Talk:List of countries by proven oil reserves

message: Please look here: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html
When a news article says a country has xxx bb of oil. It does not means they are recoverable. Even if they are recoverable, it is not considered PROVED RESERVE. Please someone with a brain and without bais, fix this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.76.64 (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: This page is ALL wrong, especially Venezuela

message: The CIA World factbook does not seem to be a reliable source...
For instance they missed reserves in Alum Shale (similar to tar sand) in Sweden.
According to SGU Statens Geologiska Undersökning (The Governments Geological Research) Sweden has 452 miljon tonnes of extractable oil in the Alum Shale. So far the extracted amount is 50 miljon tonnes, the production ended in the 70's and SGU are still working with the environmental cleanup.
452 miljon tonnes (not metric tonnes) are equivalent to ~3'200 million barrels (450'000'000'000 kilos / 140kilos/bbl). This is based on an assumption that the oil will be at the petroleum specific gravity of about 0,88.
Sources: 
http://www.sgu.se/sgu/sv/samhalle/energi-klimat/fossil-energi_info.html
Translated:
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.sgu.se/sgu/sv/samhalle/energi-klimat/fossil-energi_info.html
The January 2010 World Factbook (cited as the source for this article) lists Sweden and Finland with 0 proven, commercially recoverable crude oil reserves.CIA's definition of proven reserves:  the stock of proved reserves of crude oil in barrels (bbl).  Proved reserves are those quantities of petroleum which, by analysis of geological and engineering data, can be estimated with a high degree of confidence to be commercially recoverable from a given date forward, from known reservoirs and under current economic conditions.  Perhaps the alum shale reserves you refer to failed to meet one of those two qualifications. Bookerj (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Alum Shale is an oil shale.  It is not similar to a tar sand.  Tar sands contain heavy oil.  Oil shales contain no oil, just kerogen.  Plazak (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information 

message: The source provided for the Ghana statistics does not seem very reliable, and it seems a bit speculative to me. I think the CIA World Factbook should be the leading source for statistics, what do you guys think?M48b (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of Ghana news versus CIA World Factbook 

message: Since the EU and Arab League are on the list, I think it would be informative if OPEC was added to the list for informational/reference purposes as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 00:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add OPEC to list ? 

message: Why is the EU and the UK in two seperate listings? The UK is in the EU.
//slap.  People like you...  
And since when was the EU a country anyway?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.101.69 (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: UK EU

message: A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries.  Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 12:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Discussion

message: It would be very cool to have the historical proven oil reserves. Anyone know where to get this data? Mattximus (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Data

message: Why is Australia with 1,100,000,000 barrels considered to rank higher than the UK with 3,000,000,000? Why does the Australian 1,100,000,000 barrels earn a ranking of 30th but the 1,100,000,000 barrels of Brunei and Equatorial Guinea are only worthy of 39th and 40th respectively. Australian oil is super condensed maybe? If so can we have some clarification on the Australian super oil please.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.34.41 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia - The laws of physics do not apply! 

message: Apparently the Falkland Islands now have almost 60 billion barrels of oil.
http://www.liveoilprices.co.uk/oil/oil_companies/12/2009/falkland-islands-could-have-60-billion-barrels-of-oil/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1581211/Drilling-for-oil-to-start-in-Falkland-Islands.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8373823.stm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15243
Seeing how this is on other pages to do with the Falkland Islands ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Falkland_Islands ) should this be included on this page? Would it be listed separately or as part of the United Kingdom.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.232.196 (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falkland Islands - UK 

message: This source Venezuela increases proven oil reserves claims that Venezuela is the fourth in the list and on the way to be number 1. --Andrewire (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Venezuela's figures

message: This source  states that Ethiopia has 24 million cubic meters of oil reserves, which translates into some 151 million barrels of oil.
-Simfan34  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.8.96 (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethiopia

message: There was a note on the page which said: "Percentages and bbl numbers dont match" -- Beland (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentages, Qatar, US 

message: Ireland is also missing from the list, Ireland has around 600 billion oil reserves  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.75.108 (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "May be" is not proved reserves.  Plazak (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland 

message: The factbook has NOT been updated to reflect that Brazil has over 100 billion barrels of proved reserves. Furthermore, what is extractable formt he PSL is highly speculative. I restored Brazil's position back down to 17. But someone needs to fix the picture. It still reflects Brazil's reserves as over 100 BB.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.76.64 (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who put Brazil at #6!!?? 

