Talk:Oil reserves/Archive 1

message: Just one little point here... I'm new to wikipedia, but. Given the political nature of this subject, I'd appreciate knowing approximately the viewpoints of the writers. As far as I've understood, the idea of wikipedia is strict peer control and striving for neutrality. Still, there could be a meta-page about the writers/sources and their (self-reflected) opinions and possible biases. Naturally, one might ask what the point is to ask anyone if he lies or not. Still, some kind of background, even given anonymously, about the sources used, would be highly appreciated, and add great value to the reliability of the article. What is the general wiki stand about this kind of issues? Some pages are protected, but that is different: it's only against straightforward sabotage and not a wiki way to protect neutrality.
--Sigmundur
Two new users User:Dracken and User:Sleibhine added a large chunk of info to the article at almost the same time: . It may just be a new user who does not know you cant use copyrighted material. The second part was copied from this article  and I removed it, I suspect the first part (the "Solutions?" section) was copied from somewhere aswell Astrokey44 12:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no point complaining about that. Its time to rewrite it into an encyclopedia form so that it isn't a copyright violation. Would be nice to find the original source of it though. — Wackymacs 15:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: This article is coming along well, I'm surprised by how much it has grown because of the COTW, there are some really dedicated wikipedians working on this one! — Wackymacs 08:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking good 

message: Should Oil supplies be merged into this article? Its the same thing isnt it? Astrokey44 08:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good proposition, there is quite a bit of information in that other article so it would be good for this article. — Wackymacs 09:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ok ive just done itAstrokey44 11:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: There is certaintly a relationship but oil reserves really refer to oil in the ground that can be recovered economically.  Oil supply also includes the oil production and processing facilities and the oil delivery systems that provide oil to the end user.  When there is a 'shortage' of supply it is more often a problem of the delivery systems than a failure of reserves per se. Crubins 14:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe oil supplies could be a section of this article? Astrokey44 10:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  I agree, thanks for adding  Crubins 00:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oil supplies 

message: I think this column should be erased. Reserves are almost *never* totally depleted. Some oil well is Pennsylvannia have being producing oil for more than 100 years. But there production is ridiculous. Production is trending to zero, but almost never gone to nil - in fact, one shut down the wells when they are no more making money, but theorically, small amonts of oil could continue to be produced almost forever.
: this is logical, since the Hubbert curve starts and ends to zero but never really reaches it. however, it wouldn't be unscientific to assume a low point to consider as virtually zero. i don't know how those tables were produced though. - some guy
::The US has about 400,000 "stripper wells", producing about 15% of US oil production, even though the average production per stripper well is only 4.5 barrels a day.   There's a tendency to keep stripper wells going even when production barely pays for running the pump, because when you shut the well down, you have to fill in the well with cement and remove the machinery, which costs money.  That's what the slow approach to zero looks like at the wellhead.   --John Nagle 17:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What slow approach to zero?  Oh, I forgot, you know the future. MrVoluntarist 17:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey,this is not abstract math.One day wells are shot down.For the very logn term,oil production will continue,and hubert peack is irelevant.Oil is not just energy,it'a also important for the chemistry.But it will be nassacary to put in external energy in order to extracte it.I supose produssing chemical by oil extracted in this mater will be more cost effective,then produssing them by biomass.--Ruber chiken 18:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wells are shut in when the cost of production rises above the value of the oil produced.  It take energy to lift oil up from 2000ft below the ground.  It takes money to maintain the electric motors, storage tanks, trucks and pumps.  That is not to say the wells are abandoned per se, after a few decades the price of oil may rise to make them profitable again, but when they are shut in, the production goes to zero. Carbonate 08:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total depletion 

message: Are the reserves of ANWR included or not in the estimates of US reserves or not?  I'm not sure if they should be if they are, because it's hard to consider untappable reserves as accessable, usable oil reserves.  But on the other hand, they exist within US boarders and are thus US oil reserves...even if they aren't being harvested.  Just something to check up on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.165.232 (talk • contribs) 
:For the record, ANWR has 10.4 gigabarrels. 71.209.214.60 19:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a USGS estimate of likely reserves; no actual oil has yet been discovered in ANWR, not one drop. --Geologyguy 03:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, nobody really knows what's there until they stick a drill bit into it, and even then they could be wrong. You only really know how much oil is there after you've produced it all. RockyMtnGuy 03:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANWR 

