Yeah, you're right, but people do have doubts. The best way to assuage those doubts is to have a full and open debate on the topic. Get the information out there and let people make up their own minds. I have no idea who might be reading this website, but the best way to convince people is a bullet-proof argument.

I'll be the first to tell you if you're predictions turn out correct. But for me "almost certainly" doesn't cut it. It has to be "are declining" with numbers to prove it.

Robert has used the line recently,"What is it going to take to convince you..." Well, I will tell you what it will take to convince me. Year-to-year drops in global conventional crude production of greater than 2% for twelve consecutive months(or something roughly equivalent).

If Cantarrell has a catasrophic collapse, you take the cake.

What I like about your comment is defining what you mean when you talk about peaking. I think we have some apples and oranges confusing the dialog.

For myself, I don't see THE PEAK as a month, a day or even a year. I see it as more of a process as described by getting on a plateau which shows monthly and yearly fluctuations within certain limits until permanent decline sets in. This plateau could last 3 to 5 years - I don't know. If the current plateau is the "peak plateau" then we rounded the shoulder around the end of 2004. If we get bumps up to perhaps 86 mbpd but not consistently exceeding that before decline sets in, I will consider us to have been "within" the peak at this time. To consider us not at the peak, I would want to see sustained production for a year or more exceeding 86 mbpd.

If we are in the peak at present, it could go on another 2-3 years before the consistent drop you are referring to, so likely both of our criteria will remain unanswered for at least 3 more years even if we are peaking now - which is fine.  

I think we can't make too much of short-term fluctuations in either direction, but society needs to be preparing now either way.