I enjoyed the entire presentation.  It's great to have this kind of detailed analysis from experts in the field.  I think this raises the debate to a higher level, with informed experts on both sides, debating the complicated issues involved.

However, now it is time for us to poke holes in CERA's analysis if we can find any.  They were very detailed in their research and I liked the Q & A section, because the listeners asked about "Peak Oil".  Also note the fact that CERA did not discount, "Peak Oil" as a possibility, just that they didn't see it before 2020.  This tells me the experts are no longer, "uncomfortable" talking about the subject.  That is, at least a first step toward open debate.

The main potential pit falls to their analysis are:

#1.  Over estimation of Supply from OPEC
#2.  Underestimation of Demand from China

First Supply from OPEC;  The OPEC nations are, as we all know, the hardest to predict.  With our very limited knowledge of their total reserves and their refusal to allow any third party oil field analysis, we know, only as much as they tell us.  From CERA's presentation it seems they just gloss over this fact and assume OPEC is as good as their word.  I will not go any further on this subject because with out the raw field numbers, that only OPEC members have access to, it is just my guess vs. CERA's guess.  

Second Demand from China;  In the CERA Q & A, the experts down play 2004 demand of an additional 2 MBD, as a fluke.  I think this is a major flaw in their analysis.  China has for the last twenty years grown at an annual rate of 9 to 10%.  China's 2004 economy has grown to a size of, 7.2 trillion dollars a year.  To give that number some context, both the US and EU economies are each 11 trillion dollar economies.  With China's continued growth over the next 6 years, their economy will require ever increasing amounts of petroleum.  While China continues to grow at a 9-10 % rate, by 2010 their economy will be valued at 13.8 trillion dollars, larger than the current US economy.  China currently consumes, 1 MBD per trillion dollars of economic activity.  So, as China's economy grows 6.6 trillion dollars from 2004 to 2010, it is safe to calculate that China's petroleum consumption will also grow 6.6 MBD from 2004 to 2010.  
    CERA's statement that "reduced gasoline firing electrical generation", as China switches to coal fired electrical generation, will slow China's petroleum demand growth, is completely unfounded.  Even though, the U.S. is very heavily dependent on coal for our own electrical generation, we still use 21 MBD of petroleum mostly for our transportation infrastructure.  So even as China switches to coal for electricity generation, their 19 % annual growth in car sales, will more than over whelm this effect.  All in all, 2004's 2 MBD demand growth was not a fluke, but instead the new reality of China becoming one of the world's three largest economies, US, EU, China.  

So why is the "world demand" so important when we are talking about a peak in, "world supply"?

Just this; if demand remains high, supply will remain tight for years to come.  If supply remains tight for years to come, crude oil prices will remain in the $50 to $60 range.  If crude oil remains in the $50 to $60 range, big oil companies will continue to; push mature fields harder, rush new fields into production, begin coal liquidation, ramp up tar sand processing, and increase NGL imports.  All of which, leads to steeper decline rates in mature fields, and reduced return activities such as tar sand processing, which in turn, hasten the day of "peak oil" dramatically.

In the end, CERA is right, production will rise for a couple years.  But at what price?

Reduced returns, steep field declines, and depletion of coal and natural gas.

Sources:
CIA World Fact Book:  China 2004, 7.2 trillion dollar Purchasing Power Parity
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html