Very interesting article. I had heard about Oil Peak before and that we were nearing it. Discuss.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3777413.stm

The world's reserves of oil will not dwindle until all of us are long gone. Even when they do dwindle, there will be enormous amounts of coal. In terms of fossil fuel reserves the world has 300+ years worth. This is a puny time period considering the millenia it took to create those reserves, but this time period puts finding energy alternatives on the shoulder of future generations as well as ourselves.

The issue isn't the availability of fossil fuels, it's the cost of them.

Let's look at it from a North American perspective.

Conventional oil reserves may have peaked and may be dwindling. By conventional, I mean Texas and Alberta wells, Gulf of Mexico production etc.

There are still huge reserves of frontier oil such as Alaska, Beaufort Sea and off-shore Eastern Canada. These are more expensive, and more environmentallly difficult to recover.

The largest North American oil reserves are in the tar sands in northern Alberta. Total reserves rival mid-East conventional oil. It is more expensive oil to recover, but commercial plants have been in operation since the 1960's.

The story is similar with natural gas. Most analysts feel that natural gas production has not peaked in conventional areas (I agree). Frontier areas such as Alasksa have huge reserves that cannot be economically brought to market. The cost of a pipeline to the lower 48 states would be about $10 billion. With rising energy prices, bringing this gas to market is feasible.

There are hundreds of years worth of coal reserves in conventional fields. The problem is environmental. Nevertheless, there are well-established technologies such as coal gasification that can produce gas, or even liquid oil products in an environmentally acceptable manner. Again, costs are higher.

So... will we run out of oil (or similar hydrocarbon fuels) anytime soon?... No.

Will we have to pay more for oil or similar fuels?... Yes.

Of course there will often be short-term shortages and surpluses. (e.g. 1970's oil crisis, 1990's natural gas bubble, 2004 fear of shortages due to problems in Russia and Iraq.)

As a minor aside, consider the economic problems of wind-power in North America. When I visited Germany a couple of years ago, wind-farms were evident throughout the country. The high cost of electricity made wind power a viable economic alternative. In North America, power prices are much cheaper. There are wind-farms, but they have to be subsidized. The capital cost of facilities cannot be economically recovered at today's price of electricity.

I think most people would agree that wind-power is environmentally more acceptable for generating power than burning fossil fuels.

Heh... I could write a book about energy issues, but I better stop.

Thicket, sounds like you're in the energy industry. I used to be a petroleum engineer and properties analyst with Shell Offshore, out of New Orleans, although was a couple of decades ago...:O

Does that factor in the former 3rd world countries developing at an astonishing pace and increasing their use of fossil fuels?

I would rather see them reduce the oil consumption and start using cleaner more efficient energy sources that is renewable, Ie solar power stuff like that. One of the things I used to see was on my way to California from Arizona, I would see the Windmills. And lots of em. I would rather see those than see a dam on a river. Say for instance the Salman of the Pacific Northwest are often dieing out in some rivers do to daming which closes off spawning grounds..... combine that with overfishing and you have a serious problem and one day they will be completely endangered if not extinct. And there goes a food source do to over consumption.

This is one of the things I hate.... it is cheaper to build a dam than it is to build a bunch of windmills and maintain them.

Don't forget about the birds. Seems some environmentalists don't like windmills because birds tend to fly into them and die. :(

Hehe no kidding Scirocco.

From the estimates I've seen, including known oil reserves and projected reasonable new finds, we have about 50 years left at current consumption rates. Coal longer than that (100-ish, depending on viability of extraction and environmental issues due to it) but that's not a suitable replacement given the severe environmental damage it can cause without expensive modifications to plants. Even fission fuels, uranium and the like, wont last forever. There's a lot of it, particularly in Australia, Canada and Russia, but even still, looking at 175-200 years at current consumption rates (that's not assuming we run out of coal/oil halfway through.)

This stuff isnt infinite and we are going through it at an astounding rate. Third world industrializing countries particularly want and need cheap sources of energy, and dont care where it comes from. Even if we, the industrialized modern countries, switch completely to renewable energy, we'll still have problems unless a very cheap alternative is found.

Hopefully, they'll get the efficiency of one of the styles of fusion reactors up over the limit and that'll be a viable alternative, allowing us to stretch various other sources for a much longer time. But the bottom line is that some day, maybe soon or maybe a couple hundred years from now, we're gonna have some real problems.

I am going to predict that oil will go back down to $35/bbl at some point.

