp like Gore who might have funded alternative energy research.

Clinton/Gore kissed the Saudis' asses for 8 years to keep oil ridiculously cheap for political gain. They had the window of opportunity but failed to do anything about it...I blame them for our problems today as much as anyone.

Clinton/Gore kissed the Saudis' asses for 8 years to keep oil ridiculously cheap for political gain. They had the window of opportunity but failed to do anything about it...I blame them for our problems today as much as anyone.
It was Ronald Reagan who asked the Saudi's to jack up production after the Iranian revolution and George Bush I who asked them to jack it up after Gulf war I and GW who has lobbied them to jack it up now to cover for gulf War II. Where do you read your history?

Actually there is a limit to how quickly you can extract oil without damaging the reservoir rock. Building another production facility would be pretty stupid, and in fact they have been producing at above the optimal rate for most of the last a quarter century. But hey, that's just me being acquainted with the facts. :p

I have yet too see a problem that hasn't been solved by the throwing of money heck look at Chelsea FC

I have yet too see a problem that hasn't been solved by the throwing of money heck look at Chelsea FC
Yeah because after all te money we throw at problems our schools are better, our borders are more secure, our cities are safer and our world is more stable. I can see why you would believe that. It jives so well with reality.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060403/ap_on_bi_ge/saudi_more_oil_bizspotlight_1;_ylt=Aih_003w62rRM1sDuTdWy5SAsnsA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCU l)
It's happening...

The comfort to be derived from this is that they are not stagnating productionwise, just that they are not going to grow fast enough to cover demand. I think that means the situation is still far from a major collapse, which means we still have time. How much, I don't know but at least a few decades...the good news is that prices will remain high enough to encourage more alternative fuels.


Some more good news is that China is slowing down economically; if we want to reduce the rate at which demand grows we have to get India and China to eliminate fuel subsidies to achieve parity between the consumer price and the market price and thereby reduce demand.

It was Ronald Reagan who asked the Saudi's to jack up production after the Iranian revolution and George Bush I who asked them to jack it up after Gulf war I and GW who has lobbied them to jack it up now to cover for gulf War II. Where do you read your history?

They did it too, and deserve as much blame. In fact, all politicians since the end of the 1970's who failed to pursue alternative energy sources deserve blame in my book.

I have yet too see a problem that hasn't been solved by the throwing of money heck look at Chelsea FC
:rolleyes: Thermodynamics and fluid mechanics don't give a fuck.

The comfort to be derived from this is that they are not stagnating productionwise, just that they are not going to grow fast enough to cover demand.I doubt it. 60% of their production comes from four fields out of the 80+ that they are currently pumping from and the lion's share comes from Gawhar and that field has been pumped for 60 years. It cannot last forever and the world doesn't have another field like that much less the Suadis. I think that means the situation is still far from a major collapse, which means we still have time. How much, I don't know but at least a few decades...the good news is that prices will remain high enough to encourage more alternative fuels.We better do it really fast.


Some more good news is that China is slowing down economically; if we want to reduce the rate at which demand grows we have to get India and China to eliminate fuel subsidies to achieve parity between the consumer price and the market price and thereby reduce demand.
Could not agree more.

A note on OPEC reserves. During the 1980s OPEC instituted a new system of rules that allowed member nations to increase their output based on their reserve estmates. Basically the new rules said, "The more oil you say you have, the more oil you get to pump and sell." Now, the last time any independent analysis was done of most OPEC countries fields was in the 1970s so the only way we know how much oil they have is because they say they have it. Well, no new discoveries or intense exploration was done, but after the new rules went into place all of the OPEC reserves suddently did this:
http://www.peakoil.nl/images/bpopec.jpg

A note on OPEC reserves. During the 1980s OPEC instituted a new system of rules that allowed member nations to increase their output based on their reserve estmates. Basically the new rules said, "The more oil you say you have, the more oil you get to pump and sell." Now, the last time any independent analysis was done of most OPEC countries fields was in the 1970s so the only way we know how much oil they have is because they say they have it. Well, no new discoveries or intense exploration was done, but after the new rules went into place all of the OPEC reserves suddently did this:

[Devil's Advocate] Perhaps the increased reserves reflect innovations in pumping out petroleum that was once inaccessible in existing oil fields [/devil's advocate]

The biggest accounting scandal in history. :(

[Devil's Advocate] Perhaps the increased reserves reflect innovations in pumping out petroleum that was once inaccessible in existing oil fields [/devil's advocate]
No, nothing new was done at the time.

