I want to get this thread off to a good start, so here goes.

There are two ways of looking at peak oil, and they are
  1. Economics (markets) and technology will always save us
  2. Geology (recoverable reserves) and EROEI (unconventional sources) work against us
Not to mention "above-ground" political turmoil. Now, "Why is it, then, that the petroleum industry, so technically dependent, is the industry with the smallest R & D spending?"

Because the writing is on the wall and the petroleum industry has read it. It is door #2, not door #1, given the choices above.

Say what you will, but I have read one fantasy article after another about tar sands, CTL, GTL, oil shales, Venezuelan heavy sour crude, God Knows what, that's gonna make all our dreams come true. When it comes right down to it, you know what, it's going to come down to places like the Gulf of Guinea (West Africa) where they are doing deep sea drilling to get as much light sweet crude (~65%) of the 24 billion barrels of oil reserves there. Sakhalin II (was due in 2006, 1 billion barrels reserves) is now delayed. You get the idea. That's it. That's all there is. Look at the figures, year by year as they come out. Look at the market prices. Eventually, these will reflect reality.
"Economics (markets) and technology will always save us"

Huh?  Who believes this?  I'm one of the decoder-ring-wearing members of the Economists Club hereabouts, and *I* sure as hell don't believe it.  You can find people who say that markets will save us this time, but I doubt you can find anyone with more than 3 gray cells to rub together who says literally that markets "will always save us".

But that nit aside, I think the only rational way to look at our situation is to take the biggest view possible.  That means recognizing the absolute limits dictated by geology, plus the contributions of technological advancement, markets (meaning economics and market psychology), and public policy.  Dismissing any one of those four is a recipe for error.

But I think you've got it exactly right about why R&D is so low.  Honestly, does anyone think it's a coincidence that almost all parts of the worldwide infrastructure are stretched tight as a piano wire, all at the same time?  If the oil industry decision makers didn't know what was coming you'd expect to see one major bottleneck, not the series of them we have now.

IMO, this is a good thing, as it causes the onset of higher prices a little earlier, and will actually soften the blow by delaying the peak and accelerating the transition away from oil.  Will it be enough of an effect to make a major difference and save us from some human and economic pain?  Who the heck knows, but I prefer our chances with the early price rise to our chances without it.

Well, Lou, I had in mind "Freakonomics" author Steve Levitt and technology evangelist Michael Lynch and others (Yergin) who I have read...

Not you....
Also, I have both a Greenspan secret decoder ring and also, I believe, a Yergin secret decoder ring at this point ... don't screw with me :)
And specifically, these kind of "disruptions" mean that the peak is smoothed out. The ideal situation is that much mitigation is began so far in advance to render the peak a non-event. Unfortunately that doesn't look like its going to be the case (and frankly it seems like we need the wake up call to deal with some other pressing issues-like how much we're screwing up the ecosystem), but the slower the depletion rate, the better off we'll be as far as societal collapse goes (the poor will suffer more of course...). I must point out I'm taking this excellent analysis from an article posted here titled "4%, 11% who cares" several days ago.
http://alteng.blogspot.com/

"In reality, Peak oil will be a non-event. As oil becomes more expensive, new technologies will compete with oil and naturally replace it in our economy."