Reading that article, what this guy says seems to be a bit like demagoguery. Price controls did not work in the 70's and they won't work on usage control. The world has many alternate forms of energy like coal or nuclear but environmental concerns seem to prohibit them... Wind and solar energy has high installation costs and the return is only about 5% on investment if the sun shines all the time/wind blows all the time before expenses like land tax. Power grids can't function with power spikes and that is the type of power that windmill/solar cells generate. This is not to say that a battery could not take the spike and discharge at a lower rate, over time.

The percent of a person's income going to energy may go up. This may become a reality. This increase in energy costs compensate for clean up of environmental effects or processing of farmed forms of energy like corn oil or alcohol.

I doubt that fusion will ever work and I think this is because that containing a reaction like the sun will prove unsuccesful with known materials. Possibly energy fields may allow for a fusion-like reaction but I think, if it is even possible, this type of reaction would have risks to nearby residents...

Foriegn oil pricing is chain yanking. Pure and simple. When they want to get our attention, they raise the price.

the year we reach our halfway point in total global oil reserve consumption:

3021.

the 'crisis' is all smoke and mirrors. We need clean energy, but there is no shortage. However, the time to start planning ahead is now - for our great-great-grandchildren's sakes - since they're the ones who will be living when we run out.

Not us. We'll be long gone.

Lol, that's rediculous... 1,000 more years of oil? I dont think so.

All of the official projections go in detail only until about 2025. Then there are some sketchy outlines to 2050. At that point, they tend to agree that although oil should be enough to get us that far, if we're still as dependent on it then as we are now, then there's going to be trouble, barring some sort of significant advances in extraction and refining techniques (not out of the realm of possibility, but keep in mind that even the vaunted oil sands of Canada is only a few years worth all by itself.)

You cant just *assume* that things will get better, that they will work out. Nobody's going to hold your hand and say, "Wouldnt it be nice if you thought about your personal energy use and conserved a bit?" You've got to make it happen, take responsibility for yourself and the future, and work to ensure that your (or someone else's) children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren arent screwed out of a future because you were too lazy to give a damn because "We'll be long gone."

Here is my opinion. Get out the flamethrowers....

It doesn't matter to me if we had 5000 years of oil left in this globe or 20. I think we should get off the oil as fast as possible. Its dirty, at the moment its such a high demand resource that we'd go to war over it or pay any price. Basically, those that have oil can control those that do not.

Yea we should. But let me remind you that plastic also comes out from Oil. What new material will we be using for containers, for medical supplies, and for everyday life since we're so used to using plastic? /shrug

What new material will we be using for containers, for medical supplies, and for everyday life since we're so used to using plastic?

Renewables, recyclables, all sorts of stuff. Anyone know what happened to the German experiment in cutting packing to the minimum?

Renewables, recyclables, all sorts of stuff. Anyone know what happened to the German experiment in cutting packing to the minimum?
I guess you are right, but do we have any guarantee that recycling will last forever? At least I think it will give up some time to come up with something new.

Tiane, you're wrong.

Go to science magazine online, and do a search for "oil age". the latest oficial estimates are we will run halfway out of world oil reserves in 3021. I dont make this stuff up.

Renewables, recyclables, all sorts of stuff. Anyone know what happened to the German experiment in cutting packing to the minimum?Recyclables? Did you know that most recyclable items are never recycled even though they are often more salable because they CAN be recycled? Recycling takes a lot of money and recycling plants! Some items that can be recycled won't be because the nearest plant is across the country. A lot of communitues don't have the wherewithall to collect recyclable items and those that do often ignore specific recyclables because there isn't a plant that accommodates that type of material nearby.

I remember several years back when there was a huge uproar from the environmentalists about McD serving coffee in Styro cups. They were so concerned because a byproduct of the manufacturing of styrofoam is a MINISCULE amount of CFCs. So McD, always willing to do what their customers want so that they maintain their empire changed to paper cups. Oooooo environmentalists were so happy! The irony of the whole situation was that EVERY cup that served coffee now had to go into a landfill because it COULD NOT BE RECYCLED. Yes, it was paper, but it was plastic coated and I am not sure whether the technology has changed today (I truly doubt it since recycling isn't a mega bucks profitible enterprise), but plastic and paper when bonded together can't be seperated for recycling. And if you think about all the coffees McD serves just in a day, that's a LOT of landfill. Sidenote: Styrofoam is one of the easiest and cheapest plastics to recycle. It's now used to make such items as garden furniture, stadium seats, fencing materials, decking materials, baby strollers and toys and TONS more.


