I'm rather suspicious of the coincidence of the drop in reserves estimates and the hand outstretched to the Canadian government for financial assistance. I'd expect that those estimates of reserve paucity go right back up to 'economic' once the loan guarantees are in.

When you approach a banker, you want to convince him that you are giving him an opportunity to be in on a sure thing; when approaching government you want to appear to be in need of assistance in doing a public service, in this case providing gas that would otherwise be uneconomic.

How much gas - and oil - is up there? Depends.

Last I recall, Exxon made something around 100 billion in 2006. But 16 for a pipeline down to their 'oilsands' projects is too much? Maybe I should just leave what I might say at this point to your imagination. Suffice it to say, these guys never quit.

When you approach a banker, you want to convince him that you are giving him an opportunity to be in on a sure thing; when approaching government you want to appear to be in need of assistance in doing a public service, in this case providing gas that would otherwise be uneconomic.

If you can't trust an oilman, who CAN you trust? ;-)

Ran across a humorous misspell that might be appropriate; demogouge.

You can trust an oilman - to do the appropriate thing. As in any competitive industry, there is no real obligation to tell the truth to those who have the audacity to ask a silly question. It isn't lying, but just silly answers to silly questions.

Watch what they do. I'd postulate that coalbed methane tells you what you need to know on gas; it used to be passed over. Once the oilsands went from pilot to production you didn't have to ask. Deploying that much money is the answer. It's the old 'follow the money'.

Superdeep holes and Arctic turf wars corroborate where we are in the scheme of things. As Laherrere stated, 'nine women can't make a baby in a month'. Plan accordingly.