Since I am a honest guy, I will correct myself here. The paper actually does mention shale too in the definition of fossil fuels, but not much after that. It talks a lot about coal and natural gas, because they were relevant back then. But here is the important part: Page 14: "Since the production curves here considered are of CRUDE OIL only, then the pertinent reserve data must also be limited to CRUDE OIL. The data in Figure 15 represent the estimated amount of CRUDE OIL initially present which are producable by methods now in use." Happy reading, why should I do the homework for you?
This sounds like a technicality. I don't have a dog in the fight, but no one cares about the distinction between crude oil and shale, etc. They just want gasoline for their cars that is affordable. Most people that were screaming peak oil, believed crude would be north of $100bbl for eternity. They were wrong. There is a glut of oil currently. Certainly there will be a day where oil gets very expensive relative to where it stands today, but it's looking more and more like the wheels are in motion for alternative fuels that can continue and efficiency will always continue to improve.
Never forget this Peak oil, shale oil, alternative energy, at some point we will run out of "easily" obtainable fuel sources. First we have to develop a clean, affordable, renewable alternative energy to meet all our energy needs. Then we have to develop the infrastructure to distribute it. Look how difficult it is to create an infrastructure for Nat Gas. [or the willingness to do so] Then we have to adopt it and wean ourselves off the teat. Not an easy task, and the entire time the "clock" keeps ticking. Demand for energy is increasing exponentially, outpacing alternatives. I doubt oil as our primary energy source will be replaced during my lifetime, I only see the price of oil going up for the foreseeable future. Short term gluts and lower prices perhaps, but on average cost's will go up. Imho, the current low price can not be sustained longer than 1-2 years. Manipulation, posturing and sovereign forces are more the reason than an abundance of oil.
Correct, I suspect this is mainly to screw over Russia, can't fight them any other way really. Algae is the solution, 10 years out approx most of our oil could / should come from this which is sustainable. Nice to save some cash although it's only 20p less per litre likely only worth £5 per week to me at the moment, but it all helps kinda.
Peak oil deniers do. They use the distinction for moving the goalpost. Oh, crude oil has already peaked? But the prediction was about all oil, including shale! Peak oil (inclusing shale) is happening? Oh, we have Fossil fuels like coal plentyful! Now about the current price war, it is not just against Russia, but more against alternative methods. You see if a fracking or shale operation needs let's say $75 per barrel just to break even, every month under that price is a pure loss. If the price stays low for an extended period, there will be no new alternative methods invented or started....
But then Saudi are selling it for 1/2 the price, by letting the price drop, which is costing them billions, but yes no point a shale operation selling if they can't get $90 as it's running at a loss, so they either stock pile it or close down, which closing and reopening also costs money. Algae also isn't cost effective, so interest in developing and building huge Algae farms in the middle of the desert will also slow down, not good. UK is an importer, so this is great for us, exporting countries ofcourse not so great at all. ISIS are likely having a hard time, shifting oil on the black market, it will reduce there income which goes to pay there so called soldiers and fun weapons. ( this is a good thing ) Saudi has an interest in crippling them for sure, as ISIS have interests on them longer term. Interesting!!