Hello Rembrandt,

Yes, a terrific analysis! Do you think enough oilfield & tech history has occured where the USGS could take this info and then go back to reassess the oilfields' remaining potential worldwide?

Could the USGS do some kind of massive sorting and compilation by geologic structure and composition, API [heavy vs light], EOR % already applied, % of modern seismic and other tech tools used, additional build-out infrastructure cost-estimates, and other pertinent factors, then derate URR and future possible production by past production history and HL analysis to sum-up a global Minimum Recoverable Reserve [MRR]?

I think the current USGS 'optimistic scenario' needs to be counter-balanced by an additional USGS 'pessimistic scenario'. In short: I would like to see a raging USGS in-house debate not much different than what occurs here on TOD [for example, WT vs R-squared]. IMO, the internal competition would be good for the bureaucrats, and would make their jobs more rewarding.

If there was a USGS faction that wanted to break away from the standard in-house group-think, the overall USGS leader should encourage this team action. They could then openly post to TOD with an 'official blessing', and we would be glad to help them do further research and discussion to build their new scenario.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

totoneilia, thats an interesting idea about the USGS stating a pessimistic reserve figure, but not practical because the low stance is obviously a complete crash in oil production-every well stops producing right now. What I'd like to see is a range of probabilities of production in the future, possibly veted against the strategic information gathering from other countries. I'd love to see what the Saudi's and the Russians think is the world future production model and discovery model.
Its really too bad and frustrating that essential information is being judged too political to be released.