 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
3,1 mbpd ?
edit"Oil production was 3.1 million barrels per day (490×103 m3/d) as of 2010, giving Libya 77 years of reserves at current production rates if no new reserves were to be found."
Impossible!
Libya produced 3,1 mbpd in the early 70's, I think in 1971 but the 60's were the most productive decade in numbers of new oil founds and so many new oil production went online in the 70's including the North Sea and other Offshore production, the 1973 oil crisis led to reduced production too. I think Libya was the country which removed the exporting embargo as the last major oil producer. Since that time oil production was around 1,5 to maybe 1,8 mbpd, but never more than 2mbpd for a whole year. Because of OPEC-quotas, how fast the Oil production recovered after the war in 2011 and the low production costs show the potential of Libyan Oil. Libya could produce far more, like the Iraq, but it would drop prices. However, the 2011 war changed almost everything and the article need to be updated! greetings -- Kilon22 (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Confused meaning of 63 years
editI'm doing division of these numbers and getting confused. I understand the reserves are about 42 Gb, and current production is 1.8 Mb/day. Simple enough, A divided by B with units worked out gives 64 years. But it would seem that they've already produced 23 Gb, which is included in the 42 Gb number. Reserves include what's already been extracted. This leaves no more than 29 years, a little less than half the reserves.
This is just a little nonsensical considering the article is implying that the leaders are saying, "yeah, let's increase to 3.0 Mb/day, after all, there are 64 years of oil left!". There would be less than half of 64 years of oil left even if you didn't increase production, and if you did increase to that rate, you'd be looking at 17.4 years of oil left (neglecting new discoveries).
This just seems like a little it of an egregious misrepresentation of the very fundamental numbers. I'm not suggesting anything fancy, or contradicting any of the proposed numbers, I'm just saying the claims are a little silly even with those stated numbers. It's like counting your eggs after you've cooked and eaten them. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 16:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Page getting 4.9k views a day right now. Guess I'm just kind of surprised no one will comment on this. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)