Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")

Originally posted by Bernie_Gunther

The big relevation for me on all this stuff came when I saw just how much petroleum goes into putting food on the table compared to running a car or even a house (which was what I started out trying to understand when I began looking at this)
Click to expand...

That was an eye-opener for me.

That a lot of energy is expended moving food about is not that surprising, but the scale of that per household compared to direct fuel costs is quite staggering.
 
Given a worst case scenario, could the industrialised world pull up the drawbridge, maybe invading and exploiting a few countries on the way, and make the transition a lot more easily for themselves whilst condenming the rest of the world? Obviously this is morally indefensible, millions or billions would die, but could they? The power is there, obviously (OECD + other nuclear states for example).
 
Here's the comparison, using Swedish figures.

ENERWMF0.JPG


Hus is house, Bil is car, Mat is food. The grey bar represents energy that looks like it could be saved by ruralisation. The main bar represents present energy use for a typical Swedish family.
 
Originally posted by slaar
Given a worst case scenario, could the industrialised world pull up the drawbridge, maybe invading and exploiting a few countries on the way, and make the transition a lot more easily for themselves whilst condenming the rest of the world? Obviously this is morally indefensible, millions or billions would die, but could they? The power is there, obviously (OECD + other nuclear states for example).
Click to expand...
I think that may be the actual agenda of some of the people around Bush. The oil depletion question really first came up when raised by Shell's chief scientist in the 50's or 60's. Bush's people are all oil people and at least one of his advisors is an expert on depletion economics. The US isn't actually in all that bad shape compared to say the UK.

Here's Pimentel on the subject 'If the US were to move quickly to a renewable energy economy, with sustainable use of energy, land, water and biodiversity, and a relatively high standard of living, our research indicates that the optimum US population would be about 200 million, significantly less than the current population of 256 million.' - Pimentel is talking here about something pretty much like business as usual but using biomass as far as I can make out. The numbers assume in other words, something like US present population distribution and social order.

(linking to pages inside this site doesn't work so you'll need to go digging around for Pimentel's essays http://www.mnforsustain.org - I've got some better links a few pages back. )
 
I agree that Simmons doesn't seem to think much of the Bush / Cheney energy plan from those remarks of his that I've seen.

There are though, two aspects to this. Whether you accept that a problem exists and whether you support a particular flavour of solution to it. It doesn't seem impossible to me that a perception of the problem actually exists in the minds of people around Bush but that they don't seek egalitarian solutions to it. Do you know of any information that would shed light on this question adzp?

(useful looking site btw)
 
Bernlord G
Well...its hard to say.

We need to drag out that document that Rumsfeld wrote a few years back b4 9-11 about the geo strategic importance of Eurasia etc etc. Might shed some light, aint looked at it for ages.

But then one could say that they think oil might decline, but maybe they dont, or even more likely they dont care because most of them will be dead by the time it all happens. At the very least if its running out then the US will keep `it all` and China/India etc will be turned into sub saharan africa...meanwhile they simply think new energy sources will appear, made by them and their `energy` companies (aka oil companies)...i dont think the Rep Admin really have a major long term strategy over this, maybe for the next ten years...

So that the USA will have `bridge fuels`that no one else can have, in their case it will be oil. The rest of the planet will have no bridge fuels, so then the USA can buy it up cheapo...


just a note - those oil stocks the USA was supposed to have (for winter) dont seem to be there...prices are 3% on the week, Saudi are saying cut production, prices have bumped by nearly a dollar in the last 24hrs...
 
If that were indeed the case it gives Blair's 'special relationship' a slightly more realistic tinge then, doesn't it?

China and India have nukes though, even though the US has a lot more.
 
Hmm, OK. I'd be interested if you can find a link for that Rumsfeld thing. Assuming a ten year viewpoint, which seems reasonable and access to good data; I'd guess their main perception would have to be one of growing demand from India and China and hence the need to prepare to compete for supplies, especially toward the end of this decade and the beginning of the next.
 
Originally posted by slaar
If that were indeed the case it gives Blair's 'special relationship' a slightly more realistic tinge then, doesn't it?

China and India have nukes though, even though the US has a lot more.
Click to expand...
Well yes. On the Blair thing though, one way to look at it is to look at who currently uses Middle East oil.

