I think you are a bit reckless, or perhaps discounting the "extra-systemic" influences. If the oil demand-supply system remained more or less the same as it were in the 1970s and 1980s i.e. the US and to lesser extent Europe and Japan being the main consumer and the Middle East, esp. Saudi Arabia the main supplier with a significant capacity to increase production on demand - then indeed it would be a very safe debt.
However, the demand side changed quite substantially. China, with a sixth of the world population used to be a negligible oil consumer - its transportation system running mainly on coal (steam locomotives, etc.) which China has ample supply, electricity (public transit in the cities) and human muscles (bicycles).
But that situation is changing quite dramatically as China is entering the world markets. Suffice it to say if car ownership per capita in China reaches 25% of that in the US, that alone would double the gas demand of the United States for a very simple reason - there would be as many cars and trucks in China as there are now in the US. Add to it factors like much lower fuel efficiency of these cars, demand for energy from the expanding mfg sector (much of which is met by diesel-powered generators) and that demand can easily more than double vis a vis that of the US within the next ten or so years.
The same applies to sub-Saharan Africa which has no alternative to cars and trucks transportation system, albeit it grows at much slower than China rate. But again, even is moderate growth occurs there, the global oil demand structure is likely to change.
Of course, it is safe to bet that the demand in the US will increase in the next ten years for a very simple reason - American are too lazy and chicken-shit scared to use public transit, where they have to share the space with people looking different then them, and too stupid to resist industry propaganda that equates big cars with success http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3666160.stm.
Add to it growing suburban sprawl that will not only create even greater demand for gas-guzzling cars, but also for oil-based heating systems. Why oil based heating? Because natural gas cannot be easily and cheaply delivered to remote locations, and electricity is way too expensive to heat shoddily constructed suburban "mansions."
Now the supply factors. The only country that can substantially increase the level of oil production above the current level is Saudi Arabia and perhaps Iraq - everyone else pumps almost at its peak capacity. Iraq will probably be unable to substantially increase production without political stabilization and rebuilding its infrastructure, which is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.
That leaves only Saudi Arabia. Now, if I were a smart terrorist who wants to hurt the infidels really bad I would forget about flying airplanes into buildings or blowing up trains. This may kill a few hundred people, and create a big spectacle stirring the Arab testosterone level, but otherwise has a negligible economic impact. On the other hand, blowing up a few oil production facilities in Saudi Arabia will easily set the price of crude at $82 or higher - and that will hurt the SUV-driving American fatheads quite a bit. That is not very likely, sine the terrorist are on the oil sheiks' payroll and are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds them, but that may change when the oil sheiks renege on their payments under the American pressure.
So to summarize, there is a non-trivial possibility that the oil demand structure can change substantially in the foreseeable future without the matching increases in supply. That is bound to send the oil prices to the sky.
As far as new technologies of extracting oil form hitherto marginal oil sources are concerned - possible, but costly. Those who develop and implement them will need to recoup that higher cost from the consumers.
So in sum, your bet does not seem very safe. I'd say that you have only about 50/50 chance of winning it. Still better than playing the lottery, though.
Wojtek