Energy Security

[davidbfpo]

This story intrudes and is difficult to identify why now: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...ergy-scramble/

The title alone should get attention, incidentally where is this place Ukraine? I can hear that question being asked.

davidbfpo

[Rick M]

Last week the transcript of an interview conducted by ASPO’s Steve Andrews with Dr. Robert Hirsch was released.
Dr. Hirsch was the lead author of the landmark study of peak oil which was conducted for DoE almost five years ago.
Hirsch is a scientist by training and has spent an entire career examining various aspects of energy: nuclear fusion, alt-energy, oil refining, synfuels and electric power.

When it comes to energy supply issues, few analysts have the breadth of experience or the credibility of Bob Hirsch.

This concise interview (3 pgs) provides some intriguing background on:
- how the Hirsch Report got started (Hirsch suggested it)
- how the report was received once it was completed (NETL admin was shocked by its conclusions, there may have been an effort at higher levels to suppress the report, and “NETL was told to stop any further work on peak oil”).
- what’s happened since the release of the report in Feb. 05 (very little on the political front because it’s “a bad news story. There’s just no way to sugar-coat it…”).

Hats off to Dr. Hirsch for his courageous persistence on this issue.

Here is the link to this interview:
http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/200...g-of-peak-oil/

For those who have not yet examined the Hirsch Report, this article provides an introduction and link to the 91-page original report:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report

[Rick M]

I finally completed a review of the May 09 energy security study by the Military Advisory Board of the Center for Naval Analyses.
The review was published this morning by Energy Bulletin:
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50201

I would welcome your observations on both the CNA study and on this review of it.

[Rick M]

An annotated bibliography of energy security studies which have been conducted by analysts from the military/security research community has been posted at Energy Bulletin:
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50208

Many of these studies conclude that peak oil is indeed a credible near-term concern, and they have been flagged accordingly.

By presenting this bibliography, my hope is that the credibility of these military/security analysts will speak for itself: if they view peak oil as a credible concern, then the rest of us really should take note.
As always, I thank you for considering this information, and I would appreciate your observations.

[Rick M]

We have had increasing warnings about a near-term oil supply crunch.
The warning with the strongest language yet appeared today in an interview with Sadad al Husseini (former senior official with Saudi Aramco).

Here are Sadad's main points (all direct quotes from last week's recorded interview):
- there are not enough projects. There is not enough new capacity coming on line, within the next five to six years, to make up for global declines.
- we are basically going to see a shortage of capacity within two or three years. We're being lulled by this current excess capacity....
- we do have a problem in the near term. In the longer term it's even worse.... So it's both a short and long-term problem.
- from 2003 forward, oil production has hardly increased. So the information is there.... the market it not able to deal with these realities... people can't deal with these realities.
- [we can't] act as if these issues don't exist and then wait for some solution to materialize out of nowhere.

Here is the EB link to this interview:
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50234

[Rick M]

I returned a week ago from the international ASPO conference in Denver, which was a remarkable 3-day experience.

I know that peak oil is hardly a favourite topic, but I would like to offer you the latest info:
First, the recent data on declining oil exports is very concerning… it is hard to imagine how we will make it through the next decade without a significant drop in available oil exports, which is bound to produce a more sustained price spike.

Second, an excellent UK study was released yesterday regarding government inaction on peak oil.
This study is reviewed in the first item, which provides a link to the original document:
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50447

Third, CBC in Canada is finally moving on peak oil and there will be some info on CBC Radio's "The House" this coming Saturday morning.
More on that later.

[slapout9]

I returned a week ago from the international ASPO conference in Denver, which was a remarkable 3-day experience.

I know that peak oil is hardly a favourite topic, but I would like to offer you the latest info:
First, the recent data on declining oil exports is very concerning… it is hard to imagine how we will make it through the next decade without a significant drop in available oil exports, which is bound to produce a more sustained price spike.

Second, an excellent UK study was released yesterday regarding government inaction on peak oil.
This study is reviewed in the first item, which provides a link to the original document:
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50447

Third, CBC in Canada is finally moving on peak oil and there will be some info on CBC Radio's "The House" this coming Saturday morning.
More on that later.

Nothing to worry about that Invisible Hand is just gonna swoop down and fix everything

[Dayuhan]

an excellent UK study was released yesterday regarding government inaction on peak oil.

I personally don't think that we should point the finger at "inaction on peak oil" or demand action "on peak oil". The danger there is that if the supply/demand equation moves at any point in a direction not compatible with peak oil theories, that can serve as a justification for abandoning policies that are likely to be unpopular.

Better I think to emphasize that overdependence on oil exposes us to a whole range of risks, including but by no means limited to absolute depletion and the peak oil hypothesis. That emphasis can drive a range of actions from both public and private sectors, ranging from increased investment and development of investment structures that satisfy host country nationalism to greater efficiency, conservation, and plans for sudden shortage.

