OPEC in its World Oil Outlook 2007 uses a petroleum resource base estimate of Ultimately Recoverable Reserves (URR) from the US Geological Survey to forecast global oil supply out to 2030.

The opacity of global oil supply data and just how much oil can be counted as Proven (90-95 percent probability of recovery), Probable (50 percent) or Possible Reserves (5-10 percent) has heightened uncertainty and added impetus to the arguments of Peak Oil theorists and proponents.
Taken together with the sharp and sustained oil price rise, rapid industrial growth in places like China, India and other large developing countries, there has been a rapid rise in political prominence of climate change mitigation and greenhouse gas emissions reduction efforts and associated incentives to promote alternative, renewable energy sources. These developments have raised the uncertainty of demand for oil--and hence investment conditions--and put oil, and fossil fuel producers more generally, on the defensive.
Looking at it cynically, you might say that they can cry all the way to the bank, at least for some time to come.
According to Triplepundit.com, it would be unfair and inaccurate to paint such a picture, however. OPEC is a politically diverse group of 13 member countries whose charter precludes it from using oil as a political weapon. And though individual member’s approaches and goals for production targets vary widely, collectively it has been mindful of the organization’s leading role in the world oil and energy resource supply spectrum. Lately, OPEC is feeling somewhat victimized-Ðcertainly at least in the public eye--and underappreciated for its substantial and largely successful efforts to balance supply and demand and facilitate global economic growth and development over recent decades.
Hence, it has come out and announced its intention to make oil supply data, as well as its production and downstream refining and distribution investments, more transparent and public.
One main focus of this effort is Saudi Arabia’s sponsorship of the International Energy Forum, which endeavors to promote dialogue between oil producers and consumers through regular international meetings, and working to implement regular, standardized data gathering and reporting among OPEC’s 13 member states through the Joint Oil Data Initiative (JODI).
Has the Peak Been Reached?
OPEC in its World Oil Outlook 2007 uses a petroleum resource base estimate of Ultimately Recoverable Reserves (URR) from the US Geological Survey to forecast global oil supply out to 2030.
To further support its contention that potential the global supply of conventional and non-conventional sources of oil are sufficient to meet anticipated growing world energy demand through 2030 and beyond, the authors note that URR estimates have nearly “doubled since the early 1980s, from just 1,700 billion barrels to over 3,300 billion barrels, and it is probable that this upward revision process will continue.“
Moreover, they point out, “cumulative production during this period was less than one-third of the increase. In addition, these figures do not take into account the large resources of non-conventional oil.“
A growing contingent of skeptics begs to disagree. In an Oct. 29, 2007 interview, Sadad Al Husseini, the former head of production and exploration at Saudi Aramco, stated that global oil production had likely reached its peak in 2006. He went on to add that forecasts made by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and US Energy Information Administration that OPEC production can increase to more than 45 million barrels per day (Mb/d) are “quite unrealistic.“
The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) in its January 2008 newsletter forecast that a peak in world oil production-Ðincluding oil from non-conventional sources, such as tar sands, oil shale and synthetic, coal-to-liquid fuel-Ðwill occur in 2010.
Optimistic about industry and governments’ ability to bring alternative energy sources on-line in the longer run-Ðout to the dawn of the next millennium- Shell Oil’s chief executive Jeroen van der Veer nonetheless calls for a saner, more reasoned and cooperative, “Blueprints“ scenario alternative to a “Scramble“ for energy resources scenario in an employee memo that includes a pre-publication version of an editorial bound for the international media.
In the near- to medium-term van der Veer paints a stark picture of the current state of energy development, and related national and international policies and affairs. “Regardless of which route we choose, the world’s current predicament limits our maneuvering room. We are experiencing a step-change in the growth rate of energy demand due to population growth and economic development, and Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demandÉ
“As a result, society has no choice but to add other sources of energy--renewables, yes, but also more nuclear power and unconventional fossil fuels such as oil sands. Using more energy inevitably means emitting more CO2 at a time when climate change has become a critical global issue.“

In 2007, 100 megawatts of solar generating capacity were installed in California.

