I'd like to know exactly what data and process of logic has led to that conclusion.

It isn't clear to me what you disagree with. Where I was working until last month, there was regular news indicating changes (usually increases) in estimated reserves (supply), so I have credibility questions about people making hard-core, unequivocal predictions based on frozen numbers (from when? from whom?) in fancy charts, and suggesting an impending crisis is the only reasonable possibility.

It's not a question of whether anything is "on the horizon." Less than 20 years ago, it was "known" that extracting hydrocarbons from Canada's enormous shale formations was not an option. Now it's been happening for several years, and that production is increasing. Everybody who said "it can't happen" was wrong. They were relying on what they could see "on the horizon." Technology and economics change things, and you can't presume to demand that the factors or innovations be "on the horizon" before granting that what is inconceivable today can be practically routine tomorrow. And that's less a faith issue than simply a matter of recognizing the way things tend to work — of choosing to learn from history.

Alternative to what? Panicking? (And telling everybody else to panick too?)

I think I've looked enough at what scientists are saying — from both sides, not just the "peak oil" proponents, and with as little bias as possible — to see no justification for dogmatically embracing either side so far. My "alternative" to dogmatically taking one side or the other is to pay attention to the debate as it continues to unfold and ignoring the know-it-all hyperbole from the amateurs on either side. I only stepped in here today because you seemed to suggest that questioning "peak oil" is strictly a matter of "faith," whereas embracing it supposedly isn't — and that only he who can cite "numbers" has a place at the table.

I prefer to let the professionals do the arguing, and listen to what they say. Both sides invoke assumptions, and members of both sides have made valid points. And from where I sit, there's nothing requiring EF to settle the matter before the weekend using only the arguments published by x, y, or z.