Energy Security

Rick,

Thank you for your interest for the "sorrows" of a small country in the middle of Europe. ;)
Don't misunderstand me. I do not think that the Peak Oil theory is nonsense. When I met Daniele Ganser a few years back, I became and ardent admirer of his research. That was also the first time I came in contact with Peak Oil theory. But over time I became more and more sceptic about his work. Additionally Ganser made some grave mistakes in his research, especially about what he called the Swiss Stay behind Organisation (P26/P27); but that is a different story. Nor did he make many frieds with his 9/11 conspiracy theories. Therefore, his credibility as a serious scientist suffered.
One of my main problems with the conference was that although the focus was on the impact of Peak Oil on Switzerland it mainly dealt with the global issue. There is nothing wrong with that, but I expected more information or hints on how Switzerland should act. You have to know that for months or better for years now Switzerland is struggling with its security policy. We had a new review on security policy this year. One of my main criticism on that review is that it completely lacks the strategic perspective of security policy. It seems as Swiss politics is reluctant to define strategic goals and how to achieve them. In my opinion, energy security should be one of these goals.

About the tendentious character of the conference: I personally think that one can make his point/argument even stronger if one confronts it with serious counterarguments. Unfortunately, most of the presentations only reinforced ASPO Switzerland's position, i.e. Gansers position. That gave me the impression that Ganser and ASPO Switzerland are shying away from opinions that are challenging their opinion. By that they are creating a circle of indoctrinated "freaks" which do not question things. As a consequence people with serious background will stay away from the discussion.
By the way, I will post the links for the presentations from last Saturday during the next days. They were all held in German, but maybe you and others will find some interesting facts in there anyway.

Polarbear

Thanks again, PB

Yes, please post the conference proceedings. I can't understand German but should be able to understand some of the charts & graphs. I have several German friends who would make use of your links as well.

I agree that we should all be open to new info and should invite (rather than suppress/avoid) info which challenges our own views. That is why I've regularly asked for info from SWC analysts, especially if they have info to the contrary.

Here is the link to the Washington presentations:
http://www.aspousa.org/2010presentationfiles/

Also, this was posted re national security aspects of the conference:
http://www.energybulletin.net/storie...curity-aspects

The first 3 parts are pretty much the same as what was posted here last week, but part 4 is new.

I have good news: the presentations are already online. They can be downloaded from the following link:

http://www.peakoil.ch/archiv.html

(First there are the anouncement and the program. The six presentations are below these materials.)

Yesterday, I came across an energy outlook from Llods (not sure anymore). ately I can't find it at the moment. I'll post that link too as soon as found the document again.

Regards
Polarbear:)

PS. Thanks for the links to the ASPO USA Presentations

Hi, PB

Thanks for the link to Swiss presentations... I will check them out.
Meanwhile, is this the link that you were after:
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publi...view/-/id/891/

USGS now expects to find only one-tenth of the oil that it previously expected to find in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA):
http://energy.usgs.gov/alaska/npra.html

This should be front-page news, but it isn't.

rm

The video of Dr. James Schlesinger's presentation at the recent Peak Oil conference in Washington is now available.
A written transcript (with link to the video) was posted a few minutes ago:
http://www.energybulletin.net/storie...il-debate-over

Dr. Schlesinger served as Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (1971-73), Secretary of Defense (1973-75), Director of the CIA and was the first Secretary of Energy (1977-79).

His wealth of experience at the highest levels of public administration is consolidated by his octogenarian wisdom, all of which make his observations worth considering (it's only 11 minutes).

-- RM

I was roaming through the internet this week and found some interesting stuff about Peak Oil and the concurring debate. I would like to share my new "acquisitions" of this week. To be honest I have not read through all of them yet so I can not tell how precious they are.

1) Burr, Peter. (2008) World oil and gas resources: status and outlook – A rational attempt at an emotional issue, Swiss Bulletin for Applied Geology 13, 1 p. 3-26
Available thourgh open acces:

http://www.angewandte-geologie.ch/Do...131_1Burri.pdf

=> Burri, a Swiss oil geologist argues that, contrary to other voices, there are still enough fossile ressources to still the global demand for energy up to the middle of the century. This should give us enough time to develop alternative and cleaner energy sources. According to him only ¼ of the total oil and 1/6 of all gas reserves have been developed so far. His argumentation has provoked strong opposition from other scientists such as Colin Campell. A response to Burris article has been published in the current issue of the journal.

2) W.H. Ziegler, C.J. Campbell, J.J. Zagar (2009). Peak Oil and Gas, Swiss Bulletin for Applied Geology 14, 1/2 p. 81-90
Doubting Burris assumptions about the statistics for the oil and gas reserves they areinsisting that decline in production is imminent. Article is also available through open access:

http://www.angewandte-geologie.ch/Do...iegleretal.pdf

Further, I found two transcripts of hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations from last year, via the electronic catalogue of the Air University:
3) Energy security : historical perspectives and modern challenges : hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, first session, May 12, 2009.

http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/FDLP360

4) $150 oil : instability, terrorism and economic disruption : hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, first session, July 16, 2009.

http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS116613

Wish you all nice weekend.
Greetings from Switzerland
Polarbear

Thanks very much for that, PB

Like yourself, I have not yet gone through those links carefully.
However, it is immediately apparent that your last two links to the US House Committee on Foreign Relations are both very interesting.
I was not aware of either document, and will examine them closely.

As for the Burri document, I am inclined to support Colin Campbell's rebuttal.
The central point about peak oil is not reserves or resources, but flow rates and the warning that difficulties will start as we achieve maximum production rates (or simply fear that we have maxed out).

This is good info... thank you again for providing it.
I would probably have never found it otherwise.

rm

Rick M and others,

These popped up on an IPPR email:

Quote:

---

This week, the UN's High Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing is due to report back after eight months of deliberations. A new international clean energy investment partnership with the private sector could help get the funds flowing for critical low-carbon energy initiatives in developing countries.

---

Link:http://www.ippr.org/articles/?id=4194

Quote:

---

The clean energy investment challenge will only be solved through coordinated public and private effort. This investment challenge is now the world's greatest innovation challenge argue John Podesta, Richard Caperton and Andrew Light of Center for American Progress.

---

Link:http://www.ippr.org/articles/?id=4193

I just found a speech of the Chairman of the JCS, Adm Mike Mullen, before the Energy Security Forum.
http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?ID=1472

Polarbear

Thanks for that, PB... I had not seen it.

Mullen raises the usual points: fully burdened cost of fuel, the environmental and strategic imperative of reducing FF use, how we have taken cheap FF for granted, the need to achieve sustainability, the need for bright young minds with ideas, and the need to be mindful of complexities and multi-order effects.

One can only hope that behind the scenes, high-level military people like Adm. Mullen are pointing out to their high-level civilian counterparts that there are major risks on the home front re. energy supply.
He mentions hopelessness leading to radicalization, which is entirely true, and not only overseas... one wonders whether there could be trends in that direction here in North America, as people wonder what on earth happened to their dreams and expectations.

As for actually making progress toward sustainability, one might ask where the USA and Canada were in 1987 when the Brundtland Commission was trying to get things rolling. Their "Our Common Future" was a pretty level-headed document and spawned a flurry of conferences and initiatives, but the effort gradually fizzled out.

Meanwhile, the address by RADM Lawrence Rice at ASPO-Washington has been posted... well worth a look (18 mins):
http://aspo.tv/

The new energy outlook of IEA has been released yesterday. Some graphs and a summary can be found here: http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/

Regards
Polarbear

Thanks, PB

I've been following the discussion around the WEO fairly closely.
Energy Bulletin has several interesting observations:

1. from Gail at TOD
http://www.energybulletin.net/storie...ajor-omissions

2. from Kjell at ASPO
http://www.energybulletin.net/storie...-2010-cry-help

3. from Stuart at TOD
http://www.energybulletin.net/storie...edges-peak-oil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick M

As for actually making progress toward sustainability, one might ask where the USA and Canada were in 1987 when the Brundtland Commission was trying to get things rolling. Their "Our Common Future" was a pretty level-headed document and spawned a flurry of conferences and initiatives, but the effort gradually fizzled out.

