Saudi Arabia nearly out of oil?
#11
02-12-2011, 07:58 PM
They are NOT. So the answer is NO. That "supposition" is not true. But, I did not place the blame on YOU. I showed that the article you quoted clearly mistated the facts... particularly in their headline. It's like saying.... "Social Security nearly out of money?"
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between. TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!! "I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
#12
02-13-2011, 11:04 AM
Reprised response
Mr. Ford said:
Hobo, re-read the title of the thread.... so how is the title not true? I posed a question.
I did not make a statement.
A new WikiLeaks cable shows that the Kingdom could be out of oil by next year.
I don't mean to split hairs here, but you chose to make an issue of it. Fact is... the Yahoo article was misleading, and YOUR opening statement was false as to the facts AND the conclusions of the article you linked. [But, I STILL have nothing against Yahoo.news} Neither the Wikileaks article NOR the Yahoo article (nothwithstanding the title) actually ever mentioned the possibility that S.A. would be OUT OF OIL by next year.
Prices have been going up since Summer, not due to this cold Winter.
Cold weather DOES have an effect on fuel prices. It increases demand and reduces stockpiles and may catch producing nations off guard. But, the real factors are speculation (as we've discussed before) and production plans by OPEC nations. The Saudis made a major miscalculation in 2007 about demand AND the production plans of other nations, and reduced their output. [Had they NOT... the price would have tanked and they would have lost money!] [Did you read the "Slippery slope" article from forbes... and look at the graph?] This is what caused the major spike in fuel prices in 2008 that put so many trucking companies (including mine at the time) out of business! They corrected their position, and prices came down for awhile. Now, demand has recovered, China has increased their purchases, and cold weather (most unexpectedly in EUROPE) has increased demand further. the point of the article was that, they were going to be unable to reach the target they set for production that was INTENDED to "normalize" crude oil prices on the market, and may continue to fall short of that "promised" rate of stability. [So... prices may continue to rise at the pump.] I did not "miss any train" on fuel prices. I made ONE "personal observation" about the reasons for increased prices, and it was not ENTIRELY supported by facts. That is why I try NOT to make such personal observations on this forum much! I prefer to deal in FACTS that I gain by research before almost EVERY response I make. But, at least I didn't make a statement quite as ridiculous as "Saudi's about to run out of oil!" :roll::lol: I did not "blast" you for making that statement, or starting this thread. I did not insinuate that you had "missed some train." I simply wanted to correct the record and I did so in a clearly "clinical" manner with links to support my claims. What I said about Vito recently applies to YOU as well. You have proven yourself to be a moderate that does not start EVERY thread or post with a slam against Obama. I Have learned much from your posts, and I enjoy our intellectual discussions. After years of "debates" with the Rev over rules and regs, and constant oppression from some about my "centrist" beliefs that they call liberal, I can be a bit "touchy" at times. I suppose the "real me" IS a bit defensive for reasons that few here would know about... but, I am really trying to progress to a new level. And I appreciate your help. Hobo
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between. TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!! "I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
#13
02-13-2011, 11:19 AM
Heard about this, but that's not exactly what they are saying.... or meant. The Yahoo article is a bit misleading.
