Peak Oil Latest News

Overview of new features:

Article Submissions
We now accept peak oil related article submissions HERE. This is your opportunity to let the world know your thoughts, opinions and fears about the energy crisis. Publishing your articles here has several advantages. We will promote your article for you to ensure it gets read by as many people as possible. It is an excellent opportunity for authors who want to increase their online name visibility and showcase their writing skills. We also allow HTML in our articles so that you can share valuable online resources. New articles are published directly onto the main page HERE. Authors will receive a contribution link on our menu.

Daily News Feeds
In an effort to keep our site as up-to-date as possible we have integrated an RSS feed reader HERE. Articles on this page are automatically published using RSS feeds from several key peak oil websites. We provide a direct link to the article on the originating website, and give credit to their contribution by placing a link to their main page (down on the right menu bar of this page). This provides you with updated news links and easy access to updates from other peak oil sites.

RSS Feed Submissions
If you know of a feed that we should add to our site you can suggest it HERE. If you are a webmaster please consider linking to us before you suggest your site.

Headlines from the Peak Oil Blogosphere
We have established a partnership with Mark Brandon from First Sustainable to offer this peak oil feed tool. You can see a working example on the right menu of peak oil news. This feedbox was created for webmasters who want to automatically display the latest peak oil headlines on their site. The goal of this tool is to raise the profile of Peak Oil Blogging through cross-promotion. The feeds included contain the most widely followed, high traffic blogs in the Peak Oil blogosphere. By displaying this tool, you will not only gain exposure to your headlines, but also increase your link popularity and traffic. Get the feedbox code HERE.

Link Exchange Requests
Peak Oil Resources has a number of links to online energy related websites worth a look. Link exchanges are a way for related websites to network with each other for exposure. If you want to suggest a site please feel free to submit the address HERE. We accept peak oil related submissions only. We are more likely to accept your submission and publish your link if you have already placed a link to us on your site. Use the description part of the submission form, or email us (bottom of this page) to request other cross promotion arrangements.

Thanks to the intergovernmental role of the IEA, the World Energy Outlook is in a unique position to provide objective energy analysis and energy projections covering the entire world, grouped as: OECD (USA, Canada, Mexico, EU, Japan, Korea, Oceania), Developing Countries (China, India, Indonesia, Latin America, Brazil, Middle East, Africa) and transition economies (Russia and eastern Europe).

The report is sectioned into three main parts:

1. Reference Scenario
The Reference Scenario presents projections for supply and demand of oil, gas, coal, renewables, nuclear and electricity to 2030. It also assesses energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. The projections incorporate the latest energy-market and price developments as well as macroeconomic conditions. It covers 21 separate regions and the world as a whole. Includes key assumptions, global energy trends, oil market outlook, gas market outlook, coal market outlook and power sector outlook.

2. Alternative Policy Scenario
The Alternative Policy Scenario is built on policy measures such as energy efficiency and increased use of renewables and nuclear. The Alternative Policy Scenario contained in the WEO 2004 showed that there is a large scope for reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions. To deepen the analysis of developing country potential, the WEO 2006 contains separate models and analysis for China, Russia, Brazil, India and Indonesia. The analysis also describes the cost implications of new policies. Outlines how to map a new energy future, assess the cost effectiveness of alternative policies, deepen global analysis by sector and how to go beyond the alternative policy scenario.

3. Focus on Key Topics
This year’s report focuses on some key energy related topics. The report examines the global economic impact of high energy prices by looking at current trends in oil and gas investment. There is an emphasis on nuclear power and the likely worldwide expansion of this dangerous technology. Other key topics of the report is the potential of biofuels and energy for cooking in developing countries, as well as a focus on Brazil’s energy future.

Some questions the 2006 report answers:

• Is the economic reaction to high energy prices merely delayed?
• Is oil and gas investment on track?
• Are the conditions shaping up for a nuclear energy revival?
• Can biofuels erode the oil monopoly in road transport?
• Can 2.5 billion people in developing countries switch to modern energy for cooking?
• Is Brazil learning new lessons or teaching the world?