Anyway, the above is a tanget so let me jump back on the oil topic....
As long as petroleum is the cheapest available, it will remain the primary source of energy. Third world countries can't afford better and the industrialized countries won't.

How about you link me since you are the one purporting different figures than are commonly accepted, and I mean to a credible relatively unbiased source, not one of these "science magazines" or a mouthpiece for the oil people. The only people I can find saying there's "plenty of oil" are the oil and gas industries who have a vested interest in wanting people to continue to use it. Dont bother quoting some tinfoil hat report, there's a number of them floating around the web and they're all disregarded by the scientific community because of the overwhelming mountain of evidence to the contrary.

As far as the latest "official estimate", there's no such thing, but as far as widely accepted, the IEA doesnt release their 2004 report until October. (You can download the 2000 one here (http://www.iea.org/Textbase/publications/newfreedetail2.asp?F_PUBS_ID=497). However it doesnt look beyond 2020.) Here's a CNN story (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/02/global.warming/) predicting an even earlier peak in 2010. Here's a more reasonable one from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3590137.stm) that points out the difficulty of any such estimates, but that up to 100 years is about as far as can reasonably be expected. And the Wall Street Journal reports "At current rates of production, there were 40.6 years of consumption covered by proven reserves in 2002, the latest data available, according to the Wall Street Journal." (no link cause it's on a subscriber page.. I found it quoted elsewhere on CNN.) Even the best estimates assume that Canada's huge oil reserves will open up and be harvested easily, ignoring the huge difficulties of not just the weather in the north atlantic, but the technological difficulty and high cost of getting the oil out of the oil sands. Remember, I live here so I hear more about the vaunted Canadian oil reserves than those of you who live elsewhere probably do. And no matter whether you believe that there's 1 billion or 500 billion barrels worth of oil yet undiscovererd, there's the problem that come 2010 or so we'll be using 100 million barrels of oil per day. 500 billion barrels is 5000 days (14 years) at that point...

Not to mention that its ridiculous to predict anything 1,000 years in advance, we have no idea what kind of civilization will be here, let alone what they will need for energy productin.

BTW not all plastics require oil to make anymore. There are plenty of 100% synthetic materials these days.

I'm not sure why you are so opposed to recylcing Arienne. It's not vastly efficient, it uses up energy, and requires effort from all sorts of people. So what? Like everything else in a capitalist society, when it becomes economically viable it'll happen, even if governments don't promote it. Remember that if you don't have to recycle the rubbish you have to dump it, and in some places we're running out of space for that too. Shipping barges of waste around the world is one of the more stupid things human beings do. Instead of exploiting third world resources through imperialism we now send them first world garbage through capitalism.

I wouldn't blame environmentalists for McDonalds using the wrong sort of paper by the way. It's easier just to blame McDonalds.

I'm not sure why you are so opposed to recylcing Arienne.um....huh? I'm not at all against recycling. I have no idea HOW you arrived at that conclusion. But to call it a cure-all is like telling the fat guy to simply lay off sugar and he'll get thin.

I wouldn't blame environmentalists for McDonalds using the wrong sort of paper by the way. It's easier just to blame McDonalds.Oh, and you can't put a hot drink in an uncoated cup. There is no RIGHT kind of paper (if you mean recyclable) for a hot drink. If you read what I posted you will see that the environmentalists were up in arms about styrofoam being used because a byproduct of it's production is CFCs. The environmentalists shot themselves in the foot and didn't even know enough about the "right" alternatives to see it.

The environmentalists shot themselves in the foot and didn't even know enough about the "right" alternatives to see it.

It's not their fault if they ask the right questions but someone else produces the wrong answers.

Tiane -
How about you link me since you are the one purporting different figures than are commonly accepted, and I mean to a credible relatively unbiased source, not one of these "science magazines" or a mouthpiece for the oil people.
Are you JOKING?

I said "Science" - as in, one of the to two peer-reviewed publication on scientific matters worldwide. There is no more reliable source for a consensus on scientific information. Choosing BBC or CNN over Science, on such matters, is like asking a random guy on the street for medical advice, and then going against your doctors advice because of what the random guy told you.

