this also reinforces the problem of the transparency of URR data and makes us think about the ramifications of a lot of other data problems.

we need to know the answers to these questions as Matt and others have pointed out.

So sure there are still questions. But what I want to see is what happening with depletion in fields using modern extraction methods. All evidence points towards massive depletion rates or the cliff effect.

If we can confirm the cliff bubbles up from the field level which it should then I really believe our undulating plateau
is going to hit a sharp painful drop off.

If we can get enough numbers together we may be able to reasonable predict if the cliff exists and if so the decline rates.

There is enough evidence that we are peaked or close to the peak but we really don't know much about the post peak decline rates and in the context of peak oil this is the single most important even. If its slow and even then societies response can be late with less ill effect.

If there is good evidence for a cliff then its critical to find it and present it. We cannot handle a cliff.

Right now I'm convinced that we will see cliff after cliff in fields extracted with advanced methods this will lead to and overall massive decline.  Consider if even a few of the larger fields start into massive decline we simply don't have the manpower to do the work needed to slow the declines.

For example do you really think Mexico is going to be able to get the rigs tubing etc etc for Cantrell over the next few years. Esp if even on major field in the ME is also collapsing ?

Try 4-5 going down hard at the same time.

I just don't see the NOC's handling this scenario well.

So I think were looking and a lot of crashing fields in the near future with basically nothing we can do since there just aren't enough rigs to do the massive amount of infill drilling to slow the declines.

Basically as we move over peak the constraint on production is going to be drilling rigs. And if you havent noticed this is already happenning and were not even off peak yet.

But the rate of depletion/decline is a function both of technological progress  and effective demand - and since demand is unforeseeable, so is the rate of depletion and the peak itself. The effective demand for oil may be influenced by anything from the cost of production itself to a butterfly flapping its wings in China to an asteroid collision (which might postpone the peak until eternity).

It's ASPO Gospel Truth. Here is Jean Laherrere speaking on 30 May 2006 at Lyon ("Quelle mobilité après la pétrole?") on the modelisation of future production:
"But obviously if there is demand constraint [...] the peak will transform itself into an undulating plateau" (FR: "Mais evidemment s'il y a contrainte par la demande [...] le pic va se transformer en plateau en tole ondulee.")

Source: http://www.oilcrisis.com/laherrere/CERTU2006mai30.pdf.

Here it is in logical form:

The peak year/decade is predictable only if demand is predictable.
Demand is not predictable.
Therefore, the peak year/decade is not predictable.

BTW it's interesting to note that Laherrere refers to an "undulating plateau" - exactly the same term used by CERA in its June 2005 report.  In its press release on this report, CERA wrote: "The CERA analysis rejects the current fear that a near-term "peak" in world oil production and a coming exhaustion of supply are near.  The report indicates that the "inflexion" point will come in the third or fourth decade of this century.  Moreover, rather than a "peak," it will be an "undulating plateau" that will continue for several decades."

Source: http://www.cera.com/news/details/1,2318,7453,00.html

So what's the difference between Laherrere 2006 and CERA 2006 (give or take a decade)?