From EB:

Energy crisis imminent: the U.S. Department of Energy refused to comment on its own hypothesis
Matthieu Auzanneau , Oil Man (blog), Le Monde
Must we run into a wall in order to recognize that there is one?
---
Neither the Energy Secretary Steven Chu, nor any official in the Department of Energy (DoE) U.S. wished to respond to the possibility of a fall in global oil production starting 2011. The hypothesis had been made by the principle DoE analyst in an exclusive interview.

It took 14 days for the DoE press office to decide not to answer me ...

According to the article published here on March 23, Glen Sweetnam, head of economic analysis within the DoE admitted that "there is a chance that we may experience a decline" in world liquid fuels between 2011 and 2015 if investments are lacking.

... An official in the DoE testimony said, under cover of anonymity:

1 - Steven Chu cannot challenge Sweetnam's analysis, seeing as Sweetnam is his main analyst, 2 - Chu also does not comment, since responding to a forecast so laden with consequences would be to recognize the strength of it, and could trigger a financial panic. So 3 - the DoE responds with a "no comment". It's crazy, but they have no choice!

... My report has been widely copied on the Internet. But so far, only the Guardian and the Financial Times have cited it. Le Monde itself (which hosts this blog) up to now prefers to keep its distance.

A supply crisis would have dire consequences (as demonstrated by the riots that took place when a barrel of crude oil reached almost $ 150 in 2008). ...
(21 April 2010)

French version: Choc pétrolier imminent : le département de l’énergie US refuse de commenter sa propre hypothèse

How can Dr. Stephen Chu not be aware of peak oil? If he knows, then how can the Obama administration not know? In recent disaster movies, American presidents have justified hiding the news about impending doom from the public in the name of preventing panic and death. If the Obama administration believes that peak oil news would cripple the recovery of the economy, how can it believe that the economy can actually recover in the first place, if peak oil is upon us? How can it justify adding to the Federal deficit? Maybe the Obama administration is praying that the consequences of peak oil won't actually be experienced until Barack Hussein Obama has finished his sojourn at the White House.

Are we talking about criminal negligence? Malfeasance? Even if they believe a cover-up is justified (or nothing can be done at this stage to mitigate peak oil), they can still be guilty of malfeasance because they should have put in every effort possible to deal with the problem, instead of continuing to usurp power to the Federal government and maintaining a corporatist system.

That's what I think true populism requires, at least. What is Organizing for America doing?