---

A quick look at a price chart will explain why it fizzled out. It's very tough to maintain such initiatives during an oil glut.

A lot of people - Americans in particular - get upset when oil is expensive, but the first requirement for progress is that energy must stay expensive... ideally as expensive as it can get without actually crippling economies. If it doesn't, all we will have is talk.

For now, IMO only, the $70-90/bbl band is about right. If economic recovery progresses I'd prefer to see it higher.

I agree, Steve

Cheap oil prevents many things, and price volatility undoes many things and burn investors and policy-makers, which makes them less likely to stick out their wallets and political necks the next time.
We do need sustained high prices for fossil fuels if we want an orderly transition away from them (which might allow some to be saved for future generations).
We still see people routinely idling their vehicles, which tells me that $86 oil is still too cheap.

When I mentioned Brundtland, I was actually thinking of more than just energy (though energy is of course fundamental to almost every other issue). The World Commission on Environment & Development had many sensible observations and recommendations on other sectors: agri-food, forests, oceans & fresh-water, transportation, urbanization, economic systems, etc.

A lot of effort by some first-rate people went into those initiatives throughout the late 1980s, but it sure feels like the subsequent 20 years have taken us even further down a most unsustainable path.

The 90s struck me even at the time as a rather euphoric decade... no more cold war, cheap abundant oil, an artificially inflated economy, and a generally unfounded sense of well being. Very difficult to gather impetus for change of any sort in that kind of environment. Toward the end it all got ridiculous, in the 97-99 bubble economy, but it was building all along.

Even now it's amazing how much nostalgia there is for that time, and how little recognition that all the seeds of the messes that came after were being sown in that decade.

I agree, Steve.
I'm sure that every thinking Brit would agree with you, too.
That decade saw the increasing production and export of North Sea oil (much of it to eastern Canada), with a peak right at then end of the decade.
Brits have now discovered to their horror just how brief their oil bonanza was.
The seeds of their future (and probably permanent) oil & gas predicament were indeed sown during that decade.

Meanwhile, I would recommend two articles.
I just stumbled upon this brief 1999 article from Army Logistics magazine:
http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/JulAug99/MS406.htm

Second, this recent SSI paper explores the application of an ecological perspective to the problem of energy resilience (43 pgs):
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute...es/PUB1011.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick M

Brits have now discovered to their horror just how brief their oil bonanza was.

---

Must hurt to realize they could have left it in the ground, bought cheap oil from the ME, and sold their own at 3x the price or more a little way down the line...

I agree completely, Steve.

I am often reminded of the observations of Roscoe Bartlett, the remarkable US Republican from Maryland who heads the Peak Oil Caucus in Congress.
If my memory serves me right (it sounds like a Dylan/Band song, I know), Roscoe said something like this:
When we first discovered oil, we should have stopped and thought, "How can it do the most good, for the greatest number of people, for the longest period of time?"
But that is not what we did... we just pigged out.

Roscoe is absolutely correct: instead of making their one-shot bonanza last, the Brits now provide the classic example of what not to do with a non-renewable resource.
Good long-term thinking, Mrs. Thatcher.

Two new reports predict end of fossil fuels long before alternative energies will be available:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es100730q

and plead for greater cooperation between US, China, Brazil and India to develop low carbon energy:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/23321...nnovation.html

PB,
Thanks for those links. I had seen the UC-Davis study but not the CFR one.

