Deja vu on blow-outs: 1979 vs 2010
This video illustrates how little has changed in our response capability:
http://www.wimp.com/oilspills/
As for why so little has changed, we must examine the issue of oversight, (especially in light of Monday's court decision).
The NYT has provided excellent coverage, including this detailed analysis:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/us...html?th&emc=th
The GAO issued this excellent report on oversight a few days ago (with much relevance for emergency managers and those with oversight responsibilities):
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10852t.pdf
Finally, Obama cannot yet bring himself to mention Peak Oil, but his comments last week said everything but:
Quote:
After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20% of the world's oil, but have less than 2% of the world's oil reserves. And that's part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean - because we're running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.
For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we have talked and talked about the need to end America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked - not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.
Thanks for considering this...
rm
Economist, tar sands, etc
Thanks for your observations, Sumting
The Economist is traditionally very optimistic with respect to energy, in my opinion.
Their logic is correct (technology continues to improve and we can extract more from each well), but technology still only takes us so far.
Despite the world's best technology and the incentive of sustained high prices, the USA still cannot get close to its production peak (which occurred 40 years ago).
Global production from conventional oil sources has been stuck for over half a decade (at around 74 mbd).
I certainly agree with your Point C (nothing else comes close to oil in its usefulness)... all the more reason to beware on future oil supply.
As for the tar sands, commercial extraction has been ongoing for forty years, but has barely touched 1.5 mbd.
This recent study examines some of the limitations:
http://www.ceres.org/Page.aspx?pid=1251
BP: Running the odds during the planning stages
A double item on BP's plans for the Macondo well was just posted at Energy Bulletin.
The first part offers various quotes from the Initial Exploration Plan (Feb. 2009).
The second part is a review of Shell's July 9th presentation on deep-water drilling, during which two Shell officials contrast the difference between Shell's design & practices vs those employed by BP on the Macondo well.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/53516
German military study on Peak Oil
FYI, this appeared this morning:
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/...ity-studi.html
I've gone through the doc but it's in German so of course there is much that I don't understand yet.
However, it is clear that the authors take PO seriously (with graphs from Oil Drum, etc and a couple of pages on EROI/net energy) and have a good deal to say about agri-food.
Apart from some of the war college studies (and they are "only" the opinion of the analyst) this appears to be the most detailed military analysis of PO yet (at least among those that are publicly available).
I've asked a couple of German friends to assist, so I hope to have some details in the next few days.
If any of you can read German, please help us out.
Interim translation of key points
First, this from Norm at Oil Drum yesterday (in normal English):
Choice quotes and conclusions:
Quote:
Oil becomes a crucial factor of shaping international relations": scarcity leads to a deliberalization of oil markets which in turn leads to more bilateral supply relationships. A window of opportunity opens for oil-exporting nations to pursue their economic, political, and ideological goals in regard to industrialized [importing] nations.
- Western foreign policy (e.g. towards Africa, MidEast) will have to become more "pragmatic" -- China et al. are already "pragmatic" and therefore better positioned. "Military interventions will become more selective - actors are overstrained". A new focus on one's own problems.
- "The transformation to a post-fossil-fuel society leads to economic and political crises": unemployment, food scarcity, less market-based distribution of oil products (rationing). Ultimately there is a "loss of trust" in public and governmental institutions which will possibly lead to more extremism and fragmentation on a national and international level.
- "Systemic risk of a 'Tipping Point'":
In the short term, oil production decline leads to reduced economic activity and trade. Loss of income for some actors, loss of livelihood for others. National budgets come under extreme pressure because of reduced tax revenue and higher spending on unemployment, food, and alternatives to oil.
- "In the medium term, the global economic system and every market-based economy breaks down. [...] Tipping Point: In an economy that is shrinking for the foreseeable future, savings are not invested anymore [...] banking sytem, stock markets, financial markets collapse [...] a completely new system status [...] Banks lose their reason to exist... since they can't earn interest [...] Loss of trust in currencies [...] Collapse of [international] value chains. Mass unemployment [...] National bankruptcies [...] Breakdown of critical infrastructure [...] Famines [...]
- It is probable that a high number of nations will not be able to make necessary investments in a timely and adequate manner. A high systemic risk is a given regardless of Germany's own energy policy because of its high grade of globalization."
- "Even if society's faith in market-based systems is big, its understanding of complex matters small, and its assumption of rational economic actors questionable, one can expect [...] uncertainty to give way to the realization that a critical point has been passed.
Also, here are some auto-translations which are pretty garbled, but some of the points are clear.
1. This one from Peak-Oil:
http://translate.google.com/translat...bundeswehr.php
2. from Spiegel:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...715138,00.html
3. from Welt:
http://translate.google.com/translat...n&hl=&ie=UTF-8
- Rick
Community awareness of oil & gas pipelines
Thursday's pipeline explosion in California raises several issues which are relevant to other communities.
This morning's NYT says that some residents noticed a gas smell for weeks, but really did not think too much of it, apparently unaware of the danger on their doorstep:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/us..._r=1&th&emc=th
This LA Times article is even more to the point: many residents had no clue that they were living near a pipeline (including one lady who had lived there for 34 years).
