If you want numbers, take a look at my response to an earlier post of yours (
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/when-should-we-pursue-energy-transition/159) entitled "World oil reserves are NOT decreasing". Using CIA figures, reserves between 2005 and 2011 have hardly changed, even after six years of global oil use.
You make artificial distinctions about type of hydrocarbon, reserves versus production, etc. So what if bitumen takes more energy to process than crude oil? The real issue is dollars and cents, not chemistry. Around 1850 you might have argued that kerosene is not the same as whale oil, therefore we will not be able to light our lamps. Such a distinction would have been ridiculous, and the similar distinction you make now is also ridiculous.
We can hope that similar to what electricity did for lighting in the late 19th century, a new technology will come along that will ultimately make hydrocarbons obsolete. No such technology is now economically feasible, despite our best efforts. Trying to make artificial distinctions and pretending that somehow the "unconventional" hydrocarbon products we are already putting into our gas tanks somehow don't work is silly.