Meanwhile, there have been a few developments during the past 12 days.
Two weeks ago, the International Energy Agency released its annual World Energy Outlook.
Last week, the New York Times published "There will be fuel," a rosy prognostication by Clifford Krauss.

Energy Bulletin has just published an open letter to the NYT by Canadian geoscientist David Hughes, explaining why Krauss' article is "inaccurate, misleading and unhelpful:"
http://www.energybulletin.net/storie...new-york-times

A draft of Staff Working Paper #6 by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling was released a few days ago. The document is titled, Stopping the Spill: The Five-Month Effort To Kill the Macondo Well (39 pgs).

A review of this document has just been posted at EB:
http://www.energybulletin.net/storie...-macondo-spill

Quote:

---

The Navy is developing biofuel-burning F-18 fighter jets and hybrid-electric warships to increase energy independence. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus discusses those initiatives, and retired Army Gen. Steve Anderson talks about what he learned about energy-efficient camps while in Iraq.

---

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/03/131785...he-Battlefield

Biofuel combat vehicles are a publicity stunt. Domestically, we can produce 40 times the amount of oil that the DoD uses every year.

Add in Mexico and Canada, and there is no strategic vulnerability in the military sense.

Seth,
I agree with you on your first point.
Like shale gas, I think the biofuels have been greatly over-hyped (though for different reasons).
The net energy gain on corn ethanol is marginal (with Pimentel's study even showing a net loss), and Brazilian sugar and cellulosic being somewhat better, but still nothing like the energy profit that we enjoyed for over a century from conventional crude.

However, the US military uses about 400,000 bpd (most of it for the Air Force), and the assertion that US domestic production is 40 times greater than this is incorrect: it's more like one-third of that figure (ie. 13 times greater), since the US currently produces about 5 mbpd.

I would certainly dispute your final point.
Mexico is in steep (and probably terminal) decline.
Canada is your number-one supplier, true, but please be aware that the eastern half of my country (by population) is 90% dependent on overseas oil (everything from Toronto, east).
Should we have a global oil supply crunch (as many are predicting) there will be great political pressure to move oil which presently flows south to the USA, eastward to supply eastern Canada.
So I would not be too assured of US oil supply from either Mexico or Canada (for very different reasons).

As for strategic vulnerabilities, I think this year's report from the German military analysts says it all: our focus should be less on fueling the troops, and more on fueling the economy which funds the troops.
Without a solid tax base, and perhaps faced with domestic social disorder, military forces everywhere may find their capabilities severely restricted.

http://www.energybulletin.net/storie...report-context

"The Coming Famine" by Australian analyst Julian Cribb was recently released (248 pgs).
In this audio interview (with visual accessories) he examines the convergence of factors (water, declining foodland, CC, population growth, urbanization, etc) but he repeatedly mentions the depletion of non-renewables: oil and fertilizer (Part 1, 15 mins).
http://peakoil.com/consumption/peak-...coming-famine/

Meanwhile, both USDA and Agriculture Canada have not only conducted no study on peak oil, they still have not even conducted an analysis of the likely impacts to the agri-food sector of the much broader topic of "the end of cheap fossil fuels."

A pair of articles was posted today at Energy Bulletin:
1. an annotated bibliography of the LFE research:
http://www.energybulletin.net/storie...d-bibliography

2. a supportive response to the article which was submitted by Kathy Leotta and her colleagues last month:
http://www.energybulletin.net/storie...ly-disruptions

Today the Guardian published the transcript of a US embassy cable which summarized an interview with Dr. Sadad al Husseini in late 2007:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...il-saudiarabia

Saudi Arabia is the world's "swing producer," the only country which is believed to possess the ability to increase production quickly and significantly.
Dr. al Husseini questions whether Saudi Arabia could sustain production levels of 12 mbpd much beyond 2020.
In this respect, the projection of Dr. al Husseini is consistent with at that of Chatham House analyst Paul Stevens, who expects Saudi export capacity to decline after 2015 and to end around 2040:
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publi...view/-/id/645/

As an indication of the expertise & credibility of Dr. al Husseini, this interview is offered:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd7QGbNKxoQ

Bottom line: when production from Ghawar stalls, Saudi Arabia will stall, and then global oil production will almost certainly be in permanent distress.

