The ability to build fossil fuel extraction infrastructure is already a bottleneck. Retooling and retraining takes time even when it is extremely profitable. This means that extremely large resources at great depths in the sea or in very remote areas or in forms that needs lots of processing like Canadian tar sands wont matter much in the short and medium term. And what will the effects of the accelerated CO2 emissions be?

There is an awful lot of "ifs" and "coulds" in those links. But no "when" and "how".

Don't belive the hype.

You can find estimates online that only 1% of the Bakken oil is technically recoverable. Hey, doubling that using an amazing feat of unknown technology would give you 2% recoverable oil.

Now, asking the pros on The Oil Drum: Is a 100 000 barrels of total production from a single well good? Not per day. Total lifetime of well. I don't think so. A pretty normal offshore well produces 10 000 barrels per day, not for ten days, but for a few years. just goes to show how difficult it will be to produce Bakken. Can anyone spell "rig count"?

What is not widely understood is that the USA is quickly being surpassed by China as the #1 consumer marketplace. At current rates, Chinese auto sales will surpass USA auto sales in three years. USA stats like GDP can be manipulated indefinitely, but it appears that China will eventually become by far the largest market for every product or commodity. The conclusion is that lowered demand in the USA will increasingly become irrelevant to global commodity demand, year by year.

This claim that the United States can exploit its own oil and gas resources to power 60 million cars and heat 160 million houses for the next 60 years is indeed bold.

Not really. A better word would be "irrelevant".

60 million cars sounds like a lot, until you realize that there are 250 million cars in the US. So if somebody's talking about a wholly arbitrary number like 60 million, you should be curious about what their agenda is.

At 250 million cars, that 60 years is down to 14, which doesn't sound quite as impressive.

Much the same sleight of hand is being done with their natural gas figure. 160 million households sounds like a lot - and it is - until you realize that households consume only 1/3 of natural gas in the US.

Is it true, does humanity have many generations to slowly perfect beyonf fossil fuel energy sources?

Probably not, but neither is it likely the process will take many generations. The requisite technologies are advanced enough that a changeover within a generation is entirely possible, with a few small exceptions (air and possibly sea travel).

The rising cost of oil raises the cost of everything else eventually and that includes the cost of new oil wells. $200 bbl will not open up enormous new supplies of petroleum but will lead to enormous political demand for investment in renewables and energy efficiency. Investment in a wind farm has a greater chance of providing energy to the market than poking new holes in the ground. There is a very small window of opportunity that exists before these increased costs kick in. That is why we shouldn't wait for the economics to be right before making substantial investments in alternatives to fossil fuels. The size of the need is so large that it will take decades to adapt to the shortfall in oil supply and waiting for the market to decide how and when to change will only make things worse.

Simple answer is no it does not, main reason, these formations will all kick in very likely after the world peak so the problem will be there an all they will do is offset some declines elsewhere. The main reason is in the media and in many energy organizations there is a lack of understanding between a "flow" and a "stock." These formations all will have a proportionally very small rate of production compared to the reserves which are not anything amazing. It's akin to two 8 years olds sucking milk out of cartons, 1 has a coffee straw and the other a giant super straw. These reserves are like the kid with the coffee straw. Not even the super optimistic EIA and IEA think we have anywhere close to 60 years of BAU.

Given your background in military I like to ask do that "strategies to achieve level-off of the world's population" include martyring a few million in regions of high oil reserves?

Biomass just doesn't make much sense on almost any level currently.

I agree with you there. It do not make any sense anyway. Feeding human and animal food to cars is purely an evil act.

This claim that the United States can exploit its own oil and gas resources to power 60 million cars and heat 160 million houses for the next 60 years is indeed bold.

If there was anyway to meet the domestic demands of oil in usa domestically after usa's peak oil and especially after oil price increases of 1979 usa would have done that given the deepened cold war period and the volatile years of late 1970s and early 1980s. When usa was not able to do so 25 years ago it can't do that now when usa production has declined further and rest-of-the-world's demand has increased a lot.

I think we can have a rough estimate of world's fossil fuel reserves by estimating carbon di oxide percentage in air before fossil fuel production has started.

What say the best minds on TOD...does increased demand (and even more so, increased price, say above $200/barrel) unlock enormous new supplies, while simultaneously restraining demand growth? Is it true, does humanity have many generations to slowly perfect beyonf fossil fuel energy sources?

If there is any such region where a major discovery of oil reserves is expected then the usa army would have established its military basis over there already. Right now usa army is using its energy and prestige in iraq and caspian sea area so that seems like the place with greatest existing oil reserves.