So it would be the right thing to keep trying to educate people on the issue, but if we really were fighting a concerted attempt by "the powers that be", including the main stream media, then what would be the right strategy?  

Personally, I am pessimistic that our society will do much of anything in anticipation of this coming crisis, so I'll look at this as just another test of my opinion.  Didn't Matt Simmons participate in Cheney's energy policy?  From this and most of the actions, clearly they know about peak oil.  If letting the public in on the idea was something they wanted, it could have happened long ago. And if that line of reasoning is logical, then clearly these types of tactics should show up as soon as the issue gains any public traction.  

So my conclusion is that is the swift boat stuff is happening, then we know at once that PO is real, that a certain group does not want it to be publicized, and we know who that group is.  

However, if PO is real (and I am afraid it is, but I hope it is not), then no amount of rhetoric will solve it.

There is a big difference between Swift-Boat-lookalike-talk about policts on one hand, and Swift-boat-lookalike-talk about PO. The biggest one being: The price of Gas and or NG.

Pity is though that talks like this influences people and keep them from taking action. Although even that is not as strong as I would have guessed: SUV sales are down significantly (al-be-it for multiple reasons)

The poll numbers suggest they will succeed. The recent Pew Poll showed that 57% of the public feels that energy is more important than the environment.

I myself have become very interested in the question of how and where petroleum formed and have an open enough mind to allow for the possibility that oil may have been formed in a manner different from that described in geology textbooks.  However, and this is the thing that is so hard to explain to people with zero technical background, whether oil was formed from living matter or abiotically has little if any bearing on the issue of declining production and the difficulty in extracting a viscous liquid from a  marginally porous rock formation several miles deep.

A main argument of the abiotic proponents is that established petroleum geologists have been so indoctrinated by the biotic theory that they restrict their explorations to sedimentary formations consistent with that theory and refrain from exploring those formations consistent with the abiotic theory. In short, they are saying that we simply aren't looking in the right places.

While this can easily be refuted by a knowlegable petroleum geologist, the discussion gets very technical and that's where you lose the attention of the general public.

I fear these arguments are going to become less technical and more ideological and political.  The public will be pursuaded by the party that has the best rhetorical skills and the best PR instincts. Unfortunately, petroleum geologists aren't famous for either.

Everytime we start to address the issues these crackpots raise we give them some credibility.  Best to ignore them in my opinion.  As opposed to the "intelligent design" question, Peak Oil is going to prove itself (or not) in a relatively short period of time, and the crackpots will be standing around without clothes in a blizzard.  

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051115/sc_nm/energy_australia_dc;_ylt=Al0Rbl38937X2CSncDTt_WIhANEA;_ylu =X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Regardless of whether this particular one would work, to those paying only casual attention, the message from the constant parade of stories is clear - "don't worry, technology will save us".  As this fits with what most people already believe, it will be hard to counter.

Sedimentary rock is far away the best rock type for migrating oil, accumulating it and trapping it. There are some exceptions, but 99.99% of the time, even these igneous traps have their fractures filled with sand (sedimentary) or other rock.

Most igneous rock is incapable of developing sufficient sealing mechanisms to trap large accumulations. Outside of cracks, there is very little permeability to igneous rocks. Volcanic breccia and pumice have porosity, but little permeability unless incorporated into some type of metamorphic. Sedimentary rock, with it's planar nature, is much more effective at generating traps and allowing accumulation of oil or gas.

We WISH that oil and gas were abiotic - that would mean we have only scratched the surface. But the weight of science, in particular respects Shell's success at generating oil in-situ from source rocks, is behind a biogenic origin for both oil and gas.  The inability of igneous rock to retain hydrocarbons or allow migration without loss points to sedimentary basins as the best prospecting zones, regardless of origin.

Sometimes, there is justice in life. Well done Mike.

Even if the abiotic theory turns out to be correct, subsurface oil, regardless of whether it is biotic or abiotic, is still subject to some serious very mass transfer constraints in getting from 'way down there' to 'way up here' in anything shorter than a geologic time scale. Those gazillions of barrels of abiotic oil ain't going to do us any good if it finally  migrates up to the surface 10 million years from now.

