Energy Security

[Rick M]

Last week the Defense Science Board released its study, "Trends and Implications of Climate Change for National and International Security" (175 pgs):
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2...ate_Change.pdf

I have not finished reading the entire report, but it is clear from the outset that the DSB views CC as ongoing and serious, and that it accepts the "compelling evidence that climate impacts are observable, measurable, real, and having both near and long-term consequences" (p. vii).
The report has a particular focus on Africa, water and the potential for failed states.
The report also contains a detailed set of recommendations for various federal agencies (both civilian and military).

[Misifus]

So Rick we are now moving from Peak Oil to Global Warming. What's next? Ozone depletion anyone? How 'bout Malthusian food shortages?

[Bill Moore]

So Rick we are now moving from Peak Oil to Global Warming. What's next? Ozone depletion anyone? How 'bout Malthusian food shortages?

Misifus if you have something to add that contributes to the discussion please do so, but it is long past time to knock off the snide remarks that contribute nothing to the discussion. If you disagree with the study, state the points you disagree with and why. SWJ doesn't tolerate personal attacks, nor should they. It is an open forum where ideas are debated, not a forum for personal attacks.

From a department of defense of view climate change is taken very seriously as it should be. It is politically incorrect to assign cause and effect, so instead analysts just focus on the effects. As for food shortages, climate change much more than population growth is driving challenges in food production in some locations due to floods and droughts. Whether it passes in a year or two is immaterial to the current food security challenges in parts of the world most effected by climate change, which often happen to the least resilient.

[Misifus]

Misifus if you have something to add that contributes to the discussion please do so...but it is long past time to knock off the snide remarks that contribute nothing to the discussion.

What personal attack did you read in post #402 above? Seems to me you are just another guy looking to pick a fight.

This thread is not about Global Warming, so that article has no place here. The thread is about Energy Security, and I have contributed to this thread with real information on my area of expertise, oil & gas. Do you have comparative expertise in this area? The psychosis of Peak Oil needs to be debunked so that people can truly understand what the real issues are with oil & gas production. Not only that, I did warn further upthread that Global Warming would eventually creep into this thread because the same psychosis that feeds Peak Oil is the same psychosis that feeds Global Warming, Global Cooling, Silent Spring, Malthusian food shortages, over-population, etc. Now Global Warming has crept into this thread just like I predicted.

From a department of defense of view climate change is taken very seriously as it should be.

DOD needs to concentrate on winning our current wars. You guys (DOD) are out of your element when it comes to these other topics.

What's long past due, since you are here to lecture now, is the deconstructing of pundits who simply Google from one link to another spreading false knowledge solely to participate in whatever the latest political fashion trend of the Left is. Peak Oil offers such an example in this thread.

[Rick M]

Misifus,
Far from predicting that "Global Warming has crept into this thread just like I predicted," you yourself raised the topic in your very first post here (pg 15, #294).
Also, others have mentioned climate change and provided supplementary links on this thread over the years, which I guess you were not aware of.

You said earlier that you confine your postings to your two areas of expertise, oil & gas being one of them. Unless climate science is the second one, you seem to have some very strong views on an area which is outside your expertise.

I provided the DSB link because their document is newly-released, thorough, and because DSB is an organization which most SWC readers probably view as credible. In short, I thought that such a document on a topic of this magnitude would be of interest to this audience.

A similar (ie. similar in that CNA, like DSB, takes CC seriously) document was issued by CNA four years ago:
http://www.cna.org/reports/climate

As for the relevance of CC to energy security, Homer-Dixon and other analysts have argued that fossil fuel depletion and CC must be viewed as "twin" problems which are interconnected and must be dealt with simultaneously.
I agree with this view, but have largely avoided posting CC issues here not because I don't think they are relevant, but because they usually receive a good deal of coverage in the mainstream media, while the issues of PO and government plans for oil shocks do not.

I posted this one because it is an indication that military analysts take CC seriously, as they do PO.

As for your dismissive point about food shortages, common sense surely warns us that CC and water problems can have direct effects on food production. So would any constriction (for whatever reason) of the availability of affordable fuel to farmers (and the rest of our food supply chain).

[Misifus]

Misifus,
Far from predicting that "Global Warming has crept into this thread just like I predicted," you yourself raised the topic in your very first post here (pg 15, #294).

I think that's an attempt on your part for a circular argument. If you'd like to start a thread on Global Warming have at it, but this thread was about Energy Security and specifically Peak Oil. Do you have to conflate the two, or three, or ten? Regarding the topic of Global Warming you will find even more controversy. We could make this the Chicken Little Conflated Crises Thread if you wish, after all, it is your thread, whereby we could put every anti-development psychosis in this one thread. As such, we could probably find room for the "occupy" crowd here as well.