The link: Click me (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/304/5674/1114?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&titleabstract=oil+age&searchid=1094230440071_6973&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=9/30/2004)

It may require registration. In case it does, below is the entire text.
Science, Vol 304, Issue 5674, 1114-1115 , 21 May 2004
Oil: Never Cry Wolf--Why the Petroleum Age Is Far from over
Leonardo Maugeri*
After World War I, the United States was shaken by predictions of the exhaustion of domestic oil. Even the head of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)--among many others--delivered a verdict of gloom in 1919: The country would run out of oil within 9 years! (1) Facing mounting hysteria, President Coolidge set up the Federal Oil Conservation Board in 1924, to draft legislation to preserve national resources. After the conversion of Great Britain's naval fleet from coal to oil in 1914, the UK also feared that it would be vulnerable to oil shortages and moved to secure its grip on the Persian Gulf. These cycles of hysteria followed by new bonanzas have continued to the present. Thus, it is not surprising that a new wave of "oil doomsters" predicting imminent petroleum scarcity has gained momentum (2-4).

The worst effect of this recurring oil panic is that it has driven Western political circles toward oil imperialism and attempts to assert direct or indirect control over oil-producing regions. Yet the world is not running out of oil, and catastrophic views fail to take into account the complex reality that will allow reliance on abundant supplies for years to come.



The Hubbert curve (United States). Bbl, billion (109) barrels.

The current model of oil doomsters is derived from K. M. Hubbert (5). The model is conceptually simple, but based on several assumptions. The first is that the geological structure of our planet is well known and thoroughly explored, so that discovery of unknown oil fields is highly improbable. Second, to resolve problems connected with erratic distribution and production from thousands of oil fields and uncertainty of future discoveries, production is assumed to follow the "Central Limit Theorem" from statistics. This theorem states that the sum of a large number of erratic variables tends to follow a normal distribution and assumes a bell-shaped curve (see figure above).
Starting from zero, production grows over time until it peaks when half of the recoverable resources have been extracted ("midpoint depletion"). Then, production irreversibly declines at the same rate at which it grew. The area under the curve shows the cumulative production of an oil field or the "ultimate recoverable resources" (URR) it holds and their life-span.

Accordingly, to forecast Earth's URR, one needs to process worldwide production and discovery trends and geological data. In 1956, Hubbert accurately predicted the peak oil production point of the U.S. lower 48 states.

The Hubbert curves do not delineate the complex and dynamic nature of oil production and reserves in the world, because they are the product of a static model that puts an unjustifiable faith in geology and does not consider technology and cost/price functions. The model's success in predicting U.S. peak production merely reflected the peculiar nature of this area, which is the most intensively explored and exploited in the world. Elsewhere, the pattern of production is not rendered by a bell curve but is marked by large discontinuities (see figure, below).



Historical behavior of oil production in Egypt (16).

Using different versions of the Hubbert model, several geologists have made predictions in the last 20 years of an imminent crisis in oil availability that subsequently had to be revised. The most eminent among them is C. Campbell, who predicted that 1989 was the year of "peak" production (6). The estimates have been increasing steadily (see table, below).

SELECTED UPWARD REVISIONS IN PETROLEUM URR ESTIMATES
Petroleum URR (Bbl) (year)
Hubbert Campbell USGS)
1350 (1969) 1578 (1989) 1796 (1987)
2000 (1973) 1650 (1990) 2079 (1991)
1750 (1995) 2272 (1994)
1800 (1996) 3021 (2000)
1950 (2002)


Before looking at the real-world situation in more depth, it is necessary to clear up some points, beginning with the distinction between "resource" and "reserve." The former indicates the overall stock of a mineral in physical terms, without any associated economic value and/or estimation of its likelihood of being extracted. In other words, there may be large quantities that can never be used because of the high cost or the impossibility of recovery, as in the case of the gold dispersed in the oceans. The concept of "reserves"--like that of "recoverable resources"--involves an economic assessment of the possibility of producing a part of the overall resources. In the oil sector, there are additional definitions--the most important being that of "proven reserves," which include only those that can be economically produced and marketed at the present time according to existing technologies and demand. Nearly all of the estimates of the world's oil URR, including those by oil doomsters, do not take into account the so-called "nonconventional oils"--such as Canadian tar-sands and Venezuelan and Russian heavy oils--even though the availability of these resources is huge and the costs of extraction falling.

Although hydrocarbon resources are irrefutably finite, no one knows just how finite. Oil is trapped in porous subsurface rocks, which makes it difficult to estimate how much oil there is and how much can be effectively extracted. Some areas are still relatively unexplored or have been poorly analyzed. Moreover, knowledge of in-ground oil resources increases dramatically as an oil reservoir is exploited.

