Talk:List of countries by proven oil reserves

This page is ALL wrong, especially Venezuela
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)

I also have a bad impression of the list. Are all figures from the cited OPEC list, the CIA list, or are they cobbled together from all the lists? It does not say. Plus, there are only two footnotes. Shouldn't the various credible or well-known lists be added as separate columns, without attempting to arbitrate between them, so the reader can compare? Something similar is done for GDP, where the measurements are less controversial and problematic (apparently) and the figures diverge less. 89.217.134.231 (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It is impossible to believe that Venezuela has anywhere near the proven oil reserves of Saudi or most of the companies near the top of the list. This sounds like complete b.s. from the late Hugo Chavez. [Special:Contributions/76.16.93.184|76.16.93.184]] (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

YOU MIGHT WANNA CHECK OUT THE FIRST MAP, It's BILLION barrels not million — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.223.173.195 (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Multiple sources
Combining different sources (using different methodology, even using crystal-ball CIA factbook numbers) from different years is not the best idea. What about to use only one credible source (for example BP Statistical Review of World Energy)? --Jklamo (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your idea sounds good to me. Just looking at this talk page convinces me that there are too many inflated reserve numbers being tossed around.  The BP studies are probably about as reliable as we can expect, and a lot more reliable than most government oil ministries.  Plazak (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it is still good idea that needs to be executed. So we must select that source. My comments about possible (and free accessible) sources:
 * CIA factbook - only secondary or tertiary source (primary sources not even listed), not so much reliable, probably not even single methodology, covering almost all countries
 * OPEC ASB - reliable, sources are listed (among them BP SRWE), may be biased (because of purpose of OPEC), covering important countries
 * EIA IES - reliable, sources are listed (among them OPEC ASB and BP SRWE), may be biased (as collected by US government agency), covering almost all countries
 * BP SRWE - reliable, sources are listed (among them OPEC ASB), covering important countries
 * From my point of view the best option is BP, but OPEC and EIA are acceptable (not CIA FB). --Jklamo (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As you point out, the drawback to BP is that they do not cover countries with smaller reserves. They cover no countries with reserves <400 MMBO, and leave out a few with reserves larger than that (the largest apparently being Uganda, which the US EIA gives 2.5 billion BO). OPEC covers an even smaller list of countries, leaving out even Azerbaijan, which BP gives 7 billion BO. It was brought to my attention recently that none of the 4 sources cover proved oil reserves in Afghanistan. It's just a suggestion, and risks some confusion, but if we want to cover the full list of countries, we could designate the US EIA as a secondary source, only for those countries not covered by the BP report.  Plazak (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Missing information
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)

Footnote: Finland also has some Shale but its only used for Uranium excavations at the moment. Estonia has a high production och Shale oil and are located only 50 kilometres away so my guess is that the Finnish reserves also are forgotten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilkancisv (talk • contribs) 11:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)

Reliability of Ghana news versus CIA World Factbook
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)

Add OPEC to list ?
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)

It's confusing. One expects the list to include each proven barrel exactly once. If OPEC, EU and Arab League appear in a separate chart or text, it would be ok. Also, the member nations of OPEC, Arab League and EU should be listed. 89.217.134.231 (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

UK EU
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)

New Discussion
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)

Historical Data
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)

You can go to the following site for historical data about Proven Reserves, Consumption, and Production for almost all energy types from 1965-2009.

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/2010_downloads/Statistical_Review_of_World_Energy_2010.xls#'Oil - Regional consumption '!A1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.222.9 (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Australia - The laws of physics do not apply!
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)

Falkland Islands - UK
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)

The estimate for Brazil must be updated with the new findings of october 2007. I read that it should increase 5-8 billions of barrels the estimate. Jbaranao

Venezuela's figures
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)

It's very debatable. There's four numbers you have to consider:

1) Oil In Place - basically the oil that exists in the ground.

2) Technically recoverable resources - oil that you can physically get out of the ground with current technology

3) Contingent Resources - Oil that could be produced, but requires some condition to be met first. This could be something easy like finalizing the investment decision for development or something speculative like needing higher prices.

4) Reserves - This refers to oil that is expected to be produced and can be produced economically. This means that 'reserves' are actually partially a function of economics. Stuff that isn't economic to produce aren't reserves, but contingent resources.

