Point 1) With respect to hubberts curve they muddy the discusion of the lower 48 with the introduction of the GOM and Alaska.  "Discoveries that he couldn't have forcast" or something to that effect. The careful phrasing leaves the impression that they are eludding to greater discoveries - somewhere in the dark where we can't see it. We are 56 years beyond 1950. They use technology as the arguement for greater URR later in thier debunking.  Thanks to technology I suspect that we also know a far greater ammount about geology than we ever did in 1950 and therefor we should be able to find (easier) those bigger fields they elude to.(come on man! It doesn't just work one way)

They do eventually give Hubert credit for calling the peak within a year or two of actual - which is a <small> positive - while at the same time trashing him some that his production numbers were wrong.  If I made such a grand prediction in the early 1950's I think that is pretty damn good, it is good, damn good.  Huberts call should be a much bigger positive than it was, they act like they are forced to cough it up.  Nothing follows a perfect curve they should know that as well. All the factors that they mention can and do have an effect on production and ultimate recovery.  I was young at the time but I'm sure there were factors that affected oil production in the period between 1950 and 1972, political, geological, technological, etc. etc. this is not a brand new world they just came up with.  Hubert did a damn fine job and took alot of shit for it. That shit continues....

Point 2)
(I can't toggle back and forth without losing my text here, so..accuracy is not what it could be)
They mention technology as making URR greater - and, AND giving a more gradual downslope on the hubert curve.  I suspect that technology added, or continues to add to the upslope(?)/plataeu as well.  I think logically you can use the effect of technology on bothsides. To say it acts to reduce the down slope with out giving credit as to why we have had so much oil to use for so long seems disingenuinous at best.

Point 3)- The CEO of Shell oil was here in Portland, OR and was interviewed in the paper. The era of cheap oil is over and he stressed conservation.  I think this is more than a mouth full no matter what CERA says.  Shell is not a new kid on the block.

Point 4) What about that damn 'Hirsch Report' - forgotten??? How can we have both CERA and the HIRSCH REPORT at the same time. (seriously - WTF?)

I'm suspect of this group.  I think we need to follow the $ (thiers).   Given the seriousness of PO I think these guys need to have a good look in the mirror in the morning...never mind there are plenty of people without a conscience.