Energy Security

[slapout9]

Here is another definition for ASCOPE.......it's a pipeline project



http://www.ascopegas.com.my/ascopewss/agc/default.aspx

[Rick M]

Hi, Slap

I was puzzled by your comment but checked out the link.
I was aware of the new pipeline to China having just opened but not of the ASCOPE group (thanks for that).

Being still puzzled by your comment about definitions, I googled ASCOPE and was informed as to its usual (military) meaning.
So now I get it.
I continue to learn from you guys... there are many acronyms that I don't always understand.

But speaking of pipelines, this should be of concern not only to Alaskans (published this morning):
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/n...y/1007672.html

The larger concern here is a legitimate one: once a supply system appears to be unviable (for whatever reason), it may be abandoned.
The sudden loss of oil which might otherwise be brought to market could accelerate the drop in production.

In the case of Alaska, the drop in production has physical as well as fiscal effects to the pipeline.
Pipelines are expensive to maintain, especially in such a harsh climate.
It's not clear how the interplay between declining production and increasing maintenance costs will evolve....

[Rick M]

This was posted earlier today:

http://www.businessinsider.com/russi...00000000c1b336

Dr. Robert Hirsch (author of the landmark 2005 Hirsch Report on PO which was conducted for DoE) argues against two analysts who argue that there is no urgency re global oil supply.

I offered some observations at the end.

[slapout9]

Hi, Slap

I was puzzled by your comment but checked out the link.
I was aware of the new pipeline to China having just opened but not of the ASCOPE group (thanks for that).

Being still puzzled by your comment about definitions, I googled ASCOPE and was informed as to its usual (military) meaning.
So now I get it.
I continue to learn from you guys... there are many acronyms that I don't always understand.

But speaking of pipelines, this should be of concern not only to Alaskans (published this morning):
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/n...y/1007672.html

The larger concern here is a legitimate one: once a supply system appears to be unviable (for whatever reason), it may be abandoned.
The sudden loss of oil which might otherwise be brought to market could accelerate the drop in production.

In the case of Alaska, the drop in production has physical as well as fiscal effects to the pipeline.
Pipelines are expensive to maintain, especially in such a harsh climate.
It's not clear how the interplay between declining production and increasing maintenance costs will evolve....

Hi RickM, all and all I just thought it was an interesting coincidence

[Rick M]

As if Pakistan doesn't already have enough on its plate: Swat Valley, increasing bombings, and chronic electricity shortages... its oil refineries appear to be on the verge of shutting down.
Whether this report is a ploy to get government support or whether it's the bottom-line reality of companies with no cash, the results could be very serious.
Adding fuel (or in this case, an absence of fuel) to an already inflamed situation is the last thing any country need, least of all in that corner of the world.

Here is the Pakistani link (posted earlier today), though it's not easy to decipher exactly what the situation is:
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=26410

[Rick M]

Shale gas has been touted as the energy salvation of the USA.
As Art Berman found out, there seems to be zero tolerance for those who might rain on the SG parade (in Art's case, all he did was call for "critical thinking," apparently the ultimate sin).

There have been growing concerns about the environmental aspects, not just in terms of the volumes of water required, but more specifically with the fracking chemicals which are injected.
Two weeks ago NYC asked for a ban on SG drilling in its watershed.
48 hours ago the EPA expressed its concerns:

http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/a...chargenews_rss

Furthermore, it's been revealed that Exxon has an escape clause on its purchase of XTO Energy, which was widely celebrated as proof that SG had indeed come of age.

http://www.oilprice.com/article-exxo...-gas-game.html

[Rick M]

I have carefully read a document issued by the Chief of Force Development (DND Canada) entitled "The Future Security Environment 2008-2030."
What follows is from FSE Part 1, subtitled "Current and Emerging Trends" (27 January 2009).

First, this quote: "many experts believe that peak oil has been reached and.... Consequently, the world will face oil shortages and disruptions, rising prices, and increased competition" (FSE, p. 41).

The use of the word "will" in this context is significant, as this document (following the practice of the DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme in the UK) attaches a probabilistic meaning to the term.
In its Terminology of Probability, the term "Will" means "Circumstances are already moving in this direction, and moving off this trajectory is not foreseeable."

Therefore I'm very pleased to see DND accept the view that peak oil is a fairly imminent issue, and there is some reassurance in seeing it warn of the near-certainty of oil shortages, disruptions and higher prices.

Part Two of the FSE series will be entitled "Future Shocks," where some attention should be given to the extraordinary complexity of dealing with oil supply shocks.
I will try to connect with the DND researchers who are working on this aspect.

Also, the footnote for the above info (#60) is credited to six sources, including Cameron Leckie (Major, Australian Army), Peter Johnston (researcher at DRDC in Canada), Kjel Aleklett (President of ASPO) and Robert Hirsch (who was the lead author of the Hirsch Report for DoE in 2005).
Links to the excellent research of all four have been provided on this site over the years.

Here is the link:
http://www.cfd-cdf.forces.gc.ca/docu...0Jul09_eng.pdf

Of course it's one thing for DND to identify the concerns (though that certainly is step one, and I'm thankful for it), and another to do anything about it.
Canada's lead agency for energy, Natural Resources Canada, still insists that "there is no imminent peak oil challenge," and DND may be understandably reluctant to call them on that.
Also, there is a clear disjuncture between DND's warning of the near-certainty of oil shocks and the inadequacy of Canada's existing LFE plans at all three levels (national, provincial and local).

But it's encouraging to see such a prudent medium-term outlook on oil supply.
It's a clear statement from Canada's military analysts that
a) it views peak oil as a valid concern and
b) it views future oil shocks as a near-certainty.

Now we need civilian authorities to act on these prudent warnings....

[Bill Moore]

RickM, I agree, and I wonder how anyone with even a little awareness of the issue could deny it. One can debate whether we have already hit peak oil, or debate when we hit it, but if it hasn't happened, it will happen, and the consequences over time will be severe (as we saw do the pre-mature surge in oiil prices due to largely to spectulators). Imagine sustained triple digit prices for a barrel of oil?

In very simple terms you can view the world as a coffee cup with finite capacity to hold oil, and it can't produce oil as fast we're extracting it.

Assuming there are no major system shocks (black plagues, nuclear war) that greatly reduce the global population and demand for oil, it is probably a safe bet that the combination of raising global middle class (especially in China and India) and increasing population will significantly increase demand, thus push us past peak oil an ever increasing pace.

The potential saviors are efficiency technology or alternative energy sources, the former has already made a dint, and the latter is far from being a reality.

This is a much greater national and global security issue than Al Qaeda, and unlike the last 9/11 we can clearly see this 9/11 coming. It also creates a situation where nation-state wars will be likely to secure energy supplies, so like many others I vote for caution against diverting our entire military away from large scale warfighting to engage in irregular warfare. We need to be prepared to defend what essential first.