message: I have deleted the chart titled "Top ten nations by oil reserves" since it is using mixed data and provides a mixed message regarding oil reserves. For instance, in the chart just above "top ten" Canada is listed as having estimated reserves of 4.7 as a low and a high of 178 billion barrels, but in the top ten chart that low estimate is no longer shown and just the higher number is given. Further, the other countries are not treated in a consistent fashion--Saudi Arabia's top ten number uses the lower estimate, as does Iran--but Kuwait's top ten number uses the higher estimate.
Therefore, this top ten chart is not especially helpful--especially since the chart above does a much better job of illustrating how the oil reserves number for each country is actually more of a range than a static number.(especially until Canada's reserves are determined)Publicus 12:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reserve estimates are estimates of geological risk. You drill a hole in the ground on the off chance there's something down there. These days, the US looks like a pincushion, so you have to go 100 miles offshore and drill in 5 mile deep water to find someplace nobody else has drilled before. On the other hand, the Canadian oil sands have no geological risk. They cover an area bigger than Florida and everybody knows where they are. You go there, you kick at the ground, and if your boots get all black and sticky, then you've found the oil sands. The only risks are economic. If your production costs are $40/barrel and the world prices is $20/barrel, then you're going to lose your shirt. However, if you beat your costs down to $15 and oil prices go up to $60/bbl, it's like having a license to print money. RockyMtnGuy 08:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the Canadian oil sands bit to reflect current conditions. The old one was so... 1980-ish. RockyMtnGuy 14:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oil Reserves by country 

message: This article contains many inaccuracies including terminology and numbers. I am a Geophysicist with 16 years oil industry experience - I will gradually correct most of the mistakes in the near future.
:Ala, I like your changes.  One thing I don't know about was a statement you endorsed that said geologists are sure the world will eventually run out of oil.  Is that saying geologists are sure humans will consume all natural oil deposits?  What is the basis for it?  Does this deny that there will be no technological substitutes or shifts in preference that make people not want to extract oil due to a low sale price rather high extraction price?  If so, how would such a prediction be within a geologist's area of expertise? MrVoluntarist 21:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  Now, what about the questions I asked? MrVoluntarist 21:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm. That could work out.  Coal liquifaction of high-sulfur coal produces sulfuric acid as a byproduct.  --John Nagle 16:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite by an Industry Expert

message: There was an edit some time ago that changed all refs to "Canada" to "Alberta."  Not disputing Alberta's importance, especially in the context of the tar sands, but that made it sound like Canada has no other production or reserves.  I made a small change to reflect the other conventional reserves. --Geologyguy 22:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They also messed up the production numbers. They converted 2.4 million barrels per day into 8.8 gigabarrels per year, which is out by a factor of 10. I fixed it. And the substution of "Alberta" for "Canada" when the data is for "oil and products" ignores the fact that, while most of the crude oil comes out of Alberta, most of the refined products come out of refineries in eastern Canada. RockyMtnGuy 02:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, someone with knowledge of this subject should correct these errors. Landroo 04:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian reserves

message: is a Yahoo News article saying that Greenland might have as much as half of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves.  Six previous test drillings were not profitable, but with oil prices shooting up and global warming making the region more accessible there is renewed interest. Simesa 21:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're saying that, based on six dry holes and nothing else, that Greenland might have as much oil as Saudi Arabia. Or not. Probably not. The Canadian Arctic Islands didn't have enough oil to justify a pipeline, and Antarctica is out of bounds, so Greenland is pretty much the last unexplored place on Earth left to drill. After that, there's... Mars, maybe. RockyMtnGuy 23:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenland oil exploration 

message: Hey RockyMtnGuy -- regarding your recent edit, even if Saudi Arabia has passed its peak of production, it will likely be a VERY long time before its wells would be classified as stripper wells at 10 barrels per day or less.  Even considering inflated reports etc., by most accounts Saudi's 8 million barrels per day or so comes from about 1500 wells - averaging more than 5000 barrels per day per well.  Even with steep declines it will be a while before any of those wells are stripper wells.  Cheers --Geologyguy 00:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is bit of hyperbole in calling them stripper wells. They might never have wells that meet the US definition of a stripper since the Saudis would probably abandon them long before they dropped to 10 barrels per day. A Saudi stripper would only be "a well that is approaching the end of its economically useful life". But the essential concept is that those big Arabian oil fields could be getting old and tired. If you can think of a better way to phrase it, feel free to change it. RockyMtnGuy 03:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See if what I did works for you.  I actually expect that "old and tired" is more accurate than the official position, but who am I to say.... so I just tried to make the phrase a little more neutral. Cheers --Geologyguy 13:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know. I've seen people get over 60% recovery out of a carbonate field with water flood. The Redwater field near Edmonton, Alberta. Last time I heard, the water cut was up from 0% to 99.4%, but they were still flushing. But that's in Alberta where they do things a bit gentler than in Saudi Arabia. I like Simmons book, too. He might be right. We'll see, now that Prudhoe Bay is shut down, whether they can produce enough oil to keep them Hummer H2's humming. Nobody else can. RockyMtnGuy 06:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Saudi wells - stripper wells?

