13 comments on New SEC Concept Floated to Change Way E&P Companies Book Reserves
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
13 comments on New SEC Concept Floated to Change Way E&P Companies Book Reserves
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- Thanksgiving Open Campfire Thread
- How Relocalization Worked
- How to Set Up and Run a Bicycle Repair Company
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“A third of humanity doesn't want to ride bikes anymore; that has profound geopolitical implications.”
—Anne Korin, the co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (May 1, 2005)
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
I'm not sure I would call what was posted today a "rule". The SEC calls it a "Concept Release", and it reads like a document intended to start discussion, rather than proposed rule.
The discussion in the concept release indicates that the SEC is considering liberalizing what can be counted as reserves. If SEC does make a change, there will be a period of discontinuity, at the time the reserve definition is changed.
Apart from the transition issue, I don't see a problem with the idea of changing the reserve definition. The current method is strange, and does not correspond well to what other countries are doing. If there are big changes in the valuations of oil companies, it is because investors don't understand what the current reserves are measuring.
If a method can be developed that is an accurate reflection of the real 2P reserves, it would seem like it would be a step forward.
Its not a 'rule' but it seems like they are requesting feedback of sorts. I doubt firms will complain. So I see no reason why it won't come to pass - something like this was probably overdue - I just find it curious that its happening when banks lending practices are puckering.
Being the skeptic I am I suspect that under the old rules a lot of oil companies may have been facing big reserve write downs. By liberalizing the rules this right down of high quality but over estimated reserves is hidden in a large expansion of lower quality reserves. Generally these types of changes are initiated by the people affected by the changes in the first place not because of sudden enlightenment of the government. Whats probably important is that pressure to change the rules has not been significant till now.
I was expecting that we would see large write downs in the very near future but this move would hide this. So I find it very interesting.
So why was this not done in 1990 2000 etc etc if it was that bad ?