“I will reveal to you something that will make you laugh…..I was heading a cabinet meeting and told them (Ministers) to pray to God the Almighty to give it a long life,” King Abdullah told the surprised students.

“They asked me what that was but I again asked them to pray to God…then I told them it was oil…I told them that I have ordered a halt to all oil explorations so part of this wealth is left for our sons and successors God willing.”

Depending on who you choose to believe, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is either running out of oil or is sitting on deposits far larger than 262 billion barrels. The Saudis have never allowed independent verification of the Kingdom’s reserves.

Some, like Matthew Simmons, believe that the original-oil-in-place has been depleted and that the Saudis have not told the truth about the size of the country’s remaining reserves. The difficulty that the state oil company, Saudi Aramco, has had with some of its recent exploration activities gives some credence to this view.

http://247wallst.com/2010/07/05/saudis-will-stop-exploring-for-more-oil/




If this is true then it is time to get serious about figuring out how to get off oil. The assumption has always been that OPEC would have to pick-up an outsizes portion of the new production to meet growing demand.

There is a very good chance that world oil production has peaked at 85 million barrels a day. Boone Pickens said as much recently. Even when the price ran up to $147, factoring in depletion rates the world still couldn't meaningfully increase supply even though the price dictated that it should have. We have been largely stuck in the mid 80's as far as millions of barrels produced each day for years now. The world appears to be finding just enough oil to keep up with the depletion rate, yet never really adding to supply.

I can't help but believe that this is anything but bad news, as it will surely be bullish for prices at a time when the global economy is hanging in the balance and a new push of higher prices will do significant harm. Something is definitely up in the kingdom as now is not the time you make a strategic announcement like this.

The only other thing it could be is they see massive inflation coming down the pike, so best not to sell oil at what is ultimately discounted prices if you expect the money you are paid to be worth dramatically less in the future. The secretive nature of their oil reserves certainly does nothing to help the market get a better idea of what is really going on there, which will just push prices higher. Obviously that is what they want, but they have always been mindful of the price of oil on the world economy, and this is a major departure from that. Not good.

I'm not worried. If it gets to the point where oil is too expensive or infeasible everyone will be in the same boat I am, and some company will come up with a way to power America for the future.

^^^Agreed. If world oil supply is "running out" (which I highly doubt) then "alternative" sources of energy will suddenly become cost efficient.

Until then DRILL, DRILL, DRILL.

If world oil supply is "running out" (which I highly doubt)

As a free market guy, you don't find it the slightest bit troubling that in that multi-year period from 04-08 when oil prices almost quadrupled that no new meaningful supply was brought on line? Just kept kind of humming along at 85 million barrels with no real movement either way production wise. In that kind of price environment, the world should have been flooded with no supply and the fact it wasn't suggests that its because it just isn't there to be had.

Peak oil doesn't mean we've run out, it just means that production has essentially topped out. As Ghawar, Burgan and the world's true super giant fields start to peak (it happened at Burgan in 2005) the rush is going to be on just to maintain current production levels much less significantly grow them.

IggyPride00;412498 wrote:As a free market guy, you don't find it the slightest bit troubling that in that multi-year period from 04-08 when oil prices almost quadrupled that no new meaningful supply was brought on line? Just kept kind of humming along at 85 million barrels with no real movement either way production wise. In that kind of price environment, the world should have been flooded with no supply and the fact it wasn't suggests that its because it just isn't there to be had.

Peak oil doesn't mean we've run out, it just means that production has essentially topped out. As Ghawar, Burgan and the world's true super giant fields start to peak (it happened at Burgan in 2005) the rush is going to be on just to maintain current production levels much less significantly grow them.

First if you cap supply you keep prices high meaning higher profits. Why would the oil producers expend more capital to produce more when at this point it isn't necessary?

Second the oil is available. Ample supply is even available domestically (or at least in this hemisphere) but the extreme environmentalist lobby is very powerful.

IggyPride00;412498 wrote:As a free market guy, you don't find it the slightest bit troubling that in that multi-year period from 04-08 when oil prices almost quadrupled that no new meaningful supply was brought on line? Just kept kind of humming along at 85 million barrels with no real movement either way production wise. In that kind of price environment, the world should have been flooded with no supply and the fact it wasn't suggests that its because it just isn't there to be had.