You said earlier that you confine your postings to your two areas of expertise, oil & gas being one of them. Unless Climate Science is the second one, you seem to have some very strong views on an area which is outside your expertise.

No, meteorology is not my second area of expertise. There is no technical discipline known as Climate Science, which is simply a fashionista term started by the Global Warming crowd. A better term would be political science. My second area of expertise may not be relevant to anything on this board, so I don't mention it here. Anybody can talk about Climate Change, and everybody does. It takes no expertise because it is a dreamed up concept and when it was proven wrong the wackos changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change.

Why don't we just talk about air pollution in the developing world? That's a real problem. The reason we don't talk about air pollution is because the Liberals are intent on giving the developing world a free pass on this issue. The Right is not any better in this issue as they can manufacture goods overseas cheaper and dirtier than they can here at home. Hence dirty countries like China, India, Brazil, Mexico, etc. get a free pass on pollution. Meanwhile anti-development intellectuals in the developed world make up pseudo-crises regarding benign gas emissions like carbon dioxide, something that we and other mammals exhale, and something which promotes plant life. We need to get real about our priorities. It is the psychosis of self-loathing that sparks anti-development movements like Global Warming, Global Cooling, Silent Spring, etc. I went over this already upthread.

As for the relevance of CC to energy security, Homer-Dixon and other analysts have argued that fossil fuel depletion and CC must be viewed as "twin" problems which are interconnected and must be dealt with simultaneously.

Well let's use your logic on this then. Do the guys who intend to solve the Peak Oil issue also have degrees in Climate Science and petroleum engineering? Yes, I am being facetious. But do you see how silly this can get? So it looks like I am correct, the psychosis of one leads to the other. It's all the same gang. Homer-Dixon's degrees are in political science, not real science. Who cares what he says? Besides I don't trust men with hyphenated last names.

I posted this one because it is an indication that military analysts take CC seriously, as they do PO.

Military analysts need to focus on military matters. Fuel logistics and theater supply is valid and in their realm. DOD does not have the skill set to even think about Peak Oil. They do not have the skill set to discuss Global Warming either. They are simply on the bandwagon because these are political/fashionista issues with doubtful origins.

As for your dismissive point about food shortages, common sense surely warns us that CC and water problems can have direct effects on food production.

Here we go again. Like I said, it's all the same crowd. And again, do you have to conflate the two, or three, or ten?

Now before a moderator steps in here (they are prone to do that lately), or before you hit the complaint button, let me ask you this...

Have I directly called you a derogatory name in this thread? Have I delivered a personal attack on you, whereby I said specifically that you are a so and so?

[Bill Moore]

Military analysts need to focus on military matters. Fuel logistics and theater supply is valid and in their realm. DOD does not have the skill set to even think about Peak Oil. They do not have the skill set to discuss Global Warming either. They are simply on the bandwagon because these are political/fashionista issues with doubtful origins.

Thanks for telling us we don't need to focus on issues of strategic concern. Most of us thought we had a role in predicting the probable locations and causes of conflict or instability that the military may be asked to respond to, which is why the military in concert with others in the government, academia and private industry explore issues like climate change (a reality), energy, food, and water security. Agree this forum should be restricted to energy security, but sometimes there is a nexus. For example, due to the hype associated with energy security, the U.S. government offers incentives (criminal in my view) to farmers to grow corn for ethanol production, which in turns equates to higher food prices and less food being grown, because it is more cost productive to grow corn for ethanol. Another example of where the market failed because it was over rode by dumb government policies in this case.

Encourage you and others to read the Joint Operating Environment 2010, which is produced by DOD, but informed by experts both in and outside of DOD.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/joi...vironment-2010

Excerpts:

Energy:

To meet even the conservative growth rates posited in the economics section, global energy production would need to rise by 1.3% per year. By the 2030s, demand is estimated to be nearly 50% greater than today. To meet that demand, even assuming more effective conservation measures, the world would need to add roughly the equivalent of Saudi Arabia’s current energy production every seven years.

A severe energy crunch is inevitable without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity. While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India. At best, it would lead to periods of harsh economic adjustment.

Much more in the document on energy (statistics), food, and water security and why it is relevant.

[Rick M]

Misifus,
You asked, "Have I directly called you a derogatory name in this thread? Have I delivered a personal attack on you, whereby I said specifically that you are a so and so?"

