This is of course a mischaracterization of the Peak Oil argument--that one day we have oil, and the next day we don't.  In any case, the WSJ writer went on to state that "But some oil experts foresee the big Western companies running out of easy-to-tap oil, and most of them are already turning to harder to recover reserves."  

The overall theme of the article regarding Western oil companies is that they are turning toward GTL projects and to tar sands and very heavy oil and away from traditional exploration--not because they want to but because they don't have a choice.

There were three broad themes in the article:  (1)  life is good for energy exporters, not so good for energy importers; (2)  Western oil companies are turning more toward mining type operations for oil, rather than traditional drilling and (3)  they finished with a pretty good summary by Henry Groppe, that we have entered a new era "scarcity and price rationing."  

The only mild gripe I have with the article is the mischaracterization of the Peak Oil argument, but the rest of the article all but made the Peak Oil argument, but in different words.  The only real question is how fast unconventional oil production can be brought on line.  IMO, it won't be fast enough to offset the declines in conventional production.

According to BP, the US electricity generation in 2005 was 4229 TWh, and the Chinese 2475 TWh. But the Chinese generation grew 12.3% and the US only 1.7%. The growth of the Chinese electricity generation accounted for 42% of the increase of the World electrcity generation in 2005. It is important to note that in China most of the energy and electricity is used in manufacturing (up to 70%), unlike in the US where residential and commercial use dominate (the share of the industrial sector of the electricity consumption is about 30%). This means that the Chinese industry can use considerably more electricity (and energy) than the US manufacturing sector. Here we have a striking example of the importance of energy in economic development.

We should especially note the rate of growth here. China is definitely where the growth is in energy production. The average electricity generation growth between 2002 and 2005 has been nearly 15%. This means doubling the production in 5 years! If the 2005 growth could continue, the Chinese would produce more electricity than the US in 2010 and its industry use it 3 times more than the US industry - and nearly as much as the US and EU industrial sectors together. I think it is easy to understand the significance of this.

An another matter is, if these extrapolations are realistic. It is obvious that China will meet the physical limits to growth very soon. What will happen when the growth engine of the World energy and economy stops?

The Chinese energy (coal) production is, of course, crucial to the Climate Change. China is overwhelmingly the most important factor here. So the future of Chinese energy production is decisive to the climate forecasts. The forecasts of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere are dependent on the fossile energy (mostly coal) supply forecasts. But most of those forecasts used here are based on EIA or IEA super-optimistic "official" long-time energy scenarios. Closer look suggests that the overall fossile energy production is nearing to a peak very fast, or at least to a situation where the growth slows considerably. I think these are basic facts for a global Climate Strategy.