Peak oil doesn't mean we've run out, it just means that production has essentially topped out. As Ghawar, Burgan and the world's true super giant fields start to peak (it happened at Burgan in 2005) the rush is going to be on just to maintain current production levels much less significantly grow them.

Having dealt with the Saudis on a much lower level than what is being discussed here, but nonetheless dealt with them (they buy up investments in other countries. You would be surprised to know how many smaller oil wells in the U.S. are owned by Saudi Royalty) and their brokers, they are a strange group. So unpredictable because they are always looking towards the future. Half the stuff you see them do is because they are looking for results 10-15 years down the road. Whether those results produce or not, that's just how they think.

Gotta love the "there is a limited supply of oil? IMPOSSIBLE" people.

How many times in the last 150 years have the great talking heads predicted that the Earth is running out of oil, peak oil, etc. etc? If you study history, the first time was back in the late 19th century, then the 1920's, then the 1970's. Why does anyone think this time is different?

So you think we will never run out of oil?

^^^No but it doesn't negate the fact that liberal politicians influenced by hardcore environmental extremists and the liberal media set-up too many absurd roadblocks to accessing relatively cheap and plentiful domestic oil, natural gas, and coal reserves thus artificially keeping us beholden to foreign sources of oil and constantly keeping us mired in complex and insane political messes such as the Middle East.

Should we go forward with developing alternative sources of energy for the future? Absolutely. Should we expand our nuclear energy opportunities? You bet. Are we eventually going to run out of oil worldwide? Sure...but not for the foreseeable future.

STOP buying off on the absurd carbon footprint mantra. You've been AlGored!

We need oil to maintain our cushy modern lifestyles including all the radical environmentalist twits who refuse to see the forest for the - um - trees.

believer;417478 wrote:We need oil to maintain our cushy modern lifestyles including all the radical environmentalist twits who refuse to see the forest for the - um - trees.

Though I largely agree with you, I'm fine with dialing back my cushy modern lifestyle a tad if it will make the world a better place for my kids. Plus, as a person of faith, it's inescable to note that God has explicitly commanded us to be good stewards of His creation, which many more evangelicals are realizing and advocating.

fan_from_texas;417663 wrote:Though I largely agree with you, I'm fine with dialing back my cushy modern lifestyle a tad if it will make the world a better place for my kids. Plus, as a person of faith, it's inescable to note that God has explicitly commanded us to be good stewards of His creation, which many more evangelicals are realizing and advocating.

Exactly why i drive a Ford Focus , 35+ MPG to conserve as much as possible.

I could afford to have a big F150 and pay for the gas, but why? I don't need a truck just to drive to my "office" job.

believer;417478 wrote:^^^No but it doesn't negate the fact that liberal politicians influenced by hardcore environmental extremists and the liberal media set-up too many absurd roadblocks to accessing relatively cheap and plentiful domestic oil, natural gas, and coal reserves thus artificially keeping us beholden to foreign sources of oil and constantly keeping us mired in complex and insane political messes such as the Middle East.

Should we go forward with developing alternative sources of energy for the future? Absolutely. Should we expand our nuclear energy opportunities? You bet. Are we eventually going to run out of oil worldwide? Sure...but not for the foreseeable future.

STOP buying off on the absurd carbon footprint mantra. You've been AlGored!

We need oil to maintain our cushy modern lifestyles including all the radical environmentalist twits who refuse to see the forest for the - um - trees.

While I don't necessarily think that all of the carbon is bad stuff is complete conspiracy like you do I don't buy into all of it either.

I just think that we should focus as much energy onto alternative well, energy now while we still have plenty of oil (which is going to be used for research, think of all the power, plastics, etc people use everyday in the research field). It just seems that there are people who want to completely ignore solar, wind, nuclear, tide, piezoelectric, etc until after we know exactly how much oil is left and we realize it isn't much (not saying there isn't much left just that some act like we shouldn't do anything until there isn't).

Does this mean we shouldn't explore our oil/coal based options? No. But we shouldn't do things like mountain topping, etc.

fan_from_texas;417663 wrote:Though I largely agree with you, I'm fine with dialing back my cushy modern lifestyle a tad if it will make the world a better place for my kids. Plus, as a person of faith, it's inescable to note that God has explicitly commanded us to be good stewards of His creation, which many more evangelicals are realizing and advocating.