The "invisible hand" actually has a vital role to play, and it is critically important that oil remain expensive regardless of supply/demand shifts. Policies to manage the range of risks resulting form oil dependence require will on the part of government, business, and the populace; when the price of energy drops, that will evaporates.

[Bill Moore]

Posts by Dayuhan,

I personally don't think that we should point the finger at "inaction on peak oil" or demand action "on peak oil". The danger there is that if the supply/demand equation moves at any point in a direction not compatible with peak oil theories, that can serve as a justification for abandoning policies that are likely to be unpopular.

I thought you posted some excellent insights. I would add that if there is a favorable demand in either supply or demand that permits lower fuel prices it will serve as justification for abandoning sound policies that are likely to be unpopular, which means we will postpone further investment in exploration and investing in alternative forms of energy and energy efficiency technologies, so once again we'll admire (and do nothing about it) the problem we see coming until it is a crisis.

Better I think to emphasize that overdependence on oil exposes us to a whole range of risks, including but by no means limited to absolute depletion and the peak oil hypothesis. That emphasis can drive a range of actions from both public and private sectors, ranging from increased investment and development of investment structures that satisfy host country nationalism to greater efficiency, conservation, and plans for sudden shortage.

I suspect we're putting more money in the hands of Islamist extremists driving SUVs and other fuel inefficient vehicles than the kids buying dope linked to organized crime and violent extremist groups. Oil money going to the Middle East provides the wealth for the fundamentalists to generously donate to their favorite group ranging from Hamas to Al Qaeda. There are a host of other geopolitical risks related to our dependency on oil that could easily drag us into another conflict that we could otherwise avoid.

The "invisible hand" actually has a vital role to play, and it is critically important that oil remain expensive regardless of supply/demand shifts. Policies to manage the range of risks resulting form oil dependence require will on the part of government, business, and the populace; when the price of energy drops, that will evaporates.

I tend to agree, so if you're right, then the crisis is unavoidable, thus one focus should be on what does the crisis mean to our national security, how do we mitigate the crisis (versus prevent it).

[slapout9]

The "invisible hand" actually has a vital role to play, and it is critically important that oil remain expensive regardless of supply/demand shifts. Policies to manage the range of risks resulting form oil dependence require will on the part of government, business, and the populace; when the price of energy drops, that will evaporates.

What you are talking about is a rational Government Policy designed to protect it's citizens and that is the total complete opposite of the "invisible hand" theory.

[Dayuhan]

What you are talking about is a rational Government Policy designed to protect it's citizens and that is the total complete opposite of the "invisible hand" theory.

That's not what I'm talking about, actually. High oil prices are a prerequisite for rational Government policy, not a consequence of it. Of course Government action to keep oil prices high would be rational and desirable, but it's also unthinkable: any politician that proposed such a course would be charged with promoting the interests of oil companies and ay-rabs and would face public crucifixion. Disquieting though the thought may be, we rely on the invisible hand to keep energy expensive. The initiative will not come from government.

The problem is vexing enough to start with; it is made far more so by the American public's apparently unshakable conviction that cheap abundant fuel is an inalienable right that government is supposed to protect and preserve. Even at the peak of the recent oil price surge, polls showed huge numbers of Americans believing that there was really no supply/demand interaction behind high prices and the whole thing was an oil company plot. We the people just don't get it, for the most part.

I suspect we're putting more money in the hands of Islamist extremists driving SUVs and other fuel inefficient vehicles than the kids buying dope linked to organized crime and violent extremist groups. Oil money going to the Middle East provides the wealth for the fundamentalists to generously donate to their favorite group ranging from Hamas to Al Qaeda.

On this I'm not so sure. I think AQ found it much easier to raise support and money during in the gulf during the oil glut and consequent economic misery of the 90s than they did during the recent oil boom. Ideologies of hate and victimization are harder to sustain during prosperous times. If we stop putting money in the hands of the Gulf Arabs, and a real economic collapse ensues, AQ will have a wonderful time exploiting that. Of course there would be less money around for them to raise, but there will always be some and they really don't need that much to make a mess. I personally think prosperity in the Gulf accrues to our favor, while poverty favors our opponents.

if you're right, then the crisis is unavoidable

Not necessarily. I said that the will required depends on high oil prices, but I do think high oil prices are likely to continue even without any Government action, which is a plus point. There will certainly be change and there will certainly be some level of dislocation and discomfort (likely to be interpreted by media as a crisis), but I do not see cataclysmic events as inevitable. We rely on a factor we do not control - sustained high prices - to reduce consumption, increase production, and drive investment and innovation, and to a large extent the near to medium term energy equation will be driven by political events in countries that we also cannot control. All this lack of control is not reassuring, but it's something we need to learn to work with.

