In any event, however, our "leaders" (do we actually have any) could announce that either way, we must decrease our consumption for the indefinite future, because we will have less oil and because climate change mandates a decrease in the consumption of all forms of energy.

Also, in any event, this news just reiterates the fact that the world's producers have us by the gonads and we need more than some silly ass Bush vision of hydrogen and ethanol  savings said nads in twenty years.

We could start by cutting our defense budget in half -- the half that clearly isn't making a dime's worth of difference in our ability to influence world events.

The interesting points to me that stood out were,

Saudi Arabia seemed to not be at all caught off by the story and it's release, and

The dates given.  If the dates given are accurate, it would put the start time right about the period of the "Plauteau" as described by many who closely follow world oil production. (Stuart, Simmons and others)

We have to consider the possibility that the OPEC plauteau is very planned, and they knew they had the leverage on production again with North Sea in apparent genuine geological peak.

The main point being this, that no "production stats" can be considered reliable in indicating near term peak or no near term peak, all are equally suspect, because the production volume is being played with.  Thus, many months of dropping production would indicate absolutely nothing about the ability of the field or the nation to produce, and nothing about the geology, and instead be a part of the monopoly control being reexerted by certain big players.  This is how we were caught out so badly in the 1970's-80's, and those who said fuel was short worldwide and gas and oil would NEVER get cheaper were made fools of.

The FACT that still stands out:  WE THINK WE ARE RUNNING IN THE BLIND.  WE ARE RUNNING SO MUCH MORE IN THE BLIND THAN WE CAN EVEN KNOW, INDIVIDUAL PLANNING FOR THE WORST IS BECOMING THE ONLY SAFE WAY.

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

As I said above, from the exporter's point of view it is better to be hated than to be militarily occupied.  

If people truly believed that Peak Oil is at hand, they would implement ELP (Economize/Localize/Produce), and stop buying and financing large SUV's to travel long distances to large mortgages.  The auto/housing/finance industries would stop advertising, and many members of the MSM would be out of work.

By the way, I was interviewed at length by a reporter for a major paper (not one here in Texas) for a long article on where our oil comes from and on the pros and cons of Peak Oil.  From what he has told me, it looks like his editors are sitting on the story.  

This is community website focusing on "discussions about energy and our future". We talk about Peak Oil. Those of us who contribute make our case using the best methods at our disposal, through knowledge, data, theory and analysis.

There is no conceivable way that such controversial subjects are not going to attract some real whackos, wing nuts, crazies, call them what you want. I don't apologize for these people and I don't approve either. That's just the way it is. As far as the MSM goes, there will be great resistance until the tipping point has occurred. That said, I can only quote Alfred, Lord Tennyson.

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

Being still quite new to this I have been trying to politey point out the flaws in the whackos scaremongering stories. But it seems they have made up their mind about what the outcome is and peakoil is an excuse to rationalise it. I guess you are right that it is just how it is. I think from now on I will just pass over any of that BS. Some of you are really doing a great job.

I have a feeling that PO is starting to get more and more traction with the public.

Regards.

It's a low probability bet to get an actual recession out of the next two quarters, but growth is definitely slowing so your neck isn't so far out there.  After a Q1 real gdp of +5.6%, the consensus forecase Q2 of +3.1 % allows for a significant slowing, and Q3 numbers are already coming in lower, excepting jobless claims.  Negative numbers still seem a ways off though.....

Now at $10 a gallon, our friend will be shelling out $500 a week for his commute.  At a cost diffference of $350 a week for commuting (although his salary will have gone up with inflation, assuming he still has a job), that could make a difference.  But that would put the price of oil at about $250 a barrel.   So my own WAG is that an oil price of $250 a barrel is where things will start to get very hairy, but not at $4.50 a gallon (still less than the Europeans pay currently), which assumes an oil price of about $112.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85212/leonardo-maugeri/two-cheers-for-expensive-oil.htm l

Prices of crude oil are high these days not because oil reserves are waning -- in fact, they are plentiful -- but because inadequate refining capacity has limited the quantity of crude available on the world market.

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/06/saudi_oil_produ.html

In an interview after a meeting here of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Ali Naimi said other cartel members are having trouble finding buyers for all the crude they are producing, at a time when global stores are near full and many refiners have closed facilities for routine maintenance. One Saudi official said an estimated three million barrels a day of refining capacity is out of action and unable to process crude, at a time when the world is using some 84 million barrels a day of oil products like gasoline and jet fuel.

"It's not just heavy oil. Even light oil is having problems" finding buyers, Mr. Naimi said, referring to premium grades of crude known as light crude that are highly prized by refiners because they have high gasoline yields.

Asked if the kingdom was easing up on supply because of concern about the buildup of inventories in the U.S. and other importing countries, Mr. Naimi rejected such a motive, replying: "At $70 a barrel?" Mr. Naimi suggested that producers will sell all the oil they can at such high prices.

The shift in excuses from "we're pumping flat out but there's not enough refinery capacity" to "price fixing" happened within a very short space of time.  fishier and fishierer

Makes you wonder if Norway et al are going to have to mention the words Peak Oil in court to defend themselves. Also, having to admit that many big oil fields having falling production levels because they are passed their prime should help move the markets.

That someone would believe that they could successful sue [in a U.S. court and presumably recover from] what has always been a cartel [comprised of sovereign countries] operating outside the U.S. alleging price fixing and collusion [which is what cartels do] is beyond insane.

Here's some text from the December 2001 issue which seems to be at the heart of CBS's "news" report:

Apparently price and production agreements were made between OPEc and several other nations in 1999. Here is a list of old NYTimes articles, alas behind a pay wall, and one states:

Oil Countries Approve World Cutback of 3% By YOUSSEF M. IBRAHIM Eleven-member Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries quickly and easily reaches accord with Norway, Mexico, Russia and Oman to cut world oil output by 2.1 million barrels a day, or about 3 percent, for year, meeting, Vienna; expects accord, effective Apr 1, to push up oil prices to $17 to $18 a barrel from current $14 to $15 by summer; gasoline prices, which have risen in anticipation of cuts, could rise further 10 cents a gallon; table of planned cuts by nation

Does someone know more about this? At the very least it could mean that there is a possibility that it might be true.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chrn2002.html

and the "concern" about sub $17 oil is ummm... not really at the top of the list right now.

But folks love a good conspiracy theory:
"National Enquirer" circualtion: 2,760,000