On a list of oil consumption per country, Australia comes in at number 20 in the world, with many countries with a much larger population consuming much less.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=as&v=91

The biggest oil shale field in Australia (probably Stuart in QLD at 24 billion barrels of oil) could, at the most, meet Australia’s current rate of oil consumption per day, but the price of petrol from that oil shale is likely to be much higher than at present.

The costs of building and maintaining roads is also huge. I have recently seen 2 excavators, a grader, a roller, 3 trucks and about 10 men needed to repair 50 metres of washed out earthen drain beside a road. This took a day, and they have yet to actually fix the potholes in the bitumen.

Even at the present $1.50 per litre for petrol, Australia cannot afford it, and Australia simply has to reduce its rate of oil consumption.

l dont believe there is an oil shortage nor will there be any shortage within the next 100 years. l think we are being scammed by the Saudis and others. They maniplulate the price as they see fit. They let it climb as high as it will and when it falls thay sit back and wait till it climbs again. They are doing mighty fine and we in the West are suffering. Oil over $120.00 a barrel is a recession trigger - the world cannot afford to pay any more than 120.
What are we going to do about the price? Nothing because we in the West have got appallingly weak and pathetic.

Ah Leo Lane. The good old technology will solve all our woes response.

You stated that:

"Peak oil is another myth. You may not have noticed, but the technology in oil extraction is continually improving, to the point where old fields, from which oil was extracted under old technology are now being reworked."

I suggest you read the following article, written by a petroleum engineer. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4307.

Its sub title is "How can you double something and still have ten times less than you started with?"

Yes technology increases the amount that can be extracted but it is highly unlikely that it will be able to beat the geologic factors of depletion nor the above ground factors caused by politics, economics etc.

Technology, and our belief in technology, will in the long run cause far more problems than it solves.

Bazz and Leckos - fellas, what I and the other posters are saying is just not penetrating. You've half-responded to a point or two but otherwise you don't seem to have any counter-arguments.

I stand corected on one point, the IEA was stupid enough to make noises about peak oil last year. They have truely flipped. The Cambridge Energy Research Association statement would still trump it, if either were still relevent but they are not. In any case, in their original form the peak oil forecasts were only ever intended for easy-lift oil, not to signal the end of oil itself. No one but activists would dare forecast the end of oil itself. Just look at the huge estimates for unconventional oil for yourself, if you don't want to believe me - and, as I said, read up on "fracking".

In any case, the Brazilian fields alone are big enough that Brazil is wondering what it will do with the money (actually big resource finds are more of a curse than a blessing), and you're overlooking the obvious point that no-one suspected they were there previously. In fact the orignal peak oil forecasts were sure the limit of deep water extraction had already been reached. So why couldn't there be more? the Gulf of Mexico finds were orignally smallsih but they are getting bigger.

And you still have the problem of unconventional oil. Sure that might make oil more expensive but so what? People will pay more. Half the oil price at the pump is tax anyway.

Sorry, fellas, but the arguments have run out, and that's even before I repeated the stuff about OPEC. Peak oil is dead as a scare story. You'll have to live with oil.

Curmudgeon, the holes in your reasoning are on the same scale as the accuracy of CERAs Daniel Yergin's predictions on future oil prices. Enormous! (see: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3487)

There is no point arguing with you but what I will say is this. When I started studying our peak oil predicament in 2005 virtually no major organisation accepted the validity of the peak oil argument. Since that time however, particularly in the last 2-3 years, dozens of major organisations have changed their view. These organisations range from the US and German militaries, Macquarie Bank, Chatham House, some national governments and even the IEA has changed its position. There are still some organisations that deny/refute the argument but they are becoming fewer and fewer and their arguments less and less convincing (eg. CERA and the Energy Information Administration). Just have a look at the major customers of these organisations however and you could make an educated guess as to why their position hasn't changed.

I suggest that you do some actual research rather than just reading the headlines. For example compare the rosy predictions of production at the Thunder Horse project in the Gulf of Mexico versus actual production. Or look at the relationship between oil price spikes and recession.

Sorry Curmudgeon but your arguments sound to me like someone in serious denial about our predicament.

Hmmm ... try the plural.