Where did you get that quote ("We respect the urgency and seriousness ...")?  I could not find it in the press release on the CERA web site or in the abstract of the report. Do you have the $1000 version of the report?

PG,

A minor point - not quite sure why you changed the link from CERA to Energy Bulletin (rather than just adding the EB link). With all due respect to EB, CERA is the primary source here, and in my opinion it is always preferable to cite primary sources if possible.

Anyway, the thing that sticks out is just how different Khebab's post and CERA's report are, i.e. 20+ year difference in peak/plateau. It would be interesting to see an analysis of why this is so. It most likely comes down to different analytic methodologies, different assumptions, and  different definitions of "oil" (Daniel Yergin is fond of saying that the definition of oil is constantly expanding). For example, CERA's work seems to be bottom-up, while much of the work done here (Stuart, Khebab) is top-down. (Khebab did a good job disaggregating a lot of the data in yesterday's post.)

It may be difficult to critique CERA's work because of their use of their proprietary IHS database (IHS is CERA's parent company). For example, what are they assuming for the average rate of decline of existing fields in production? And are they assuming any kind of project slippage for new projects? Nevertheless, an analytical comparison of the "peakist" theory to the CERA report would be highly worthwhile. Bart's comments at EB make for a good outline.