You quoted by cutting the sentence in half. What we said:

We cannot know whether this peak was a geological peak per se, or whether there were other factors, such as geopolitical feed back loops involved

and we specifically included the link to this post:
Geopolitical Feedback Loops in Peak Oil
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3017#more

I think it's misguided to think in terms of a "geological peak" versus some other kind of peak (and it leads to too many stupid arguments here). Peak will always and necessarily be a result of combined geologic and economic factors.

And when people estimate recoverable reserves, the estimate is based on combined geological and economic factors, which is why the HL model works.

Obviously there is a lot of oil in the ground, even though it is a finite amount.

And obviously we could pump more of it at any given time if we were willing to throw every last dollar in the world at it to create a higher peak.

Memmel is right--the effective peak happened a couple of years ago, because it was the end of the easy, most versatile, most economically-produced stuff. As it takes more energy to get and refine the current stuff, we are in effect getting less even if we technically produce more.

Also consider that all liquids includes a still growing volume of ethanol. Forgetting the very large energy inputs in producing this particular liquid, much akin to tar sands, it contains 1/3 less btu/gallon than gasoline or crude. If the ethanol component of all liquids were simply reduced by 1/3 of the ethanol contribution, we would see all liquids declining faster than recent charts indicate.