Making predictions and forecasts is not a requirement for being credible.

Being correct is a requirement for credibility when constantly making predictions.

That's equivalent to a recovery factor of 95% based on OIIP of 600 Gb.

Or they know more about their oil in place than you do. Attacking them based on how well their statements fit your assumptions doesn't do your argument any favours.

To present an analysis that's going to be useful to external observers, you've got to be honest about where your analysis might be wrong, and this is one of those places. Instead of immediately leaping to the conclusion that any discrepancy between your model and their statements is a lie on their part, it would be much more helpful for your analysis to consider the possibility that they're not blatantly lying, that they really do have more oil than you think, and why that might be.

As it is, it sounds like you've made up your mind already, and you're just berating the Saudis for not agreeing with you.

Given the lack of significant new discoveries, this 2005 ASPO presentation estimates that in 2003 the OIIP was a more realistic 580 Gb as shown below in Fig 3, instead of Aramco’s claimed 700 Gb.

British fields found an average of 20-25% growth in estimated reserves as they aged (slide 13), but your graph appears to not include any similar growth for Saudi fields.

It's worth noting that 580Gb + 20% = 696Gb, suggesting that the claimed Saudi increases could have come predominately from the types of known-field growth that British fields saw.

If you want to argue that Saudi fields have not seem similar reserve growth, you've got to explain what makes them so different from British (and, IIRC, American) fields, or at least show evidence that it's common for large oil provinces to show no reserve growth. As it is, you're making a huge assumption (no reserve growth) that is (a) contradicted by the statements of the owners of the fields, and (b) runs counter to available evidence about other fields. That kind of assumption is not a good basis for an argument.

However, Aramco’s statement that it is the world’s leading oil producer is now false as it now second after Russia since 2006.

Two points:

1. "Leading" is not necessarily synonymous with "largest". If they're the most influential - and, as largest exporter and dominant partner in OPEC, they probably are - then it's not entirely unreasonable to call them "leading".
2. EIA data gives Saudi oil production as 10.6Mb/d, vs. 9.8Mb/d for Russia (C+C+NGL). You might not want to include NGL as "oil", but both EIA and IEA include it in their "oil supply" number, so it doesn't actually matter what you want.

You fixate on C+C, but the rest of the world doesn't care about that number. They care about "oil supply", for which Saudi Arabia has not dipped below 10Mb/d in more than two years, while Russia has not climbed above it (EIA data, C+C+NGL).

Perhaps NGLs should be discounted by their energy content; that would be quite reasonable if we're trying to make a fair comparison. That would put Saudi production below Russia for 2007, but well above for what we've seen of 2008.

Godwin's Law has not been violated.

Irrelevant, really. Breathlessly comparing Saudi statements about their own oil production with Nazi propaganda makes you look like a raving nutjob to anyone who's the least bit of an "outsider", and taints everyone you're associated with.

It's utterly unhelpful.

Probably the easiest way to strengthen your argument is by removing all of your ranting about propaganda and Nazis. It serves no purpose other than making whatever you write easy to dismiss by anyone who wants to.