[Bill Moore]

Posts by Dayuhan,

I think AQ found it much easier to raise support and money during in the gulf during the oil glut and consequent economic misery of the 90s than they did during the recent oil boom. Ideologies of hate and victimization are harder to sustain during prosperous times. If we stop putting money in the hands of the Gulf Arabs, and a real economic collapse ensues, AQ will have a wonderful time exploiting that. Of course there would be less money around for them to raise, but there will always be some and they really don't need that much to make a mess. I personally think prosperity in the Gulf accrues to our favor, while poverty favors our opponents.

I'm only speculating, but the oil glut in the 90s probably didn't significantly impact the wealth of the elite in the Gulf States. Assuming that their wealth is impacted significantly in the future, then theiir generous donations to NGOs that are nothing more than front companies for extremist groups would have to be decreased, which over time would have a negative impact on a number of terrorist groups. Weapons, militant salaries, ammunition, medical, etc. all cost money, and those prviding them have the money.

Not necessarily. I said that the will required depends on high oil prices, but I do think high oil prices are likely to continue even without any Government action, which is a plus point.

Depends on what you consider "high" oil prices. From what I'm reading the oil industry needs to maintain the price around $70.00/barrel to break even (a lot of factors, but probably true for the oil sands in Canada and the deeper wells in the ocean where exploitation simply costs more). There is no guaruntee that oil companies will intelligenty invest those profits to ensure a sustainable future, but that is another issue. Back to the main point, once the current economic crisis passes we'll be able to sustain economic growth at that price, but if it goes higher it is questionable. $100.00/barrel oil had a significant impact on the economic growth, but it didn't happen over night, so while we can survive spikes, I remain less optimistic about sustained high prices and think governments will intervene with subsidies, etc., which will only delay the pain.

[Dayuhan]

I'm only speculating, but the oil glut in the 90s probably didn't significantly impact the wealth of the elite in the Gulf States. Assuming that their wealth is impacted significantly in the future, then theiir generous donations to NGOs that are nothing more than front companies for extremist groups would have to be decreased, which over time would have a negative impact on a number of terrorist groups. Weapons, militant salaries, ammunition, medical, etc. all cost money, and those prviding them have the money.

If the Saudi elite were completely broke, they wouldn't be able to fund terrorism. Realistically, though, this is not going to be a significant factor any time soon. Even with maximum investment in efficiency, conservation, and alternatives, oil is going to be a significant part of the global energy matrix for the next 20-30 years, which means the Saudis will have revenue. They also have very extensive investments in various assets around the world. It's not likely in any forseeable future that they will be unable to fund terrorism, which makes the will more important than the capacity.

I do think there's been a significant shift in the Saudi elite's perception of AQ since the 90s. During the anti-Soviet jihad, bin Laden was a hero and support was practically mandatory; that aura took some time to wear off. The American military presence during the 90s was an irritant, as was the inaccurate but widely held perception that the low oil price was a consequence of manipulation by the US and the oil companies (an interesting echo of the way Americans tend to perceive high oil prices). That combination drove considerable support for the bin Laden narrative at all levels of society.

That all changed with the oil boom, which rendered the 90's narrative of resentment obsolete. It was difficult to sustain the idea that the US would never allow Arabs to succeed or get a fair price for their assets when oil was over $100 a barrel and Bush was crawling to Jeddah to beg the king to pump more. The Saudi elite have also become increasingly aware that bin Laden would prefer to see them dead in a ditch, and that if he and his cohorts ever gain control the only thing they have to look forward to is a bullet in the head, not much of an incentive to contribute - though some might be willing to fund the Afghan jihad on the assumption that it will drain radicals from Saudi Arabia and keep them occupied (and preferably dead) elsewhere.

Depends on what you consider "high" oil prices. From what I'm reading the oil industry needs to maintain the price around $70.00/barrel to break even (a lot of factors, but probably true for the oil sands in Canada and the deeper wells in the ocean where exploitation simply costs more).

$70 might be a break even point for the really expensive oil but overall I'd say that figure is high.

There is no guaruntee that oil companies will intelligenty invest those profits to ensure a sustainable future, but that is another issue.

The real issue here is not the Western oil companies, which have a fairly good track record of investment, but the national oil companies in producing countries, which control increasing proportions of world production. Many countries set investment terms that make foreign investment unattractive at any oil price, or are too unstable for foreign companies to be interested. Domestic investment in many of these countries is insufficient to sustain production, let alone increase it. In many cases oil revenue is stripped to fund the personal expenses of the elite or ambitious social and political projects. National oil companies in Venezuela and Mexico actually contrived to lose money in 2007 and 2008, equivalent to starving in the midst of a buffet dinner. The governments in these cases would rather put the money into their own efforts to stay popular and in power than into feeding the goose that lays the golden eggs. Again, this is something that western governments and companies cannot control.

