So far, the peak has been December 2005, I don't know that this will hold, but Deffeyes hasn't really been proven wrong yet.
But he has called it wrong in the past:

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/04/279-many-wrong-predictions-of-ken.html

The fact is that he has been lucky so far that 3 refineries were down in the first quarter and the Nigerian situation flared up, or his December prediction would already be toast.

RR

So far, Angola, Brazil, the Caspian and the Canadian oil sands are coming through as planned. If that trend holds up, only geopolitical disaster will give us a peak within the next two years.
After that though, the numbers get worse and worse. Unless you're ready to bet the farm on Saudi promises.
It's not just what comes on - it's what goes. Kuwait failed in increasing Burgan, Norway, Great Britain are seeing increasing losses, Russia seems to have gone flat, and North Slope production has resumed its decline. Exxon had it's endeavors come on about as planned - according to plans should be up 1mbpd from 2000, but oops- their net shows a production decline. I don't think the oil sands are coming as planned, my last read was that they had flattend out also due to a variety of problems such as natural gas availability.
He and others like Campbell - I basically agree. That's why I believe in playing it safe. I do think that the paradigm is changing with the super-giants all entering decline about now - my personal opinion. I think those (including the above and people like Yergin) who make blatantly wrong predictions shoud frankly own up to this, then try to learn from their mistakes rather than moving ahead as though nothing had happend to challenge their model. There is also a precision issue - I would consider anyone who calls it within plus or minus 2 years as "spot on."

I understand that non-geological factors are reducing production now, but this is in fact all a piece of the equation that I am considering. I agree that Nigeria made a big difference. As I have stated before, it is only because of the persistence and growth of these factors in the face of increasing decline numbers that I think we could be at peak. As a corollary, if all suddenly became blue sky, I'm sure we'd see a production rise for awhile. I'm not so persuaded that the refinery situation changed the production figures that much.

A straightforward question then, Robert - what will it take for you personally to admit that peak has occurred? 5mbd drop? 30mbpd? TEOTWAWKI?

The IOCs have a horrid track record regarding peak around individual fields that have actually peaked. Why should global peak be better from them? Why should I now believe the same people who were wrong about the lower-48, the North Sea and other locations that turned out to have peaked and headed downward ever after?

Even if you really are relying on internal corporate documents, why should they be any more correct than Exxon's past mistakes which were clearly far too optimistic? Stuart did a bangup job showing how decline was wrecking ExxonMobil's planned increases in production over the last 6 years. Why should I believe they (or your company) are doing any better handling declines now?

In short, why should I believe your sources given the past history of the IOCs, which is arguably even worse than Campbell and Deffeyes?

A straightforward question then, Robert - what will it take for you personally to admit that peak has occurred? 5mbd drop? 30mbpd? TEOTWAWKI?

Well, right now all we have is a bit of a plateau, that wouldn't even be a plateau if you added Nigeria and the GOM back in. We have even seen flat production for a solid year before it spiked up again.

I have made my case before. I don't think we are at peak, because there is oil available that is not being sold. There is shut-in production. There is a lot of heavy oil still available. Oil inventories are at 8 year highs, and until last week had been increasing week after week. These things are not indicative of a production peak. What I see is a recent plateau, and very good reasons that explain it.

What it will take to convince me that we peaked is a couple of years of clearly declining production. If you look at production graphs from previous years, we have seen a year on year production decline before. So far, we don't even have a single year of declining production in the current case.

RR

Yes RR, as the production vs price graph that you posted showed, the previous declines in production were only AFTER a decline in price. This time the decline is during a enormous rise in price.
Current plateau (not yet decline)
The other side of the coin, which I have also mentioned, is that production is brought online to meet demand. Producers don't want to have too much excess production brought online at one time or it will depress prices. When these projects were being planned, the price of oil was not forecast to be $75. Now that it is, they can't turn production up on a dime.

That is a key to my argument. A combination of factors explain the plateau. If not for those factors, production would have continued to grow, along with demand, and new production would continue to be brought online as needed. Producers miscalculated their economics, and certainly didn't foresee the geopolitical factors and the hurricane doing so much damage. So they don't have the production ready to go yet, to take advantage of prices. It will come online soon enough. You will see new production records set this year, barring severe demand destruction or war with Iran.

RR

'You will see new production records set this year, barring severe demand destruction or war with Iran.'

I could add 3 or 4 additional things which could prevent new production records (any charismatic leader of a major oil producing economy dying in spectacular fashion, more hurricanes/typhoons/monsoons in production regions, any group of terrorists with global reach hitting major facilities - Chechens in Russia, for example, etc.). At this point, the knife edge has been reached - that is also a definition of peak. Everything has to work out perfectly to maintain balance. The planning has to essentially remove equally likely bad results, such as a depletion rate of 7%, not 5%? - the disclaimer 'previous results in oil production do predict future results' is likely more accurate than saying the past results have nothing to do with future results. This is what makes peak so fascinating - reality finally intrudes on all our dearly held concepts and beliefs.

Personally, this is what makes Carter so fascinating a figure to me - first, he attempted to convey a reality out of sync with the political system he was in, and then seeing that he was unable to change it, he turned his back on moral solutions and returned to a policy (guns for oil - Iraq War I was Carter's planning, not Bush's) which America had no problem following. I also suspect, he knew that his failure would lead to long tem disaster, which also tends to motivates his seemingly sincere Christian life. Sort of like Begin, post-Lebanon invasion - sometimes, leaders actually know they have failed morally. Luckily, American is currently in the hands of people who never make mistakes, least of all in their own eyes, so we don't have to worry about their atonement at all.