Energy Security

[Dayuhan]

Certainly there are politics around pipelines, but journalists sometimes make them out to be more than what they are, and are inclined to inflate the degree of US interest. In the Central Asian scene the players are the Central Asian states, China, Russia, and Europe; potential impact on US energy supply is negligible and the US is only peripherally concerned.

Pipelines linking China with Central Asia are a logical development, I can't see them as a real "win" for China and certainly not as a "loss" for the US. Oil and gas from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan will flow to China, the geographic logic is overwhelming. Those pipelines actually decrease China's dependence on the Middle East, not a bad thing for other buyers of ME oil. Of course China will build the pipelines, and of course they will make loans, spread some money, try to build influence in Central Asia. It would be silly for them not to. Of course there are also vulnerabilities. If China's relations with its western Muslims deteriorate to the point where terrorism begins, those pipelines will be targets, and if Russia sees China trying too hard to build influence in what they consider their turf they may get a bit prickly.

The Central Asian states don't want to depend on Russia to move their product, but they also don't want to piss the Russians off. So they will keep sending a large part of their product through Russia, while developing alternatives through China and to Europe via non-Russian routes, and they will get as close to China as they can without ruffling Moscow too badly. They will try to split exports up, sending product out by several routes, and they will try to keep on good terms with both China and Russia. Again, this is common sense.

The Russians don't need the gas or oil, but they want the influence over Europe that comes with Russian control over transit, and they want to keep the Central Asian states in their sphere of primary influence. The most likely major-power confrontation in that area would be Russia-China; no real likelihood of it happening soon but the potential is certainly there.

Europe wants gas and they don't want to be completely dependent on Russia. So they'll try to push the development of the southern pipelines. Qatar's huge production capacity and new fleet of LPG tankers is a factor in that equation; Europe is their natural market.

Iran is a bit of a wild card on the gas scene. They have reserves and some capacity; everyone will buy from them but nobody wants to be dependent on them, too much potential for disruption.

Of course right now there's a glut in gas, so the maneuvering is looking forward.

Russia and Qatar cutting back gas production... really, so what? Producers trimming output during a glut is not exactly news. What would we expect them to do? It's a good time to do all your maintenance work, and a good time to maybe keep facilities off line a bit longer than you have to... again, common sense.

Of course there's jostling and maneuvering, nations pursuing their interests, covering their butts, looking to their future options... business as usual. From the US perspective it's a picture that bears watching, but not a matter of monumental concern. To talk about "pipeline wars" and wins and losses is really over the top, but media and the analyst community do have a bit of a vested interest in hyperventilation.

[Rick M]

Thanks for your links, Surfer and for your observations, Steve.

Sorry for this very slow reply... I had the presentation in Toronto on June 8th, track meets, year-end report cards for school, and the garden to contend with.

I will not pretend to know much about Central Asian gas supply or pipeline politics, though I am in touch with a veteran analyst who does know a great deal.

Meanwhile, North Sea decline keeps looking worse... the Norwegians have done a much better job than the Brits in terms of long-term planning & their sovereign wealth fund.
However, last week's news re the future of their domestic natural gas supply seems to be a bit of a shocker:
http://www.energybulletin.net/53165

We in Canada have little to feel complacent about in this regard... our natural gas production peaked almost a decade ago, as did that of the USA, and we are both counting on US shale gas to fill the growing gap.

Given the increasing call on Canadian NG for tar sands extraction and the recent water quality problems re fracking, North American gas supply seems far from secure in the long term, though the NG boosters would have us believe otherwise.

[Rick M]

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:

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

[Sumtingwong]

The Economist published a study on oil in an issue about 2 years ago. Much of the oil reserves on the books today are the results of geological surveys using technology that does not come close to what is around today. Further, the advanced drilling techniques and technologies that are around are also able to extract more of the oil from the wells.

It would seem that the reason we are drilling for oil a mile below the surface far out at sea is because a) we can, b) the environmentalists allowed it, and c) no other viable resource exists that fills so many needs. If I remember correctly, the largest oil deposits in the world lie in the Canadian tar pits--these are untapped(?) as the price of oil does not yet meet the cost of extraction.