message: according to the article the united states has more oil than Mexico but according to the map Mexico has more. which is correct?--68.93.133.208 (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexico 

message: Today October 27, 2011, I read that Mexico is at number "18" in world oil reserves with alleged {a false} "12,420,000,000 bbl" when really only the cantarell oil fields have about 36,000,000,000 of proven oil reseves{ im a mexican pemex worker in cantarell}
in 2009 DeGolyer and MacNaughton,Netherland & Sewell and Ryder Scott studies and the Mexican government estimated that these new reserves in chicontepec proven by Dg&McN,N&S,RS, were difficult extraction and it would take 9 years,today in 2011 and it is not, these oil reserves are fully recoverable given the technological advances of Pemex,
DeGolyer and MacNaughton estimated that these reserves have half or more of the size of Saudi Arabia reserves, this estimates are about 140 300 000 000 bbl 100% recoverable oil plus to the oil reserves yet known of 36,000,000,000, give mexico a reserve about 176 300 000 000 bbl, making Mexico in third place of proven extractable oil reserves
please someone correct the table and move Mexico to the third place in proven oil reserves,the evidence and references are solid and already present on wikipedia, those mexican gov't "doubts of 2009" no longer exist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.251.97.91 (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: have the sources been updated after the'doubts' were erased?Meatsgains (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexico reserves 

message: Why did you remove this? It was not available for all countries of course but for the most important ones. I really don't know why the links should not be in that article?! -- Kilon22 (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information? 

message: Every so often someone who does not appreciate the differences between "proven reserves" and other less strict resource numbers will read a news report about a new discovery that gives a very high, but often speculative, estimation of reserves, or even of original oil in place, and mistakenly adds that number to this listing of proven reserves. Recently, an enthusiastic editor has been repeatedly adding a large figure for proven reserves (1.5 to 1.8 billion Bbl) in Afghanistan, but the citations he gives do not justify his changes.
The principal citation given is a US Geological Survey publication (}, which states of a new field in northern Afghanistan: “the field was estimated to have reserves of 1.8 billion barrels”. But the basis for the "estimation" is not given; these may be probable or possible reserves. The publication also notes: “the nearby Afghan-Tajik Basin could hold as much as 1,500 Mbbl of crude oil.” Here the USGS does not even call these reserves: clearly speculative, and not proven. The only mention of proven reserves in the publication is the statement that the Afghan side of Amu Darya Basin has 80 MMBbl in proved reserves.
The other two sources cited are news services. Such popular sources do not always reliably distinguish between "proven" and more speculative estimations, but these two appear to be carefully taking their wording from the USGS publication. Something called the Wall St. Cheat Sheet () has the statement that one area “could hold as much as” 1.5 billion barrels. But "could hold" is far from being "proven reserves".  Then Aljazeera () states that an Afghan field has an “estimated” 1.8 billion barrels. Again, this is the same as the USGS wording, and falls short of being proven reserves.
There are a number of reliable and free on the web sources for proven reserves (although they do not always agree): the BP annual energy report, the OPEC website, the CIA Factbook, and the US Energy Information Administration. Reliable but not free is the venerable Oil and Gas Journal. When going outside these sources, great care should be taken that the number being reported is an actual "proven reserve".  Please.  Plazak (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghanistan 

message: how can there be a range, if the reserves are proven? I haven't dug into the sources or anything, but shouldn't it be the lower number in the range? wouldn't that be the amount that's proven? I think the word 'proven' is going to stay in the article name, right? so, what's the deal? 24.112.251.17 (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range of 'proven' reserves? 

