Replies

"The author of the piece is *not* Exxon-Mobil, but a scarcity advocate who is latches onto a conservative estimate and makes it his only data point"

"I linked to the report and pointed out your error previously. Do you have a learning disability?"

Uh, no, you and the author of the article have a problem - selective reading. You linked to an article, not the Exxon mobil report. The article selectively took the pessimism from Exxon mobil, discounted the optimism, and came to their desired biased conclusion. Quoting from the article:

"The other way ExxonMobil believes demand will be satisfied is from vastly and rapidly increased OPEC production: "After 2010, the call on OPEC increases quickly, requiring OPEC to add more than 1 MBD [million barrels per day] of capacity every year," notes the Outlook. "OPEC's resources are large enough to achieve this rate of expansion, and we expect that investments will be made in a timely manner." "

So Exxon-Mobil *actually* is saying that production *can* increase, but the article author doesnt believe it.

Pity. He mentioned Iraq, but *didnt* mention that Iraq is one country that is producing at low rates (for obvious reasons) but has reserves that at current production levels could last almost 100 years!!

Yes, they definitely *could* and will increase oil production in Iraq at some point.

"Do you really believe that the authors who wrote the reports for ExxonMobil, the Administration, and the Wall St. investment house were unaware of tar sands and their economics?"

As noted in the article, their production contribution was understated, and there is a *reason* for this: Conventional oil production is CHEAP. Exxon-mobil is *actually* saying that between now and 2030, we will continue to be extracting cheap mideast oil as our main oil source.

Tar sands based oil production is more expensive ... and yet, thanks to OPEC, we spending more on oil than it costs to produce the cheap oil, and Saudi sheiks get the difference. Exxon-mobil knows that once oil goes back down to $20 (and it will), the tar sands are not economical.

Really, you cant have it both ways - you cannot say 'we are running out of oil' and assume the price will rise based on the scarcity of cheap sources of oil, while ignoring these other sources. Exxon mobil is *not* saying we are
running out of oil... on of their charts says: "Large oil resources exist" ... and shows where.

Our economy will do just *fine* having to spend $40 per barrel on oil. We've been there, done that.