There has been so much inaccurate twaddle talked about oil in the past that nobody is taking any notice. Bit like climate change alarmism.

You have to wonder if we will 'crack the ton' as all-liquids nudge 100 mbpd at 98.5m. Wasn't the IEA predicting 115 mbpd? I'm fairly sure the world has 2 bn or so people who would like to upgrade from donkey carts and scooters to 4 door cars, not Teslas but compact petrol vehicles. Therefore there is pent up demand for ever increasing fuel supply held back by lack of affordability. Young Westerners drive less but apparently they fly more. More mouths to feed globally means more tractor fuel, plastic packaging, distribution etc largely powered by oil.

I think we won't hear about the poor villagers not getting cars but the middle class will complain loudly about higher air fares and food prices. It's on the cards there could be a repeat of the 2008 oil price spike in the next decade. Our politicians fret over solar energy replacing coal but they don't seem to have a plan for another oil crisis. I believe Australia now imports most of its crude oil and over half its refined fuel. What could go wrong?

The wildly incorrect projections in demand by EIA are interesting. But, as other posters have noted, there is no real point in paying any attention to the article's own observations on demand as so much of this has proved wrong in the past, and there is no urgency now.

Oh we were taught in the 1970's there would be no oil by the turn of the century. They were the same Greens who predicted an ice and and have now switched to gw. Gives the getup clowns amunition to push their godless socialist agendas.

It should be easy to discredit no oil by the turn of the century. From 1970 to 2000 is thirty years. OPEC plans forty years in advance. I think you will find there is enough oil on hand without finding any more for the next 100 years.
Oil is causing nature to compromise it's activitys. As in the past volcanic activity caused dramatic changes in weather patterns, all caused bu the volumes of co2 pumped into the atmosphere.
This time the changing weather is caused by man using fossil fuels. So counting drops of oil does not matter. We need to leave it in the ground. Unless that happens we are continuing down the path of more severe weather events.

' So counting drops of oil does not matter. We need to leave it in the ground. '

I take it Doog you ride a pushbike everywhere or are you a like the Greens hypocrites of whom many who fly first class around the globe usually on tax payer funded money. What is causing far more damage around the globe than oil is the fools who have made electricity so expensive due to their very regressive gw beliefs.

I do fly often. But that is the norm since I was 25 years old. I do not fly ist class I just collect the difference between ist and cattle class.

I would not know what the greens have done to raise electricity prices. I think with some realism you may find it was the runt sitting on the backbench that had more to do with putting up pressure on electricity prices.

If you had a question for me I have failed to find it. At least I have said something, and not just ignore your dribble.

If oil was the only energy source or we couldn't use something else far far cleaner and cheaper than oil, we might have a peak!

Current oil prices have more to do with confected scarcity than lack of oil deposits!

Venezuela, has more oil than the Saudi's and the Edmonton reserve at an estimated 1.8 trillion barrels could depress prices further; as would the updating of Venezuela's prospects, refineries and wells!

It's not earning much now, given corruption and huge mismanagement, by a regime treating it as their personal ATM! And includes syphoning off operating capital?

We have copious gas and enough to power every mode of transport plying our highways and byways, which could be marginally altered to run on it for far far less! Reducing transport generated carbon by around 40% as the huge other upside!

But our coal fired geniuses at the helm thought, we could use it to ramp up, dig and sell it exports! Even at the cost of a manufacturing sector?

Have you ever seen such paucity of new ideas? Or idealogues waging grim ideological warfare to see which insane imperative wins the day?

If I were to step outside my door, fill a one cubic metre box with dirt. I could using simple gravity separation, extract enough ready to use thorium, around 8 grams? At a recovery cost in total of around $100.00.

Then use that 8 grams in a carbon free, walk away safe, molten salt thorium reactor, to power my house, car and provide all my material wants or needs for around 100 years!

Do the sums! That's just a dollar a year!

And we have enough in our dirt to power the world for around a thousand years and thousands more if we mine igneous rock!

And that is why there won't be an oil peak, unless our clever leaders conspire with oil producers to create one, or are so abysmally dumb as to sit on their hands as others do it to us? While they roll over and beg for a tummy rub!
Alan B.

ttbn# how much do you get paid for rubbishing peak oil and climate change?
Does it all come from the same place or do you have a group financing you?

There are signals about all this.
Major oil companies profits are falling, some quite dramatically.
The fall in income is due to increased cost of search and development.
Think about Shell's announcement that they are planning how they will
leave the oil industry and concentrate on natural gas.
Their return on search & development expenditure is at the centre of the problem.

The shale oil (tight oil) surge of recent years has started declining
but the economy driven reduction in demand has reduced concern.

As another commenter highlighted, Shell etc. are barely treading water nowadays, while Rockefeller Foundations (at least publicly visible) divest from Exxon Mobil, but under the guise of supporting renewables and the environment...

Peak Oil seems to have been about muddying the waters via the Club of Rome, along with theories or ideas developed about steady state economy, limits to growth, sustainability etc.

Of course the Club of Rome was sponsored by VW, Fiat etc. and hosted by, cough cough, the Rockefeller's, then with Standard Oil soon to become Exxon Mobil.

Along with green washing it also gave credibility to their obsessions with human biology, population control and immigration restrictions for younger generations, to be seen as 'liberal and environmental'.