I don't think people realise that the stated recoverable oil reserves is far from a definitive figure. The Energy Information Administration (an arm of the US Department of Energy that collates information to do with Energy) states that world energy consumption will increase by 54 percent by 2025. The EIA analysis is based on the assumption that the world's oil resource base is substantial and that it will not peak before 2037.

But where do they expect this increase in demand to be supplied from? Obviously it is OPEC - they have approxiamately 75% of the recoverable oil in the world. The problem is though that since August of 2004, OPEC began communicating that its members had little excess pumping capacity.

Not only that, but more importantly OPEC are liars. The EIA and companies like BP, Shell etc all produce reports on oil reserves that show that the member states of OPEC have considerable recoverable oil assets. The latest report from BP states that OPEC members have a combined 891 billion barrels of oil. Unfortunately that figure is vastly overstated. The troubling thing is that that number is treated as fact - this is where the increase in the world's oil supply is going to come from.

In the 1980's OPEC changed their export oil policy to one where the production quota was based upon the respective countries oil assets. This of course encouraged members to overstate their oil supplies so that they could export more. Have a look at this graph: http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=oilreserves4gf.jpg

Does something look a little fishy?

Should we - the global community, just put our faith in a cartel like OPEC when the ramifications are so dire?

What Winton and Grayson have neglected to point out is that the "known reserves" of oil have been in the order of 30 years supply for all of the past century. New ones were discovered and known ones became more viable with new technology as old ones were depleted. And, frankly, a spillover crowd at Byron is nothing more than evidence of a large number of people who are still lost in the last "oil shock".

We havn't even tickled the known reserves of shale oil and, local problems aside, these latest energy price rises have turned that once marginal resource into a very profitable one. The price increases also improve the viability of other energy resources like "hot rock" and wood for co-generation.

But it seems anxiety is God or nature's gift to the capable. It preoccupies the minds of the mediocre, leaving them transfixed and inactive, and out of the way of those who might actually solve a problem. It is a metaphor for Byron really, concentrating the idle and the vacuous in a place where they can only distract themselves.

Perseus - there are lots of people besides a few Byron Bay residents talking about the problem of peak oil - including plenty of investment bankers, oil industry people and military analysts. You are right about some people still being stuck in the 1970's oil shock (which was a politically and economically driven one rather than the physical suuply crunch we are now approaching) - unfortunately they are the people in denial about what is happening...

Shale oil is a Chimera - as the old saying from the 70's goes - shale oil is the energy source of the future - and it always will be. Pretty much every shale oil plant ever built has shut down once they realised the difficulties posed by the process (see the Queensland experience for the local example). The only company still trying is Shell - if you do some research into their process you'll find it is less than inspiring as something for the world to rely on.

As for hot rock and the like - sure, these can be handy ways to supplement the electricity supply, but they won't replace liquid fuels...

There is much comment that peak oil is imminent. Which is probably a good thing, if peak oil doesn't get us, climate change will. The best things we can do are consider our alternatives. The only reason we use oil for fuel is because it's transportable. The internal combustion engine, for all its complexity is hopelessly outclassed by most electric engines. How can we transport energy? Let me count the ways; batteries, hydrogen, compressed air, a wound-up spring... There are so many once you start looking, its only because people found a huge market for their oil, that cars became so popular. So lets go back and do it again properly. I'd love to see a car run off compressed air being plugged into a windmill..

Correction, Biggav, the shale oil plants closed down with oil at $25-$30 a barrel. And there is nothing like a doubling of price to open new doors to solutions. "Peak oil" discussions are a cliche, taking place every decade or two since 1905.

Check out www.bioenergyaustralia.org.au for the state of play in that field.

"The only reason we use oil for fuel is because it's transportable. "

Hazel,

WRONG!!

It's all about big business.

I can remember my Father who worked for Esso and was close to the Managing Director-an American, telling me 45 years ago that Standard Oil USA (Esso) bought patents from people who had invented ways to NOT use oil to power a car, Standard Oil then put these patents in the bottom draw and then simply "forgot" about them.

As a number of comments have already shown that there do exist viable alternatives, it is all about the "money interests" getting behind these proven ways of powering a vehicle. Toyota has already put their money where their mouth is on this issue.