Quote:

---

BEIJING – Hackers operating from China stole sensitive information from Western oil companies, a U.S. security firm reported Thursday, adding to complaints about pervasive Internet crime traced to the country.
The report by McAfee Inc. did not identify the companies but said the "coordinated, covert and targeted" attacks began in November 2009 and targeted computers of oil and gas companies in the United States, Taiwan, Greece and Kazakhstan. It said the attackers stole information on operations, bidding for oil fields and financing.

---

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110210/...s_cyberattacks

Quote:

---

A new drilling technique is opening up vast fields of previously out-of-reach oil in the western United States, helping reverse a two-decade decline in domestic production of crude.

Companies are investing billions of dollars to get at oil deposits scattered across North Dakota, Colorado, Texas and California. By 2015, oil executives and analysts say, the new fields could yield as much as 2 million barrels of oil a day — more than the entire Gulf of Mexico produces now.

---

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110209/...s/us_shale_oil

Hi, Adam

Thanks for your posts.
On the first one, I view it as yet another indication of how assertive China is on energy... they seem to be very peak-oil aware and proactive on it, unlike us North Americans.

On the second, I would offer several cautions. The environmental risks of fracking have only recently come to the fore, and we will all have to await the EPA's determination. North Dakota is trumpeted as USA's #4 producer, but it has yet to hit 350,000 bpd (in a nation that consumes around 20 million. By the time oil shale production hits 2 million, many of the world's other sources of oil could be seriously depleted. Furthermore, the net energy return on oil shale is relatively low, so those 2 mbpd will require a good deal of fossil fuel to extract and refine. As that Wikileaks thing from Saudi Arabia suggests, what we really need to beware of is export availability.

Oil shale will help, and there's lots of it, but there are other factors that we need to consider as well.

I appreciate your interest, Adam

- Rick

Quote:

---

At today's oil prices of roughly $90 per barrel, slashing imports that much would save the U.S. $175 billion a year. Last year, when oil averaged $78 per barrel, the U.S. sent $260 billion overseas for crude, accounting for nearly half the country's $500 billion trade deficit.

---

From one of the articles that Adam posted, this is illuminating.

True, Bill

But I fear that US oil imports could drop for an entirely different reason: export decline.
Not only is the US post-peak, so are UK, China, Norway, Mexico, Indonesia, Egypt, etc... even Canada for conventional oil. By 2020, Mexico may have evaporated as an exporter, as will UK.
Meanwhile, the eastern half of Canada's population is supplied 90% from overseas. I live in eastern Ontario, and by 2020 we will almost certainly need to be supplied from Alberta, not Algeria (which is now our #1 supplier). What this will do to the USA's #1 source of supply remains to be seen.

Quote:

---

The Bakken and the Eagle Ford are each expected to ultimately produce 4 billion barrels of oil. That would make them the fifth- and sixth-biggest oil fields ever discovered in the United States. The top four are Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, Spraberry Trend in West Texas, the East Texas Oilfield and the Kuparuk Field in Alaska.

---

This is rather misleading: there are qualitative differences between Prudhoe and East Texas gushers and the two oil shale deposits, in terms of both flow rate and net energy/EROEI. Furthermore, the USA can consume the 4 billion barrels cited in about 8 months, but of course oil shale can't trickle that fast.

Houston, we have a problem....

There are parallels with Saudi Arabia, which we cannot underestimate.

Just as the heart of Libya's oil industry is in the eastern region (where support for Gadhafi was obviously weak), the heart of Saudi production is in its Eastern Province.

