Yes Curmudgeon I am aware that peak does not mean we have run out of oil.
There will probably, if we are wise enough, to have oil for plastics and fertilisers for a few hundred years.
That will mean we will have to stop burning it and the quickest way to achieve that will be
to get the price up too high for it to be used in transportation.

Well crude peaked in May 2005 and crude + condensates in June 2008.
I guess we can expect a few little peaks on the plateau.
The GFC was caused by the peaking of the oil price in 2008 when money
was paid out for food and petrol instead of mortgages.

It will be interesting to watch what happens later this year.

@Bazz

You might enjoy this paper on peak oil:

http://j.mp/aBq9ut

p.s: I gave up engaging Curmudgeon some time ago. I guess it isn't a bad idea to post corrections to his fallacies so they are the record, but trying to have a meaningful debate with him is a waste of time.

@DigDoug: Peak Oil will solve climate change.

No, it won't. There is about 500 giga tons of oil left in the ground including shale. (The figures are very approximate. The number of 0's is all that matters.) Turns out that is not enough to appreciably effect the climate. It is the 5000 giga tons of coal that will do the damage.

Rstuart is correct in that peak oil will not solve the climate problem.
We have already passed a number of tipping points, but the main one is political and ecomomic.
Too many vested interests want us to ignore the evidence that mitigation would not be a huge economic cost. For every job lost in oil and coal, 2 would be created in renewables. The issue is that instead of investors getting huge returns for their cash, workers would instead get some wages. One thing the Right has been very successful at is fooling people into believing high corporate profits at the expense of wages is a Good Thing.
Investment is required, and currently the only "investment" the Oligarchs are willing to make is in lobbying governments to protect their God given rights to profits from their parents technology. The "Base load myth", which assumes 20th century technology will still be used is alive and well too.
BTW. When nuclear is costed properly it doesn't compete with renewables, not by a long shot! Military "black" budgets are required to get all the expensive stuff so the "cost/benefit" can subsequently appear rational. Given that we don't have a nuclear cycle *anywhere* in the world that has actually costed the waste problem, it is simply not a good idea. (Hopefully China will get "Gen 5" reactors sussed, but we cannot afford to do the R&D). The preoccupation with nuclear is more North Korea style "we are a world power", and hence usually pushed by the power mongers (for whom "sending messages" is more important than thinking straight).
Nuclear can be justified by defence strategy... (big)maybe, but economically, not in any honest way.
Peak oil will arrive when alternatives are cheaper, but the industry will strive to protect itself well beyond that point. This explains the sheer rubbish that the media is reporting in the name of "balance".

Cstuart;
I just read the synopsis and 2014 looks pretty reasonable.
What is sometimes missed is that crude in May 2005 stopped increasing
and five years later is still about the same.
The crude + everything will continue around current levels for a while dragged out by the recession and
when people talk of the peak they are
thinking of the start down of depletion.
The peak looks like being 10 years long.
So the middle of the peak would be 2010. Exactly what Colin Campbell calculated.
Your figure of 5000 Gton of coal is not I think accurate at all.
The info I have here from Richards Heinberg's book Blackout is 963 Gton for the world.
Aus and NZ 79 Gton.
and of course a lot of that is poorer quality coal with a lot lower energy content.
For a long time there was no accurate measure of reserves.
I don't know if lower quality coal produces the same CO2 for BTU rating as anthracite.

I think things will get interesting around the end of this year.

@Bazz: Your figure of 5000 Gton of coal is not I think accurate at all. The info I have here from Richards Heinberg's book Blackout is 963 Gton for the world. Aus and NZ 79 Gton.

Well, I did a quick google of "world coal reserves", and guess what? Your 963 figure looks about right. I'll use that from now on.

If Wikipedia is right, that well know bunch of doomsayers, the EIA, is saying world coal production will hit a maximum in 2030. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_coal#World_peak_coal If the EIA is true to form, that would be an optimistic estimate.

And if that is right, you would have to think AGW is a non-issue. Strangely, the ETS might be the right solution for peak coal. Its major effect will be to pushing us towards non-carbon based energy sources. You have buckley's chance of getting if implemented if everybody decides AGW is a non-issue though.

Perhaps the simplest and clearest introduction to the idea of peak oil, and indeed peak everything can be found here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY