I note that Leanan has cited Nansen Saleri's piece on the op-ed pages of the WSJ. That is freely available. I think that the adage "you get what you pay for" applies.

What are the global resources in place? Estimates vary. But approximately six to eight trillion barrels each for conventional and unconventional oil resources (shale oil, tar sands, extra heavy oil) represent probable figures -- inclusive of future discoveries. As a matter of context, the globe has consumed only one out of a grand total of 12 to 16 trillion barrels underground. [emphasis added]

Even CERA has only been bandying around 3-4 trillion, and we've all been considering that to be quite incredible. This must not refer to the planet Earth that actually exists, but rather to the SciFi one with the hollow core filled with abiotic oil.

The impact of modern oil extraction techniques is already evident across the globe. Abqaiq and Ghawar, two of the flagship oil fields of Saudi Arabia, are well on their way to recover at least two out of three barrels underground -- in the process raising recovery expectations for the remainder of the Kingdom's oil assets, which account for one quarter of world reserves.

Why stop at 2 out of 3? Why not assume that they can recover it all? We are in fantasyland here, after all.

One thing you will not find at all in this ridiculous article is any recognition that there is such a thing as EROI. Just how much energy does he think those advanced recovery techniques are going to require? (Answer: he doesn't think, and that's the whole problem with this article.)

Great news! Mr Saleri calls $100+ oil just a near-term obstacle.. You guys at theoildrum.com can obviously close shop now and we can all continue happy motoring for many decades to come!

I don't know what sort of drugs Mr. Saleri is ingesting to come up with those resource numbers, but if it makes your vision go that rosy, we could just distribute some of that stuff to make the problem go away.

And I thought CERA was insanely optimistic......

Lots of Acid and cheap Vodka

If you sift through all the spin and homage to The Holy Market, Saleri's article actually was kind of interesting. He's tacitly admitting we are already past Peak Cheap Oil - basically his supply argument is that there's a lot more $100+ oil than there was $20- oil. And his projected consumption increases run from 0% (i.e. we're already at peak) to 2% per year; is he assuming slow global growth, or increased global conservation/efficiency? His projection actually sounds like a more optimistic version of Stuart's bumpy plateau: we're already at an inflection point, where continuous increases in production are no longer possible, but we can still grow supply at a much slower rate and at much higher prices for a while longer.

Who saw Peter Jackson's King Kong?

I laughed the whole way through, it was just so completely over the top.. I haven't even stopped to decide whether it was a good movie or not.. it just made me giddy, running down a ravine under the legs of some great, stampeding Saurpods, because that was the safest place to hide from the Marauding Allosaurs..

Can a market economy really get powered by giddiness? 'You say there's less?! Well now, I'll tell you how there's really MUCH, MUCH more!!' Wow, what a feeling I get, just saying that out loud!

I guess my take-away is that it's easier to print an article that basically says YES, than one that says NO. I could keep saying NO, and not get heard (there's a place in the world for the angry young man), or I could find the YES component on my side of the court. Back to that Kayaking analogy.. focus on the water you want to ride, not the rocks you are trying to avoid.

"There's no greatness without audacity." Oscar Wilde

Bob

The old adage about reserves not being the same as production capacity remains true.

There are some projects booked, but not completed that will dissapoint. A case of one Australian project that dissapointed was published by the U.S. EIA:

"In July 2006, Woodside brought online the Enfield project. However, while the project was planned to have reached 100,000 bbl/d, output peaked at just 74,000 bbl/d, before dropping to 10,000 bbl/d due to water and sand in one of the main wells. Woodside has estimated that production from Enfield will average 50,000 bbl/d throughout 2007."

Numerous projects are years late, over budget, and might not produce as much as planned. Some oil companies faced higher government taxes and tarrifs, derivatives losses, and rising production costs. Venezuela and Ecuador have been leaning more towards Marxist policies stiffling foreign investment there. It is probable nationalized oil holdings there might not be able to retain enough internal capital to generate investment needed for large scale expansions. These companies were being tapped as sources for funding everything else the people needed.

As one should beware of becoming biased, this is the other side of the Australian oil story from the United States EIA:

Australia produced more than 562,000 barrels of oil per day in 2006. (EIA)

"In 2008, BHP Billiton has plans to bring online its Stybarrow field (80,000 bbl/d), while Woodside is planning to bring its Vincent field (100,000 bbl/d) online. In addition to new projects, Santos increased production at its Mutineer-Exeter project by drilling the first of three new wells on the fields. The first well increased production by 20,000 bbl/d to 55,000 bbl/d. Once all three wells are drilled, the Mutineer-Exeter project is expected to have production levels between 70,000 bbl/d -90,000 bbl/d."

In addition to its bumper wheat crop Australia might see its oil position improve in the near future.

The WSJ (Wall Street Journal) has a Forum page for responses to the outrageous Saleri piece at http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=1638&
I encourage someone with more command of the facts than myself to submit a response there.

Question: Why is Mr. Saleri spreading such nonsense and misinformation? Who gains? All I can figure is that oil companies stock prices will remain high if investors don't understand that oil companies will be under stress to maintain production.

It all seems very similar to how tobacco companies attacked science on smoking, and then oil companies attacked the science on global warming.

Why? It is pretty well known that one thing the Saudis (and remember that Saleri worked (works?) for ARAMCO) really fear is that oil importing nations will get really serious about conservation and renewables, and thus permanently reduce the demand for and drive down the price of their exports. Thus, anything FUD they can spread to discourage investments from being made in renewables & conservation, so much the better for them.

In other words, this piece is pure propaganda & disinformation.

So much for the reputation of the paper that printed it.