Saudi Aramco: From 'Prosperity Well' to Energy Giant

The founder of Saudi Arabia King Abdulaziz speaks to the general manager of Aramco N. Devins during the opening ceremony of the Riyadh-Dammam train link in October 1951. (AFP)
The founder of Saudi Arabia King Abdulaziz speaks to the general manager of Aramco N. Devins during the opening ceremony of the Riyadh-Dammam train link in October 1951. (AFP)
TT

Saudi Aramco: From 'Prosperity Well' to Energy Giant

The founder of Saudi Arabia King Abdulaziz speaks to the general manager of Aramco N. Devins during the opening ceremony of the Riyadh-Dammam train link in October 1951. (AFP)
The founder of Saudi Arabia King Abdulaziz speaks to the general manager of Aramco N. Devins during the opening ceremony of the Riyadh-Dammam train link in October 1951. (AFP)

From its beginnings in 1938 when it first struck oil with the aptly named "Prosperity Well", Saudi Arabia's energy giant Aramco has delivered unimaginable riches to the kingdom.

Over the decades, the firm has grown into the world's largest and most profitable energy company, generating some 10 percent of global crude supplies and trillions of dollars in income.

Aramco shares hit the domestic bourse on Wednesday after the world's largest initial public offering in which 1.5 percent of its shares were sold to raise $25.6 billion.

After hitting its upper limit on the stock market debut, the company is now valued at a massive $1.88 trillion.

The listing came despite Aramco being hit by a string of attacks on its facilities, the latest and most serious on September 14 when drone and missile strikes halted the flow of 5.7 million barrels of oil per day -- more than half of its output, reported AFP.

The attack had threatened to undermine the IPO plans but the company quickly said it had restored production and output capacity to pre-strike levels.

Striking gold

Aramco has its origins in a 1933 concession agreement signed by the Saudi government with the Standard Oil Company of California. Drilling began in 1935 and the first oil began flowing three years later.

It gained its current name from the subsidiary created to manage the agreement that was called the Arabia American Oil Company in the late 1940s.

In 1949, oil production hit a milestone 500,000 barrels per day and the following year Aramco built the 1,212-kilometer (753-mile) Trans-Arabian Pipeline to export Saudi oil to Europe across the Mediterranean.

Production rose rapidly after the discovery of large offshore and onshore oilfields including Ghawar, the world's largest with some 60 billion barrels of oil, and Safaniya, the biggest offshore field with 35 billion barrels.

In 1973, with prices spiking at the peak of the Arab oil embargo the Saudi government acquired 25 percent of Aramco to increase its stake to 60 percent and become a majority stakeholder.

Seven years later, it was nationalized, and in 1988 it became the Saudi Arabian Oil Company, or Saudi Aramco.

From the 1990s, Aramco invested hundreds of billions of dollars in massive expansion projects, raising its oil output capacity to more than 12 million bpd, alongside making bold international acquisitions and pursuing joint ventures.

In mid-September, Aramco maintained some 260 billion barrels in proven oil reserves, the second largest in the world after Venezuela, in addition to 300 trillion cubic feet of gas.

Based in Dhahran in the country's east, the firm has key oil operations in the United States, China, India, South Korea and several European and Asian nations.

Aramco has also built a network of pipelines and refineries inside and outside the Kingdom and expanded its presence in the petrochemicals industry.

Earlier this year, it opened its account books for the first time, announcing a $111.1 billion net profit for 2018, up 46 percent on the previous year, and saying it had generated $356 billion in revenue.



Lebanon War... Why is it Difficult for Netanyahu and Nasrallah to Back Down?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah. AFP/Reuters
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah. AFP/Reuters
TT

Lebanon War... Why is it Difficult for Netanyahu and Nasrallah to Back Down?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah. AFP/Reuters
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah. AFP/Reuters

Informed sources in Beirut told Asharq Al-Awsat that any diplomatic efforts to stop the ongoing war between Israel and Lebanon would face the obstacle of the main parties to the conflict — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah — finding it difficult to back down.

Why is Netanyahu refusing to back down?

The sources noted that the war in Lebanon has achieved for Netanyahu what he could not accomplish in Gaza. They summarized it as follows:

- Netanyahu framed the war with a unifying message that has gained consensus across the Israeli political spectrum: the return of the northern residents who were displaced after Hezbollah launched cross-border attacks following the Oct. 7 attacks in Gaza. This means that the Israeli military operations enjoy broad political and public backing.

- Netanyahu began the war by striking Hezbollah’s communication networks, inflicting unprecedented losses on the group and sidelining around 1,500 of its members from the battlefield.

- He dealt a near-fatal blow to the leadership of the Radwan Forces, the elite military wing of Hezbollah, managing to eliminate prominent figures, some of whom were listed as US targets due to attacks that occurred in Beirut four decades ago.

- Netanyahu can claim that Hezbollah initiated the war and that Israel’s only demand is the return of northern residents and ensuring their safety.

- Thus, it seems difficult for Netanyahu to back down from the demand of returning the displaced, which practically means disengaging the Lebanese front from the Gaza front.

Why is Nasrallah refusing to back down?

The sources pointed to the following reasons:

- It is hard for Nasrallah to accept a setback in a war that he initiated.

- He also finds it difficult to accept disengagement after Hezbollah has suffered unprecedented losses, unlike anything it faced in its previous confrontations with Israel, including the 2006 war.

- Accepting a setback would signal that Iran is not willing to take concrete steps to confront Israel.

- If Hezbollah agrees to disengage from Gaza without a ceasefire there, many would view the cross-border attacks launched by the party in support of the Palestinian enclave as a reckless gamble.

- A setback for Hezbollah would demoralize the Axis of Resistance and have a ripple effect on Gaza itself.

- Agreeing to a ceasefire without securing even "limited gains" would reinforce the perception that Nasrallah launched a war that most Lebanese reject, and that Hezbollah bears responsibility for the resulting losses.