I agree with this. God gave us dominion over the things of the Earth and we are morally obligated to be good stewards with His creation. Do not confuse my disdain for the "we're running out of oil and oil is eeeeeevil" crowd with my clear understanding that we need to be smart and efficient with the resources God has given us.

jmog;417766 wrote:Exactly why i drive a Ford Focus , 35+ MPG to conserve as much as possible.

I could afford to have a big F150 and pay for the gas, but why? I don't need a truck just to drive to my "office" job.

This is also why I drive a girlie car like my Hyundai Accent. Average about 35 MPG!

I Wear Pants;418068 wrote:While I don't necessarily think that all of the carbon is bad stuff is complete conspiracy like you do I don't buy into all of it either.

You have a bad habit of twisting facts. I DO NOT completely dismiss the "carbon stuff." As I just mentioned we have a moral obligation to protect the environment. I DO have major issues with extreme environmentalist policies that refuse to allow us to be reasonably energy independent for fear that we incapable of balancing our energy demands with the survival of snail friggin darters.

I Wear Pants;418068 wrote:I just think that we should focus as much energy onto alternative well, energy now while we still have plenty of oil (which is going to be used for research, think of all the power, plastics, etc people use everyday in the research field). It just seems that there are people who want to completely ignore solar, wind, nuclear, tide, piezoelectric, etc until after we know exactly how much oil is left and we realize it isn't much (not saying there isn't much left just that some act like we shouldn't do anything until there isn't).

Does this mean we shouldn't explore our oil/coal based options? No. But we shouldn't do things like mountain topping, etc.

We can agree on these points. I think we have the capabilities to tap into alternative sources of energy and we should. We can also tap in to existing, plentiful sources of domestic oil and coal reserves without "mountain topping", polluting the air, and killing the snail darter. We just need to reign-in the environmentalist extremists while responsibly monitoring the extraction of and burning of PLENTIFUL domestic fossil-based sources of energy. Meanwhile we should simultaneously encourage the development of alternative sources of energy for the long-term through extraordinary cooperation between private enterprise and government agencies to insure the new sources of energy are safe, environmentally friendly, sustainable, and profitable.

God damn it man. You called it an absurd carbon footprint mantra and that I'd been AlGored (which was kinda funny). I wasn't accusing you of being unreasonable. Just that you and me probably buy into varying degrees of the argument on carbon offsetting, etc.

And yeah, definitely agree with that last bit. We can't be just blowing mountain tops away and making the air unbreathable. But at the same time chaining ourselves to every tree about to get cut down isn't going to accomplish anything either. I maintain that there is a smart, level headed way to go about domestic energy policy so that we can make use of what we have here without destroying our beautiful land or soiling the air as well as looking toward the future with wind, solar, nuclear, etc.

I'll say this concerning the energy sources; whatever model a person wants to choose, I think it doesn't have to be a blanket solution. Solar panels in Seatlle are NOT a good choice. Wind turbines just about anywhere removed from a coastline might not work.

However, if the solar power thing is what you are looking for or into, move down near western texas, new mexico and arizona and make it happen. Sun - and good sun - nealry 325 days out of the year!? It is an excellent supplemental source of energy.

I think sometimes we tend to have a knee-jerk reaction and want to push solar, wind or whatever other type of energy to the point of oil. I don't think that that would work.

You know you can use solar power in Seattle right? Because solar panels don't need direct sunlight to function (though they will obviously be more efficient in it). But I don't think anyone is pushing to go 100% solar in Seattle or anywhere ellse for that matter.

A mixture of solar, wind, nuclear, and for some things piezoelectric (these solutions would work well at turn pike toll both places) is what we should be using going forward. Also tidal but those can be trickier to install.

^^^I agree that we need to expand these opportunities particularly the nuclear option.

I'm a little skeptical of the wind power option though. I drove past a huge turbine "farm" here in Pennsylvania this week and not only are these things unsightly but they are distracting and require a huge amount of valuable land to be viable.

A few years from now the environmentalist crazies will start making countless tear-jerking documentaries on how these turbines are blocking the path of returning monarch butterflies from South America...or hacking to death thousands of endangered spotted owls as they hunt field mice in the meadows at night.

If this is true and we are that concerned I know of 31 American rigs sitting dormant right now.

^^^I say fire 'em up!

^^^^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6DjyXQl7L8

^^^I have to admit I lol'd!