This sort of story is endemic among British mainstream press. It's a virtually unsourced, unsubstantiated soap box for an industry expert who, right or wrong, deserves greater scrutiny. The lack of independent research on the part of the newspaper is unfortunate, because it matters when someone with Richard Pike's reputation and makes a statement like this. More balance, more context!

This story makes no mention of John McCain, much less is an article about him. The article doesn't explore enough the mathematics involved nor the implications. The story lacks enough independent sources to allow one to leave it confident of its veracity.

The industry insider, a former oil industry man, is the only source noted in the article in support of this article's hypothesis. While it is true that "underestimating the proven oil reserves" would cause market prices for oil to escalate, the authority quoted tips his hand by linking this price increase with the perception that we need to find alternative energy sources in a few decades - clearly not what those in the oil business would like to see happen. He ignores the increased cost to get at the last oil in each field as well, making much of the oil, regardless of the actual number, not recoverable except for much higher market prices. This piece lacks evidence, context, sourcing and balance, and therefore is below average journalism.

This pays too little attention to the core claim, probably because it is mildly technical. Neither does it provide the context that Pike's claim was made in June of 2006. There is just so much more that could have been done with this topic. The counter viewpoint is unfairly minuscule.

Even assuming this guy is right, and I doubt he is, it misses the point. The current high price of oil is not a reflection of scarcity, though that's part of it, but rather the first time everyone is seeing the real cost of oil, in terms of the environmental damage the stuff causes and the national security costs involved in protecting our access to oil in regions where we are not welcomed. Up until now those impacts were not priced into the product. Now they are and no amount of new discoveries is going to make those costs disappear. Besides, high oil prices are just what the market requires to make renewable, less polluting sources of energy cost attractive.

While interesting, this contradicts every other "expert" opinion I've read, which this article briefly mentions, but doesn't explore much. It would be more interesting with more detail that justifies why this one opinion should be given more weight than all the others. Though the piece briefly mentions that environmental campaigners will not welcome this contrary opinion, I found the linked article at the bottom an interesting addition to the discussion. It's about how a Pacific island nation of 97,000 people is disappearing under the sea.

As much as I want to embrace this story, and as well balanced as they presented it, there's more to the oil reserve question than was covered, and therefore made me hesitant to feel this was some breakthrough in th oil picture.

lots of unsupported assertions that conflict with the 90% majority opinion. if you're going to disagree with "common knowledge", a single source and no data, papers, or references to support for your argument is poor journalism. also, despite disagreeing with the consensus, the story ends on a note that slightly conflicts with its' own point.

The article states that an "industry insider" uses "anecdotal evidence" to support his theory that there is a lot more oil underground than most people believe. His point is that there is no need to look for alternate fuels. How convenient for Big Oil! What nonsense! The author shouldn't have wasted his ink on such a non-story.

Can be important in the long term if it is true: the thesis I gather is that currently the oil reserves are based on figures that governments and companies can reasonably stand up to(hence they are conservative figures) and what is probable is as much as twice that figure. Well what is the implication to the current oil price of the actual final figures? I think the current prices are determined by the current short fall in supply rather than influenced by that final figure, hence the actual oil reserves may not make an impact for us in the short term, but in the long term there are implications on environment that will have to be carefully assessed. The point that oil prices, oil reserve estimates, supply side constraints all ... More »

The story gives a one-sided view, showing only the oil company's views and not actually a well-rounded anything.

This was an informative article, too bad this information is not present in the main stream media.