That's primarily the EU and Far East, the US mostly gets theirs from the Americas and Africa last time I checked. The EU and Far East are the US's two strongest economic competitors. Both with arguably more healthy economies. So controlling ME oil is an opportunity to gain a decisive power over their economic rivals.
 
senior oil/petrol journo was guy who told me about the Russian a dn french and how they are going to have their Iraqi contracts honoured (well, certainly the Russians Yukos, the French -Total - amazingly only initialed their contract!!!) and the Brits got fuck all out of it...how the Brits got dead troops and the Russians and French got oil...having said that they did renegotiate some contracts after that to Brit oil companies...

The UK cannot turn down a USA war...our armed forces belong to them, especially inteligence, and Blair knew Bush would finish him if he stood in his way...
 
Heh, I went looking there too. Found this which is new to me. A neo-con discussion of energy policy and the importance of continued growth by the look of it.

American prosperity through the use of more and more and cheaper and cheaper energy (at gunpoint) combined with less pollution laws is their gospel. Depletion isn't a factor seemingly.

'Let us call this political platform cheap gas, cheap oil, cheap electricity. The policy would have three basic facets: (1) Government intervention to double the share of nuclear power in electricity generation, thereby reducing pressure on supplies and prices of fossil fuels (and incidentally emissions of hydrocarbons). (2) A concerted national trade and security policy to prevent monopolistic collusion by foreign energy producers, especially in crude oil--and thus to restore more U.S. energy independence. Since collusion is not tolerated in any domestic industry, why must we tolerate collusion abroad against a vital U.S. interest, especially by oil-producing countries whose political existence depends to a large extent on U.S. military power? (3) As part of the same effort to increase U.S. production, a vast expansion of legal permissions for drilling for crude oil and natural gas on public and private lands should be enacted. Energy processing and transmission industries, such as refineries, pipelines, and distributing networks, must gain rights of way, increased freedom of pricing, and thus the access to capital needed for growth. The characteristics of an inspired regulatory regime for U.S. energy would thus be diversity, reliability, and redundancy. '

(edited to add) Here's a prediction, based on the world-view in that article, I think the temptation would be for them to try to claim that any ill-effects due to depletion are actually: 1) evil environmentalists destroying American prosperity, 2) the fault of colluding foreigners: neither of which should be tolerated by a strong US.

Meanwhile, this policy only makes sense in the light of depletion, if you assume that while the US does this, billions just starve to death. Again, this will IMO turn out to be the fault of the starving people, at least in the minds of those who favour these policies.
 
Interesting, gas futures are jumping...did the US govt lie about gas inventory..? "analysts confessed disbelief at the 40% run-up the past week."

-----------------------

Washington - Natural gas futures roared upward Monday, settling at a nine-month high as traders and analysts confessed disbelief at the 40% run-up the past week.

Natural gas for January delivery finished the day at $6.90 per 1,000 cubic feet, up 76.7 cents, or 12.5% on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The last time natural gas futures closed at this level was March 7, when the price was $6.99 per 1,000 cubic feet.

Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading in Chicago, said the surge in natural gas prices was "really incredible," given that winter is still officially two weeks away.

Prices began their rapid ascent early last week, when colder weather arrived in many parts of the country. They were propelled even higher by a government report showing a larger-than-expected weekly decline in the nation's underground inventories.

Flynn pointed to factors other than the weather, citing a reported increase in U.S. manufacturing activity and the precipitous drop in the value of the dollar this year.

-------------- AP today
 
Originally posted by Bernie_Gunther
Again, this will IMO turn out to be the fault of the starving people, at least in the minds of those who favour these policies.
Click to expand...
I think you're right on this one, just like the view that third-world underdevelopment is entirely the fault of domestic governance.
 
Interesting new paper I just found by some scientists at Oak Ridge. They've put Campbell's assumptions, along with several more optimistic sets of data into some heavy duty risk models.

http://www-cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications/ORNL_TM_2003_259.pdf

Interesting conclusions they come to, even when looking at the 'optimistic' USGS 2000 results.
'
"If the resource estimates based on Rogner (1997) or those based on the USGS 2000 survey are used, peaking of non-Middle Eastern conventional oil production is likely sometime between 2010 and 2030. If the lowest resource estimates are correct, the transition is already underway. The key determining factors of the date of peak production are how much conventional oil remains to be discovered and how quickly reserves can expand.

The peaking of conventional oil production is only a part of this equation. Under a wide range of assumptions the rate of growth in world conventional oil production will slow substantially after 2020 if it does not decline. In order for oil consumption to continue to increase at substantial rates, the Middle East region must rapidly expand production or production of oil from unconventional resources must be greatly expanded. The implication is that under almost any assumptions, it is not too soon to consider whether this transition is desirable and to evaluate the risks and opportunities it presents."

This is very interesting because usually people who want to claim this isn't happening, do so on the basis of the USGS 2000 figures, but don't supply the detailed modelling that Campbell has done about what their favourite figures mean in terms of time before the roll-over. In this case, we have some Oak Ridge scientists working under at DOE grant, who have taken Campbells data and the optimists data and independently modelled their outcomes given various scenarios. The result is that Campbells data suggests we're already right on the edge of it and that the optimists data suggests we hit the brink in about 20-odd years.

20-30 years would be very good news in terms of preparation time, but on the other hand, we'll have a population of between the present six billions and a projected eight billion or so by then.

So it's a good argument to say that the differences between Campbell and USGS data for example, are less important than Campbell's critics (e.g. people like Michael Lynch or Fred Singer) would indicate when they claim that his methods are nonsense.
 
I've just spent the evening reading that paper in detail, it's pretty interesting. It looks like you can actually get hold of their model as a bunch of Excel spreadsheets to play with, but that you'd need to also have the same expensive risk management tool to replicate all of their conclusions. The authors are being very clear about their assumptions though, e.g. they're excluding some of the geological constraints that Campbell and co say are significant and using r/p ratios, which Campbell et al would probably say only function as a limiting case. Something the authors admit may be true. They're also excluding political constraints, but are giving us a pretty clear idea what some of them might be. For example, once non-OPEC conventional oil has peaked, either about now or in a decade or so depending on which assumptions you like, the unconventional oil alternatives to total dependence on OPEC are pretty damn disgusting environmentally, especially if the IPCC is even half right. The authors also explicitly exclude issues relating to population, but they do draw attention to the horrible transition after the global peak implicit in the model they set out to improve.

They prefer the term 'rate of transition' to 'running out of oil' their point being, if we have to make any kind of transition from conventional oil in the near future, the only thing that's even close to being a direct replacement is non-conventional oil. They therefore explicitly only consider how soft or hard that transition is going to be, rather than exploring the harsher consequences of Campbell's model which says there isn't enough non-conventional oil that's physically recoverable with currently feasible technology, to prevent a complete failure of supply to keep pace with demand.

Some of the political dynamics of non-conventional oil are pretty interesting too. What happens first is you run out of non-OPEC conventional, so there is an immediate political pressure, perhaps alleviated to some extent by siezing Iraq, to reduce dependence on OPEC by recourse to non-conventional oil. This initially means Venezuelan extra-heavy oil and Canadian oil sands, plus some Russian resources that they aren't really organised to exploit yet.

After they're past their peak, the next game seems to be oil from shale, which appears to be almost entirely in the US. Once non-OPEC conventional has peaked though, which seems likely to be pretty soon now, buying from the Middle East/North Africa or digging very large expensive holes in Canada, being really good friends with President Putin whatever he does to his dissidents and overthrowing President Chavez sometime real soon now, seem to be the only practicable alternatives if you haven't got any mature alternative energy systems in place capable of picking up your excess demand and you don't want to cut that demand one bit. The demand scenarios they used were built for a previous simulation, and their high energy use case had to be revised significantly upward because of the changes since Bush took over.

There are also some low-demand scenarios, presuming as the authors put it 'unprecendented international cooperation' in some super-Kyoto initiative to get this problem under control while we can. The future looks significantly less awful in those, because the oil lasts long enough to reduce excess population by birth control of some kind, rather than by War, Pestilence, Famine and Death and to make the transition to fully sustainable food and energy systems. The soft-landing scenario looks increasingly less likely the more closely the demand assumptions reflect President Bush's policies however.

I think he'll blame it all on the terrorists myself, and maybe the French.
 