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2967466.story
The argument that pipeline locations need to be kept secret because of terrorist concerns is surely outweighed by the benefits of having vigilant citizens in the vicinity.
In the case of the San Bruno gas leak and both of the recent Enbridge crude oil leaks, the first people to notice the leaks were local residents, many of whom did not comprehend the situation. That is, they first noticed an unusual smell, but failed to understand its significance.
If the San Bruno residents had been fully aware of the proximity of the pipeline to their homes, at least two things would have occurred differently.
First, neighbours would surely have been much more concerned and proactive when the gas smell was first noticed (weeks ago, according to the NYT).
Second, the first thought of local residents (in response to the fireball) would probably not have been that a plan had somehow crashed, but rather, "My god, what if it's that pipeline...."
Returning to the issue of secrecy re critical infrastructure, local residents who are well-informed and vigilant can provide a layer of front-line security, both against terrorists who may be snooping around and to hissing sounds and fuel-like odors.
As existing oil & gas pipelines continue to age, the latter is far more likely than the former, and we should plan according.
Peak oil analyses: military vs civilian
This morning two items were posted at Energy Bulletin, both relating to military research on peak oil.
When taken together, the two links (below) provide evidence of a recent (and increasing) phenomenon with respect to peak oil and export decline: there is increasing concern being expressed by military analysts, but still very little concern among our civilian authorities (politicians and bureaucrats).
The most recent example of military concern is an extensive report by the Future Analysis department of the German military (Bundeswehr) which was leaked a few weeks ago.
This review summarizes the key points of the German report, considers it within the context of previous military studies of peak oil, and points out how the Bundeswehr report goes far beyond previous military analyses:
http://www.energybulletin.net/storie...report-context
Second, a bibliography of military research has just been updated.
The most striking aspect of the new additions (2009 & 2010) is the sudden interest in peak oil by officers at Canadian Forces College, where no studies on peak oil were done prior to 2009, but now we have several, all within the past 18 months and all of which view peak oil as a serious matter.
http://www.energybulletin.net/storie...hy-2010-update
The public remains very unaware of all of this: most North Americans have never heard of peak oil, and very, very few will be aware of the growing concern among military/security researchers.
But as the Bundeswehr report points out, public awareness is a prerequisite to any hope of effective mitigation.
Climate Change and Security
May fit here, as a quick search found no separate thread. From a UK think tank, the Oxford Research Group and by Professor Paul Rogers and opens with:
Quote:
The consequences of climate change for human security are profound, but much of the last decade has been lost in avoiding those consequences. The implications for human security are serious. Today, with the consequences of climate change being increasingly recognised by military analysts, there is a risk of the “securitising” of the climate change agenda leading simply to military responses rather than a more preventative course of a rapid shift to a low-carbon society.
Link:http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.u...e_and_security
IISS comment on climate change
From the monthy Strategic Comments:
Quote:
Scientists working on climate change have come under intense scrutiny over the past year. They – as well as scientific institutions and climate science itself – have been accused of procedural and methodological flaws, and even of outright fraud. The criticism prompted the commissioning of several independent reviews, most of which reported their findings in summer 2010. Following this examination, the scientific consensus that human activity has induced climate change remains intact.
Link:http://www.iiss.org/publications/str...uld-do-better/
ASPO conference: security aspects
Dave,
Thanks for the link... excellent article, very concise.
Steve,
re rapid shift to low-carbon, you are correct, people greatly underestimate the scale and complexity of doing so.
That point was made repeatedly by various speakers at last week's Peak Oil conference in Washington. The entire team which did 2005 Hirsch Report was present: Hirsch, Bezdek and Wendling have just released their new book.
Here's a review:
http://www.energybulletin.net/storie...obert-wendling
I'm about half-way through a write-up on the national security aspects which were discussed over the three days. My report will probably be posted here in four parts:
1. the 90 minute panel on Energy & National Security
2. the keynote presentation by James Schlesinger
3. points made by various economic/financial analysts
4. my own presentation on the final morning, subtitled "military concerns vs civilian inaction".
Here is part 1:
The 2010 ASPO Conference: Security aspects
The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) held its annual conference in Washington on October 7-9, 2010. The theme of the conference was “The Future of Oil, Energy and the Economy.”
This review summarizes what transpired at the conference with respect to national security concerns, including not only military aspects but related issues such as energy security, food security and financial & economic stability.
1. Panel on National Security
This year ASPO included a 90-minute session entitled “Energy and National Security” which was held on the first evening, Oct. 7th.
a. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett
The keynote speaker was Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Maryland) who heads the Congressional Peak Oil Caucus. He reminded the audience of the warning issued by the US Joint Forces Command that “By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD” (Joint Operating Environment, p. 29).
Bartlett then pointed out that the Secretary of Defense intends to eliminate the Joint Forces Command.
