It sounds to me like your point is nothing more than "I don't like Hummers", which even you ought to realize isn't a viable political viewpoint.
So what if it's big and unweidly? Who cares? Why does Lamborghini sell a $385,000 car that can do 220 MPH, when the highest speed limit anywhere in the US is maybe 75 MPH? Who needs to spend the price of two and a half pretty decent houses on a car that most people will only own so they can impress the valet at some trendy nightclub?
Who cares of the Hummer only gets 12mpg? They're a tiny fraction of all cars sold, and magically wiping every single one off the face of the map would have an effect on yearly fuel consumption so low it's basically zero.
As for the oil reserves, you need to do a little better reading- tar sands don't use "fracking". They use steam or heat to make it more pumpable. Fracking is the cracking of solid rock formations so that the liquid oil can better flow towards an extraction well.
And fracking is viable because it's not a constant process- a well is drilled, "fracked" to open up the flow, and then pumped. You don't have to frack as you pump or anything like that, it's a process used as the well is being drilled, and possibly again later, years down the road to boost flow again. Your rations for energy applied to energy extracted don't apply- or at least are badly incorrect.
And finally, there's this gem: While it will take a while to use all the 'easily available' oil, why reach that point sooner than necessary?
-It's quite simple; the world runs on oil. There is NO other energy source that can even hope to replace it, and without it, our very way of life collapses.
Yes, we can knock a few percentage points off with a hydroelectric dam or two, but virtually all the dammable rivers have already been dammed, and there's other environmental concerns with the rest (like fish spawning grounds.) We can put up more windmills, but for someone concerned that we only get three times the energy out of a unit of energy put into tar sands, you seem oddly unconcerned that a good many solar and wind installations are closer to 1:1, if not into the negative ranges, once you include the energy spent to mine and refine the copper, to wind the turbines, to forge and erect the stands, to lay the power cables, and while the while thing is idle, not generating a thing on a calm day.
But really, we have to have oil. There's no question, and there's no replacement. We can hope for maybe a fusion reactor in the future, but for the time being, we need oil. And to artificially reduce consumption (as in, with deliberate price spikes or engineered shortages) is to damage the global economy.
Which means it's far better to expand our supplies- especially considering how current estimates of reserves are expanding rather than shrinking- than to artificially reduce consumption.