Here's a very useful paper bigfish posted to this thread several pages back, analysing White House energy (& security) strategy.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4458.htm

It appears to me pretty clear that the White House have no intention whatsoever to consider trying to get the US to reduce demand, but there certainly is a strong intention of remaining independent of OPEC. This means that when the non-OPEC conventional oil peak hits, which it very likely already has, but which even using the USGS data looks like happening in the next decade or two, moves towards non-conventional oil and moves to dominate OPEC countries with military force look very likely.

Non-conventional oil is likely to provoke increasing internal dissent, when people find out what's actually involved environmentally, as also is attacking Iran (presumably after securing re-election somehow) on whatever trumped-up excuse they devise, due to the already existing anti-war movement.

One might therefore anticipate moves to crush such dissent using things like Patriot Act 2 and its UK equivalents, plus another series of dodgy PR campaigns aimed at blaming foreigners and domestic dissidents for whichever problems are now visible to the masses. I'm thinking stuff like power cuts, fuel and hence also food shortages etc. (remember the UK's 2000 petrol crisis?)

Europe is in an interesting position when it comes to non-conventional oil. Apart from some vague reserves in Russia, it's pretty much all somewhere in the Americas. This may perhaps explain why Europe is in general less likely to want to offend the Middle East and more likely to take sustainability fairly seriously.
 
Bernie, I see that you've come around to my way of thinking (which is not necessarily a good thing -- somehow, on this one, I would much have preferred to see the folly in my vision :( ).

USA Patriot Act, HSA, putting the North American continent under a single US military command, and stealth passage of elements from "Patriot Act II" are just some of the ways the USG is preparing to quell internal dissent (who really thinks these things are meant to protect us from terrorists with box-cutters?).

In addition, there have been a long series of Presidential Directives which empower the President to suspend the constitution, institute military rule, and create internment camps if, in the President's sole discretion, internal unrest becomes too much. Examples of "internal unrest" are disputed elections, active protest against a war, active protest against governmental policies (e.g., environmental), etc. Hmmm.

By Presidential Directive, once military rule is triggered (under the auspices of FEMA), Congress cannot review the judgement of the President for 6 months. A lot of "consolidation" can happen in 6 months. Hmmm, again.

I believe 2004 will be a watershed, epoch-making year. When Bush gets re-selected, he will continue to advance his radical right wing agenda -- at a cost to all but the elite of elites. A circling of the wagons, again, to protect their own rapacious way of life while the rest of us see our lives decline as we slide down the backward slope of Hubbert's Peak.

The wagons are being rearranged while the rest of us are distracted by Michael Jackson exposes and stories of the Bush-Blair wives sharing tea and biscuits (wasn't there some kind of protest going on, too?). Anyone notice that the Jackson spectacle that pre-empted coverage of the U.K. protests have now been dropped as "unfounded". Hmmm.

The revolution will not be televised, sang Gil-Scot Heron in the seventies. It turns out that the untelevised revolution is the reactionary seizure and exercise of power by radical right-wing oligarchs, not by the disadvantaged classes in the streets. Sad.
 
Originally posted by davekriss
Bernie, I see that you've come around to my way of thinking (which is not necessarily a good thing -- somehow, on this one, I would much have preferred to see the folly in my vision :( ).<snip>
Click to expand...
Well, I can see that Bushco are going to want to behave that way, but you and your fellow Americans may still be able to stop them if enough of you turn out to overcome the wave of organised election fraud, blatant misappropriation of government resources, propaganda and so on, that is even now being organised to prevent sane Americans from voting Bush out.

Even if the opposition are also corporate owned slime, AFAIK they aren't owned by quite such directly interested parties as Bushco.

There is also the possibility that Campbell is a bit pessimistic in thinking that we've already hit the peak for non-OPEC conventional, although there is some confirming evidence emerging. That might mean a bit of breathing space before we're into the decline of non-OPEC conventional resources, which might in turn make a different US government slightly less likely to e.g. invade Iran right after the election. Even a little breathing space would be very useful in this respect, to try to overcome the 'Fear God, Ashcroft and the Terrorists and Be Happy that Exxon Knows What's Best' propaganda that is being cranked up re: this stuff.

Fundamentally though, anyone committed to growth at all costs has to prevent the sustainability interpretations of all this data, gaining any momentum in the public mind. Back in the 70's the environmental movement knew all about this stuff, so did the public and even Nixon was talking population control. A vast PR campaign starting just prior to Reagan's election ended that era.