Since you asked the question, I would have to answer, "Yes, you have used a variety of ways to insult me and others with whom you disagree. Most are indirect (eg. "Chicken Little doomsayers"), but some have been direct and personal."
Here is a sample:

pg. 18, #343:
"your Peak Oil psychosis."
(I believe that people who suffer from psychosis are called psychotics. These are not terms which should be tossed around lightly.)

also #350:
"our Peak Oil guru"

#353:
"you may need to reconsider being a Peak Oil acolyte."

#356:
"you are a collator of information seeking to spread a hysteria."

Back on pg. 19 #365 you said,
"This thread needed an insider. Just read the thread before I entered. It was pretty much a "group think" thread with no form of self-calibration. This party needed to be crashed in order to get some thought injected into it."

This thread would welcome the constructive observations of someone with first-hand O&G experience, but to suggest that this audience is stuck in group-think, lacking independent thought (and in need of your crashing it) is a touch arrogant on your part.

As Bill Moore politely put it, please "state the points you disagree with and why."
You do not need to imply insanity, nor that someone is trying to be a guru, nor that anyone is trying to create hysteria, in order to present sensible counter-arguments.

[Misifus]

Thanks for telling us we don't need to focus on issues of strategic concern. Most of us thought we had a role in predicting the probable locations and causes of conflict or instability that the military may be asked to respond to, which is why the military in concert with others in the government, academia and private industry explore issues like climate change (a reality), energy, food, and water security.

Oh c'mon Bill. How are those predictions working for us? Some good, some not so good. However, jumping on the political bandwagons of Peak Oil and Global Warming is a stretch. I don't want my tax dollars wasted like that by DOD.

For example, due to the hype associated with energy security, the U.S. government offers incentives (criminal in my view) to farmers to grow corn for ethanol production, which in turns equates to higher food prices and less food being grown, because it is more cost productive to grow corn for ethanol. Another example of where the market failed because it was over rode by dumb government policies in this case.

I agree with the above and keep in mind that ethanol is a net energy loser. However, it is the anti-development psychosis that is pushing ethanol. The same people who brought you Peak Oil, Global Warming, etc. Another backfired program. It takes more energy to produce ethanol than what ethanol provides when it is burned. Brilliant!

Excerpts:

To meet even the conservative growth rates posited in the economics section, global energy production would need to rise by 1.3% per year. By the 2030s, demand is estimated to be nearly 50% greater than today. To meet that demand, even assuming more effective conservation measures, the world would need to add roughly the equivalent of Saudi Arabia’s current energy production every seven years.

A severe energy crunch is inevitable without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity. While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India. At best, it would lead to periods of harsh economic adjustment.

Same old stuff Bill. Alarmists without a real basis for the predictions. Same horse, different saddle blanket.

[Bill Moore]

Same old stuff Bill. Alarmists without a real basis for the predictions. Same horse, different saddle blanket.

If that was true, I don't think we would see the level of tension we do we do in the South China Sea over access to potential energy sources. Lots of open source stuff indicated this analysis is accurate and will drive a potential conflict (if not war) between states. This isn't a peak oil alarmist argument, so much as we're not producing (and then refining) enough oil to meet demand.

Next weekend I'll pull some articles (well researched) that point out how energy politics is impacting the global security environment and it has nothing to do with anti-development intellectuals, that is just background noise. It has everything to do with maintaining economic growth and stability.

[Rick M]

Misifus,

Military researchers in the USA, Canada, UK and Australia consistently warn of both PO and CC, yet you dismiss their objective determinations as "jumping on the political bandwagons?"

Honestly, have you examined any of their reports?
As Bill suggested earlier today, please tell us (especially since you have insider expertise) precisely where/why these military analysts are so wrong.

[Misifus]

If that was true, I don't think we would see the level of tension we do we do in the South China Sea over access to potential energy sources. Lots of open source stuff indicated this analysis is accurate and will drive a potential conflict (if not war) between states. This isn't a peak oil alarmist argument, so much as we're not producing (and then refining) enough oil to meet demand.

Next weekend I'll pull some articles (well researched) that point out how energy politics is impacting the global security environment and it has nothing to do with anti-development intellectuals, that is just background noise. It has everything to do with maintaining economic growth and stability.

Nope not referring to Peak Oil. "Same horse different blanket," by that I mean that oil is in contention. Hasn't it always been in contention since Churchill and Fisher decided to replace coal with oil as the British fleet's fuel? There has always been contention about oil security. As I pointed out upthread, there are more reserves now than ever. Nevertheless, I do remember when China was a net exporter of oil, now it is a net importer.