Based on my experience in the environmental field dealing with shallow subsurface ground water contamination, I am amazed at how many people, some with advance business degrees, are completely ignorant of even the most basic principles of geology and ground water. Some think that ground water comes from underground pools or flowing streams rather than from porous formations. So, it is well not to underestimate the uphill battle one will encounter in trying to answer the popular abiotic argument with real facts.

If people really want to believe something, facts will seldom get in the way.

One of my pet peeves.

I then described alternatives to oil and NG, particularly tar sands, oil shale and hydrogen, and their comparative EROEI and effectiveness for transportation.  Having kept up with TOD helped me toss around names and facts in a most impressive fashion. I closed by urging us all to pay more attention to our LEED certification and to be prepared for the changing needs of our clients.

There were a few startled faces among the younger folk, but the partners seemed well aware of the issues.  One mentioned a client that had nixed the initial cost of geothermal, but calculated a five-year payback after Katrina and Rita.  Other clients now find LPG too expensive for heating.  In any case, no one jumped on a table to shout about abiotic oil, or denounce me as an environmental wacko, so that is a good sign.

1.  The supposed geochemical processes that generate abiotic oil--have they ever been observed?  Does anyone even know what they are?

2.  The rate of generation.  We consume close to 31GB/year; if consumption grows at an annual average of 2%/year for the next century, that consumption will top 200GB/year at that time.  Can we really count on the earth ramping up production of abiotic oil just because we consume more and more of it?  Do we even know the current rate of generation, assuming that such generation is really taking place?  Unless the earth automatically generates more oil to keep pace with our consumption, we can still find ourselves with a major oil-supply problem even if oil turns out to be abiotic.

3.  The rhythm of generation.  How do we know that oil generation is constant?  What if it occurs in spurts?  Perhaps every barrel in the planet's crust is indeed of abiogenic origin, and it was all generated in one spurt that ended 1,000 years ago--with the next spurt of generation not to begin for 50, 100, or 500 years, if ever.  Even if all the oil in our "proven" reserves is abiotic, how do we know that the earth will always continue to produce it, just because modern techno-in dustrial-capitalist civilization consumes it in Brobdingnagian quantities?  Where do we get off thinking that nature must generate ever-increasing quantities of resources just because we need them? Such thinking is not the hallmark of a rational, intelligent species but of an immature and selfish one.  

This quote is pretty funny really.
The real reason they are becoming energy independent?
They use plants.

From LA Times

"Today about 40% of all the fuel that Brazilians pump into their vehicles is ethanol, known here as alcohol, compared with about 3% in the United States. No other nation is using ethanol on such a vast scale. The change wasn't easy or cheap. But 30 years later, Brazil is reaping the return on its investment in energy security while the U.S. writes checks for $50-a-barrel foreign oil."

PNAC, writings of Strauss, and Bush-Cheney energy plan.
Of important note is said energy plan. Created between people in power, oil execs, and people who knew of peak oil, this document is classified despite the freedom of information act. The administration has fought very hard to prevent the contents of this document from being known.
Also, of critical importance is the Dollar-Euro battle and the role oil plays in this. (I cannot emphasize this enough)
If the U.S. wants to maintain 'Dollar hegemony' then the world must use oil, and it must be traded in terms of Dollars.
Ok, now I'm on a tangent. Basically the way I see it there are two paths. One natural market forces to do what they may, peak oil, economic decline whatever. The world will stop using the Dollar and the U.S. economy will collapse due to tremendous debt.
Two: (This is the path Bush and the neocons are taking) Ensure the world continues to use oil (and subsequently the Dollar). Fight like hell against anyone who wants to move away from the Dollar (Iraq, Iran). Keep the demand for oil strong for as long as possible (If countries can use alternative energy sources they have less need for oil, and subsequently the Dollar). The real fight is to keep the world addicted to oil; peak oil is just a nasty side effect, one which their current policy does not have the foresight to solve.