I think the rough picture is that we are fairly clueless what is really going on with OPEC.  I don't completely agree with JD's math, because it's likely Ghawar's production was partially shut-in during parts of the eighties and nineties.  But nor do I have tremendous confidence in the Hubbert linearizations for those countries because the linear regimes are small and the production was far from unconstrained during a lot of the linear regime.  The linearization may be roughly indicative, but it's very hard to stand on it with cast-iron confidence.  When you do stability analyses on them, the answer you get is very sensitive to your choice of beginning and end years.

I think the production numbers have to be more solid than the reserve numbers because the missing barrels number (oil that can't be accounted for when you subtract the known consumption from the known production and take into account known stock changes) is not usually more than a couple of percent of global production - ie comparable to the discrepancies between the different production series (EIA, IEA, etc.  So whatever lies are being told about production numbers, they can't sum to more than a percent or two of the total.

So I think the only facts about OPEC that I have a lot of confidence is that for the last 12 months or so:


  • rig counts are rising
  • production is not increasing

I didn't post any comments on the TOD editorial thread.  However, regardless of its value, your comments above mention "fairly clueless" about OPEC.  This kind of thing opens the floodgates for attack.

Were I writing an op-ed editorial I'd say, "Well, the editors at TOD have done it again.  They say the sky is falling yet one of their main spokespersons said the following day, and quote, 'They are clueless about OPEC.'  If they are 'clueless' about this what else are they clueless about...."

The "we" referred to "all the world except insiders at the relevant national oil companies and governments."
The MSM typically takes the OPEC claims at face value.  We've at least moved beyond that to the point where we recognize that data is worthless and that the situation is unclear.
Stuart,

I don't want to belabor this.  I knew what your point was.  However, I believe it instructive how "quotes" can be used to support a position antagonistic to the position of TOD. It is this sort of thing that undercuts rational discourse.

Someone like Mike Lynch would (probably) have no problem writing a good piece obfuscating reality and attacking TOD based upon your words.  It is truly unfortunate the world has come to this but, IMO, that's the way it is.

Another thing that undermines rational discourse is people refusing to admit what they know and what they don't know.
Squeaky is right on the money.

Todd is way off.

Stuart is correct in his analysis.