Peddling PetroProzac: CERA ignores 10 warning signposts of peak oil

A recent comment by Daniel Yergin of Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA)to the effect that there really isn't an oil problem and we will have plenty for many years to come encouraged this response by ASPO-USA. I like their lead paragraphs.

As Yergin well knows, peak oil does not mean we are “running out.” This is a red herring. To be fair, some peak oil commentators have been equally obtuse and shrill. It sometimes seems to us that both sides in the debate are shouting down a well. The public interest would be better served by a more intelligent discussion.
Peak oil is not the end, nor even the beginning of the end of the Oil Age. Indeed, at peak the world will have more oil available than it ever had before; to the casual observer all will appear well. No one can predict how rapidly oil production will fall once it peaks, plateaus, and begins to decline. Because heroic, expensive efforts will be made to reduce demand and expand supply, the plateau could last for some years, and the backside of the global production curve is likely to be shallower that the ascent. On this we agree with CERA. Eventually, however, production will fall, even as human numbers continue to climb. On a Btu basis, even a 2% annual reduction in global oil supply is equivalent to losing the energy provided by 80 nuclear power plants. The prospect of such reductions recurring year after year is most sobering.

Trying to keep the discussion civil the authors clearly lay out the problems with Yergin's argument. The the heart of the article includes ten warning signposts that herald the arrival of Peak Oil.
[Link: Peddling PetroProzac: CERA ignores 10 warning signposts of peak oil]

Update (11/18/06): This link is to a an article [Countdown to $100 oil (35) - peak oil: the last skeptics capitulate (CERA)] by Daily Kos contributor Jerome a Paris. He reaches the conclusion, and I must agree, that Yergin is really just predicting a different Peak Oil rather than no Peak Oil. I see Yergin's argument being entirely dependent on the feasibility of exploiting hard to reach deposits (very deep sea) and difficult to produce sources (tar sands). Extraction of these resources will cost a lot money and energy. EROEI and $$$ profits will be difficult. I vote for something in between the two definitions of Peak Oil. Nobody is really voting for no Peak Oil.