An email on a newsgroup and an article in the Christian Science Monitor whose only 'expert' is some random "energy consultant" is not really a viable argument.
And after reading it, I don't see how that article reaches the conclusion that it does.
It's full of facts from the side of the argument saying that we're screwed, and the only thing they have from the "optimists" (their word -- and fitting too) is a single quote from an "Energy Consultant" and the fact that Canada has oil sands, heavy oils, and shale. All of which usffer from a fundamental problem -- it takes more energy to pull the oil out of the sand than the sands yield.
Oh, and it uses the USGS, which is as wishy-washy on the issue as Kerry on the Economy. One day they release something saying we're running out, the next day they say there's lots. You should read the technical notes on a USGS estimate report -- you'll very amazed at how they reach their estimates sometimes.
And it talks a lot about oil contracts and the US' attempts to gain more access to oil, but that has nothing at all to do with the fact that oil itself is going away, that just means the US itself is trying to get a bigger piece of what's left.
The fact that there's so many ongoing attempts by the US government/companies to secure access to whatever little fields they can get their hands on speaks volumes.