Please pardon if I have repeated anything posted earlier.

Cheers!

[Rick M]

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

[Rick M]

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

[Rick M]

The Guardian, as usual, is a leader on the PO issue.

This article (dated tomorrow, Aug. 22) refers to a PO summit involving Ministry of Defence.
It also mentions the need for contingency plans.

More intriguing is the claim that the government is reluctance to provide info requested under Freedom of Information, with a reference to the matter as being "important and sensitive."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...climate-change

[Rick M]

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.

[Rick M]

First, this from Norm at Oil Drum yesterday (in normal English):

Choice quotes and conclusions:

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

[Rick M]

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.

[Rick M]

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.

[davidbfpo]

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:

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

[Rick M]

Hi again, David

Thanks for the link to Paul Rogers' concise study... I was not aware of it.
I hope that all is well in UK

- Rick

[davidbfpo]

From the monthy Strategic Comments:

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/

[Dayuhan]

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.

I love the way people talk about "a rapid shift to a low-carbon society" as if it was as easy as changing your underwear. I guess for the inhabitants of think tanks it is that easy, or at least seems that easy.

One of the real obstacles to rational discourse on climate change is the number of people involved in the discourse who see climate change less as the issue of the day then as the thin end of the wedge, a means to promote a whole range of agendas that have little real relation to either climate change or human welfare.

[Rick M]

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….

[Rick M]

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.

[Polarbear]

Yesterday I joined the annual conference of ASPO Switzerland (which is under the auspices of Daniele Ganser a Swiss historian and "peace researcher" who has formerly published on the Cuban missile crisis and the European stay behind organisations during the cold war). The motto of this year's conference was "Peak Oil and it's impact on Switzerland", which is a too narrow view to my mind, but which gave the public the impression that some 7 Million people living in Switzerland could change the global
approach to energy consumption, only if they reduced their own consumption.

Following are some of the thoughts of yesterdays presentations.

Dr. Daniele Ganser (President ASPO Switzerland, Historian): Gave s hort introduction into the topic and terms of Peak Oil and research. Dr. Ganser is convinced that the peak will occur somewhere between 2010 and 2020. Although he has done extensive research in the area of oil exploration and the oil industry it is not clear for me on what data he bases his assumption. As a peace researcher he is interested in the mechanisms that lead to conflict over scarce resources and how to avoid them.

Peter Malama (Nationalrat/MP of the Swiss parliament for the Liberals FDP, President of the trade and crafts association of Basel): Mr. Malama talked on the responsibilities of politics to prepare the country for the post-fossile era. He tried to demonstrate that a society where people do not need more than 2000 Watt per day is possible.

Ralph Stalder (Country Chairman of Shell Switzerland): Mr. Stalder had the most difficult part of the invited speakers because he had to justify the policy of the oil industry. He laid out how Shell will deal with the doubling of the demand of energy within the next forty years:
1) increase efficiency, meaning increasing the level of de-oiling the known oil fields as well as improving the technology to find new fields.
2) diversification, i.e. the reduction of the risk of an energy crisis by the development of new fuels (especially of 2nd generation biofuels), gas (which has lower CO2 Emissions than petrol based fuels and coal), and the controversial mining of tar sands. In 2012 Shell will produce more gas than oil for the first time of its history.
3) Climate protection: CO2 pricing, use of gas, biofuels, use of CCS technology to reduce CO2 emissions in general.
According to Mr. Stalder the world will still be dependent to a large part on fossils in 2050 (his estimate was 65%). The predicted "gap" of about 40 Million barrels per day will be filled by newly found or exploited oil fields. But he put also emphasis on two important points relating to the new and "clean" energies. Firstly, the time factor. It takes about 20-25 years for a new technology to gain 1% of the market. Secondly, the resource factor. Even the new technologies depend on the availability of raw materials and not all of these are abundant or available from politically stable countries. (A fact that very often is forgotten by environmentalists...)

Although not many of the visitors liked what Mr. Stalder said, I think one thing was very important: the transition from an oil based society to a society using renewable or alternative energies will not happen from one day to the other but only through a series of intermediate steps.

