by rockdoc123 » Sat 13 Apr 2019, 13:22:00
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ow you've got it. Finally.
Really? That definition doesn't say "maximum sustainable capacity" anywhere does it? How do you suddenly think this supports your argument? Give your head a shake.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') see you've abandoned your idiotic claim that MSC in the prospectus was an acronym for "maximum spare capacity."
well that's a good one coming from the moron who claimed it is "MPC". Once again show us where that acronym appears in the prospectus. Lets go back to what you wrote
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ere's an interesting take on the new
MPC estimate of 3.5 million barrels/day of oil production for Ghawar, from a story reposted on the PeakOil.com news page:
ghawar-nightmare
This person is claiming that the new D & M review of the
MPC for Ghawar and other Saudi oilfields isn't actually an estimate of the current
MPC for Ghawar and the other Saudi Oilfields, but instead is an estimate of the average
MPC over the next 50 years.
In this case the numbers in the D & M report would just be the results of numerical model runs rather then actually being the current
MPC numbers that the D & M report says they are.
It really amazes me when people don't understand what they read. I see this so often. Many people see what they want to see---their wires are crossed somehow so they don't understand what the words they are reading actually say.
The D & M report clearly states the
MPC numbers for Ghawar are the best estimate of the current actual number, reflecting the current actual condition of the oilfield. Its clearly not a number from a numerical model projecting production five decades into the future because the D & M report never says that.
Its D & M's best estimate of the current
MPC for Ghawar.
And its interesting that its more than 20% lower then
MPC estimates for Ghawar made just a few years ago.
The D & M independent review therefore implies that production at Ghawar has now fallen significantly from its peak.
How hard is that to understand? Just take an honest look at the data.
Besides referencing an acronym that doesn't exist you also showed your ignorance of how any of this is done. Degolyer and Macnaughton have nothing to do with MSC...they don't designate it and they do not calculate it. What they do is look at the reserves for each field and report on that. The only place that production levels come into play in their analysis is when they calculate an NPV for the field reserves and that is based on production values given to them. If you bothered to read the prospectus or the excerpts I have posted here you would realize it is the government of SA that sets the level of MSC for Aramco and Aramco then decides how to distribute the MSC around amongst their fields keeping in mind they want to maximize recovery and take advantage of changing demand for various oil grades.
It might help if you actually read the prospectus before you beak off about someone else's understanding of it.