The WEO report contains two types of analysis:

1. Detailed global energy projections covering supply and demand by fuel and sector to 2030 and beyond in even-numbered years. Also included are in-depth analysis on key countries: India, China, Russia and Brazil.

2. Special topics concentrating on timely issues and challenges facing the energy sector in odd-numbered years including: energy subsidies, uranium supply, hydrogen, CO2 sequestration, energy investment projections and the importance of the Middle East and North Africa region.

The IEA World Energy Outlook explores both possible energy futures: the under-invested, vulnerable and dirty future and the clean, clever and competitive future. It responds to the G8 by mapping a new energy future and contrasting it with current economic trends. The 2006 WEO report also shows how to change the energy economy and demonstrates the benefits of energy efficiency using extensive statistics, detailed projections, analysis and advice.
Ordering Information: IEA Publications Bookshop

Even though the Canadian economy is no less dependent on hydrocarbon energy than ours, Canada has been drilling as many wells as necessary to keep the high-maintenance American economy humming. If this pedal-to-the-metal production policy were applied to a non-strategic product like, say, maple syrup, few people would care about the consequences. But there is nothing on the horizon to replace the nonrenewable high-density energy sources that Canada so generously sends our way.

This begs the question: how long can Canada go on behaving like America’s most obedient energy colony?

According to David Hughes, a researcher for the Geological Survey of Canada, it will not take too long. Speaking before the World Peak Oil Conference held in Boston, Hughes painted a remarkably pessimistic picture of Canada’s energy future, especially regarding natural gas. Despite record drilling activity, natural gas extraction volumes have slipped from the peak set in 2002, and output per well is now declining at an annual rate of 28 percent. Put another way, energy companies must add 3,000 more wells in 2007 on top of the 15,000 now in production just to keep output from diminishing.

That would be a daunting challenge even if there were spare rigs and drilling crews standing by. As it now stands, there is no spare capacity of this sort anywhere in North America. With only eight years of proven reserves left in Canada, Hughes suspects that natural gas output is about to fall off a cliff. Barring a miracle or two, Canada will soon experience challenges in providing for its own citizens, let alone producing surplus volumes bound for American furnaces.

A potentially wrenching resource conflict is now brewing on our continent, thanks to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), under which Canada effectively gave up sovereignty over its fossil energy inheritance. As a signatory, Canada is prohibited from cutting back energy exports, even in the event of a domestic supply crunch. But how long would Canada honor its obligations under NAFTA if doing so resulted in its citizens freezing to death? American policymakers would be wise to explore how that scenario might play out.

If that weren’t enough, natural gas is also the key to expanding the production of oil from the tar sands of northern Alberta, the only oil-producing region left in North America that can increase output. The natural gas is the only available fuel for producing the pressurized steam needed to separate bitumen, a low-grade oil, from sand. Shrinking natural gas supplies would quickly reduce the flow of bitumen into the U.S., further complicating Canada’s energy dilemma.

The irony of sacrificing a premium energy source to make more low-grade fuel for export was not lost on Hughes, who closed with a quote from a Canadian energy executive. “Using natural gas to produce oil from tar sands is akin to turning gold into lead.”

» Source: The Rock River Times

Most North Americans drive two vehicles to work and spend a great deal of their time in traffic. People come home after a long day’s work completely exhausted because of the extra travel time. On weekends and evenings even more time is spent commuting as people drive around completing errands and shopping for consumer products (often produced from petroleum). The consumer society is creating mass fatigue and stress due to our desire to meet the consumption levels of our Neighbours. Most households require two large incomes in order to sustain a typical middle-class lifestyle.

All of this is made possible by cheap energy. Suburbs, large homes, electronics, exotic foods and grocery store chains, travel and hobbies are all made possible by inexpensive resource supplies. While nobody is certain how long these resources will allow us to sustain our way of life, it is fact that North Americans (Canada and the USA) consume approximately 35% of the world’s energy resources, while we only hold about 5% percent of the world’s population. The dangerous part of this energy disparity is that many developing nations are working desperately to meet our consumption levels and live similar consumer lifestyles.