We don't have the luxury of time, to be letting them do it again.
 
Originally posted by Bernie_Gunther
There is also the possibility that Campbell is a bit pessimistic in thinking that we've already hit the peak for non-OPEC conventional, although there is some confirming evidence emerging.
Click to expand...
Back in June of 2000, Dr. Peter Davies (Chief Economist for BP Amoco) informed us that "During the 1999 OPEC production cuts, non-OPEC production failed to grow", which to a cynical mind might indicate a physical inability, rather than the result of naked corporate greed. ;)
Originally posted by Bernie_Gunther
'...Exxon Knows What's Best' propaganda that is being cranked up re: this stuff.

Fundamentally though, anyone committed to growth at all costs has to prevent the sustainability interpretations of all this data, gaining any momentum in the public mind.
Click to expand...

The Oil & Gas Journal recently posed some interesting questions for discussion, one of which was
Is OPEC's $22-28/bbl price band target (some would say it's actually $25/bbl) realistic to sustain in the light of an imminent oil production peak? While many analysts suggest that rising non-OPEC output in the next few years will undermine OPEC's price-defense strategy, would not an ensuing production war by OPEC (to recapture market share to Russia, the Caspian, etc.) contribute to the problem of accelerating global oil depletion by spurring demand? In other words, if the Hubbert modelers are correct, shouldn't we want a higher sustained oil price now in order to defer the day of production peak? Would this then not also give cause to all producers to rein output--not only to defend price but also to conserve reserves--and thereby instill an early depletion "premium" in oil prices?
Click to expand...
To which Peter Davies (VP & Chief Economist,BP plc) simply answered "A production peak is not imminent."

To be fair, he dismisses the whole notion of depletion in his first answer:

"I do not believe that the peak of global oil production is imminent. I foresee significant growth in non-OPEC production in the next several years and a growth in the production capacity of OPEC member nations. The aggregate growth in world oil production capacity is likely to exceed oil demand growth. Some unconventional liquid hydrocarbons will be produced -- and probably in growing volumes. This will be for economic reasons, assisted by technical advances and cost reductions, and not due to global oil depletion." (all here - worth a read)

I think I see the trick, now. When depletion causes a price rise which in turn causes economic collapse, blame the inability to meet demand on the economics. Neat. :cool:


Anyway... for your edification, amusement and delight, I present to you something I stumbled across the other day - It's a promotional film made in 1949 by Shell all about what jolly clever devils we are...

***Oil for Aladdins' Lamp***

(follow link and select stream/file)
 
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/business/7500491.htm

Oil stocks being recommended as the price is set to stay high increasing profits...

-----------------------

There are interesting developments in international oil stocks. If OPEC is able to keep oil priced steeply, the earnings downside at firms such as ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) will be limited and their futures will look sweet - as in sweet crude.

Investors who bought Exxon a few years ago, properly anticipating fantastic earnings, look at its recent price, below $40 per share, and realize it is a few dollars above the 2000 and 2001 lows - and far from the mid- to upper-$40s highs.

The story is the same for BP (NYSE: BP), Royal Dutch (NYSE: RD), Shell (NYSE: SC) and ChevronTexaco (NYSE: CVX). They are gushing cash...

----------------------
 
Iran's head of OPEC for the moment too, IIRC - if soo, expect them to try to keep prices high as they are crying out for cash....
 
I think there's probably quite an interesting and potentially long conversation about what we can do, and what we would want our governments to do about all this stuff. If you're interested we could try to develop that theme a bit on this thread or elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kebabking
  • Poll
US 2028 election?
2
Replies
48
Views
976
Dogsauce
Dogsauce
hash tag
War is a crime?
2
Replies
53
Views
2K
A380
A380
Flavour
  • Poll
Who will win the 2024 US election?
50 51 52 53 54
Replies
2K
Views
44K
bcuster
bcuster
N
Can US Supreme Court be reformed next time Democrats are in power?
Replies
8
Views
264
Yossarian
Yossarian
Cloo
  • Poll
What was behind Trump shooting? make your bets now
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
164
Views
6K
Nylock
Nylock
Back
Top Bottom