I believe we might improve the level of debate if we were to distinguish between Reserves and Flows.

Reserves are an uncertain quantity. The primary reason for calculating the reserves in a field is to assist with a set of investment decisions in regard to that field. If the estimated  ("Proved" and "Probable" reserves are simply estimates with differing margins of error) reserves appear to justify and support the economic decision to develop then we have a producing field. If they do not, then  we have nothing except a lease committment. We can think of reserves as "latent oil" which will only become a tangible commercial reality when a certain economic thresholds are met.

The size of the reserve is therefore the product of a complex economic calculus which assigns relative values to the geologic structure, the prevailing technology, the socio-political environment, and present and anticipated market demand, and a host of other factors. Change any single variable in this complex calculation and you can justify any position you like. Or, you can do as the OPEC nations have done, and simply pick an arbitrary number. A discussion of Peak Oil based on reserve estimates is an endless debate akin to arguing over the number of CERA employees that can stand on a wellhead.

Flows, on the other hand, are tangible and real. They can be counted and verified. Flows can also be obstructed by changes in the technological envelope, socio-political upheavals, and by simple economics. If oil flows are being diverted to domestic internal uses then less will come to market and the market price will be higher.

For some nations, Peak Oil may have already arrived. They cannot afford liquid fuels at the current price level; the flow is interrupted and they learn to live without. If there is a conflict with Iran then it is likely flows will be interrupted and we will learn to live with less.

Key to this approach is the recognition that the world may have unlimited reserves but constrained flows. In such an environment the tangible effects we associate with Peak Oil may be experienced well before we have exhausted world reserves.

Cheers!

BOP, I  most certainly second your opinion, flows are what matters, not absolute reserves. I'd like to point out the example of the State of Texas as an example of this. According to the Bureau of Economic Geology of the University of Texas's booklet "Potential for Additional Oil Recovery" or somesuch title we only recovered about 15-20% of the petroleum originally in place. This is an old pamplet, about 1981 or so but still valid. Our flows are down to 25% of the flows at the peak in 1970, but our recovery has only increased slghtly. As much as any other factor this is because petroleum engineering was invented here.
  Early unrestrained production, like the Gushers at Spindletop  (1901, 100,000/bbl day) ruined the reservoir pressures in many fields and limited economic recovery of the oil. In 1933 the Legislature gave the Railroad Commission the authority to limit production in order to prevent "economic waste" . The RRC started requiring operators to test their wells showing flow rates and pressure draw downs and started limiting production to keep prices up and set the best production rate for our fields.
  But it was too late for many of our giant shallow fields. The cap rock at Spindletop produced about 60,000,00 bbls of 18 gravity crude. Its probably got another 60,000,000 barrels in the limestone, but if you drill a 1200 ft well over there today you'd get a well that produces 3 bbls a day and a huge water cut. Most operators won't undertake the risk ofa well for that kind of return. There is plenty of open(unleased) acreage at Spindletop today, including the land where the Lucas Gusher was located.