message: I read somewhere that Venezuela has vast reserves of heavy crude oil. The Venezuela article doesn't mention them, nor does this article. The heavy crude oil article itself is a stub. --Smithfarm 11:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a bit of gap in the coverage. I tossed in some stuff about Venezuela to help fill it. RockyMtnGuy 05:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think they confiscate any and all property in the U.S.? Carbonate 00:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For failure to file reports? No, I think not. There are too many American assets in Venezuela. Venezuela would probably confiscate all the American oil companies in Venezuela, and come out ahead on the deal. RockyMtnGuy 05:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at recent unilateral restructuring of existing contracts by the Chavez government along with tax and royalty increases one could argue that confiscation in Venezuela is in progress. Crubins 13:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venezuela's heavy crude 

message: A transite pipeline has been taken offline by BP because of corrosion.  5 barrels of oil have been leaked.  Should this be reflected in the article?
Carbonate 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is reported extensively at Prudhoe Bay - a leak in a pipeline and shutdown of production hardly seems appropriate in an article about reserves, since neither the leak nor the shutdown have anything to do with reserves. Cheers --Geologyguy 17:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since it took the United States' biggest oil field offline for the indefinite future, and contributed to an already strained supply situation, it seemed worth mentioning. I added a couple of sentences about it. Now, the bigger question is - the U.S. is looking to Saudi Arabia and Mexico to make up the difference. Will they do it, or are their oil reserves just hot air? RockyMtnGuy 20:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prudhoe Bay 

message: Saudi Arabia's political system is here described as 'medieval', which reflects the values of the authors rather more effectively than it explains why there are risks inherent to continued Saudi domination of world oil supply. Pity that, because some intelligent work has gone into what is an otherwise excellent article. I hope one of the authors will revisit this section and add the something of the depth that the article had exhibited up to that point.
:When they stop chopping people's hands off for stealing things and flogging them for adultery, we'll stop calling them medieval. RockyMtnGuy 05:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saudi Arabia 

message: I chopped out all of the reserves section of pemex and started subsections if anyone knows more about it?  I recently read an article talking about a catastrophic decline in their field but I have to go back and find it... Carbonate 09:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be useful to have some recent information, if you can find it. Pemex produces most of its oil from Cantarell, which the second biggest oil field in the world by production. They have been maintaining production rates through a massive nitrogen injection project (can you spell overproduction), so it has been widely expected to go into the toilet in a major way in the near future. Cantarell is unique in that the field is actually in the crater produced by the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, so they're not likely to find another one in the Gulf of Mexico. RockyMtnGuy 15:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not disputing anything else you say, but the Cantarell fields are not in the Chicxulub Crater, which is about 190 miles northeast of the fields.  It is usually interpreted that the brecciated rocks at the Cantarell Field complex were fractured by landslides and such associated with the impact.  It's also pretty generally believed that the fields are in decline, possibly very sharp decline .  Cheers Geologyguy 18:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, these predictions from Pemex of a 14% annual decline may be overoptimistic. There's a report out there from Reuters that says production from Cantarell actually dropped 10% in the FIRST HALF of 2006. Nitrogen breakthrough in part of the field. And study from Pemex was leaked that says, as a worst case production might drop 50% by the end of 2007 and 75% by the end of 2008 because the distance between the gas cap and the water layer is rapidly approaching zero. We'll see. RockyMtnGuy 23:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pemex 

message: The CIA World Factbook lists 1,349,000,000,000 barrels of proven reserves. The article states the number at 2000 to 2400 gigabarrels. Why the major discrepancy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Audacity (talk • contribs) 00:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're comparing apples and oranges. The CIA World Factbook is talking about proved reserves, which are oil that has already been found, whereas Campbell (I believe, the article doesn't cite its references completely enough to identify them) is talking about ultimate reserves, which is oil we might find, but we haven't found it yet. Neither is particularly useful unless you state what price you expect to get and what technology you expect to use. And then there's the oil sands wild card. Canada has 1.7 or so barrels of the stuff (of which only 175 billion barrels are established, which is yet another definition, and Venezuela has similar sized reserves. So, basically it's comparing apples, oranges, bananas and watermellons. RockyMtnGuy 23:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy 