The lateral branching wells with shut-off valves now in use in Saudi Arabia have only allowed their production to stand still, while their fields were gradually depleted. The inevitable consequence of maintaining an artificially high production level is a rapid collapse when it can no longer be maintained. In the case of the Saudi fields, when the base of the thinning oil column rises above the well bores. You could see a large slice of world production go offline in the space of a year, before it could be (partially) restored.

[Devil's Advocate] Perhaps the increased reserves reflect innovations in pumping out petroleum that was once inaccessible in existing oil fields [/devil's advocate]
Yeah, except they still get their tech from our oil companies and software comapnies so we know what they have.

[Devil's Advocate] Perhaps the increased reserves reflect innovations in pumping out petroleum that was once inaccessible in existing oil fields [/devil's advocate]
It's also important to understand how reserves are measured. We have no way of really knowing what's actually underground so we have different account meathods. When an oil filed is surveyed there are different ways of quantifying the oil. There is possible reserves, probable reserves and proven reserves. An oilfield may have 20 billion barrels of possible reserves, 10 billion of probable and 5 billion of provable. Under US accunting rules an oil company is only allowed to list provable reserves on it sheet. Also, it can be broken down by % of possibility. It may be 5% possible to extract 20 billion barrels, 50% possible to extract 10 billion barrels and 90% possible to extract 5 billion barrels.

What OPEC probably did was fuck with these definitiosn and distort them. Another thing that is interesting is that Saudi Arabia has listed their official reserves as 260 billion barrels for over 15 years - all while pumping around 10 million per day. How do they pump that much oil and yet their reserve estimates remain the same?

They did it too, and deserve as much blame. In fact, all politicians since the end of the 1970's who failed to pursue alternative energy sources deserve blame in my book.
Are you saying Bush is as ecologically aware as Gore would have been???

Are you saying Bush is as ecologically aware as Gore would have been???

How much got done in 8 years of Clinton/Gore? Gore would have flapped his gums more, but if he'd won in 2000, we still wouldn't have alternative fuels.

Any nation that ignores the fact that oil will run out and that the whole world will need alternative energy sources and efficient technologies is short changing it's future. If nations invest in such things now they will be at a great advantage economically when oil becomes scarce. If they ignore it they will lose money and jobs due to the high cost of energy. They'll have to buy expertise in alternative energy from the more foreward looking nations to become competative again.

I think Bush and his oil company cronies are selling the US' future for wealth today by not funding alternate energy research and by not mandating more efficient cars, appliances, and industry.

How much got done in 8 years of Clinton/Gore? Gore would have flapped his gums more, but if he'd won in 2000, we still wouldn't have alternative fuels.
We won't ever know for sure since the Supreme Court decided Bush should be our president.

How much got done in 8 years of Clinton/Gore? Gore would have flapped his gums more, but if he'd won in 2000, we still wouldn't have alternative fuels.
We wouldn't have fully converted to alternative fuels (that'd be impossible) but he also wouldn't have been at the bidding of Exxon/Mobil. The mere flapping of gums would have been a vast improvement over Bush.

Any nation that ignores the fact that oil will run out and that the whole world will need alternative energy sources and efficient technologies is short changing it's future. If nations invest in such things now they will be at a great advantage economically when oil becomes scarce. If they ignore it they will lose money and jobs due to the high cost of energy. They'll have to buy expertise in alternative energy from the more foreward looking nations to become competative again.

I think Bush and his oil company cronies are selling the US' future for wealth today by not funding alternate energy research and by not mandating more efficient cars, appliances, and industry.

Yes, but one could argue that by making these mandates now, we further weaken our economy, thus increasing others' (Eg. China, India) enough to be able to readily afford buying technology. But then again, if we're the first... we could sell our technology.



Personally, I think that the oil reserves are gonna hold out for another 3 or 4 decades at the least. I've got nothing in particular to base that on, but you know, its not too much worse than everyone else's estimates.

Right now, I think we should focus on getting off oil completely. I don't care how, but I'm going to start looking to invest in alternative energy, and possibly start a company for alternative fuels. It'll pay off sooner or later.

Anything would have been a vast improvement over Bush because Bush's ideological rigidity has and is still keeping him firmly in the grasp of the religion of the free market and he's too stupid to see the error of his ways even when its put right in his face. He knows about Peak Oil but he has an idiotic, blind faith in the Market's ability to solve problems. A famous economist once said, "The Market makes a great slave and a horrible master." Bush's cliff notes in college skipped that page. I'm a capitalist and believe that high, market drivin oil prices are one of the most important pieces we need to solve this problem, but we need government incentives and pressure as well. Hell, it took him 5 years to admit we had a problem and the result so far is a very measily increase in the fuel efficiency standards for light trucks to be instituted in 6 years.

Yes, but one could argue that by making these mandates now, we further weaken our economy, thus increasing others' (Eg. China, India) enough to be able to readily afford buying technology. But then again, if we're the first... we could sell our technology.Globalization will be reversed by Peak Oil. We'll need the tech to survive here at home.



Personally, I think that the oil reserves are gonna hold out for another 3 or 4 decades at the least. I've got nothing in particular to base that on, but you know, its not too much worse than everyone else's estimates.That's not true. My estimates come from some of the most respected energy analysts, petroleum geologists and energy economists in the world. They do have something to base them on.

Right now, I think we should focus on getting off oil completely. I don't care how, but I'm going to start looking to invest in alternative energy, and possibly start a company for alternative fuels. It'll pay off sooner or later.
Better see if you can do it without oil. In other words, no tractors, trucks, oil pumped water, etc... If you use more oil making yoru "alternative" fuel than you get fro the fule it's an energy sink.

They need to do more than build more facilities. They need to produce enough oil to cover decline rates in their major oil fields and to raise total output. That's a tall order. My bet is that they can't do it. My bet is that no one can.
Which is good as a crash will kick-start the search for viable alternative energy sources. Supply and Demand at work.

Better see if you can do it without oil. In other words, no tractors, trucks, oil pumped water, etc... If you use more oil making yoru "alternative" fuel than you get fro the fule it's an energy sink.

Well, I'll have to start on oil, but eventually I'll be able to convert everything. I'd say I'm going to invest in a lot of hydrogen.

Which is good as a crash will kick-start the search for viable alternative energy sources. Supply and Demand at work.
I'll need more than that. I'll need to know what "alternative" you are talking about and how it will work in a world with $150 oil. I haven't seen one that does, at least not one that doesn't require us to radically change the way we live and all of our expectations about our future. No more easy motoring. No more food abundance, especially in a world where food is competing for farm land with biodiesel and ethanol. basically, no more of the afluence we have grown accustomed to.

Well, I'll have to start on oil, but eventually I'll be able to convert everything.[quote]That oil is going to be extremely expensive and the alternatives will rise in rpice right along with the price of oil.


[quote]I'd say I'm going to invest in a lot of hydrogen.
Hydrogen is a joke. Its a mass delusion.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060403/ap_on_bi_ge/saudi_more_oil_bizspotlight_1;_ylt=Aih_003w62rRM1sDuTdWy5SAsnsA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCU l)

It's happening...

Mwahh.. if its that drastic, i would have heard by now... my father was there (saudi arabia) only a few weeks ago , he didn't tell my about any new projects starting up, he definitly would if there really are seeing as i'll get a chance to go there on holiday again :D

[QUOTE=Dodudodu]
Hydrogen is a joke. Its a mass delusion.

How so?

Mwahh.. if its that drastic, i would have heard by now... my father was there (saudi arabia) only a few weeks ago , he didn't tell my about any new projects starting up, he definitly would if there really are seeing as i'll get a chance to go there on holiday again :D
You and your father need to pay a little more attention on what is going on around them then. This is one of dozens of stories in the major media all over the world that has reported for the last year that Saudi Arabia plans on increasing their output to 12.5 million barrels a day and also one of dozens of articles questioning wether it will be enough.

Here's a simply Google search.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%2B%22saudi+arabia%22+%2B%22oil+production%22+%2Bincrease

How so?
Over 99% of all hydrogen currently in use is synthesized from natural gas. In a world short of natural gas the last thing you need is another, less efficient end user. Better to burn the nat gas in yoru car than to convert it to hydrogen. the only other way you get it is through elecrolysis of water. In order to have electricity you have to have another energy source, usually coal or nat gas or nuclear, all of which are either fossil fuels or are dependent on them. Hydrogen is not an energy source. It is an energy carrier. All hydrogen fuels require a massive input of energy in order to produce them.

Look at it this way - we started burning hydrogen in industrial processes in the late 19th century and we still don't have a hydrogen economy. If it were that easy we'd have one by now. Hell, even the plastic in the fuel cells is made out of oil.

You also have to think about what you're talking about replacing. 700,000,000 cars in the world. 200,000,000 cars in the US. It takes about 90 barrels of oil to produce one car. There are less than 10 hydrogen fueling stations in the US. Who's gonna build all those cars? Who's gonna buy them? Who's gonna build all those stations? Who's gonna build all those new pipelines? The old nat gas infrastructure won't do it because hydrogen needs massive compression and it is a very small molecule so it will leak from existing infrastructure and it also makes metal brittle with prolonged exposure.

Don't worry, though. We'll just switch it all out and run it on hydrogen. Not gonna happen that way. That's a short answer as to why it's a joke.

How so?
Because we can't do anything with it. To produce hydrogen you need electricity. Obviously from a non-hydrocarbon source, otherwise there's no point. Considering the state of the nuclear debate in the West, we're sitting on our ass.

Even when you have the nuke plants, you need to have ones dedicated to hydrogen production - ie generating capacity far over and above the national load. No-one builds nuclear power plants to serve a heavy industry not yet constructed. Would you invest in a nuclear power company without a customer?

Which brings me to the whole electrolysis thing. I don't see anyone designing and building the plants. I don't see any serious body even discussing it.

And if that part of the chain got built, we have the infrastructural problem of storage, distribution and sale. This is clearly tied to there being a sufficiently large number of motor vehicles being available to use the stuff. Which won't be built unless the logistics are in place.

So to sum up you need:

- Lots of new nuclear power plants.
- Lots of hydrogen production plants.
- Hydrogen transportation logistics network.
- Thousands or tens of thousands of points of sale in each country.
- Mass use of suitable motor vehicles.
- Public endorsement of each of the above.

Only an obscenely wealthy dictatorship with a command economy can pull this off in one or two decades. It's all drawing board stuff, and it is staying there for the forseeable future. If it was going to happen, I would have noticed.

While I admit that natural oil may be running out, we have to look at man made alternative oil. Link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization) Is it as efficient as natural oils? Hell no. Is it reliable? Not all that much. Is it better then nothing? Yes. And a good first step towards alternative fuels as well as a way to replace ageing plastic parts. Is it going to work? Nope, the oil magnates that control BushGov Corp seem to be undercutting it. Though I could be going on faulty info on that last part. But is the next decade going to hurt anyway?

HELL YES.

While I admit that natural oil may be running out, we have to look at man made alternative oil. Link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization) Is it as efficient as natural oils? Hell no. Is it reliable? Not all that much. Is it better then nothing? Yes. And a good first step towards alternative fuels as well as a way to replace ageing plastic parts. Is it going to work? Nope, the oil magnates that control BushGov Corp seem to be undercutting it. Though I could be going on faulty info on that last part. But is the next decade going to hurt anyway?

HELL YES.
Well, use it. We'll use all of our resources, but you're right. It's going to hurt. We'll see people and industry scrambling for whatever energy resources they can scrounge, but it just will not be as reliable, dependent and as powerful as fossil fuels. And you are wrong about the last part. Energy companies will turn to lower and lower quality energy sources to survive. The only reason they don't do it now is because there is still oil and it is still much more efficient and cheap.

Clinton/Gore kissed the Saudis' asses for 8 years to keep oil ridiculously cheap for political gain. They had the window of opportunity but failed to do anything about it...I blame them for our problems today as much as anyone.
Every president since FDR did that, and Bish would have if 9-11 hadn't happened. And yes Clintion was an idiot. And so is Bush.

And you are wrong about the last part. Energy companies will turn to lower and lower quality energy sources to survive. The only reason they don't do it now is because there is still oil and it is still much more efficient and cheap.
AS I said, that info may be faulty. Some oil companies may be supportive, some may hate it, whatever. And Lobbying in the Capitol is not an 'entire economic section trying to get the govenment to kill Americans' thing as some would believe. But it IS a threat to Big Oil's control of the energy grid and so, would they seek it's destruction? Don't know. Don't really care. And not interested enough to seek answers on this topic. My bunker is done, what about yours?

Road Warrior-esque apocalypse, here I come!

oh noes the oils running out I and many people who's opinions are more respected than I could have told you that 20 years ago but did you listen? No

AS I said, that info may be faulty. Some oil companies may be supportive, some may hate it, whatever. And Lobbying in the Capitol is not an 'entire economic section trying to get the govenment to kill Americans' thing as some would believe. But it IS a threat to Big Oil's control of the energy grid and so, would they seek it's destruction? Don't know. Don't really care. And not interested enough to seek answers on this topic. My bunker is done, what about yours?

Road Warrior-esque apocalypse, here I come!
What I'm saying is that the only reason oil companies don't build thermodepolymerization plants - or ethanol plants or biodeisel plants or algea farms or whatever - is because the fuel generated will be too expensive to be competitive. If they can't make a profit they can't do it. You're free to build a thermodepolymerization plant, but be aware you'll go broke because the fule you generate will cost significantly more than gasoline or deisel and people will not buy it. Once oil gets really expensive the fuel you generate will be competitive and teh oil companies will start making it, too.