I have a problem with the ELM as is. It is too simplified. It is good from a theoretical / formal point of view, but lack of predictive power, because it don't take in account the other real life conditions.
ELF can work in a model where the exporter(s) have an economic advantage to keep the oil extracted for internal consumption instead to sell it and buy goods with the revenues.
This is true for USA, Canada, EU, Japan; but is it true for Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria and others?
The differences are that the firsts are rich countries able to pay more the oil than other and developed countries able to turn more value out of the same oil.
The first thing to remember is that exporter (all of them, whatever goods they export) do it with the aim to import something in exchange like drugs, cars, airplanes, weapons, food, cloths and so on.
Saudi Arabia and Iran governments export oil to be able to pay their polices, armed forces, clerics and keep them happy. So they will have a strong incentive to keep up the exports of oil and try to reduce the internal use of oil.
With the revenues from oil they can continue to hire their gunmen to crack down against the opposition (or they can try). If even they try to keep the oil for internal use, they will need to combat against smuggling (they do it just now in Iran).

Many big exporters like Saudi Arabia and Iran are big food net importer from the West. So they will need to sell oil to buy food. Linking oil prices and corn (food) prices is good from a geopolitical point of view, because put Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and others between a rock and an hard place. Rising prices of oil will force rising prices of food. And what they will gain from higher oil prices they lose twice from higher food prices. This will force the political collapse of these nations, because they lack the internal trust and the economic productivity needed to sustain the strain.

Many big exporters like Saudi Arabia and Iran are big food net importer from the West. So they will need to sell oil to buy food.

I am suggesting that most net exporters' cash flows from export sales will increase (at least in Phase One), even as their exports decline, because of rapid increases in oil prices.

For example, let's assume that Matt Simmons is right and oil prices in 2010 are at $200 per barrel, in constant 2005 dollars, and let's take a look at Saudi Arabia.

Let's assume $60/BOE in 2005, and ignore operating and other costs. Saudi Arabia exported 9.1 mbpd in 2005. So, let's call it about $200 billion in total liquids sales. ( BOE = Barrel of Oil Equivalent)

Let's assume $200/BOE in 2010, again ignoring costs, and let's assume an 8% annual decline rate in net exports. Saudi Arabia would export 6.1 mbpd in 2010, and let's call it $450 billion in total liquids sales (constant 2005 dollars).

So, a 33% decline in net exports would, with rising oil prices, yield a 125% increase in total liquids sales (again, constant 2005 dollars). I wonder what effect this would have on internal Saudi consumption?

In any case, the aggregate increase in total liquids consumption by the top five net exporters (half of net exports in 2006) was 5.5% from 2005 to 2006.

If you were in charge of the Saudi oil industry, would you confess that you can't increase production--and thereby encourage emergency conservation measures and efforts like Electrification Of Transportation--or would you constantly claim massive productive capacity, and thereby encourage energy consumption and discourage conservation and discourage alternative transport and energy options?

Edited to correct some numbers.