[Rick M]

Misifus,
"I do remember when China was a net exporter of oil, now it is a net importer."
Excellent point.... I remember as well.

Given your insider knowledge, could you please provide us with a list of oil producing countries which were once major oil exporters, but are now net importers?

[Misifus]

Misifus,
"I do remember when China was a net exporter of oil, now it is a net importer."
Excellent point.... I remember as well.

Given your insider knowledge, could you please provide us with a list of oil producing countries which were once major oil exporters, but are now net importers?

No. I'm not going to sleuth that. I'm sure you can Google it!

I anticipate you would like to show that reversals of net exporter to net importer means that oil has "peaked " However, such is not the case, there are more reserves now than ever, as has already been indicated.

[Bill Moore]

Hasn't it always been in contention since Churchill and Fisher decided to replace coal with oil as the British fleet's fuel? There has always been contention about oil security. As I pointed out upthread, there are more reserves now than ever. Nevertheless, I do remember when China was a net exporter of oil, now it is a net importer.

True, but the question is regardless of there being more reserves now than never, does that keep pace with the growing demand? The point that oil has always been contentious I believe reinforces the point about why we need to be concerned about it. More players with the rise of the rest competing for secure supplies, and it is this new great game that is driving a new geopolitical map consisting of new alliances and tension points, where states bid for influence either through coercion or attempts to bribe secure access to oil fields or secure pipelines/seaways to allow for the transport of it.

I think we're seeing a shift away from wars of ideology back to wars over resources and markets. Once again we're going back to the future.

[Misifus]

Misifus,

Military researchers in the USA, Canada, UK and Australia consistently warn of both PO and CC, yet you dismiss their objective determinations as "jumping on the political bandwagons?"

Honestly, have you examined any of their reports?
As Bill suggested earlier today, please tell us (especially since you have insider expertise) precisely where/why these military analysts are so wrong.

Rick we have been over this already upthread with Hubbert's work and other.

Now look at my avatar, I'm just poor little Misifus.

[Rick M]

Misifus,
You said, "there are more reserves now than ever."
No quarrel with that statement.

But as has been pointed out many times, PO refers to peak flow, not peak reserves.
I know that you are unique in claiming that "Found reserves are considered production" but that is rather like confusing the tank with the spigot.
If I have a tank of immense volume, but the spigot/tap/outlet valve allows less flow than I require on a daily basis, then I will have an ongoing supply problem despite the immensity of my reserve/tank.

As for the growing list of post-peak oil producers (with rapidly decreasing export capacity), would you accept such a Google list if I posted it?
Or would that be beyond my area of expertise, and therefore invalid?

[Misifus]

True, but the question is regardless of there being more reserves now than never, does that keep pace with the growing demand? The point that oil has always been contentious I believe reinforces the point about why we need to be concerned about it. More players with the rise of the rest competing for secure supplies, and it is this new great game that is driving a new geopolitical map consisting of new alliances and tension points, where states bid for influence either through coercion or attempts to bribe secure access to oil fields or secure pipelines/seaways to allow for the transport of it.

I think we're seeing a shift away from wars of ideology back to wars over resources and markets. Once again we're going back to the future.

Well Bill of course. But that has always been in the game, yet we still always have had the oil to meet the demands. In fact if we are to believe what Peak Oil'ers have been saying, we now have a glut of oil. So right now the Peak Oil logic is that we have too much oil but that we are running out. Huh?

We covered this already upthread. We have been running out of oil since it was discovered. That however does not mean it has peaked.

Okay guys, I gotta go now.

[Rick M]

Misifus,
You said, "we still always have had the oil to meet the demands."

True, but that is what PO is all about: if oil is finite (and you thankfully accept that it is), then despite 153 years of ever-increasing commercial supply (which surely shapes our ongoing expectations) we must accept that we will inevitably reach a point in human history when we no longer have sufficient supply to meet demand.
At that point (as Dr. Hirsch's PO study stresses) humanity will face "an unprecedented risk management problem."

[Rick M]

Misifus,

Perhaps you can provide an explanation for this recent and rather bleak prognosis from ND-DMR regarding future shale oil production:
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/pipeline/asse...11-10-2011.pdf

My sense was that almost everyone expected significant, sustained production increases at least throughout this decade.
But slide #3 shows production declining around 2015, and never reaching the 1 mbpd that so many people expected.

Any thoughts as to what's caused the sudden (and rather significant) change in expectations?