@Noided - I think I'm just getting too old to "debate".
I'm confident in my assertions (otherwise I don't make them) because they're based on an interlocking (I don't like to hold self-contradictory positions) explanation of many facts. A world-systems model if you will. In this case, energy accounting, actual accounting, the state of the global economy, the state of the US economy, the relative power between cheap and marginal producers, the reporting of numbers from different players, how these players tend to be biased, what other resources are relevant, who can pay for them, who can take them, and a bunch of other stuff ...
I read far more stuff than I post links to
![Razz :-P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
... about 100 articles per day ... and then I put these things together. Also, I tend to be right quite often, so even if it very much sounds like it, I don't think I'm conceited. It's not that I'm supersmart; it's just that I have a lot of diverse input and that I organize it systemically.
Here's the reason for why I'm not overly inclined to debate ...
In statistics, one makes a distinction between type I errors and type II errors.
Most people are familiar with type I errors. A type I error is a false detection. In other words, if I make a prediction or some claim and it turns out to be false, I made a type I error.
Most debate or questioning is intended towards rooting out type I errors. This makes sense as people make type I's all the time. Type I errors are a natural consequence of guesswork.
However, if that line of action (thinking that everything is based on guessing or that one's favourite source of information is the sole provider of the god-given truth) is taken too far, one risks making type II errors. A type II error is a failure to detect. This happens when the method of testing or understanding is too weak to detect a signal that's actually there (possible reasons: not looking deeply, not looking widely, not looking the right place, ...)
A statement like "I don't know therefore nobody can know" or simply "nobody knows how/what/why/when..." is a likely type II in the making. Like, how would one know that nobody else knows whether knowing everything about everything and everybody?
To eliminate type II errors, rather than waste time debating or questioning, the effort should be in expanding understanding since type II errors really reflect not having correctly dealt with unknown knowns (things you don't know but which others do know) and unknown unknowns (things nobody know of).
In terms of your scenario, did you consider the supply and demand (econ101) consequences of your scenario? Given 1 and 2,
3) Where would demand be in this scenario?
4) At what price would demand and supply intersect?
5) Who can afford this price?
I have about 10 questions more that would lead to the OP conclusion once ALL information has been considered and connected. Keep in mind that the main concern is in identifying the peak level, not the particular peak date. We could get close again in a few years and even beyond but never significantly higher. Peak is not a date. It's an era. And that era just began.