This province is home to the world's two largest oil facilities at Abqaiq and Ras Tanura, the mighty Ghawar oil-field, and the headquarters of Saudi Aramco. Its largely Shia population does not subscribe to the predominant Wahhabi form of Islam.
There are reports of quiet protests during the past few days:
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/qat...-province.html

There have also been several al Qaeda plots to destroy major Saudi oil facilities since the assault on Abqaiq five years ago this week.

There is much to be wary of here... we take a great deal for granted.

RickM,
What is your opinion on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. They supposedly are the only source of energy production that produces more energy than it consumes. The patents on this process are supposed to be nearing expiration. If that is true we will finally have a source of inexhaustible Energy.

Hi, Slap

I know very little about this, though I do remember the flurry of excitement 30 or so years ago re cold fusion.
I'm assuming that this is correct (that LENR and "cold fusion" are the same thing):
http://www.lenr-canr.org/

The US Army put out this concise paper (8 pgs, 2007) on our hopes of getting something for nothing:
http://publicintelligence.net/ufouo-...gy-assessment/

So finally I'm back again. This week I learned about a new and interesting project that could solve some of the problems of our oil based industries. A group of scientists of the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich/Switzerland in Cooperation with the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) and the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, CA succeded producing a preliminary stage of fuel and kerosene from water and carbon dioxide (CO2) by using a solar cavity-receiver reactor.
The researchers calculate that the technology could be commercialised within the next eight years. I will meet the head of the research group by the end of April on a roundtable of ASPO Switzerland. I hope I will get more details there.
The results of the research group were published in Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1197834. A short description of the project was posted on the ETH Life website: http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive_a...er_reaktor_per

Wish you all a nice weekend!

PB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polarbear

So finally I'm back again. This week I learned about a new and interesting project that could solve some of the problems of our oil based industries. A group of scientists of the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich/Switzerland in Cooperation with the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) and the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, CA succeded producing a preliminary stage of fuel and kerosene from water and carbon dioxide (CO2) by using a solar cavity-receiver reactor.
The researchers calculate that the technology could be commercialised within the next eight years. I will meet the head of the research group by the end of April on a roundtable of ASPO Switzerland. I hope I will get more details there.
The results of the research group were published in Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1197834. A short description of the project was posted on the ETH Life website: http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive_a...er_reaktor_per

Wish you all a nice weekend!

PB

---

Take me with you. I have solved the JFK Conspiracy....time to solve the Energy Conspiracy:D

Thanks for that PB

I was not aware of this, and although I am always wary of such supposed break-through technologies, the fact that it has been written up in Science lends it some credibility. Please keep us posted.

On a less happy note, Iraq's largest refinery was attacked this morning, which cannot be helpful:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...71P0IM20110226

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick M

I was not aware of this, and although I am always wary of such supposed break-through technologies, the fact that it has been written up in Science lends it some credibility. Please keep us posted.

---

I am skeptical as well. The wording, for one thing, is rather odd: "a preliminary stage of fuel and kerosene". You have to wonder what sort of fuel is under discussion, and what the "preliminary stage" was.

The problems, of course, will be the energy inputs the system requires and the question of whether the process is replicable on a significant scale. H20 and C02 are extremely stable molecules, which is why they are so common. It might be possible to find a way to break those molecules down and rearrange their components without an energy deficit, but reproducing that process on an economic scale is not going to be easy.

Steve,
Thanks for your posting: you are certainly correct in mentioning scale. As that recent RAND report on alt-fuels for military points out, to be of wide-spread use a new technology needs to be capable of putting forth volumes & availability (ie. infrastructure) which will permit widespread adoption of it.... often not so easy.

Meanwhile, the Herzliya conference on national security was held two weeks ago in Israel.
Here is the agenda:
http://www.herzliyaconference.org/_U...AgendaE(1).pdf

Please note the Tuesday morning session (11:30) entitled "At Peak Oil: Strategic Implications..."
Brig Gen Binder covers a lot of ground and many points are understated (sometimes his English is a bit jumbled, though I think his intent is clear):
http://www.youtube.com/user/Herzliya...40/bYATgE_KsXs

Yossie Hollander also makes a number of good points.
David Hobbs from CERA states the obvious.
Brenda Shaffer sees little to worry about, thanks to natural gas.

