Yes well.

The bar graphs show it all, i.e. that oil discovery and production hit a peak around 1970, notably when Texas oil-fields went into decline, the US went off the gold standard and the petro-dollar was 'born'.

The key is "easily extracted oil" (and natural gas, for that matter), NOT what is potentially recoverable from old fields, or new fields in difficult locations.

Do you seriously imagine that oil companies would be deep sea drilling, if easier options still available?

Do you seriously imagine that the Iraq and Libya wars would have been fought, if there was still "easy oil" elsewhere?

Do you seriously imagine that Canadian tar sands would be being exploited, if it was still easy to obtain oil?

You do know, I assume, that it takes four barrels of oil/natural gas equivalent, to produce five barrels of oil from tar sands + incredible environmental damage.

Why would such extremities be gone to, if the peak of easy oil had not been passed?

I daresay that huge oil fields are in the Antarctic Continent, or deep int the Arctic seas, but pray tell how they are to be extracted easily?

Western, industrial civilization has been based on cheap energy - originally easy-coal; but latterly easy-oil ... with 'cheap' nuclear power rapidly proving to be a nightmare ... Fuc(k)ushima anyone?

Solar? A dead end of ineffiency and toxic solar panels to be disposed of after about 20 years.

Wind? A joke. The input of conventional sources of energy is massive; hence government subsidies. And the end result is, at best, about 15% efficiency.

Bio-fuels?

OK grow crops to convert to ethanol to fuel your car, but be prepared to starve when you have no bread on your table.

I have a lot of background in the relevant areas of knowledge.

Ian Crane seems to be limitted to just being "an oil industry executive".

Did he ever get his hands dirty?

I doubt it.

I have worked in many shit jobs - though once as a toolmaker and then as a teacher of woodwork, metalwork and technical drawing.

Thus I know that both Ian and Hereward do not have a clue.

Neither of them have ever worked outside (let's say) a bubble of academia.

@Gerald Clives Hanes - you are regurgitating the usual talking points of the peak oil believers which are underpinned by the malthusian/eugenics ideologies which have been and will be used to justify the extermination of millions. I am not exaggerating in the slightest - your ideology justifies mass murder, because eventually, as it unfolds, your viewpoint leads to conclusions that there just isn't enough (food,fuel,oxygen) go around and that we have to reduce the world population for the "greater good" and to save the planet.

Your argument is is not really an argument at all, rather a set of pretexts to facilitate what is already determined to be necessary - population reduction. The irony though is that this suicidal perspective on life which has been foisted on you by the oligarchy who consider themselves to be above it all is so eagerly and stupidly embraced.

Harsh words? Well, this is war mate!

cheers (:

The Malthusian side of the debate in the 19th century was fostered by the aristocracy to justify empire because the white people were a 'superior race'. Lesser humans were just to be conquered because they were inferior.....some didnt even exist.....Terra Nullius ....remember that concept? The left side of politics used to be against Malthusianism ......then came the club of rome etc.

Good Site this!

amazing how many view points exist. despite diatribe academia and sarcasm, how much is realistic? how long does the world truely have for fuel supply? and from there, like with fish ending commercially around 2050 guestimate world science, does the world start to invade and nuclear attack or threaten foreign countries say China on Japan?

Or, Iran on Europe so Bible prophecies state?

Who knows. I figure most people could use less petrol, walk more, use less technolgies which use oil to create products and own less?

it is a theory, a start but has anyone else got ideas?

solutions versus criticism friends!