Venezuela's oil in place numbers are gigantic, possibly the largest on Earth. The problem is that the crude is very heavy and relatively expensive to produce. So they aren't really reserves. I'd say maybe heavy oil developments where the capital expenditure of development has already been sunk might be considered reserves, but the undeveloped stuff is contingent resources, at best. 207.67.89.46 (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Ethiopia
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)

Orinoco
It's not a reserve. The estimate given is part of the ongoing USGS series on estimating technically recoverable oil resources. The USGS makes no attempt to estimate what is economically recoverable. Besides that, to be a reserve there must be a development project behind it.--Work permit (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello! Excuse me because the information is in Spanish, but there is evidence that Venezuela is the second largest proven reserves in the world, as this site says and more. Here you have the link to see him: http://www.hidrocarburosbolivia.com/iberoamerica-mainmenu-98/venezuela-mainmenu-104/28779-venezuela-ocupa-el-segundo-lugar-en-reservas-petroleras- after-de-arabia-saudi.html.
 * Today, that examines whether Venezuela could reach 587,040,000,0 proven reserves in the world, ranking in the first place (this is unproven).


 * I apologize for my bad English: --Katuketi (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

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

How can Qatar have more but less percent of total that the US?75.215.3.84 (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ireland
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) Actually, he is on to something.In May 2007 the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (now replaced by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources) reported that there may be volumes over 130 billion barrels (2.1×1010 m3) of petroleum and 50 trillion cubic feet (1,400 km3) of natural gas in Irish waters; - worth trillions of Euro, if true. The minimum 'guaranteed' amount of oil in the Irish Atlantic waters is 10 billion barrels (1.6×109 m3), worth over €450 billion. There are also areas of petroleum and natural gas on shore, for example the Lough Allen basin, with 9.4 trillion cubic feet (270 km3) of gas and 1.5 billion barrels (240,000,000 m3) of oil, valued at €74.4 billion. Already some fields are being exploited, such as the Spanish Point field, with 1.25 trillion cubic feet (35 km3) of gas and 206 million barrels (3.28E+7 m3) of oil, valued at €19.6 billion. The Corrib Basin is also quite large, worth anything up to €87 billion, while the Dunquin gas field contains 25 trillion cubic feet (710 km3) of natural gas and 4.13 billion barrels (657,000,000 m3) of petroleum.69.254.107.66 (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's funny.--RoadTrain (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear if this comment refers to unreported oil reserves in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. To the extent the CIA concluded (in its January 2010 World Factbook estimates, the cited source of the tabular data in this article) that they are proven commercially recoverable reserves, the former's oil reserves are reported in the U.K. line (same as Scotland and Wales oil reserves, if any. The independent nation Republic of Ireland is in fact listed in the World Factbook January 2010 Oil reserves report with 0 proven reserves.  The wikipedia contributor who copied the CIA Oil Reserves report into this article included only the 97 entities with proven reserves, and omitted the remaining 169 entities (CIA lingo for countries, roughly) which CIA reports had none at that time. Bookerj (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "May be" is not proved reserves. Plazak (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Who put Brazil at #6!!??
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)

I am not sure about Brazilian reserves of oil but should this article be renamed to "List of countries by proven oil reserves according to CIA factbook"? Because it is not the only source of information in the world. 200.232.108.28 (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I found a better source and changed the number to reflect the amount estimated by the Brazilian oil regulator (which is the lower number) and the one estimated by the author of the study discussed in the article (which is the higher number). There was also a higher estimate of 206 billion barrels but the cited probability of this amount was only 10 percent, so I didn't include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinjaNerd8 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Mexico
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)

The map currently (12 July 2011) shows US and Mexico both in the same forest green color, correctly reflecting that the CIA estimated values listed in the table (US 19 billion, Mexico 12 billion barrels) both fall in the range for that color-code (10 to 49 billion barrels). Bookerj (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Mexico reserves
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)


 * have the sources been updated after the'doubts' were erased?Meatsgains (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

the doubts was only a political speculation by the Mexican executive and executive agencies on the mexican national energy agency, beacuse from 1999 to 2009 the U.S. government never acknowledged a rise in Mexico's oil reserves, were foreign companies like DeGolyer and MacNaughton, Netherland & Sewell and Ryder Scott who certified and claimed reserves to provide a healty reserves to the Chicontepec oil field, I only add to the yet proved reserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.251.97.91 (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

More information?
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)

Afghanistan
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)

Range of 'proven' reserves?
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)

Montenegro
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)
 * 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)

US oil reserves surpass those of Saudi Arabia and Russia
Hello, update the article please -,. M.Karelin (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)

Proposed new format for table
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)

No one objected, so I replaced the table in the article. Plazak (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)

Column "Years until Exhaustion"
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)

Oil shale?
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)

Different sources for Canada
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2020
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)
 * Hi. Do you have a reliable source for this? Thanks. Silikonz  ( 💬 │ 🖋 ) 07:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2021
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)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg 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)

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

US EIA
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)

G.K.
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)

Somalia
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)

gUYANA
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)


 * aLSO, THE MAP IS NOW ABOUT SIX YEARS OUT OF DATE. 199.127.133.181 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Canada or iran
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)

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