If you look at conventional oil, we know how much we have found, and we can predict fairly well, how much more we shall find. We can even estimate, at what price this oil can be economically produced.

I agree, but unfortunately none of this data tells you what the affordable world daily flow rate will be - it tells you how much, but not how fast - for now that data is mostly irrelevent since 'how fast' is the peak oil problem.

In general I agree with the the EROEI concept except that liquid fuels from crude oil are so useful and energy dense with no real adequate alternatives at present, also oil feedstock is used for much more than just energy.

I expect that it will be financially viable to use other sources of Energy In to extract to the magical oil Energy out, and evidence from commodities like gold tells me some people are prepared to pay several hundred dollars per ounce for substances that have almost no unsubstitutable non-energy use.

IMO, for now from the peak oil point of view, the supply side problem is just a lack of available investment. It is just way too risky to invest in new sources of crude as expected future prices wouldn't be profitable - peak supply is assured by a lack of expected profitable demand.

I don't know whether the BP economists will turn out to be lying but in my experience they are certainly economical with the current known truth. I presume the reason economists are paid for by BP is to improve BP's profitability in some way - would denying peak oil be financially more profitable for BP's current directors and shareholders?