Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (25235)	7/26/2006 5:18:35 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 541747

If it is there, it is already included in the reserves. Only way to increase reserves is to discover more oil. But I thought that although reserves obviously have an absolute size, the numbers quoted by oil companies on extractable reserves depended on the price of oil - i.e., the 'extractable' reserves are those it's worth extracting at the given price. If a company had a 100bn barrel field, but it was going to cost $300/barrel to extract, it wouldn't include those in its extractable reserves? Or was I missing the point? Outside of an intermittent investment in BP as hedge against rising petrol costs, I haven't studied the oil/resources sectors, certainly not in depth. but I thought this was what caused Shell such problems a year or two back, misrepresentation of reserves...