message: Is there any particular reason why Denmark is not included in this list? Unfortunately, I don't have the figures myself. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 11:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here  are the figures - approx. 1.2 gigabarrels reserves.  But I don't know if Denmark has passed its production peak, so I don't know where in this page the info should go.  Geologyguy 15:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This topic is out of my normal areas of expertise, but the issue about the production peaking or not has occationally been debated in major newspapers. Many seem to suggest that the North Sea might have peaked but that major finds could be made East or West of Greenland. I've located a few official publications, perhaps you can make more sense of them than I? They are from the Danish Energy Authority: "Oil and Gas Production in Denmark 2005" (http://www.ens.dk/graphics/Publikationer/Olie_Gas_UK/oil_and_gas_production_in_denmark_2005.pdf). Figure 2.2 on page 15 (p. 13 in the printed version) seems to suggest a peak in 2004. The trends seems confirmed by a prognosis for the next five years of oil extraction (http://www.ens.dk/graphics/Publikationer/Olie_Gas_UK/5year_update_2005dec.pdf). The latter publication presents three scenarios on page 3, but it looks to me like the Danish sector of the North Sea has topped in all three scenarios. Of course there is always the potential for more oil finds both in the North Sea, near the Faroe Islands or East or West of Greenland. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 16:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the refs, I'll take a look (but not immediately).  Personally, I would be reluctant to claim a peak for any basin or nation or even most fields at a time as close as the most recent 2-3 years.  I don't think there is much debate that the North Sea, overall, has peaked, but Denmark in particular has such small production, a single new moderate field could make a large difference.  "Peaks" can really only be truly defined in a historical context, even though predictions can be (and sometimes are) quite accurate.  It's easier to do for a field, a single basin, etc., than globally, hence the degree of discussion and argument.  Cheers and thanks. -- Geologyguy 17:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to help. I agree completely with your conclusion. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 17:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danish oil reserves 

message: should the table of possible reserves (ie lowest and highest estimates by country) have the scale listed? - Im.a.lumberjack 23:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the table of future reserves 

message: According to The Economist ( http://economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_STQTGTN ), there are many more billions of barrels in the offshore oil fields. It says in the article 19 billion barrels, but 86 bn in the picture, and I don't quite see the reason for the discrepancy. Anybody have any data on the matter? Offshore oil should most certainly be included in the national reserves. I looked at the Statistical Abstract of the United States and it listed 21 bn total barrels for national reserves, including 4bn under federal jurisdiction, suggesting that offshore oil reserves were not included, if The Economist figures are to be trusted.
:I can't say anything about the sources used by The Economist, nor the Statistical Abstract of the United States, but the figures quoted in this article for the US, from the Energy Info. Administration, certainly include reserves and reserve estimates for US offshore areas. I would expect that routinely, most countries would include prospective offshore areas in their reserve calculations. There does tend to be a larger volume of unproven reserves in many offshore areas, but they are usually estimated rather well based on geological and technical parameters.  cheers Geologyguy 01:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's comparing apples, oranges, and zucchinis. The 86 billion barrels is probably what we who make a living telling oil companies what they already know call a SWAG (Scientific Wild-Ass Guess). It's some variation on potential reserves, or P10, meaning it has a 10% probability of being produced. (I.e. they're counting their chickens before the eggs are laid, never mind hatched.) Now, reading the actual article, they appear to be saying that 19 billion barrels are in areas closed to exploration, with the implication that the rest (67 billion barrels) is in areas already open to development. On the other hand, the figure of 21 billion barrels is the proved oil reserves of the U.S., i.e. oil we definitely know is there, and of that about 16 billion barrels is onshore and 5 billion barrels is offshore. There's probably more than that out there, but it's way out there and way deep. RockyMtnGuy 02:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accounting for Offshore Oil 

