OPEC:
We in Opec do not subscribe to the peak-oil theory.

Acting Secretary General of Opec, Mohammed Barkindo
July 11, 2006

But then a subscription isn't required, as we will all receive complimentary copies, free of charge.

Oops, I have to add a comment. Recently I talked with gentleman that sells "substrate catalysts" to the petroleum refining industry. He spends much time in Venezuela, Texas, Russia, etc). I mentioned that global oil production seems to have little excess reserve capacity and that it appeared that peak production is either here or nearly so. He seemed surprised and apparently had never given a thought to such a possibilty. And he's in the business.

I hope to continue this coversation with him at a later date.

Dear Headingout,

Thanks for your sober assessment. I have a bit of trouble with 'sober' as tend to go dramatic, due to my line of work. There's an elegiac quality to your post which I find sympathetic, noble, and unfortunately, somewhat disturbing; not that it's your fault. It's just the realization of where we may be heading that dulls my natural optimism. We seem to be heading in the wrong direction at breakneck speed. Unless we're careful we'll squander precious resources on meaningless wars that will leave us in worse state than we were at the beginning. War as form of stupid suicide pact - ugh!

I have an uneasy feeling that by the time this whole story really breaks through into the public conciousness and becomes a real issue that's taken seriously; it may be too late to impliment effective remidial action. This is a pessimistic view, almost fatalistic, which doesn't help anyone. At times like these fatalism is curse.

On the other hand, it's not too late. I firmly believe this. However, I really think we have to frame the debate and challange of Peak Oil in a 'wartime' context. Not starting more armed conflicts, but rather, mobilizing the population for a great, active, national effort. That is, we have to put society on a footing similar to that that prevailed in the US during WW2 if we are going to stand a chance of tackling the challages we face. This of course implies a lot of sacrifice for the 'war effort', probably higher taxes to pay for necessary infra-structure projects and a move away from frivolous consumption or 'party capitalism' towards 'reform capitalism' where the vast resources of society are 'directed' towards longterm goals rather than rampant, frothy, consumerism. This is a much a cultural challange as anything else, and culture can change remarkably quickly in the right circumstances. However, it will require a standard of real, and imaginative, leadership which is currently in very short supply. Normally profound change in society requires decades to impliment and we don't have decades, which is why I personally am becoming an advocate for 'Revolution.'

Such a 'wartime' programme to deal with what will become a national emergency, is not utopia, it's perfectly attainable and has happened before. An American example is the New Deal. Capitalism wouldn't be completely overthrown, we haven't really got time to try anymore 'socialist' experiments with society or the economy, but we do need to direct and restrain the worst excesses of the market which have almost taken on a life of their own, and that was never meant to be. Surely we weren't meant to serve the interests of the market? The dogma is that it's supposed to be the other way around!

Even though I've stated that I think we need a 'revolution' this was mostly meant in the context of activating and organizing the masses to take back the streets, the political institutions and the country. I was talking about a political revolution which will lead to fundamental reform of the system along the lines I've mentioned above, rather than root and branch economic and social revolution. The risk is that a real revolution would simply muddy the waters and make thing even worse. Reform in time of virtual civil war might prove difficult. But we do need to divert substantial, lets say 90% of the current military budget, to purely civilian projects, this will be difficult to achieve. On the other hand it's difficult to think of anything more wasteful and useless than the current grossly inflated military budget. Diverting these resources to tackling our real problems could, potentially, work miracles.

I actually think I'm becoming a kind of revolutionary conservative, which seems like a bizarre contradiction. Only I really believe we have to 'conserve' what best in our society and change what has passed its usefulness. Let's keep market capitalism, but choose reform it, making it not just responsive to the consumer, but to the citizen as well. This of course implies a rejuvinated and redifined concept of citizenship.

But these kind of 'reforms' do mean going head to head with some very powerful vested interests who regard the current socio/economic model as non-negotiable and that business as usual can go on forever. We're currently in a situation that reminds me of pre-revolutionary France. The 'aristocracy' are increasingly becoming detached from the real world and the lifestyles of most citizens. Their isolation in a luxurious, dreamworld, in a kind of global palace of Versailles, is not only undermining their ability to rule effectively, it also makes them indifferent to the suffering of the 'peasants'. We need to begin the long march towards Versailles and force the aristocracy to engage and integrate once more with the rest of us, and the realities of the world, which despite their luxurious and privilidged lifestyles, they too are a part of. Change is in their objective interests too.

Business as usual will, I fear, lead to the destruction of 'business' and the rest of us along with it.

And another good named theory to go with these comments.

"Jeffery's Juxtaposition" (finally I found one for you-;))

1) peak (oil)discoveries
2) peak (oil)production
3) peak (oil)awareness

aka "Oh shit, We are running out of oil? How come no one warned me?"