Jim Woolsey seems all over the map: in this interview he seems to downplay PO in the first few seconds (there could be some context missing here) and then seems to discount the IEA warning about needing 4-6 Saudi Arabias within 20 years, yet he expects surging consumption in China:
http://wn.com/herzliyaconference?upl...erby=published

Woolsey's optimism re alt-fuels does not quite fit with the recent RAND study on alternative fuels for military application.
His last few minutes are spent on small talk with the interviewer, so you may want to stop around the 10th minute.

These links connect to conference videos of other familiar names re energy security: Liam Fox, Gal Luft, Patrick Clawson, etc.

Mass. company making diesel with sun, water, CO2

Quote:

---

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. – A Massachusetts biotech company is claiming it can produce renewable diesel fuel using the same ingredients that make grass grow.

Joule Unlimited in Cambridge says it has invented a genetically-engineered cyanobacterium that simply secretes the diesel — or ethanol — at remarkable rates.

The organisms live in water and take in sunlight and carbon dioxide. They then produce and directly secrete ethanol or hydrocarbons — the basis of various fuels, such as diesel — as a byproduct of photosynthesis.

Other methods for making fuel from solar energy use "biomass," such as corn or algae. Joule says its technology is far less expensive.

Joule claims its work can change the world, but skeptics say the company may have trouble efficiently collecting the fuel they produce and also must demonstrate their technology on a broad scale

---

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110227/...Njb21wYW55bQ--

The science is way above my head but what I think:confused:I am looking for is a chemical process that imitates the Chlorophyll process in plants. Again going back to the 70's(when I first heard of it) Buckminster Fuller was talking about something like this as the only known process that creates more output than input.

Quote:

---

The U.S. Armed Forces are heavily burdened by the financial and tactical costs of transporting fuel to the battlefield. This July, in an effort to address the problem, the United States Marine Corps will deploy a pair of diesel generators coupled with powerful batteries to frontline troops in Afghanistan. The hybrid power systems should cut by 50 to 70 percent the amount of fuel needed to generate electricity, according to the manufacturer, Earl Energy of Portsmouth, Virginia.

The generators that U.S. military camps currently use operate inefficiently because they need to handle ocassional peaks in demand. "You may have a 10-kilowatt generator that at any time is only producing 1.5 kilowatts of power to satisfy its load," says Doug Moorehead, president of Earl Energy. "So you are wasting 8.5 kilowatts of power that you aren't storing for later use," he says.

---

http://www.techreview.com/energy/35080/?p1=MstRcnt&a=f

Thanks for that, Adam

I had not seen that, and I've passed your link on to a couple of Defence energy personnel here in Canada.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamG

Mass. company making diesel with sun, water, CO2

---

These aquatic processes always strike me as potentially viable industries for countries like Bangladesh or Cambodia, with abundant wetlands and sunshine. Lots of unknowns on the practical aspects, of course. I always wonder about output per area/year, and as with ethanol, the potential for food and energy production competing for land area.

Steve,
re food & fuel in southeast Asia, this NYT article enlightened me on the growing use of cassava for fuel, which I was not aware of:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/sc...er=rss&emc=rss

On a different issue, I am puzzled by Thursday's IMF statement, "Oil Scarcity, Growth and Global Imbalances" (2 pgs):
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...1/pdf/3sum.pdf

These "Press Points for Chapter 3" refer to the IMF's World Economic Outlook which is due to be released on Monday, according to this article:
http://www.liveoilprices.co.uk/oil/o...ers-party.html

This brief video reiterates the main points:
https://www.imf.org/external/mmedia/...d=888827744001

This Reuters article also provides a summary:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...12329720110407

Question: on p. 2 of the Press Points, Helbling states, "A persistent adverse oil supply shock would imply [may cause?] a surge in global capital flows from oil exporters to importers [sic] and a widening of current account imbalances."
Surely he means that capital will flow from importers (who will be paying very high prices) to exporters. What am I missing here? (that oil exporters will have surplus cash to loan to importers?)

