Ridge--
I agree entirely with Sunlight's comments. It's always possible to construct a complex conspiracy theory, but I can't believe it's working that way.

I'd beware of what is said, and not said. There are certainly many people who know more than they are saying. Bush and Cheney understand depletion, but will never mention it. Lord Browne of BP made news when he told the House of Commons that oil would stay above $40 for the forseeable future. It hardly seemed like news, with oil at about $55 at the time. But he was the first spokesman for a major oil company to utter a price above $30. Politicians and oil companies have a lot to lose if they start talking about high prices and difficult times

Sunlight's point about watching actions is very important. Ken Deffeyes makes the same point. In a macro sense, we see the oil industry preparing for a smaller future: reduced funds for exploration, no new refineries being built even though capacity is strained, tankers being retired faster than they are being replaced. This is a pretty strong signal.

At present, there are a lot of knowledgeable people, but we all need to decide who we believe. Do you agree with Simmons, or Yergin? We can't definitively prove that either one is right, or wrong--yet. So listen to the signals, and assemble a world view that makes sense to you. And TOD is a huge resource of worldwide brainpower applied to one context--it's distributed parallel processing at its best.

Many theories about conspiracy are like those about "intelligent design". Just because a pattern emerges from the chaos does not mean that the pattern was "designed" into being by some intelligent master. It may simply mean that current conditions favor the proliferation of that dominant pattern over randomly generated, but less successful other patterns.