Since any reply I make would depend on sources you distrust, there is not point arguing. I take the authorities over the peak oil advocates who have been proven wrong based on their past history.
RE Kuwait, no arugment there. I would just point out that it is relatively unimportant if Kuwait's proven reserves are books at 100 years or 50 year of production, since as I've mentioned proven reserves have been up until now replenished by new finds and new technology over time. e.g. Saudi's proven reserves are today higher than ever. Their 'oil in place' resources are about 900 billion estimated, after having pumped 100 billion. When the Saudis pump another 100 billion, in about 25 years, their proven reserves will probably BE HIGHER THAN THEY ARE TODAY!
So, the meaningful news of a field's decline and reserves is realistic view of production rates going. The announcement doesnt closes off an avenue to production increases, a concern but not one that means the end of the field. They are still talking about pumping it at 1.7 mbd for another 40 years, about where they've been in recent years.
Yes you do take the "authorities" words at face value. "Yes" peak oil advocates have been wrong, but you seem to keep ignoring their hits [U.S. ex North Slope - domestic natural gas; North Sea although the jury is still out on that one] and the the misses of such organizations as the USGS and CERA.
"RE Kuwait, no argument there. I would just point out that it is relatively unimportant if Kuwait's proven reserves are books at 100 years or 50 year of production."
Kuwait missing reserves by 50 percent is unimportant!!! Yikes. As I noted in another post on this thread, we knew a lot more about the state of Burgan than Ghawar ... and now we know still more about Burgan.