More information on the termination of JFC is available here:
http://www.stripes.com/news/is-jfcom...sEnabled=false
Bartlett concluded his presentation by quoting from Admiral Hyman Rickover’s prescient speech (May, 1957):
“In the face of the basic fact that fossil fuel reserves are finite, the exact length of time these reserves will last is important in only one respect: the longer they last, the more time do we have, to invent ways of living off renewable or substitute energy sources and to adjust our economy to the vast changes which we can expect from such a shift.
Fossil fuels resemble capital in the bank. A prudent and responsible parent will use his capital sparingly in order to pass on to his children as much as possible of his inheritance. A selfish and irresponsible parent will squander it in riotous living and care not one whit how his offspring will fare.”
b. Rear Admiral Lawrence Rice, USN
Rear Adm. Rice recently served as Director of Strategy and Policy in Joint Forces Command. He said that they received ‘push-back’ on their analysis of peak oil, climate change, China and Russia. Rice pointed out that reliance on fossil fuels not only presents operational risks, but also constitutes a strategic risk to the nation.
He touched on fiscal aspects, reminding the audience of Adm. Mullen’s warning that the greatest security threat is the national debt. He also mentioned James Woolsey’s observation that through its purchases of foreign oil, the US is funding both sides of the war with radical Islam.
Rice provided examples of progressive work by the various US armed services with respect to energy conservation, “untethering” & self-sufficiency, reducing the fuel supply tail, etc.
He concluded by pointing out the need for civilian sectors to demonstrate similar progress, asking “What’s it going to take to get the rest of the country to act?”
c. Michael T. Klare
Dr. Klare is the Five College Professor of Peace and World Security Studies, based at Amherst College, and is also the author of several books on geopolitical aspects of energy security.
He began by highlighting an overlooked milestone which occurred this year: China has become the world’s number-one consumer of energy. This is a position which was held by the USA for over a century, and Klare regards this transition as highly significant. China’s use of coal will increasingly be a driver of climate change, which Klare views as a major threat to international security. He pointed out that both China and the USA will both be seeking to import about 10 mbd of oil, just as global export capacity shrinks. China is now the dominant manufacturer of photovoltaic and wind.
Klare stressed the importance of cooperation between the US and China on these various aspects of energy security.
d. Lt. Col Danny Davis, US Army
Lt. Col. Davis was scheduled to present during this session, but was serving in Afghanistan and circumstances prevented his return to Washington. This was most unfortunate, as Davis has done some excellent work on peak oil in the past including his 2007 paper, “On the Precipice:”
http://www.aspo-usa.com/assets/docum..._Precipice.pdf
Davis also contributed this article to Armed Forces Journal:
http://www.afji.com/2008/05/3466428/
During the questions which followed the presentations by Bartlett, Rice and Klare, Bartlett made an observation on why government remains so inactive on the issue of peak oil. With characteristic wit, he offered two facts:
1. Most Americans are unaware and unconcerned
2. Americans have a government which is truly representative….
ASPO Conference: security aspects (parts 2 & 3)
2. James R. Schlesinger
The following morning’s keynote address was given by Dr. Schlesinger, entitled “The Peak Oil Debate is Over.”
Although the primary focus of his address was not on security aspects, Schlesinger’s service as Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (1971-73), Secretary of Defense (1973-75) and CIA Director (as well as his later service as first Secretary of Energy, 1977-79) make him well qualified to comment on the interface between energy security and national security.
Dr. Schlesinger is now in his 83rd year, and the years have enhanced his wisdom and sharpened his wit. He warned against the Keynesian interpretation of Say’s Law, which asserts that supply creates its own demand. Schlesinger warned against the popular belief that demand can create its own supply (especially when dealing with finite resources).
He recounted the American consideration of military force during the early stages of the 1973 Arab oil embargo. He mentioned Carter’s suggestion that it would make better long-term strategic sense to leave American oil in the ground and draw from others, and how the response was ridicule and anger, especially from the southwestern states.
Schlesinger concluded by repeating his earlier quote from Christ’s Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:34)
“Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”
I presume Schlesinger intended the audience to depart from the usual interpretation of that line (“Let the day’s own trouble be sufficient for the day”) . A more contemporary translation might read, “I’ve got enough on my plate without worrying about long-term problems which may or may not happen.”
Schlesinger’s context indicated that the quote might better be taken as a warning that we need to plan ahead, and that there are dangers in blindly trusting that sufficiencies will somehow appear on their own.
3. Economic analysts
In keeping with the theme of the conference, there was plenty of analysis on economic & fiscal aspects offered by many capable presenters. Several analysts warned of triple-digit oil prices, inflation, recession and unemployment. Nicole Foss warned of the power of financial markets to aggravate downward tendencies, “cascading movements” and the specter of deflation. Whether the eventual convergence of problems results in inflation or deflation, the pressures on government budgets (which are fundamental to military capabilities) may be extreme.
In short, these various analyses indicate that military analysts should look well beyond the practicalities of “fueling the troops” in an energy-constrained world.
Military and security analysts should examine the complexities of fueling the economy and sustaining the tax base, upon which the military and other essential public services are utterly dependent.