message: Before February, this page said Montenegro doesn't have an oil.  Then an anonymous user edited the page to say it has 7 billion barrels.  Can anyone confirm that?  That'd make it ranked #21 in the world.  As a ratio to its population, it'd be #2 in the world.  And as a ratio to its land area, it'd be #4 in the world.  The CIA World Factbook says Montenegro doesn't have any oil.
- 173.171.162.145 (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the US EIA listing, Montenegro had no proven oil reserves as of the start of 2015: see link. The Montenegro entry does not cite a source.  I will erase the entry in the article.  Thanks.  Plazak (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Montenegro

message: Hello, update the article please - , . M.Karelin (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for not changing the article yourself. I'm not a subscriber to the FT site, but the first source you cite includes into US reserves an estimate of oil yet-to-be-discovered.  This article, on the other hand, is about proven reserves, which definitely does not include oil not yet discovered. There is nothing to update based on this news.  Thanks.  Plazak (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  US oil reserves surpass those of Saudi Arabia and Russia 

message: There has been some confusion in the past about conflicting estimates from different sources. To try to resolve this, the table below lists reserves from the 3 main internet-accessible sources: US EIA, OPEC, and BP. I left out the CIA Factbook, because that is taken from the US EIA. The table below also provides a column for other estimates. Comments?  Plazak (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not an expert on this, but OPEC being publicly self identified as a cartel (which would be illegal or borderline illegal action or purpose if done by a U.S. or E.U. organization/s or company/s), I question how reliable their estimate of Canadas reserves is, in other words Canada not being part of OPEC, it is in OPEC's interest to misrepresent Canada's reserves to seem lower than they actually are. Any support for this from others? I don't have time to look for sources now, maybe will look for sources later. In other words, I object to the inclusion of OPEC's estimate of Canada's reserves in the table. Arty32 (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new format for table 

message: The column header "Years until Exhaustion" is nonsense, as it means that the proved reserves will go to zero after the stated number of years. Such a misinterpretation assumes 1) that production will remain constant until the reserves are exhausted, and 2) there will be no future additions to proved reserves. This is a complete fallacy, as explained in the article Reserves-to-production ratio. I will change the column header accordingly. Plazak (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Column "Years until Exhaustion" 

message: The 2nd paragraph notes: "Different estimates may or may not include oil shale, ..." I am unaware that any of the cited reserve estimates include oil which can be manufactured from the kerogen in oil shale. Are there any? I am not speaking of tight oil in shale, which is routinely included. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oil shale? 

message: While I acknowledge that there will be some variance between estimates, OPEC's assessment of Canada is less than one-fortieth of that of the other organizations, so I think that this is a likely error. Could someone please look into it? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 01:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different sources for Canada 

message: Guyana has over 9 billion barrels of oil.  So far, there are 21 discoveries, 18 of which were by Exxonmobil and the other three by another company.  The 18 discoveries done by Exxonmobil is 9 billion barrels.  Exxonmobil is presently drilling another well called Tanager 1.  However, Guyana does not appear anywhere on this list. 2803:7380:C4FD:0:9914:D8B9:4954:DC0A (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Do you have a reliable source for this? Thanks. Silikonz (💬│🖋) 07:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. P,TO 19104  (talk) (contribs)  01:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2020 

message: In the changelogs, it was previously noticed that Guyana was removed from the list without a reason. Guyana, being in the top 15 in the world for oil reserves should definitely be on this list. 190.80.51.84 (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Guyana was also not removed in the last few edits. It wasn't even in the list, either. EggRoll97 (talk)  20:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2021 

message: List need to be updated Jamrock5993 (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Guyana not on the list with over 9 billion barrels? 

message: In this column, ¼ of the values had decimal places, and among them, some were to one place, some to two and yet others to three places. They were removed to be consistent with the other ¾ if the table. The only exception was the last two entries, which had a value of less than one. If someone would like to suggest another way denoting those two entries (eg; using the "less than" sign), please do. - wolf 23:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  US EIA 

message: Small best Asian countries is more than 10% sent of the total throat results of the world 47.11.197.132 (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  G.K. 

message: What are the sources for Somalia and to suggest it's somehow number 6 but no data or sources. I think it should be removed altogether RickyBlair668 (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somalia 

message: rECENT (2023) ARTICLES, E.G., IN THE wsj, GIVE A FIGURE OF 11, NOT 10, bILLION199.127.133.181 (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: aLSO, THE MAP IS NOW ABOUT SIX YEARS OUT OF DATE. 199.127.133.181 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  gUYANA 

message: Some sources believe canada has more oil than iran, while the other sources say the opposite, idk which one even has more oil Raldfan (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada or iran 

message: Why is Brazil's sources from BP about Namibia? Is this a misplacement? 114.122.9.236 (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazil/Namibia