I have just obtained the PDF of Chapter 3, in which the sentence reads:
"... the wealth transfer from oil importers to exporters would increase
capital flows and widen current account imbalances."

As suspected, the Press Points has the words reversed, hence the confusion.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/.../01/pdf/c3.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick M

Question: on p. 2 of the Press Points, Helbling states, "A persistent adverse oil supply shock would imply [may cause?] a surge in global capital flows from oil exporters to importers [sic] and a widening of current account imbalances."
Surely he means that capital will flow from importers (who will be paying very high prices) to exporters. What am I missing here? (that oil exporters will have surplus cash to loan to importers?)

---

These days, part of that money flows into sovereign wealth funds (SWF), which are like state-owned hedge funds. SWFs seek to maximize returns as opposed to foreign exchange reserves held by central banks that seek to stabilize currencies.

Q. But wait a minute, aren’t hedge funds pumping money into oil futures, which in-turn are inflating the price of oil?
A. Yes, they are.

Q. And SWFs are like a hedge fund?
A. Correct.

Q. And doesn’t the money that these SWFs invest derive from high oil prices?
A. Why yes, yes they do.

Q. So doesn’t it stand to reason, to suspect that SWFs are by buying up all these paper barrels to inflate oil prices?
A. You would be silly not to.

Q. That is a reinforcing feedback loop, right?
A. It most certainly is.

Q. So couldn’t this be like…you know economic warfare or something?
A. That’s very interesting; I would say it is worth looking into.

The role of hedge funds and speculators in sustaining high oil prices is very much overrated. They can drive a spike higher but they can't sustain a plateau: speculators can't produce actual demand and they can't profit until they sell their position, which means price support doesn't last. When speculators see upside pressure on oil prices they will jump in and try to make some short-run profit, but they don't stay and when they underlying causes of the upside pressure resolve they will bail.

Over the long term high oil prices are driven by rising demand, limited supply, and political instability in source countries, not speculation. In any event high oil prices are not contrary to US/Western interests at this point. There's pain, but without that pain we will never get serious about developing alternatives and reducing consumption.

The Gulf SWFs in particular are pretty conservative and very diversified in their investments, and you're more likely to see them buying US and European real estate at this point than oil futures.

I see no evidence of "economic warfare". Economic mess, yes, but that's always with us, actual or incipient. Calling it "warfare" just makes it easier to blame someone else and absolve ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

The role of hedge funds and speculators in sustaining high oil prices is very much overrated.

---

According to whom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

They can drive a spike higher but they can't sustain a plateau: speculators can't produce actual demand and they can't profit until they sell their position, which means price support doesn't last.

---

Profits can be made through index speculation and OTC swaps. They wouldn’t want to sustain a price plateau; they would want to drive volatility, create bubbles. It’s not investing, it’s trading for maximum returns – the money is made from the price swings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

When speculators see upside pressure on oil prices they will jump in and try to make some short-run profit, but they don't stay and when they underlying causes of the upside pressure resolve they will bail.

---

Which is all the better if the country’s national-oil-company has the ability to influence supply pressures; its SWF can front-run the speculative herd and fleece western institutional investors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

In any event high oil prices are not contrary to US/Western interests at this point.

---

Maybe, for one thing it seriously screws with the Chinese. Bill Casey and the Saudi’s did the opposite to the Soviets in the 1980’s. The role low oil prices played in the collapse of the USSR is overlooked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

The Gulf SWFs in particular are pretty conservative and very diversified in their investments, and you're more likely to see them buying US and European real estate at this point than oil futures.

---

How exactly would you know this? They don’t have to reveal their activities, and it is easy enough to obscure them anyhow.