This also has some impact on the point you made about the Gulf Arabs. The Arabian Gulf states are one of the only places where really significant investment is being made in new production, and the world's dependence on them is likely to rise, not drop, in the near future.

Back to the main point, once the current economic crisis passes we'll be able to sustain economic growth at that price, but if it goes higher it is questionable. $100.00/barrel oil had a significant impact on the economic growth, but it didn't happen over night, so while we can survive spikes, I remain less optimistic about sustained high prices and think governments will intervene with subsidies, etc., which will only delay the pain.

True of course, and this is why expensive oil is unpopular. In the long run, though, the economic impact of cheap oil, an incentive to profligacy and a disincentive to investment and efficiency, will be far worse than the economic impact of expensive oil.

[Rick M]

For those who may be interested, CBC is Canada's public broadcaster, funded largely by public revenues (ie. our tax dollars).
CBC Radio has an excellent 50-minute weekly show which covers Parliamentary affairs, called "The House."
For the past several weeks, this show has focused on peak oil and its implications for various sectors.
Yesterday's broadcast had a 10-minute segment on the agri-food sector.

Here is the link to The House's archive... go to Oct. 24 and let it load completely (yellow bar, which takes about 2 mins).
http://www.cbc.ca/thehouse/index.html

Then slide the slider until the right side of the slider lines up with the center of the bar-zone.
You should hear them talking about Going Local, agri-food and peak oil.
This segment totals 10 mins: first 5 mins with 2 Ottawa farmers, then 5 mins. on Canadian government inaction.

Despite some progressive activity in the USA (Roscoe Bartlett's Peak Oil Caucus in Congress) and in the UK (APPGOPO), little seems to be happening in their ag departments (USDA and DEFRA, respectively) in terms of planning for an end to cheap fossil fuels.
But here in Canada we aren't even asking the questions, let alone working on answers/responses....

[Rick M]

A Guardian article published earlier today states that two senior officials within the International Energy Agency have recently come forward (anonymously) to state their concerns that the world's oil supply is less rosy than many would have us believe:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-energy-agency

[Rick M]

A press release (below) was issued a few hours ago from NFU head office in Saskatoon.

Thanks to the IEA whistle-blowers last week (and some further info in the past few days), there is finally some momentum on this issue.

The central concern is that the public is not being told the whole story... apparently not by the IEA internationally and certainly not by NRCan here in Canada.

Please note the 10 trends in the "backgrounder" and the link to supporting military/security research.

Here is today's press release:
http://www.nfu.ca/press_releases/pre...20concerns.pdf

[Rick M]

To my great surprise), this appeared last night:

http://peakoil.com/modules.php?name=...icle&sid=52746

You need to click on the link to Energy & Capital (at the bottom) to get to the complete article.
I'm thankful that someone views fuel emergencies as worthy of concern and has noticed the ASPO presentation on this issue.

[Rick M]

Yesterday the Texas Supreme Court annonced that it will re-hear the case against Exxon-Mobil (which the Court dismissed in March).

This decision is unusual and should be commended.
Hopefully this will allow the whole truth to come out.

Again, the only place I've seen any media coverage of this issue has been by Noah Brenner at Upstream Online.
Please correct me on this if anyone has seen coverage anywhere else.

Here is yesterday's article:
http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article199693.ece

[Ski]

I've been doing quite a bit of research on the Mexican oil industry as part of a SAMS exercise over the last two weeks.

Mexico is in really bad shape and it's only going to get worse.

Their largest field, Cantarell, is dropping off the charts in terms of daily production. It's expected to go below 700,000 barrels a day by the end of the year, and under 400,000 barrels a day by 2012. The US Energy Information Agency said earlier this year that Mexico will be a net importer of crude oil by 2017. Why is this important?

1. The Mexican oil industry is nationalized. 40% of the federal budget comes directly out of oil profits. If they become a net importer, not only do they lose a significant percentage of the federal budget, they will lose additional federal funds in order to meet the import requirements.
2. Mexican demand is expected to rise 10-15% by 2017.
3. Mexico is the third largest importer of crude oil to the US. In 2005/6, the US was getting 1.2/3M barrels a day shipped northward.
4. The US is actually subsidizing Mexico's economy by running a trade deficit of $65-90B dollars per year (the numbers vary depending on what source), of which about $40B comes from oil profits.
5. If the Mexican federal state cannot develop new fields (and they've spent literally nothing in terms of exploration or infrastructure sustainment) , they will not anything to replace that lost income, and I suspect there will be a crisis of political legitimacy within Mexico.

[davidbfpo]

Coming to the rescue - shale oil? See:http://www.spectator.co.uk/business/...-arrived.thtml He has written other articles that IIRC read "It's OK". The author has worked for BP and as a (London) city journalist.