We can make coal to liquid at 100$ a barrel. Sure, steep prices are up now, but so what? We can and will build more steel plants and more methanol plants.

I disagree about not having a gameplan.  We don't have one in so far as our government doesn't have a viable one.  But smaller energy players are ramping up.  The current level of oil prices are generating massive investment in solar and wind power.  We're also seeing other "alternatives" like oil sands and CTL, even ethanol, being looked into.  Hybrid automobile technology is opening up the door to electric cars when liquid fuels become scarce.  Then there's always nuclear.  

We have a lot of options on the table, and they are being fully explored now thanks to higher energy prices.  The problem isn't that we don't have a plan and we're not doing anything, the problem is we're still not doing enough.  The expansion of wind and solar power, combined with research into CTL, cleaner coal technology and, yes, even ethanol, give a lot of reason to be optimistic.  Not that there won't be problems, but clearly we have options other than complete societal collapse, which is what's important.  

I think a lot of the doomers here underestimate how quickly our society can change.  Compare 1900 to 1950 to 2000 and look at how different things are.  By 2050 things could be equally different, with trains everywhere and only a few, small electric cars.  

Will,

You have some interesting and very valid points, one in particular and I will come back to that, because I think it is so critical.

Using your numbering system, which makes a thought or two on each of your points so convenient, to your point

1. "The petroleum industry simply hasn't found large amounts of new oil in a long time."  To some extent true, but I don't know how hard they have been looking in a long time.  The searching methods you describe are relatively recent.  Through the 1980's and 1990's, we have to take their word for how much they have been searching.  With oil and gas at historic lows when inflation adjusted, and oil and gas flowing freely from the North Sea and Persian Gulf, why would they have spent vast amounts looking for it.  Do not be too surprised by some big finds if the price stays about $70 a barrel for very long. On the "Venezuela and Russia" point, we will see.  China once felt that way, as did Libya.  Going it alone is tough, even if you have oil and a very small home population.  Just ask Libya.

2.  Pickens and Simmons carry some weight given their long experience, and I think the phrase "the best years are behind us" on oil and gas may well be true.  This bodes for tough times, but is not proof of impending peak by itself.  But that is a strong argument to me.

3. I will get back to....It is big, but in a different way...

4.  M.E. in overshoot.  Yes, your are certainly correct on that one.  your sentence "The instability there will not be solved with "democracy". It is being resolved with war."  I would differ with that conclusion however....war doesn't seem to be resolving anything.  These are desert environments not suited for supporting massive numbers of very consumptive people.  Only extremely efficient and sustainable design will make it possible over the long haul, and population restrain.  But, this does not directly impinge on oil production, and in fact, only encourages these people to produce and sell as much oil as they can to support their populations.  The idea of the Arabs using the "embargo weapon" declines each day as they need the money more and more.

5. Is a philosophical discussion.  There are those who believe that a centralized energy program at the federal level could do more harm than good, as it would come under the sway of big money lobbies and persue not what worked best, but what was best lobbied for and paid for.  You mention what you call the "ludicrous" corn to ethanol program.  This is a perfect example of Archer Daniels Midland, General Motors, and the farm lobby getting an "energy program" that may be more consumptive than helpful.  

Now back to your points 3. the one I cosider "the biggie"., the "sinks" problem, in particular on GHG and the "resource depletion" concerning natural resources, biosphere, water, and plant/animal diversity.  I see these as somewhat seperate but yet related to the energy issue.  The fact is, there are many who consider these issues of far more pressing concern than peak oil itself.  Al Gore, who seems to understand the problem of peak oil, in recent remarks on the "David Letterman Show" said, even if we have the oil and other fossil fuel in more than enough abundance, we can't burn it due to the critical Greenhouse Gas issue!  If we accept that theory, then Peak Oil becomes a non-issue anyway.  Even if we find ten new Saudi Arabia's, we cannot burn the fuel, at least not unless we can squester the carbon release!

The carbon release issue poses a whole set of problems different than peak oil.  One writer phrased it as the attempt to get energy without releasing carbon, which essentially rules out most currently existing technology, with or without the fuel to make it run.  If we accept this paradigm as correct, then renewable energy (solar and wind), nuclear fusion, nuclear fission,  and carbon sequestering become the only technology of the day.  And one more thing:  Methane recapture from waste.  

Without carbon sequester, coal to liquid, gas to liquid, tar sand oil, Venesualan heavy oil, oil shale, peat bogs, etc. are all out of the question.

So to me, while different in nature than "peak oil",  it is your argument of the "sinks", in particular the carbon sinks, that carries the most weight, and tells us where we must make our first and most pressing effort.

But again, this is a considerably different nature of problem, and future scenario, than straight up "peak oil" and poses a whole differentt set of problems, some of them perhaps much more daunting to solve than straight ahead peak oil would be.

Either way, we know that conservation and efficient design are the sure ways to bring carbon release down now.  Solar, wind, methane recapture from waste, and use of natural gas and LPG Liquid Petroleum Gas or propane) and carbon sequester to make use of the remaining oil and coal and possibly some tar sand (although I don't hold out high hopes there).

You asked, "What substitutes do we have ready to come online within the next few years as it moves beyond $100 a barrel? None. We have none."

Well, at a $100 a barrel, oil is still relatively cheap, given the amount of energy it has per pound or per square foot.  But the replacement is looking more and more like the electric power grid.  The concept of the plug hybrid may be within two years per Toyota, and they know the hybrid business like nobody in the world. The idea of the "grid based transportation system" is far too radical to go into here (there have been many posts on TOD on it, including some of mine, and also, go check out
http://www.calcars.org

So my argument is still the same:  Peak could have been yesterday, but my bet is still "peak, al liquids" 2020, and a very radical change in transportation fueling (well, not just radical, but completely revolutionary....it will rock the transport/liquid fuel market to the core....:-),, and could in fact leave much oil in the ground, many OPEC and other producers reeling, and collapse in price of oil.  

Then, we attack the carbon sink!  
Thank you for a fascinating discussion!
Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

Will, I think your 5 points are an excellent summary of why we are likely to have very serious problems in the very near future (within 5 to 10 years). In a sense peak oil is not the 'real problem', although it is a very significant part of it. The whole model of developed human life, population, food production, industrialisation, economics and even the basic philosophy of our societies is looking unsustainable. For 'advanced' human societies to survive very major and fundamental changes in human behavior are likely to be needed, the probability is that significant disruption and destruction will be a necessary pre-requisite for such change to happen on sufficient scale.

I think that the recognition of climate change is steadily gaining traction. Much too slowly, true, but soon there should be sufficient significant events like increased extreme weather, summer melting of the Arctic ice cap, to foster the chance of at least some serious policy and behavior change. However, we'll not know if any positive changes we might make will be sufficient to avert catastrophic climate change until many decades later so, sadly, we will almost certainly do too little, too late.

I would add just one major point to your 5:

6. Our economic and financial systems will be extremely threatened. They will very likely breakdown significantly and quite possibly break almost completely. This will probably severely prejudice our ability to cope with the other problems.