This is a terrific link, and another reason why the world can transition past Peak Demand, if oil stays above $60 a barrel. Especially note the section on biogas.
In 10 years, worldwide, the majority of farms will be using waste for energy (if oil stays up). Animal dung is big. Jatropha farms will be huge (especially if selective breeding increases yields).
Add new biofuels to plug-in hybrids, and what you see the world past Peak Demand. OPEC leaders recently have been wondering who can they sell their oil to in 10 years. Wonder well they should.
No discussion of fossil crude is complete without recognizing the role of price on demand. It is not inelastic. The role of price on supply is delayed for a decade, but on demand maybe five years or less.
There are real, perhaps intractable problems in the world, usually involving human behavior. How does one end wars, or solve the urban crime problem? These are problems.
Technical problems almost always get solved, even one where there are constraints. But energy is a fun one, as the solutions are so diverse. Any new source of supply, or any form of conservation, is part of the solution.
Cars can not only be lighter, they can be hybrids or plug-ins. They can run of bio-diesel, or ethanol. Animal dung need no longer be released into the air as methane, if can be turned into energy.
The Indians will be driving Tatas by the hundreds of thousands - but what if they are plug-ins, and India builds nukes? And India moves to a 20 percent biomix diesel (as they plan to)? Then what happens to fossil crude demand?

If this is the sort of forward thinking we can expect when the market signals 'tougher times ahead' via higher prices I say bring it on and ASAP.

Economists (much reviled on these pages) would tell you the mechanism that allows the market to sort everything out is the price signal. High prices will supposedly spur new investment and all will be well.
Of course many here would deride that opinion because you can't pump what isn't there, no matter how much you invest.
But that doesn't mean that high prices won't stimulate any positive developments. For one thing, high prices will stimulate the introduction of more fuel efficient cars. And if they are high enough for long enough the result will be a more fuel efficent fleet.
Of course some on these pages (if they notice my post at all) will complain that this can't possibly happen fast enough to make a difference, so it is irrelevent, and we should just start breeding horses now.

But come on. Maybe $60 oil won't result in the rapid introduction of lightweight plug-in serial hybrids. But how about $100 oil. Or $200 oil. Or $300? If you believe that we are post-peak and about to experience a rapid decline, then you must by definition believe that we will soon see shockingly high prices. In which case it logically follows that will be a shockingly fast move to improve fuel economy.
Alternatively, if you think prices will not go up dramatically any time soon, doesn't that imply that we do still have time to make significant improvements in efficiency?

The implication, to my way of thinking, is that the sooner prices go up, the better - it will spur the efficiency gains we so badly need to work on. And the less the national oil companies invest in infrastructure, the sooner high prices arrive.

So the biggest favour Russia and Venezuela can do for the world is to put all capacity and maintenance programs on the back burner and "go slow" with their production, in order to spur changes amongst their consumers. A little pain now is better than trauma later down the road.

If we are to believe in things we cannot see or touch, how do we tell the true belief from the false belief?