http://www.reason.com/0605/fe.rb.peak.shtml
[linked from http://www.transterrestrial.com/]
Some selected quotes:
"The world consumes about 87 million barrels of oil per day, or nearly 30 billion barrels of oil per year. How much oil is left?
...
The USGS figures that the total world endowment of conventional oil resources is equivalent to about 5.9 trillion barrels of oil."

So if world consumption increased "on average" to 50 billion barrels per year, there is 100 years of oil. If world consumption increased on average to 100 billion barrels per year [fairly unrealistic] there is 50 year supply. If we stay at current rate there is about a two hundred year supply.

More quotes:
"Simmons argues that the Saudis and others are exaggerating what they have because the supply quotas set by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) were tied to the size of a country’s reserves—the bigger its reserves, the more oil it was permitted to sell."
But:
"Economides notes that the Saudis are investing $100 billion in new production projects, which undercuts the notion that they know they are running out of oil. "
More:
"What about the future? The International Energy Agency calculates that $3 trillion must be invested in oil production and refining facilities during the next 25 years to meet world demand in 2030. In principle that target could easily be met, since producing 1 trillion barrels at $30 per barrel yields $30 trillion in income over 25 years. "
More:
"The problem is that the vast majority of the world’s remaining oil reserves are not possessed by private enterprises. Seventy-seven percent of known reserves belong to government-owned companies. That means oil will be produced with all the efficiency associated with central planning. Michael Economides estimates, for example, that it will take $4 billion in investment to keep Venezuela’s oil production at current levels. Yet that country’s Castro-wannabe president, Hugo Chavez, is investing just half that."

So what do I think about this?
I think oil companies are investing a fair chunk of change in oil production. I think if the private sector in a free market environment could spend a 1/3 of these amount [1 trillion dollars over the same time period [up to 2025] and with this scale of investment could end up gettting a large percentage of our energy needs from Space development which included Solar Sats and with a further investment of say couple trillion over the following next 20 year period could get a majority of Global energy need from Space environment. But it wouldn't happen because NASA is too damn stupid. But maybe starting in a couple decades it will happen despite NASA.

What else do I think? I don't think we are not going to run out oil any time soon. AND the time period that we could run out oil is so far into the future and because it's so far in the future with all the potential technological advances possible that it's pretty much waste of time predicting the End Of Oil. BUT if we did run out of oil, we still have other ways of getting energy which could easily cheaper than what we are paying now [$60-70 per barrel] and these are for example the oil sands in Canada, the shale in US, and converting coal into oil [huge amounts everywhere].

What about all the CO2? Well, first I don't think it's a problem. BUT the emission of CO2 is not mostly about oil, it's mostly about coal. And energy is not all about cars, it's mostly about houses and industrial commerical use of electrical power. In other words a fairly large chunk of energy is used in lighting- and getting more efficent lighting is quite possible, and btw it would really nice if we directed lighting so we didn't have so much light pollution- that would be civilized. Anyways, using coal to generate electricity is the source of most CO2 emission related to energy production/use. With coal powerplants you can first make them more efficent, next make them cleaner, next capture the CO2- this particularly attractive when their is some value for large quanities of CO2- some US companies already do this because they use the CO2 to increase the productivity of oil wells. Point is there may be other uses and therefore value for capturing lots of CO2- an example might be enhancing the growing of plants- greenhouses are fairly obvious but if you could fiqure some way to use for bigger scale farming and it was worth the cost, this might work. In the meantime, increasing the number of nuclear powerplants would be fairly fast way to reduce CO2- and if done correctly could lower energy costs.