And another interesting quote from that article:
"It doesn't appear that the planet is running out of crude, as proponents of the "peak oil" theory have argued."
"It doesn't appear that the planet is running out of crude, as proponents of the "peak oil" theory have argued."

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.

Not only was it a "mischaracterization" -- the sentence was a non-sequitur -- given the comments made in the rest of the article.