Saudi Production Profile
Guest post by David Archibald
World conventional oil production peaked in 2005 and has been on a plateau at about that level ever since. This graph suggests that the market changed from inherent over-supply to inherent tightness in June 2004:
Figure 1: World Oil Production and Oil Price 1994 – 2011
World conventional oil production will at some stage tip over into decline. That may be this year or it may be as late as 2015. The decline in US production began over four decades ago in 1970, as predicted by King Hubbert in 1956.
The next big one to tip over into decline will be Saudi Arabia. In determining what that will look like and its consequences, the first thing to do is a logistic decline plot of Saudi production history. Figure 2 shows the result:
Figure 2: Saudi Arabia Logistic Decline Plot
Figure 2 shows that the Saudis have produced about half of their ultimate recoverable reserves. When half of a nation’s oil has been depleted, production rate decline is inexorable. From this plot, total ultimate recoverable reserves for Saudi Arabia are estimated to be 275 billion barrels. From this plot, Saudi Arabia is on the cusp of decline. So what will that decline look like?
Figure 3: Saudi Arabia Conceptual Crude, Condensate and Natural Gas Liquids Forecast
This figure was produced by Euan Mearns in 2008. The red volume on the bottom right is the Ghawar Field and the green is the rest of the heritage super giants. The steep fall in projected Ghawar production from about 2012 would be due to an expectation that the field is watering out on its crest as shown in this figure:
Figure 4: Two cross sections of a reservoir simulation of the northern part of the ‘Ain Dar region of the Ghawar Field
Figure 4 shows the progressive displacement of oil by water over the sixty years from 1940 to 2004. SW is water saturation. The reds are high oil saturation and the green shows where oil saturation is now down to about 50%. To recover further oil from the green areas requires enhanced oil recovery (EOR) tehniques such as carbon dioxide injection.
Figure 5: Regional cross section through the Ghawar Field
This figure is from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. The Ghawar Field is developed from a north-south trending horst block. It is 174 miles long by 16 miles wide. The producing horizon is the Arab D reservoir at about 7,000 feet.
Figure 6: Saudi Arabia Production Profile 1938 – 2040
From the foregoing, Figure 6 shows the production profile generated for Saudi Arabia. The production decline is 3% per annum which amounts to about 300,000 bopd per annum from the current level. The world can cope with that, but will the Saudis?
Figure 7: Saudi Arabia Population 1960 – 2040
Back in 1960, there were only about 4 million Saudis, now there are 27 million with population growth at 2.4% per annum compound. So, if the current trend continues, there will be 50 million of them by 2040. With population rising at 2.4% per annum and production falling at 3% per annum, we are starting with a net 5.4% per annum contraction in per capital oil production. The effect of that is captured by Figure 8 following.
Figure 8: Saudi Arabia cash available per capita
The forecast in Figure 8 is based on the oil price running up to $200 per barrel by 2018 and then plateauing at that level. The Saudi Govt increased social welfare payments in response to the Arab Spring. As a consequence, their budget is just about break even at the current oil price. If social outlays aren’t increased further, they pontentially have a lot of cash to play with for the next eight years or so, though they are also propping up Yemen with whom they share a land border. The crunch point is reached about 2026 when income falls below constant per capita outlays. As a society and as individuals, Saudis will then find their standard of living falling by 7% per annum compound. None shall weep for them.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
[SNIP: Be kind enough to stick to the topic, please. -REP]
To Jean de Peyrelongue: I sincerely thought that I was sticking to the topic. The question of whether or not most oil fields are refilled from below (and how fast) seems quite relevant to a discussion of world “oil production”, as this is labeled. And I was directly replying to a comment from Ken Hall which first raised both the refilling issue, and also the broader question of “abiotic oil”. Does it really exist, or is all crude oil biological in origin, as most modern scientists believe? And if abiotic oil exists, can it make a difference in the upcoming challenge of maintaining our growth-dependent modern civilization, even as several billion more human beings seek to adopt a more “western”, high-energy lifestyle, with cars, computers, air conditioning, etc? A lifestyle that has been dangled seductively before their eyes in magazines, TV, movies, advertising – and now with much of this media onslaught converging in even more persuasive form on the Internet.
L.T. Josserand – biological petroleum violates the 2nd thermodynamic law.
That fact has been stated several times here, with a link to the peer-reviewed equations in the post of mine immediately preceding your own. In your first post you claimed, ipse dixit, that petroleum geologists place the oil window at 15,000 feet. But Deepwater Horizon drilled to over twice that depth (35,000 ft), and found an oil volcano where you say it shouldn’t exist.
Please review my post preceding yours, and check the references. Don’t be willfully blind.
Khwarizmi,
The lower oil window is not actually a depth, but a temperature range. The lower depth of 15,000 ft is a (very) rough rule of thumb for where temperatures usually get high enough to crack the oil to gas. If there is oil at 35,000ft, presumably either temperatures are maintained lower, deeper there, (pressure will also enter into the oils stability). Note that the lower oil window doesn’t really have any implications for biogenic oil theories, or at least none that don’t equally apply to abiogenic oil. Or are you claiming that temperature doesn’t crack oil? I would presume that nobody could be that obtuse, but then after reading some of the rubbish posted here, one can’t be too sure.
Oh, about “biological petroleum violates the 2nd thermodynamic law. That fact has been stated several times here…” Just stating it doesn’t make it so. The peer-reviewed paper you seem to rely on has also been utterly peer-pilloried and peer-destroyed. Start here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-3928.2006.tb00271.x/abstract.
Since 2004, I’ve reviewed and reconciled literally hundreds of candidate projections for inclusion in my Peak Oil Depletion Tier-1 Scenarios and my Tier-1 EUR/URR Estimates presentations. Not a single candidate has ever included abiogenic petroleum tic oil in their studies. At the highest levels, geologists consider this junk science.
http://trendlines.ca/free/peakoil
JimboW – when you can quote the relevant section in the Glasby meta-study that addresses thermodynamic constraints – let us all know. Please? Quote the passage.
“Formation of higher hydrocarbons in the upper layers of the Earth’s crust occurs only as the result of Fischer-Tropsch-type reactions in the presence of hydrogen gas but is otherwise not possible on thermodynamic grounds.” – Glasby, 2006
That’s from the paper you indirectly referenced. You see I’ve actually read the paper, not just a 2nd hand misrepresentation of it. Note my preference for primary sources.
Note all the life in the oceans thriving on petroleum. It’s been doing that for billions of years – before photosynthesis evolved. Good luck explaining that one with “fossil” fuel.
Freddy Hutter, TrendLines Research
(1) consensus is called the bandwagon fallacy
(2) consensus of “experts” is the bandwagon fallacy plus appeal to authority.
(3) “junk science” is an appeal to ridicule.
I’m only persuaded by evidence – not by your deployment of fallacies.
Serpentinisation on Earth (NOAA) and Titan (NASA) represent evidence.