October 31, 1975 - Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum

therefore no comparison was made. The crude oil reserve estimate provided
by Colorado was as of January 1,1974, and the Operators Survey
was as of December 31,1974. North Dakota provided an estimate of crude
oil, technically recoverable with no economic limitations, which again
was noncomparable.
Crude oil data for the States identified individually in Table 21
range from close agreement to widespread differences between State and
Operators Survey estimates. These comparisons reemphasize the subjective
nature of reserve estimating and the widespread difference in
results that can be expected.
State
Table 21--COMPARISON OF PROVED CRUDE OIL RESERVE ESTIMATES,
STATE AGENCIES VS. OPERATORS SURVEY
Crude Oil
(MMBbls)
State
Operator
Estimate Survey
State Est.
as a Percent
of Survey Est.
Arkansas 363.1 121.1 300
Florida 363.8 307.1 118
III inois 164.4 162.3 101
Michigan
173.7
164.2
106
Montana
310.0
199.4
155
New Mexico 600.0 652.6 92
Others 8.6 4.3 200
Total 1,983.6 1,611.0 123
Major Field Studies Comparisons
Only California and Florida prepared independent reserve estimates
for indivi'dual fields which FEA studied. California provided reserve
estimates for the six fields, Cat Canyon, Huntington Beach, Kern River,
Midway-Sunset, San Ardo ,and W"ilmi ngton. Florida provided reserve
estimates for the Jay field.
California law prohibits the publication of individual field
reserve estimates prepared by the State. Therefore, fields have been
divided into two groups for comparison purposes. One group consists of
fields producing heavy oil. These fields are Cat Canyon, Kern River,
Midway-Sunset, and San Ardo. The other group consists of Huntington
Beach and Wilmington, two fields in the Los Angeles Basin. The comparisons
of crude oil reserve estimates are indicated by Table 22.
42