I found a good counter-opinion to Peak Oil.

...

Recently, numerous publications have appeared warning that oil production is near an unavoidable, geologically-determined peak that could have consequences up to and including “war, starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens” (Campbell in Ruppert 2002) The current series of alarmist articles could be said to be merely reincarnations of earlier work which proved fallacious, but the authors insist that they have made significant advances in their analyses, overcoming earlier errors. For a number of reasons, this work has been nearly impenetrable to many observers, which seems to have lent it an added cachet. However, careful examination of the data and methods, as well as extensive perusal of the writings, suggests that the opacity of the work is at best obscuring the inconclusive nature of their research.

...

This article has things I do not agree with. Note this flip flop:

...

The initial theory behind what is now known as the Hubbert curve was very simplistic. Hubbert was simply trying to estimate approximate resource levels, and for the lower-48 US, he thought a bell-curve would be the most appropriate form. It was only later that the Hubbert curve came to be seen as explanatory in and of itself, that is, geology requires that production should follow such a curve. Indeed, for many years, Hubbert himself published no equations for deriving the curve, and it appears that he only used a rough estimation initially. In his 1956 paper, in fact, he noted that production often did not follow a bell curve. In later years, however, he seems to have accepted the curve as explanatory.

This particular example demonstrates a major theoretical flaw underlying the curve: for a closed system, such as the US gas market, demand determines production, not geology. (High gas transportation costs mean that overseas gas plays a trivial role in the US market.) Globally, the recent slowdown in demand has suggested to some that the peak has already occurred.

...

I've never heard anyone on the Peak Oil side argue that natural gas follows the Hubbert Curve. The production of gas is different than oil. Once a field is tapped, the gas flow is steady until the end. It's disingenuous to use this as an illustration. I am sure the author knows the difference. This bait and switch was laid early on in the article to set the tone for poo-pooing on the Hubbert model. That did not turn me off from the rest of the article though.

Also, note the other section I highlighted. Even this guy, a staunch debunker of Peak Oil theory, agrees that LNG imports are not feasible.

...

A more technical example is telling. Laherrere notes that the first 1920 new field wildcats in the Middle East discovered 723 billion barrels by 1980, while by the year 2000, a subsequent 1760 had found a mere 32 billion barrels. From this he concludes that the Middle East is essentially played out, extrapolating the falling returns to drilling and stating that “This graph shows clearly that the belief by some economists that the Middle East has a great potential left is wrong” (Laherrere 2002, p. 10). He achieves similar results for OPEC as a whole.

There are three primary errors here. First, the assumption that the discoveries in 2000 will not be revised upwards (an error as discussed above), but more important, the presumption that geology is driving the trend and thus, it is immutable. But finally, the third error is more basic: equating all wells in the Middle East, regardless of location. In fact, analysis of country drilling activity shows what should be obvious: drilling in Iran and Iraq dropped sharply in 1980, following the Iran/Iraq War, and sanctions have kept Iraqi drilling at a minimum in the past decade. At the same time, lesser provinces like Oman, Syria and Yemen have seen increased amounts of drilling. Thus, by lumping them together with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc., as “Middle Eastern,” treating all wildcats as equal and extrapolating the success rate of pre-1980 and post-1980 wells yields fallacious results.

...

This is a very good point. Oil production does not exist in a vacuum. Graphs showing production solely in Iraq over the last few years would show a sharp decrease. If geology was assumed to be the sole driving factor of oil production, we would be led to believe Iraq's oil was in decline. It is obviously not. Iraq sits on the second largest oil reserve in the world.

Good food for thought. I'm always looking for more opinions on the other side.

The New Pessimism about Petroleum Resources: Debunking the Hubbert Model