For example, the Kern River field was discovered in California in 1899. Calculations in 1942 suggested that 54 million barrels remained. However, in 1942 "...after [43] years of depletion, 'remaining' reserves were 54 million barrels. But in the next [44] years, it produced not 54 but 736 million barrels, and it had another 970 million barrels 'remaining' in 1986. The field had not changed, but knowledge had...." (7). This is but one of hundreds of cases reported in oil-related literature that underscore the inherently dynamic nature of oil reserves. As Klett and Schmoker have recently demonstrated, from 1981 to 1996 the estimated volume of oil in 186 well-known giant fields in the world [>0.5 billion (109) barrels (Bbl) of oil, discovered before 1981] increased from 617 to 777 Bbl without new discoveries (8). Indeed, many studies have proved the phenomenon of "reserve growth"--i.e., that "additions to proven recoverable volumes are usually greater than subtractions" (8). This occurs because of four fundamental elements: technology, price, political decisions, and better knowledge of existing fields--the last of these being possible only through effective and intensive drilling.

We anticipate that this trend will continue. Consider, for example, the most recently discovered oil frontier in the world, Kazakhstan, and its major finding--the gigantic Kashagan field. Geological estimates about the general area around Kashagan (the Kazakh North Caspian Sea Shelf) have existed for decades, but they only indicated the possibility of hydrocarbon deposits. After the first advanced geological appraisal was conducted by international oil companies in the second half of the 1990s, the area was deemed to hold between 2 and 4 Bbl. In 2002, after completion of only two exploration and two appraisal wells in the Kashagan field, estimates were officially raised to 7 to 9 Bbl of producible reserves. In February 2004, after four more exploration wells in the area, they were raised again to 13 Bbl. This is only the beginning, because this area spans over 5500 sq km, and six exploration wells are a modest indicator of future potential. Moreover, there are many other oil fields yet to be explored in this area (including Kairan, Aktote, and Kalamkas), that have a geological structure similar to that of Kashagan.

Thanks to new exploration, drilling, and recovery technology, the worldwide finding and development cost per barrel of oil equivalent (boe) has dramatically declined over the last 20 years, from an average of about $21 in 1979-81 to under $6 in 1997-99 (in 2001 dollars) (9). At the same time, the recovery rate from world oil fields has increased from about 22% in 1980 to 35% today. All these factors partly explain why the life-index of world reserves (gauged as the ratio between proven oil reserves and current production) has constantly improved, passing from 20 years in 1948 to 35 years in 1972 and reaching about 40 years in 2003. Today, all major sources estimate that proven world oil reserves exceed 1 trillion (1012) barrels, while yearly consumption is about 28 billion barrels (10-13). Overall, the world retains more than 3 trillion barrels of recoverable oil resources (14).

Critics could note that new oil discoveries are only replacing one-fourth of what the world consumes every year (following a declining trend that began in the mid-1960s), and that increases in reserves largely derive from upward revisions of existing stock. However, the real issue is that neither major producing countries nor publicly traded oil companies are keen to invest money in substantial exploration campaigns. The countries richest in oil have minimized their oil investments during the last 20 years, mainly for fear of creating a permanent excess capacity such as that which provoked the crisis in 1986 (when oil prices plummeted to below $10/bbl). In fact, countries such as Saudi Arabia or Iraq (which together hold about 35% of the world's proven reserves of oil) produce petroleum only from a few old fields, although they have discovered but not developed more than 50 new fields each. Moreover, in countries closed to foreign investments, the technologies and techniques used are, in most cases, obsolete.

Nevertheless, international public oil companies have faced two sets of limits to their expansion in the last 20 years. The first is inaccessibility to foreign investment in the largest and cheapest reserves--those in the Persian Gulf. Second are the demands of financial markets, which for years have insisted that companies provide unrealistic, short-term financial returns that are inconsistent with the long-term nature of oil investments. This has compelled private operators to reject opportunities that would normally be deemed economically worthwhile. This financial pressure partly explains recent proven reserve downgrading by some oil companies, starting with the amazing cuts announced by the "supergiant" Shell Group (15). Indeed, this Anglo-Dutch oil company has not lost its resources. This picture has nothing to do with physical scarcity of oil.