Dr. Werner Zittel (Physicist and member of the board of ASPO Germany): According to Mr. Zittel the world has already reached the oil peak. His explanations were rather alarmistic. His assumptions about the peak were based on the analysis of the oil fields of England and Brasil. He is very pessimistic about the predictions of the oil industry that the newly developed fields in Brasil for example will make up for the decreasing output of the giants in the middle east for example. Further signals that the tide is turning are the financial crisis, whis has its roots in the high energy prices since 2003, the consolidation of the oil industry and the car industry, the crisis in the airline business, as well as the nationalisation and export reluctance of some countries, especially in the middle east.
His main thesis is that in 2030 there will be no more fossile energy on the free market!

Bernhard Gunzenhauser (Geologist working for the oil industry for 25 years): Although he did not deny that fossils are finite, Mr. Gunzenhauser showed that modern technology has the potential to increase the efficiency in de-oiling current and exploring new fields. This will prolong the time of the worlds dependence on oil but will also give the chance to

Mirjam Ballmer (Grossrätin/MP of Kanton Basel Stadt): the only women to speak and by far the youngest of the participants (27 years), she presented her vision of Swiss society for the year 2050. Her assumptions were rather idealistic, if not to say naive. Basically she thinks that Switzerland will be a 2000 W society and will be independent from fossil fuels.

Overall the conference was rather disappointing for several reasons:
1) The focus (on Switzerland) was to narrow.
2) The overall layout was biased and showed a certain reluctance of the organisators to confront arguments critical of peak oil.
3) The naivety of the ideas of many of the people about how fast and how far reaching the transition from an oil based society to a society using renewable and "clean" energies will be.

[Rick M]

Thanks very much for your info, Polarbear

I am somewhat familiar with Ganser's work (NATO's secret armies, etc). His projection of peak within the next decade is certainly consistent with the views of many other PO analysts.

The suggestion that we can manage on 2,000 watts/day seems absurd: that would not even cover the energy used to deliver basic public services like water, sewage, electricity and heating fuel, much less food and essential transport.

Good for Stalder for agreeing to participate... many industry people would not bother. I may not share his optimism re future oil supply, but I certainly accept his point about how long it takes to make fundamental changes in things like energy supply. That's why Hirsch and others have pleaded for action on PO, pointing out that we need to get moving a decade or two before we hit peak if we hope to avoid major trouble.
He's probably right about us still using fossil fuels in 2050: they are the best (most energy-dense & versatile) energy sources we've ever found, and we will use them until we run out (our reserves will be severely depleted by 2050, one would think... not much left for our grandkids).

He's also right about resources (including some of the rare earth elements) being needed for alt-energy... we do face a huge & complex problem.

Zittel is also correct: the North Sea is in major decline, and Brazil's deepwater fields may be the biggest discoveries in decades, but they aren't big enough to offset depletion else where. As I recall, Brazil's proven reserves were around 12 billion last year, and last month they said that their new Libra field has about 8 bn, so if we are generous and say 20, or even 30, that's what the world uses in less than 365 days.

Gunzenhauser's point about enhanced oil recovery is fine... that's what we all hope for, since we can usually only recover 30-40% of the oil that's in each well. But UK, Norway and USA are world leaders in EOR, none of which has prevented terminal decline.

I accept your three criticisms of the conference, but I'm not sure that I would view the conference as disappointing for those reasons.
Rather, it's an eye-opener in terms of the difficulties which lie ahead. There is a great spectrum of opinion out there, just as there is on climate change. There are skeptics and deniers who think the others are alarmists, and people who think we are doomed. There are people who think that all that is required for a post-carbon transition is political will, ignoring the realities of physics, net energy, resource supply, infrastructure, scale & deliverability, etc.
At least you are aware of the issue as well as of the scale and complexity of trying to come up with viable solutions.
What I find disappointing/discouraging is that it's so, so difficult to get humans to agree, even on identifying a problem... much less finding solutions to it.
We just aren't that agreeable, I guess.

Thanks very much for your info and for your interest.
- rm

[Polarbear]

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