Phil,
Thanks for writing and posting this important article. "Reserve Growth" is one of the key parameters that distinguish ASPO projections of future oil reserve size (and therefore, production, which is what the world actually uses) with those of the optimists like CERA and EIA. EIA of course takes their data from USGS.

I'm wondering about a detail: the report was issued in 2000, covering the 1995-2025 period - so is it correct that they used no data available from 1995 to 2000 to calibrate their projections? Did they, in effect, pretend it was 1995 and then project forward their calculations for 30 years?

One important aspect included in Table 1 is "Undiscovered Reserves". This is another key parameter where USGS methodology is over-optimistic and vulnerable. If you assume (unrealistically) a flat rate of discovery, and spread out those 939 billion to-be-discovered barrels over the 30-year forecast period, you will find we should be discovering 31 billion barrels per year. And of course the reality is that we're finding only a fraction of that - maybe 6 billion per year (somebody confirm this?)

Of course, a flat rate of discovery over 30 years is not realistic, given the natural reduction in discovery prospects over the 30-year period. If we make the reasonable assumption that discovery rates might be reduced by 50% over the 30-year projection, then the interval must begin in year 2000 with discovery at over 40 billion barrels per year, declining to 20 billion by 2025. Based on the same assumptions you will find we should have discovered, cumulatively, 263B barrels in the period from 2000 to 2007. So, how close to that 263B barrels have we found in the 2000 to 2007 period so far? Not even close! (I would love to see another TOD article addressing this, with more detail and better numbers).

This is a key element of the ASPO peak oil forecast, since (as Colin is so fond of saying) you can't produce what you don't discover. This is why (with reserve non-growth, plus depletion rates) peak will almost certainly be within 4 or 5 years, not in 2030 or 2037 or beyond.

When you combine Phil's assessment of Reserve Growth (subtract 510B bbl) with realistic estimates of future discovery (subtract XXX billion barrels) and the overstated ME reserve sizes (subtract 300B bbl) you are down at least 1 trillion barrels from the USGS projections of total petroleum endowment. For something this important, it's astonishing how wrong they are, and how uncritically most of the world has accepted their numbers as gospel. This fact, 7 years into my energy education, still amazes me.

One would hope that 7 years into their 25-year forecast (starting in 2000) - that's almost 30% of the period - real data on reserve growth and new discovery would have made it very obvious how over-optimistic their forecasts are, which should cast severe doubt on the validity of their projections going forward.

I believe the IEA has, in fact, decided to review their use of USGS numbers and by now has been hit over the head by a 2x4 (insert metric numbers here) enough times to see how reality is diverging severely from USGS and EIA projections. It's about time. You can only "make your own reality" for so long and get away with it.

Dick Lawrence
ASPO-USA