What is the most rational view of Peak Oil and its near term consequences?

To me the fol­low­ing points seem hard to ar­gue against:

  1. Oil is harder and harder to find ev­ery year (we already took the easy stuff, no­body finds su­per-gi­ant fields any­more)

  2. The peak pro­duc­tion year was 2005 with 73.7 mil­lion bar­rels produced

  3. The amount of oil pro­duced each year is declining

  4. The price of oil (and there­fore en­ergy) rises

  5. All the al­ter­na­tives that were sup­posed to fill the gap are failing to deliver

  6. Even oil that’s harder to get (e.g. in deep wa­ter) doesn’t help much as it is gen­er­ally pro­duced at a slow rate

  7. Available en­ergy pro­duc­tion rate (i.e. power) drops

  8. Since nearly ev­ery­thing needs power to cre­ate/​mine/​pro­duce prices rise

  9. Food for ex­am­ple be­comes more ex­pen­sive as fer­til­izer prices rise

  10. The av­er­age per­son is mys­tified as the price of ev­ery­thing seems to rise at once

  11. Busi­ness and whole na­tional economies are squeezed by ris­ing prices

  12. As busi­nesses fail un­em­ploy­ment increases

  13. Poli­ti­ci­ans are pow­er­less, so promise gen­eral feel-good non­sense like “en­ergy in­de­pen­dence”. No­body even tries to tackle the prob­lem.

  14. Every­thing con­tinues to get worse, and at an in­creas­ing rate

  15. Within the near fu­ture the lights start to go out.

Sure there’s a pos­si­bil­ity that a form of nu­clear fu­sion/​tho­rium/​cold fu­sion/​zero point en­ergy that is safe and cheap to build and op­er­ate might be in­vented to­mor­row, but given that such things usu­ally take a decade or so from in­cep­tion to de­liv­ery it looks like there’s no prac­ti­cal al­ter­na­tive on the hori­zon. Ther­mo­dy­nam­ics is a harsh mis­tress. Work out the en­ergy in 73 mil­lion bar­rels of oil, and figure out how many wind farms are needed to offset a 5% de­cline. And then an­other de­cline the next year. Even ura­nium prices are ris­ing as de­mand out­strips sup­ply for just the cur­rent set of re­ac­tors.
The more we ex­am­ing the situ­a­tion the worse it seems to be. Some early wells had a enor­mous en­ergy re­turn on in­vest­ment, e.g. for the en­ergy of burn­ing one bar­rel of oil we could pump 100 bar­rels from the ground. Now we are pump­ing wells that pro­duce only about 5 bar­rels. This is known as EROEI (en­ergy re­turn on en­ergy in­vest­ment). EROEI is fal­ling ev­ery­where as all the low hang­ing fruit was pluck­ing decades be­fore, and only the difficult stuff is left. The net re­sult is that it is ever harder to in­crease pro­duc­tion rates.
Civ­i­liza­tion runs on the con­stant sup­ply of power. If that power de­clines 5% ev­ery year we are back to the mid­dle ages be­fore very long, and it’s hard to de­velop a Friendly AI on an aba­cus.
One thing I’ve no­ticed a lot is re­ports about “Oil Sands”, “Oil Shale”, “Vast new pos­si­bil­ities of X bar­rels from biodiesel/​microbes/​al­gae/​ther­mal de­polymer­iza­tion” etc. and none of these re­ports *ever* men­tion the *rate* of pro­duc­tion that is ex­pected (and years later they seem to have de­liv­ered noth­ing). The pro­duc­tion rate is far more im­por­tant than any­thing else; if the en­tire Earth was made of oil but we could only pump a mil­lion bar­rels a year for tech­ni­cal rea­sons then the to­tal amount is pointless.
Please read at least the Peak Oil Wikipe­dia ar­ti­cle be­fore com­ment­ing. I’d rather not see a bunch of com­ments about “they don’t even look for oil when there’s 30 years of sup­ply wait­ing in the ground”.
So… what are my cog­ni­tive bi­ases?