Energy Security

[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

[Rick M]

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.

[Polarbear]

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

[Rick M]

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/

[Rick M]

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

[Rick M]

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

[Polarbear]

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

[Rick M]

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

[davidbfpo]

Rick M and others,

These popped up on an IPPR email:

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

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

[Polarbear]

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

[Rick M]

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/

[Polarbear]

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

[Rick M]

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

[Dayuhan]

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.

[Rick M]

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.

[Dayuhan]

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.

[Rick M]

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

[Dayuhan]

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...

[Rick M]

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.

[Polarbear]

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