While interest in alternative energy is rising across the US, solar power especially is rising in California, the result of billions of dollars in investment and mountains of enthusiasm.
In recent months, the industry has added several thousand jobs in the production of solar energy cells and installation of solar panels on roofs. A spate of investment has also aimed at making solar power more efficient and less costly than natural gas and coal.
Entrepreneurs, academics and policymakers say this era’s solar industry is different from the one in the 1970s, when Jerry Brown, then the governor of California, invited derision for envisioning a future fueled by alternative energy, Azstarnet.com reported.
They point to companies like SolarCity, an installer of rooftop solar cells based in Foster City. Since its founding in 2006, it has grown to 215 workers and $29 million in annual sales. “It is hard to find installers,“ said Lyndon Rive, the chief executive.
“We’re at the stage where if we continue to grow at this pace, we won’t be able to sustain the growth.“
SunPower, which makes the silicon-based cells that turn sunlight into electricity, reported 2007 revenue of more than $775 million, more than triple its 2006 revenue. The company expects sales to top $1 billion this year.
Not coincidentally, three-quarters of US demand for solar comes from residents and companies in California.
“There is a real economy--multiple companies, all of which have the chance to be billion-dollar operators,“ said Daniel M. Kammen, a professor in the energy and resources group at the University of California at Berkeley. California, he says, is poised to be both the world’s next big solar market and its entrepreneurial center.
The question, Kammen says, is: “How can we make sure it’s not just green elite or green chic, and make it the basis for the economy?“
There also are huge challenges ahead, not the least of which is the continued dominance of fossil fuels. Solar represents less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the $3 trillion global energy market, leading some critics to suggest that the state is getting ahead of itself, as it did during the 1970s.
The optimists say a crucial difference this time is the participation of private-sector investors and innovators and emerging technologies. Eight of more than a dozen of the nation’s companies developing photovoltaic cells are based in California, and seven of those are in Silicon Valley.
Among the companies that academics and entrepreneurs believe could take the industry to a new level is Nanosolar, which recently started making photovoltaic cells in a 200,000-square-foot factory in San Jose. The company said the first 18 months of its capacity has already been booked for sales in Germany.
“They could absolutely transform the market if they make good on even a fraction of their goal for next year,“ Kammen said. “They’re not just a new entrant, but one of the biggest producers in the world.“
Many of the California companies are startups exploring exotic materials like copper indium gallium selenide, or CIGS, an alternative to the conventional crystalline silicon that is now the dominant technology.
The newcomers hope that CIGS, while less efficient than silicon, can be made far more cheaply than silicon-based cells.
In 2007, 100 megawatts of solar generating capacity was installed in California, about a 50 percent increase over 2006, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, a trade group.
That growth rate is likely to increase, in part because of ambitious new projects like the 177-megawatt solar thermal plant that Pacific Gas and Electric said last November it would build in San Luis Obispo.
The plant, which will generate power for more than 120,000 homes beginning in 2010, will be built by Ausra, a Palo Alto start-up.
The industry in California is also helped by state and local governments’ subsidies to stimulate demand. The subsidies have prompted a surge in private investment, led by venture capitalists.
In 2007, these seed investors put $654 million in 33 solar-related deals in California, up from $253 million in 16 deals in 2006, according to the Cleantech Group, which tracks investments in alternative energy.
“We’re just starting to see successful companies come out through the other end of that process,“ said Nancy C. Floyd, managing director at Nth Power, a venture capital firm that focuses on alternative energy. “And through innovation and volume, prices are coming down.“

A type of bacteria that helps termites digest wood could be key to making ethanol cheaply from wood and grass. ZeaChem, a startup based in Menlo Park, CA, has developed a process based on this bacteria that can produce 50 percent more ethanol from a given amount of biomass than conventional processes can.
The company has demonstrated the method in a laboratory setting and is now drawing up plans for an ethanol plant that will produce about two million gallons of ethanol a year, Technologyreview.com reported.
Construction could begin as early as this year, says Dan Verser, a founder and vice president of research and development at ZeaChem. It is one of a growing number of biofuel companies seeking to make ethanol from noncorn sources, since corn requires large amounts of land, water, and energy to grow.
The process improves yield by making more efficient use of biomass than conventional techniques do. It begins, as do other techniques for making ethanol, with breaking down biomass into sugars. At this point, conventional processes use yeast to ferment the sugars into ethanol.
But this process is wasteful: about a third of the carbon in the sugars never makes it into the fuel. Instead, it’s released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. ZeaChem replaces yeast with a type of bacteria called Moorella thermoacetica, which can be found in a number of places in nature, including termite guts and the ruminant of cows, where it helps break down grass. Instead of making ethanol and carbon dioxide, the bacteria convert sugars into a component of vinegar called acetic acid, a process that releases no carbon dioxide.
To convert acetic acid into ethanol, ZeaChem turns to chemistry. First, the company’s researchers convert the acid into a common solvent called ethyl acetate--something that chemists have long known how to do. The final step--making ethanol--requires adding energy to the system in the form of hydrogen.
To get the hydrogen, ZeaChem uses material left over from the process that converts biomass into sugars. This material, called lignin, can be converted into a hydrogen-rich mixture of gases by heating it up under the right conditions--a process called gasification.
The hydrogen is combined with ethyl acetate to make ethanol. The remaining gases in the mixture are fed back into the process to provide the energy needed for gasification, making use of material that otherwise would have gone to waste and eliminating the need to use fossil fuels. So far, the company has shown more than 40 percent better yield compared with conventional approaches, and it’s working toward a theoretically possible improvement of 50 percent.
“It’s a very innovative process,“ says James McMillan, a research scientist and group manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, in Golden, CO.
He says that it’s important to get as much ethanol from the feedstock as possible, since the final cost of ethanol depends heavily on the cost of feedstock. Although ZeaChem’s process is more complicated than methods used now, and building ethanol plants that use it will cost more, McMillan says that the improved yield could make up for these increased costs.