I don't know for sure. My guess is money. As he has built up a certain sort of credibility among some readers, he is being paid to spin this story. When you read what he says, what it points out is how difficult his (or anyone else's) task really is. The arguments in favor of oil depletion are too strong.You don't have to be a rocket scientist to follow the reasoning. Maybe I'm wrong-maybe Greg got really stupid really fast. Maybe Yergin is mentally challenged.  
Palast also has a background in statistics. He can read the numbers. It's very odd to see this sharp guy go this way. No explanation here. It's just odd.
Bought and paid for, perhaps?
Most likely yes.
money talks and the people we are dealing with think anyone has a price.
It wouldn't be money.  Palast is a Leftist (that's no insult in my books - I'm a good deal to the Left even of him, but I come here to read up about Peak Oil rather than preach my politics) and suffers from a problem common to most people who are committed to their political ideas.  He can't accept an idea that seems to pull the rug out from under his whole philosophy.

Peak Oil challenges a lot of people on the traditional Left because they assume that:

(a) Capitalism can only be surpassed in a society of material plenty for all; and

(b) Admitting that energy consumption is way past a sustainable level and has to be cut would bar the way to socialism.

IMO, he's wrong in that (a) actually says a good deal less than he thinks because the concept of "plenty" is actually a social construct; and (b) is plain incorrect.

At a guess, his idea of "socialism" would probably have a lot more in common with the economics of the late, unlamented USSR than mine does, though I'm certainly not accusing him of supporting the political regime that existed there.