Well, it doesn't really matter what I think, because prices will do the heavy lifting. Tar sands are not a new discovery. The only thing new about the tar sands is that they're a commercially viable source of supply, let alone what the IEA calls the world's third largest oil reserve.
At $20 a barrel, you can't give the stuff away. At $100 a barrel, it's the world's third largest oil reserve. The Orinoco is the world's largest oil reserve. That's Venezuela's tar sands. When oil was $20 a barrel, big bad Hugo Chavez had one of the most generous royalties in the world, and no one would touch the stuff because the resource wasn't economic.
What I'm saying is that the development of the tar sands, and for that matter any other hydrocarbon resource, whether we're talking the Bakken or we're talking deepwater, is going to be a function of price. The higher the price, the more oil we have.
The notion of peak oil is nonsense in a supply sense, because at $200 a barrel, we can produce six million barrels from the tar sands. The question is, can anybody afford to burn $200-a-barrel oil? I've written two books challenging the notion: can we even continue to grow at the pace that we've become accustomed to—let alone, Ms. Crockatt, at $200, or even at Brent being $105?
I think the answer here is that it's not governments that are going to decide, and it sure as hell isn't me who is going to decide. It's prices that are going to decide the pace of development.