This is a guest post by Phyllis Sladek. This post previously appeared in Energy Bulletin. The petition can also be found at Phyllis' blog.

Peak Oil: Our Need for Immediate Scientific Investigation – and Action

A growing number of international geologists and analysts warn of a looming catastrophe with the onset of the decline in the global supply of oil [1]. Likewise, reports by several federal agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, point to the need for immediate action, because the foreseeable impacts on our infrastructure and economy are without precedent [2].

Please sign our petition, calling on President Obama and Congress to direct an immediate scientific investigation by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

A few days ago, Federal Legislation was introduced to regulate Hydraulic Fracturing. Dow Jones Newswire reported:

Industry Warns Bill May Halt Natural Gas Development

U.S. lawmakers Tuesday unveiled a bill that industry warns could prevent development of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas by putting regulation of a key production technique under federal oversight.

It is unclear how much support the proposal could get in Congress or from the White House, but the oil and natural-gas industry has already geared up for a fight to oppose the provision given its potential impact on the sector.

The legislation would repeal an exemption for the process of "hydraulic fracturing" in the Safe Drinking Water Act that requires disclosure of the chemicals used the production process.

By forcing hydraulic water, sand and a small percentage of lubricating chemicals into unconventional types of reservoirs called tight sand and shale gas, companies are able to fracture underground rocks and release the trapped gas not traditionally accessible. States' offices, such as Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection, currently regulate the 60-year-old practice.

Introduction

An election commitment of the Rudd Labor Government was to develop an assessment of Australia’s future energy security. This resulted in the release of the National Energy Security Assessment (NESA) in March 2009. The liquid fuels section of the NESA was largely based on the findings of ACIL Tasman’s Liquid Fuel Vulnerability Assessment (LFVA).

Given the importance of liquid fuels to both the global and Australian economy, it is reasonable to expect that the Australian Government would provide a realistic appraisal of Australia’s future liquid fuels security. Both the LFVA and the NESA fail to address key questions resulting in a liquid fuels security assessment that is overly optimistic. This post will explore the key weaknesses of the NESA and LFVA and propose an alternate, more realistic assessment of Australia’s liquid fuels security.

This series on the Energy Policies put forward by the main parties running for the European Parliament moves on, leaving the heavyweights and bringing focus to smaller political groups. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) is the main political group at the centre, pretty much in between EPP-ED and PES. It is the major Liberal reference in Europe, as in the member states where it is represented.