What was said is that they over-estimated the amount they CAN produce per day to overcome cutbacks in production by other OPEC countries. In recent years, when other countries cut back on production, S.A. would increase production to maintain quantities and therefore prices (to some extent.) I don't think one could say, nor did they mean, that they were going to run out of oil by next year. S.A. still has MASSIVE deposits of oil, and it could be that all that is needed is more construction of wells or processing plants to make up for the discrepancy. At any rate.... your OTHER link was very interesting and could render the situation irrelevant anyway. I DO think, though, that with increased demand around the world, it is imperative that we begin to produce more oil ourselves.... FOR ourselves! Something in that second article really bothered me. They said that this new process might only represent 2 or 3 percent(?) of WORLD oil consumption and therefore might have little affect on prices. :hellno: Well.... if it could produce nearly HALF of what WE need..... why don't we keep it for ourselves and let OTHERS pay higher prices??? We are not part of, nor bound by the agreements of the oil cartel OPEC! Good "find" on that second article. I'll have to look into it more. I do worry somewhat about the environmental impact. Not necessarily on drinking water or such, but on underground EROSION! But, what do I know? [QUOTE] The US fears that Saudi Arabia, the world's largest crude oil exporter, may not have enough reserves to prevent oil prices escalating, confidential cables from its embassy in Riyadh show. The cables, released by WikiLeaks, urge Washington to take seriously a warning from a senior Saudi government oil executive that the kingdom's crude oil reserves may have been overstated by as much as 300bn barrels – nearly 40%. The revelation comes as the oil price has soared in recent weeks to more than $100 a barrel on global demand and tensions in the Middle East. Many analysts expect that the Saudis and their Opec cartel partners would pump more oil if rising prices threatened to choke off demand. However, Sadad al-Husseini, a geologist and former head of exploration at the Saudi oil monopoly Aramco, met the US consul general in Riyadh in November 2007 and told the US diplomat that Aramco's 12.5m barrel-a-day capacity needed to keep a lid on prices could not be reached. According to the cables, which date between 2007-09, Husseini said Saudi Arabia might reach an output of 12m barrels a day in 10 years but before then – possibly as early as 2012 – global oil production would have hit its highest point. This crunch point is known as "peak oil". Husseini said that at that point Aramco would not be able to stop the rise of global oil prices because the Saudi energy industry had overstated its recoverable reserves to spur foreign investment. He argued that Aramco had badly underestimated the time needed to bring new oil on tap. One cable said: "According to al-Husseini, the crux of the issue is twofold. First, it is possible that Saudi reserves are not as bountiful as sometimes described, and the timeline for their production not as unrestrained as Aramco and energy optimists would like to portray." [It is entirely possible that SA's reserves have been "over estimated", just as OUR reserves are often times "under-estimated"........ by intent.And.........Unrestrained production means just that. Right now, Saudi Arabia has the capability to produce "Without restraint". Once they have peaked their production capabilities, SA will have to start doing just as so many other depleted fields do....reduce their daily output.Will that "Peak" happen next year? Time will tell.] It went on: "In a presentation, Abdallah al-Saif, current Aramco senior vice-president for exploration, reported that Aramco has 716bn barrels of total reserves, of which 51% are recoverable, and that in 20 years Aramco will have 900bn barrels of reserves. [That is speculation, doubled by calculus. al-Saif is saying that "total reserves" will be increased, without indication where these increases are expected to come from. Saudi Arabia already has numerous offshore production facilities, many of which give Iraq and Iran cause to believe that SA is stealing from them. SA's facilities were part of Saddam's reason for invading Kuwait 20 years ago.] "Al-Husseini disagrees with this analysis, believing Aramco's reserves are overstated by as much as 300bn barrels. In his view once 50% of original proven reserves has been reached … a steady output in decline will ensue and no amount of effort will be able to stop it. He believes that what will result is a plateau in total output that will last approximately 15 years followed by decreasing output." [This sentence says a lot, simply because the man being "quoted", is recognized world-wide as a "Class Authority" for oil production. Once "proven reserves" have reached full output capacity, then "output" declines. It is happening right now in Prudhoe Bay. No amount of "Re-drilling" will replace those reserves. Saudi Arabia does not have any proven "Deep" reserves. Their primary production is from "Shallow" zones (700 feet down to 8500 feet is considered shallow). (of course....I might be wrong)] /QUOTE] Prudhoe Bay Oil Field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Cumulative North Slope oil peaked in 1998 at 2 million barrels per day (320×10^3 m3/d) (Greater Prudhoe Bay: 1.5 million barrels per day (240×10^3 m3/d), but had fallen to 943,000 barrels per day (149,900 m3/d) in 2005,[3] while Greater Prudhoe averaged 411,000 barrels per day (65,300 m3/d) in December, 2006 and Prudhoe itself averaged 285,000 barrels per day (45,300 m3/d).[4] Total production from 1977 through 2005 was 11 billion barrels (1.7×10^9 m3). As of August 2006, BP estimated that 2 billion barrels (320×10^6 m3) of recoverable oil remain and can be recovered with current technology. And.......THAT.....leads to this......Well....maybe it does...most likely it does....along with Kalifornia's CARB policies. BP to Reshape US Downstream Business and Seek | Press | BP
BP to Reshape US Downstream Business and Seek Buyers for Texas City and Carson Refineries
Release date: 01 February 2011 Aligned with changing trends in global demand, BP announced today that it intends to reposition its refining and marketing (R&M) business in the US and divest two of its US refineries. It intends to seek buyers for the Texas City, Texas refinery and the Carson refinery near Los Angeles, California, together with its associated integrated marketing business in southern California, Arizona, and Nevada. Subject to regulatory and other approvals, BP plans to complete the sales by the end of 2012, thereby halving BP’s US refining capacity. BP plans to focus future downstream investment in the US on further improving and upgrading its other, more advantaged R&M networks in the country – based around the Whiting, Indiana and Cherry Point, Washington refineries and its 50 per cent interest in the Toledo, Ohio refinery. These refineries have greater flexibility to refine a range of crude oils including heavy grades, and on average are more diesel-capable than BP’s current portfolio. They are also well-integrated with BP’s marketing operations and benefit from advantaged and focussed logistics infrastructure. BP intends to sell both the Texas City refinery and the Carson refinery with its marketing network as going concerns and expects significant market interest in the assets. The planned sales will be subject to regulatory and other approvals, and BP will ensure that fulfillment of the current regulatory obligations associated with Texas City are reflected in any transaction. "The US remains a very important market for BP's fuels, lubricants and petrochemicals businesses and the moves we have announced today will give BP a smaller, but well-positioned and very competitive portfolio of refining and marketing businesses," said Iain Conn, BP chief executive refining and marketing. "I have no doubt that the businesses we are seeking to divest will prove extremely attractive to other operators." The Carson refinery, south of Los Angeles, is at the heart of an integrated fuels value chain stretching across southern California, Arizona and Nevada. The refinery, which has 265,000 barrels per day (bpd) refining capacity and supplies some 25 per cent of Los Angeles gasoline demand, became part of BP through the 2000 acquisition of ARCO. It employs some 1200 staff and 500 contractors. The assets associated with the Carson refinery also to be divested include BP's interests in a cogeneration plant on the refinery site, crude and product terminals and also its marketing interests. As part of this sale, BP expects to divest the ARCO brand (though retaining brand rights for northern California, Oregon and Washington) and to retain ownership of and license the ampm brand. The Texas City refinery became part of BP with the 1998 merger with Amoco. It is a large, highly complex refinery with 475,000 bpd refining capacity – the third biggest refinery in the US, with gasoline manufacturing capability equivalent to approximately three per cent of US production. The refinery employs some 2,200 BP staff and, contractor numbers can vary between 2000 and 4000 each day. During the last few years, over $1 billion has been invested in modernising and improving the plant. However, Texas City lacks strong integration into any BP marketing assets. The assets to be divested associated with the sale of Texas City also include the cogeneration plant. BP intends to retain the Texas City Chemicals complex adjoining the refinery. BP is currently in the process of carrying out a number of major investments in its other US refineries, including a large investment programme to transform its 405,000 bpd capacity Whiting refinery, significantly increasing its capability to process heavy Canadian crude; a clean diesel upgrading project at its 240,000 bpd Cherry Point refinery and the addition of a continuous catalytic reformer to its 160,000 bpd capacity Toledo refinery (a 50:50 joint venture with its partner Husky Energy Inc). BP is their own worst enemy. In an attempt to save 10 cents (metaphorically speaking) worth of drilling mud, they cost themselves untold billions of dollars.
__________________
Space...............Is disease and danger, wrapped in darkness and silence! :thumbsup: Star Trek2009
#14
02-13-2011, 01:05 PM
That big orange bear said:
That is not "What was said" either.
Although I am glad you read at least ONE of my links, my research included MORE than just the links I posted. And my ANALYSIS incorporated all of them. I didn't SAY that was what Yahoo.news said. OR what any other source said. I didn't even say that is what the U.S. cables leaked by Wikileaks said. Although I can't find the quote right now, what "I" said was almost verbatim from SOME related article. If not verbatim, then what I said (and you highlighted in red) is my BEST "analysis" of the MANY reports, cables, and articles I read on the subject. Several pertinent points were made. 1) The "proven" reserves in S.A. were probably over-estimated. 2) The infrastructure needed to tap NEW reserves has been slow in coming. 3) S.A. is one of only THREE nations that are not currently producing at "peak" levels, therefore... they have the ABILITY to increase production to keep a CAP on oil prices when OTHER OPEC countries reduce production by design or under Eco/political pressure. 4) They made promises to us to DO SO. [possibly based on estimates that didn't include increased demand in their OWN country.] 5) When OTHER OPEC countries reduce production, S.A. has/had agreed to "make up the difference" to maintain oil prices at an acceptable level to America under treaties and agreements. 6) Their promises were based on possibly "over-estimated" PROVEN reserves and production capacities. They admitted that they might not be able to REACH, let alone maintain, those increased levels needed to "cap" prices [which they have always done by replacing shortages from other OPEC countries.] So.... if you read every word of every link I posted AND every word in every link I did NOT post, you would find that my analysis of "what has been said" is absolutely SPOT ON. Unlike you, I chose NOT to post every word in every article I read. But, the facts are the same as I posted them. S.A. has an agreement with the U.S. to "cover" production levels that are reduced by other OPEC partners. Kind of a "union busting" type of thing! The linked cable(s) show ONE man's opinion (which I am not discounting) that they may not be able to meet that obligation. Therefore... prices may rise on increased demand, erroneous speculation, and decreasing production. Yes, the inability to reach the "stop-gap" production levels they promised ARE, to some extent, based on over-estimated reserves, but also due to lack of production investment and increased "local" demand (both of which may have changed since then.) The net result is that they might be unable to control rising prices as they intended to, and that was the crux of ALL the articles AND my statement. It should ALSO be noted that the statements by the FORMER official of the national oil industry in S.A. (who is now working for another INDEPENDENT company) might be politically motivated, and that the cables are about 5 years OLD! This is ONE problem with the "wikileaks" cables. They are often outdated. They are ALSO, to date, only classified as "Secret." That is about as LOW on the totempole as you can get in the Intel community! We are just now hearing about, AND REACTING TO, stuff that was just BARELY important some 5 years ago! But, the whole world thinks this is a MAJOR development! :lol: I have my suspicions that this intel was "leaked" in 2007 which MAY have led to much of the speculation at the time that drove prices through the roof! Is this what you would like to see happen EVERY day?? :hellno: There is a REASON why such cables are "classified" and not available to the American public, let alone the entire world! MOSTLY, the fact that such situations are often rectified through diplomatic channels BEFORE they become a driving force in world economic policies or trends. Government "transparency" has its benefits and constitutional basis. But, not EVERYONE needs to know EVERYTHING that goes on behind those closed doors. That is just REALITY!
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between. TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!! "I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
#15
02-14-2011, 04:28 PM
Funny,
We've been drilling so many holes they cant put pipelines in fast enough. But yet our fuel prices still go up. Wanna know why? Its easy (kinda), We have as much if not more oil the the middle east, we just cant refine it because its not profitable to build more refineries. There is so much red tape to go through to build one its not funny (expected to be 23 years to get just the permits in line). The other reason oil is still on the futures market. The oil companies do not set the price, they aint complaining either...
#16
02-15-2011, 01:42 AM
I don't think the fuel prices will ever come back down. The oil companies figured out a way to send the prices sky high, and they'll leave them up there.
#17
02-15-2011, 09:03 AM
Ding Ding Ding, that is why prices jump around so much and don't seem to jive with supply and demand. The oil companies only control the prices to a point, they have to watch the market and adjust their prices as needed so that they can still afford to drill, refine, ship, etc. Remember, the futures market is for oil coming out of West Texas, it has ZERO to do with what comes out of the Mid-East technically. The price you pay at the pump is what's reflected from the futures market of the West Texas oil. So unrest in the Mid-East SHOULD have zilch to do with our prices technically but it does affect our prices in reality. Why? Because that means the West Texas fields would have to suddenly produce even more barrels per day which means more work which means a higher price tag if the oil from the Mid-East is cut off from us.
#18
02-16-2011, 04:21 PM
Warlock said:
Funny, we've been drilling so many holes they cant put pipelines in fast enough.
We have as much if not more oil than the middle east,
we just can't refine it because its not profitable to build more refineries. There is so much red tape to go through to build one its not funny (expected to be 23 years to get just the permits in line).
We don't buy "refined" oil from them. ONE reason OUR gas prices at the pump are so high is that WE don't have enough refining capacity for the oil we import. And you are right about the red tape (and associated cost of that.) The old "NIMBY" argument! This makes me furious!! The gov't owns HUGE tracts of undeveloped land JUST far enough outside major cities, ports, railyards, etc.... that we could build all the refineries we WANT to without hearing a PEEP from the public. But, if the oil companies built the refineries, they'd have no reason to claim "shortages" to keep the prices up! They LEARNED their lesson well from the embargo days of the 70's!
The other reason oil is still on the futures market. The oil companies do not set the price, they aint complaining either...
One thing I WOULD like to see though.... We DO have lots of untapped oil. Even WITH the lack of refineries, we should be building up our strategic reserves again. Even though China HAS (or is about to) pass us in demand, we still demand enough that we SHOULD be able to control prices more! IF we had a couple of years worth of reserves ABOVE what we call "strategic," we would be able to refine more when we need it to keep the prices lower at the pump for Americans, while putting pressure on OPEC to reduce prices to keep us OUT of the production market! If it came to a stalemate, or stand-off.... with little or NO other industries to support their economies.... THEY would go broke before WE would! I don't blame Obama for the moratorium on Gulf Oil drilling as a result of that terrible disaster! It HAS been lifted. But, I would like to see MORE drilling anywhere we can find it on solid LAND! A "spiill" on land doesn't destroy an entire ecosystem! AND.... the more we ramp up production, refining and exploration for oil in this country, the more JOBS we create!
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between. TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!! "I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
#19
02-16-2011, 04:50 PM
I work the oil fields. I haul the pipe from time to time. I Know MANY pipeliners, they know how much they have to weld together. Trust me, there is a lot of pipe to be put in yet.
The collective amount of oil in the US, yes, we beat out SA. Yes, tree huggers make it hard to build a refnery The moratorium, I do not agree with how he overreacted, but its done. This aint the first spill in the gulf, wont be the last either. BUT us land oil filed trash got a lot busier. (we hauled rigs from the gulf to ND)
#20
02-17-2011, 04:00 PM
Warlock said:
I work the oil fields.
The collective amount of oil in the US, yes, we beat out SA.
S.A. is number one on page one. We are on page 2 at number 14. Our TOTAL reserves equal a 3 yr supply. Theirs is 278 years. Not sure if that is based on the stated country's OWN usage. Doesn't matter. We rank 14th.
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between. TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!! "I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev. |
