[threadbear]

I found this article by a fellow named Robert Rapier. He is urging caution in drawing too close a parallel between Texas oil rate of depletion and depletion rates in Saudi Arabia.

Robert Rapier-- Depletion Modelling

It is invalid to use three decades of hindsight for refining the Texas forecast, because we clearly don't have the same option with Saudi Arabia. Yet some argue that the Saudi peak can be forecast with confidence using the knowledge obtained from the case of Texas – a region in which the uncertainty of the method spanned almost 3 decades.

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/search/label/texas

I like the lack of fundamentalism in his approach. I also appreciate the fact that he grasps the obvious problems with supply.

[Ebyss]

I think Rapier contributes regularly to the Oil Drum too - is that the same guy?

[threadbear]

I'm not certain, but I'm sure he'd be welcomed there. He seems to know what he's talking about!

[Colorado-Valley]

I'm not certain, but I'm sure he'd be welcomed there. He seems to know what he's talking about!

He's prominent at The Oil Drum. He's a good guy, knowledgeable and he and West Texas have an interesting long-term discussion going about how eminent peak oil actually is.

Robert thinks we still have a few years ...

[threadbear]

From what I read his point of view seems to ameliorate the excessive doom found in some of the less rational posts in the energy forums. He seems apolitical too, which eliminates some of the prerequisite raving, (unfortunately).

The best analyst of this subject would be a geologist or engineer with a political science background and an understanding of market dynamics. But he will do until such a creature comes along.

[PraiseDoom]

He's prominent at The Oil Drum. He's a good guy, knowledgeable and he and West Texas have an interesting long-term discussion going about how eminent peak oil actually is.

Robert thinks we still have a few years ...

Strikes me a little weird to be debating something which has already happened? Hows that work?

"Gee....we've Peaked a few years back...but just wait!! Soon, more oil will flow into reservoirs, mother nature will whip up a quick batch just in time to counteract emminent depletion and we're saved!!"?

[threadbear]

Robert Rapier was among the more optimistic (David Cohen being another) regulars at the Oildrum. Those two are in decendence as the very convincing argument for SA decline by Westexas, Stuart, Euran (and tons of others) continue to gain validity.

SA petroleum is in a severe waterless remote environment and the overhead precludes small fry, small wells, small production like in Texas. The desert is no place for hobby wildcatters and weekend producers. So no, SA is not Texas and its decline will be more abrupt and proportionately more petroleum will be left in the ground.

Are Westexas Stuart and Euran pseudonyms or their actual names?

[benzoil]

Robert's posts over at TOD are excellent reading. IIRC, the difference in estimates of peak isn't much -like 2010 instead of 2005. Just enough to be worth debating. Of course, being the Oil Drum, everything is very technical and the debates get much more into the minutia than we do over here at po.com.

Robert has a blog as well, which I have not read, but comes recommended. I'm not sure I agree with all his assessments, but I don't dismiss them lightly.

[joewp]

Are Westexas Stuart and Euran pseudonyms or their actual names?

Westexas is Jeffrey J. Brown, an independent petroleum geologist; Stuart is Stuart Staniford, a PhD Physics and MS CS and I don't know who Euran is.

[PraiseDoom]

I don't get you PraiseDoom. Are you an ironic doomer or a smirking sceptic?

Probably a little of both. I've been sitting around waiting since 2005 for the other shoe to drop. The further we get from the Blessed Event without the disintegration of globalization, breakdown of social order, MSM even NOTICING, heck , I'd be happy with $9/gal gasoline at this point as some sort of proof that at least the basic concept is valid.

I figure the longer we have to wait to see anything, the higher the chance I've been sold a bill of goods. That makes me cranky and irritiable.

[threadbear]

I don't get you PraiseDoom. Are you an ironic doomer or a smirking sceptic?

Probably a little of both. I've been sitting around waiting since 2005 for the other shoe to drop. The further we get from the Blessed Event without the disintegration of globalization, breakdown of social order, MSM even NOTICING, heck , I'd be happy with $9/gal gasoline at this point as some sort of proof that at least the basic concept is valid.

I figure the longer we have to wait to see anything, the higher the chance I've been sold a bill of goods. That makes me cranky and irritiable.

I hear you. There is obvioiusly something wrong with a lot of the original analysis from many posters, which indicated an imminent threat. I think much of it comes from drawing too close a parallel between Texas and Saudi Arabia, ignoring the politics of the situation, and acceptance, at face value, of anything which supported their point of view.

Pretty soon, the only people remaining on the forums are ones who hold that singular point of view. The threat is ALWAYS just around the corner, it's always purely geological in origin and if you try to alter, add to or tweak that basic premise in any appreciable way, you are demonized. The energy forums have become just the sort of echo chamber that creates religions, fads etc...