message: According to this link oil production in Saudi Arabia fell by 8% during 2006. G-Man * 20:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: copied from Talk:Hubbert peak theory by --87.64.8.237 14:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct, Saudi Arabian production did fall during 2006. There are two possibilities, 1) It was a production cutback to support higher prices, or 2) Saudi Arabia is starting a terminal production decline similar to the one the U.S. started in 1970 (U.S. production is now only half of what it was back then.) The Saudis claim it is the former, those who believe in the Hubbert Peak theory and Matthew Simmons book "Twilight in the Desert" believe it is the latter. RockyMtnGuy 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most likely it's the latter.  On April 10, 2006 Saudi Aramco announced that Saudi Arabia's mature oilfields "are expected to decline at a gross average rate of 8 percent a year without additional maintenance and drilling."  Certainly all of their largest oil fields are in decline - they have been pumping in salt water since the mid-80's.  Ghawar Field, their largest reserve, is losing at 8% per year now. Kgrr 15:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This looks interesting

message: I am working on the following table for the Peak oil page.  Does anyone have more reliable data and references to fill-in this table? Kgrr 15:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Samotlar peaked at 7 million b/d in 1980 and fell to about a tenth of that by 1996. However, like most Russian oil fields, it was badly mismanaged and only a tiny fraction of the oil in place was recovered. BP took an interest (see http://www.tnk-bp.com/operations/exploration-production/projects/samotlor/) and has built up production by using modern Western technology, although it is producing nowhere near its peak rate. Given the political climate in Russia, it is questionable how much more Western technology will be used in future. In the absence of such, the field will go into decline again. RockyMtnGuy 18:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oil Fields > 10bb

message: I moved the extremely incomplete, and heavily disputed table to Talk:Oil reserves/Draft table where it can be developed. Please discuss it here once it is completed, and then neutrality issues can be resolved before it is reinserted. Savidan 04:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Oil reserves/Draft table]] 

message: May I suggest that the near-edit war between Belligero and Savedthat be discussed here on the talk page? I have not seen any kind of discussion, even in the edit summaries. Please do so. Cheers Geologyguy 17:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions 

message: While you may feel it necessary to entirely rewrite the article, that really isn't the proper way to handle it. Please discuss your edits. Publicus 18:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also requesting full protection until this gets sorted out. Publicus 18:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discuss your edits, Savedthat

message: Just wanted to know. ? Muntuwandi 04:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one can say for sure; many experts say that we are at or near peak production, after which oil will become increasingly scarce and expensive. --Skyemoor 01:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oil will never run out because, as I am fond of pointing out to people, you can convert anything to oil given enough time and enough money. However, you might run out of money if you aren't careful. As for the peak of production, someone else pointed out that it's something you'll see in your rear-view mirror. If it peaks in 2007, you'll know by 2017, or 2027 at the latest. RockyMtnGuy 16:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It will never run out even if you don't convert anything to it. The problem is not running out per se but getting extremely expensive to be useful in modern economies. i.e. demand being so high compared to supply that it's pointless using it after a point (especially for energy) other than essential uses, such as plastics for high technology. To say it in more scientific terms, it's a lot related to energy. Since at the current point it's mainly used for energy, the energy used to extract it, process it and use it must never be higher or even equal to the one getting back if you want to use it as a primary energy source. etc. etc. --Leladax (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: When will oil run out

message: I read in "International Business" 10ed. Daniels, John Et.Al. 2004, that Russia´s Oil Reserves are, as of 2001, bigger than Saudi Arabia's. --Crio de la Paz 03:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not likely - three different, reputable estimators here indicate 74, 60, or 74 billion barrels for Russia vs. 264, 262, or 264 billion barrels for Saudi Arabia. Of course, there are problems inherent in making reserve estimates, but... cheers Geologyguy 03:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah. As to production, Russia (or, sometimes reported as all Former Soviet Union, which would also include Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, etc - but about 93% is from Russia) -- anyway, Russia routinely produces more than Saudi Arabia, though not every month. In the 1980s the Soviet Union produced on the order of 12 million barrels per day, when Saudi Arabia was doing 8 or 9. The EIA, here indicates that Russia has been producing less than Saudi on an annual basis for the past several years, at least. But not hugely less. Cheers Geologyguy 03:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Russian production peaked at over 12 million bbl/d in 1988, then fell to 6 million bpd in 1999 after the Soviet Union collapsed, and had risen back to 9.7 in 2006. This compares to 10.7 in 2006 for Saudi Arabia, which has been generally ahead for around a decade but has been varying production up and down trying to manipulate the market. Both are trying to increase production at the moment, but I think both are having technical problems doing so (Russia has damaged its fields by overproducing them during the Communist era, Saudi Arabia's appear to be suffering from natural decline and water invasion problems). Russia's production standards are not of the highest quality, so I think they are probably still damaging their oil fields. RockyMtnGuy 21:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What About Russia?

message: Substituted at 21:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment