<DrumBeat: November 17, 2006The Oil DrumDrumBeat: November 18, 2006>
<EuroNews: November 15, 2006The Oil Drum: EuropeNew RSS feed for TOD:Europe>

92 comments on IHS Data Suggest Kuwaiti and Global Proved Oil Reserves Significantly Lower Than BP Estimates

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Essex Land Rover Man on November 16, 2006 - 7:29am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
Thank you Ken Chew for providing an account behind the bare data figures. I appreciate your honesty in trying to divine what the figures show. I wish a lot of other people were as intellectually honest as you are in this debate on Peak Oil.

Also thank you to Euan Mearns in trying to give an unbiased report as much as possible.

Intellectual honesty is the most important quality to bring to the Peak Oil debate. Too many people have their own rice bowl to defend and ignore any facts that challenge their livelihood.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
bunyonhead on November 16, 2006 - 7:43am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Would the methodology applied to Kuwaiti reserves not also be applicable to those of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, UAe adn other OPEC members who quantum shifted their reserves higher at a time when stated reserves were used as the benchmark for export quotas? If not, why not? In other words, what single factor differentiates Kuwait's overstated reserves vs others?

I appreciate that the size of the Bergan field relative to Kuwaiti total reserves makes the job easier as regards Kuwait, but can a similar downsizing of P2 reserves be assumed for other ME OPEC members?

Perhaps IHS intends us to extrapolate such a deduction, but would not feel comfortable making such an outright asssertion? Needless to say I would not expect Mr Chew to answer this question, but second ELRM's thanks to him and Euan Mearns for access to a very enlightening presentation.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Luis de Sousa on November 16, 2006 - 3:17pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
bunyonhead,

They have to push Kuwaiti reserves back because it already hit the media that proved reserves are below 30 Gb. The government is aware and taking measures to restrain production - Kuwait can be one of the first countries to "sign" the Oil Depletion Protocol.

Total phantom 2P reserves in the ME stand at 300Gb. Take that from the 2P reserves given by IHS and you get Laherrère's 800 Gb plus Tar Sands.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
bunyonhead on November 16, 2006 - 3:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Thanks Luis.

Euan, is there any possibility that IHS would make available Remaining Liquid Resource Estimate charts for the other ME countries as they have done for Kuwait?

They are (rightfully) proud that their plotted reserves tallied pretty well with Kuwait until 1984 when Kuwait arbitrarily increased reserves for OPEC quota purposes, and that subsequent announcements have proved them right.

They are also very scathing about the Oil & Gas Journal's estimates remianing largely unchanged for many years in certain cases, which criticism also seems justified

Do their curves look similar for other ME OPEC producers as they do for Kuwait? If not, would that not show some inconsistency in their methodology? How do they rationalise such inconsistency (it is exists) in the light of their criticism of O&GJ?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Euan Mearns on November 16, 2006 - 3:51pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Buyonhead, a very good question.  I would love to see their Iraq, KSA, UAE and Iran charts as they stand now.

I'm a great fan of history matching forecasts - see how forecasts match reality after a couple of years.

I could ask Ken Chew if he could make these available.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DelusionaL on November 18, 2006 - 10:33am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Euan Mearns,  
Thank you for posting.  I'm a bit confused with IHS owning CERA and CERA having there latest report that seems to have reserves 'inflated'.
The picture I'm starting to get is that there are a few people such as Mr Chew that are in the know and are getting worried.  Worried to the point that they are starting to break from the pack and try to get the word out.
Honestly, your post is less than comforting. I feel I must have that 'Bambi in the headlights' look on my face while I read this stuff.
I'm convinved that people at least in America will not "power down" of thier own free will.  "crywolf"- the humor is obvious. :( OMG what a mess.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Euan Mearns on November 18, 2006 - 10:52am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I'm a bit confused with IHS owning CERA and CERA having there latest report that seems to have reserves 'inflated'.

So am I.

CERA are bearers of good news, and they get paid handsomly by those who wish to buy good news.

Objectivity and credibility are TOD objectives - objectivity is of course in the eye of the beholder.  One thing I learned is that IHS maintain a huge data base about which they are very proud.

To understand how that data base can be used to estimate global "reserves" and future production is another matter - open to debate.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DelusionaL on November 18, 2006 - 10:34am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"there" should be thier sorry english isn't my strong suit
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.