There is a problem and it might unfold this summer, next summer or ten summers from now. If it's around about years from now, as Rapier outlines, that's several more years to prepare. That is crucial and I actually see govts taking steps in that direction, so am not as concerned as I once was. My major fear is economic depression which will occur, regardless of whether we have a catastrophic energy collapse, or not. Jut my two cents worth of efamol.

[Ludi]

I actually see govts taking steps in that direction, so am not as concerned as I once was.

I haven't seen these steps. Not sure what they are. Is there a thread about this?

[Bas]

I hear you. There is obvioiusly something wrong with a lot of the original analysis from many posters, which indicated an imminent threat. I think much of it comes from drawing too close a parallel between Texas and Saudi Arabia, ignoring the politics of the situation, and acceptance, at face value, of anything which supported their point of view.

Pretty soon, the only people remaining on the forums are ones who hold that singular point of view. The threat is ALWAYS just around the corner, it's always purely geological in origin and if you try to alter, add to or tweak that basic premise in any appreciable way, you are demonized. The energy forums have become just the sort of echo chamber that creates religions, fads etc...

There is a problem and it might unfold this summer, next summer or ten summers from now. If it's around about years from now, as Rapier outlines, that's several more years to prepare. That is crucial and I actually see govts taking steps in that direction, so am not as concerned as I once was. My major fear is economic depression which will occur, regardless of whether we have a catastrophic energy collapse, or not. Jut my two cents worth of efamol.

great post; member quote material, but it might be too long for that.

[rockdoc123]

SA petroleum is in a severe waterless remote environment and the overhead precludes small fry, small wells, small production like in Texas. The desert is no place for hobby wildcatters and weekend producers. So no, SA is not Texas and its decline will be more abrupt and proportionately more petroleum will be left in the ground.

Saudi Arabia has the lowest lifting and F&D costs in the world. The Formations which have shown to be oil or condensate bearing are not at great depths and drilling is not all that problematic. The per unit costs have dropped considerably further with the use of MRC wells over the past few years in Haradh and Shaybah. Given that the state company Aramco owns much of the oilfield services that in other countries would be up for competitive bid means that they can also manage their third party costs. By converting much of their power demands to being supplied by the enormous gas reserves they have found over the past 10 years their operating costs are really only susceptible to increasing costs for steel, consumables and to a lesser extent labor (SA is hiring a lot in Southeast Asia where the premium they need to pay for labor is much less than they would have to pay in North America or Europe).
So in essence it will be very easy and cheap for Aramco to explore for smaller pools when they feel they need them. Most of their activity is now focused on bringing the announced projects onstream and addtional exploration for gas.
Remember that the cost to set a pipeline or lay facilities out in the desert is not higher than it is elsewhere, in fact it is often much easier.

[kjmclark]

Actually Robert's position is that it isn't clear whether Saudi Arabia has peaked or not, but the "Hubbert Linearization" is a fairly flawed tool to decide the matter. He has said that he suspects we have a (very) few years yet until world C+C peak, but I don't recall him taking a position on Saudi Arabia, except to say that we will see when Saudi Arabia is called upon to produce more crude. He hasn't disagreed, that I know of, that Saudi production has been declining for many months, but whether that means they're having trouble with Ghawar isn't something Robert has made a conclusion about.

Euan Mearns has his PhD in isotope geochemistry. He posts mostly at The Oil Drum Europe.

Robert had a very good post (the first in a short series) today on TOD on why gas prices are as high as they are. There was a heated discussion between Robert and another poster who took the position that the prices are due to oil price collusion among the big oil companies. Robert was describing the standard economic version, with extra understanding of the refinery system.

[threadbear]

Actually Robert's position is that it isn't clear whether Saudi Arabia has peaked or not, but the "Hubbert Linearization" is a fairly flawed tool to decide the matter. He has said that he suspects we have a (very) few years yet until world C+C peak, but I don't recall him taking a position on Saudi Arabia, except to say that we will see when Saudi Arabia is called upon to produce more crude. He hasn't disagreed, that I know of, that Saudi production has been declining for many months, but whether that means they're having trouble with Ghawar isn't something Robert has made a conclusion about.

Euan Mearns has his PhD in isotope geochemistry. He posts mostly at The Oil Drum Europe.

Robert had a very good post (the first in a short series) today on TOD on why gas prices are as high as they are. There was a heated discussion between Robert and another poster who took the position that the prices are due to oil price collusion among the big oil companies. Robert was describing the standard economic version, with extra understanding of the refinery system.

There's a true synergy between Peak and price collusion or manipulation. It seems astounding to me that there are so many vicious or viscous (this is oil, afterall) arguments back and forth about it.