The Age of Coal began when declining supplies of wood in Great Britain caused its price to climb. Two centuries later, oil took the place of coal as "the king of energy sources" because of its convenience and its high flexibility in many applications, but coal was neither exhausted nor scarce. Oil substitution is simply a matter of cost and public needs, not of scarcity. To "cry wolf" over the availability of oil has the sole effect of perpetuating a misguided obsession with oil security and control that is already rooted in Western public opinion--an obsession that historically has invariably led to bad political decisions.

References and Notes


D. Yergin, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power (Simon & Schuster, New York, 1991), p. 194.
"The end of the oil age," The Economist, 23 October 2003, pp. 11, 61-63.
D. Goodstein, Out of Gas--The End of the Age of Oil (Norton, New York, 2004).
Deutsche Bank, "Hubbert's pique," Global Energy Wire, June 2003.
K. M. Hubbert, "Nuclear energy and the fossil fuels," in Drilling and Production Practice series (American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, 1956).
C. Campbell, Oil Price Leap in the Early Nineties (Noroil, Kingston-upon-Thames, UK, 1989).
M. Adelman, The Genie Out of the Bottle (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995).
T. R. Klett, J. W. Schmoker, AAPG Memoir No. 78, 107 (2003).
International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2001 Insights (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development/IEA, Paris, France, 2001).
Oil Gas J. (December 2002).
Eni--World Oil and Gas Review (May 2003).
BP's Statistical Review of World Energy 2003 (British Petroleum, London, June 2003).
World Oil (August 2003).
USGS, World Petroleum Assessment 2000 (USGS, Washington, DC, 2000).
PIW (Petrol. Intell. Wkly.), 19 January 2004.
M. A. Adelman, M. C. Lynch, Natural Gas Supply to 2100 (International Gas Union, Hoersholm, Denmark, 2002).

Something doesn't smell right.

Science is a reputable publication. I read the article, and while acknowledging that it deals with an uncertain topic, it was entirely reasonable. For those parts I'm familiar with, I agree with the observations. (Yes, I know the intricate details of proven, probable and possible oil reserve predictions.)

The problem is that I can't reconcile that article with predictions that half of the world's oil will be used up by 3021. To say that this prediction is a 'stretch' is an understatement. I wonder if that prediction has the same pedigree as the article you quoted.

I'm not saying that the 3021 is wrong... but then, sometimes wild-assed guesses turn out to be correct.

The point of the 3021 estimate was that these estimates have been consistently rising. Three different methods for making the estimate were presented, and all 3 have consistently risen over time.

My guess is that by the time 3000 rolls around, and the 1000 year odl predictions are saying we only have 21 years of oil left til the halfway mark - my guess is that, by that time, the estimates will ahve risen again.

Theres a lot of oil left - thats the main point. the year 3021 is not so important; the consistent increases in these estimates are.

I realize you didnt write it, but I'll point out some issues anyway.

Nearly all of the estimates of the world's oil URR, including those by oil doomsters, do not take into account the so-called "nonconventional oils"--such as Canadian tar-sands and Venezuelan and Russian heavy oils--even though the availability of these resources is huge and the costs of extraction falling.
That's not true. Pretty much every study I read, including the IEA's reports, the USGS estimates, and Natural Resources Canada, all include the "big" new oil deposits and the oil sands. In fact the IEA's esitmates of Russian oil say that yes, production will go up over the next 20-ish years and peak then decline.

Secondly, the 3021 figure, depsite being a joke of an estimate, comes from a list of estimates done by one person that this writer is trying to disprove. To then use that very same single person as a source of future "facts" is bizarre and just bad logic heh.

"We anticipate that this trend will continue" and then sites one single example, without noting all the associated problems with trying to get at that particular oil site, not to mention the technological and financial hurdles of extracting it. He just assumes that it'll work out in the best possible way heh.

Also, this Leonardo Maughen seems to be unfindable (via my admittedly casual searches just now) as a source, nor can I find any mention of him in my former university's library as having written anything else. This paper is a lot of opinion, quotes one person's questionable facts, derides them, then proceeds to say that now they are better because they fit more into line with the writer's agenda. That's not just bad writing, thats bad "science."

Today, all major sources estimate that proven world oil reserves exceed 1 trillion (1012) barrels, while yearly consumption is about 28 billion barrels (10-13). Overall, the world retains more than 3 trillion barrels of recoverable oil resources (14).

Even if those estimates are accurate (when most agree that such estimates are by their very nature very difficult to make), that's still, assuming maximum extraction, and no rise in consumption (both bad assumptions, the IEA estimates closer to 36 billion barrels per year very soon), merely 107 years.