In a news item posted here last week we asked if the just-published IEA's Medium Term Oil Market Report was essentially admitting that the peak in oil production had been reached. Our conclusion was that, although the report didn't say so directly, its evidence was pretty clear and that the report was admitting we were at peak.

This week the National Petroleum Council published the first public draft of their report (two years in the making) which received a significant amount of criticism from the peak oil community -- mainly complaints that since the NPC's makeup was largely petroleum industry executives that the report was skewed to support the industry's own contentions rather than the stark realities of the issue. It was billed as a case of the "fox guarding the hen house".

There have been significant analysis of the report in recent days by all sorts of players. And reading through them, the major complaints seem to be that the NPC report skirts the issue of peak oil and paints a rosier picture than is realistic. But what they have apparently actually reported is not so much unrealistic as it is vague. By presenting information that minimizes the focus on the "probable" reality and disperses the readers attention to a broader focus is a classic diversionary tactic, "Hey! Look over there!"

But here's the real "smoking gun". Buried deep in the bowels of the 450 page report is the following paragraph discussing the concept of peak oil, and how the NPC views it:

"Peak oil forecasts project that oil supply will not grow significantly beyond current production levels and therefore may not keep pace with projected global demand; a peak and decline in oil production is inevitable and may be near-at-hand. The conclusions lead to calls to develop additional resources to increase supply, accelerate the use of unconventional resources as substitutes for oil, and moderate demand in order to bridge the supply shortfalls. Such actions generally converge with the recommendation of this study."

Uh, oh.