It is only fair that other nations would want access to the same types of homes, education, cars, health and luxury consumables that we enjoy. The problem is that this type of global consumption is not possible. It would take more than six planets with the same resource supplies as earth in order to sustain a global suburban lifestyle. Demand for luxury consumer items is currently booming in countries such as Brazil, China, India and Russia.

If the global demand for energy to fuel industry, homes and transportation continues to rise at current levels, world oil reserves and energy resources will no longer be able to meet demand. When this peak (which many believe we are already experiencing) occurs there will be an inevitable economic slowdown resulting in a recession and possibly even a worldwide economic depression. As nations struggle to meet rising energy needs, we will likely see a rise in resource related disputes and even an increase in military conflicts.

Solutions
North Americans need a new energy strategy, one that focuses on energy efficiency and conservation. It has been proven much cheaper to invest in energy efficiency plans than to build more energy generating facilities such as power plants. Homeowners are much better off re-fitting their homes than purchasing bigger heating, cooling or energy production technologies. Conservation and efficiency practices can be as simple as improved insulation standards, replacing light bulbs and appliances, or lowering consumption levels.

Some interesting energy efficiency facts:

• Fuel-efficient cars will cut fuel, finance and operating costs while reducing harmful environmental emissions.
• Home heating and cooling costs can be cut in two by ensuring proper home sealing and insulation.
• Switching to compact fluorescent light bulbs reduces energy consumption levels by 80%.
• Replacing old appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines can improve efficiency levels up to five times.
• Water consumption can be reduced by half with the installation of low-flow shower and faucet fitting technologies.
• On-demand water heaters can reduce the cost of hot water by 50%.
• Hot water costs can be further reduced halfway by installing a solar thermal water heater.

The world is at or near what’s called “Peak Oil,” after which the world’s oil production will steadily decline. The exact date doesn’t really matter, Grinzo says. The important thing is that future oil deposits will be harder to reach (five or six miles below the ocean surface, for example) and of lower quality. We won’t run out of oil, Grinzo says, because as the price goes up, we will replace it with other fuels now considered pricey. “Can we live with $100 barrel oil? Yes. It won’t be fun, but we can do it,” he says.

And at that price, combinations of solar power (made from thin film - silicon free - solar panels that are cheaper to install) and wind power will become more viable. The revolution in alternative fuel cars is just beginning, he says, and don’t be surprised if the next generation of hybrids are “plug-ins” that can be recharged at home, and which will gradually run farther and longer on battery power before kicking over to the gas tank.

The oil shortages will propel a greater reliance on nuclear and coal-fired electricity generating plants. That will create problems - disposing of even more nuclear waste, for one, and limiting the pollution from burning coal. But very little of today’s electric power comes from oil, he says, so the shift to electricity to power cars and heat homes is a natural.

There are other promising developments, Grinzo believes. Take cellulosic ethanol - which uses a refining process that can turn any plant material into ethanol. “The emphasis is on genetic engineering, which may produce plants better suited for ethanol production,” he says. Already government research reports that fast-growing, low maintenance poplar trees are an excellent source of ethanol.

“The biggest untapped resource is still conservation, he says. “There’s so much low-hanging fruit.” People know about the easy steps but don’t always take them. Use compact fluorescent light bulbs, wrap your hot-water tank in insulation, and turn off the pilot light on gas fireplaces during the warm months.

“The political left will hate it because of the use of more nuclear and coal,” Grinzo says. “The right will hate it because of tax breaks to promote solar or wind use.” But voters should become “independent journalists,” checking the facts and supporting the changes that will allow us to live well with less oil.

» Source: Democrat and Chronicle

The WWF began its Living Planet Reports in 1998 to show the state of the natural world and the impact of human activity upon it. Since then we have continuously refined and developed our measures of the state of the Earth.

And it is not good news. The Living Planet Report 2006 confirms that we are using the planet’s resources faster than they can be renewed - the latest data available (for 2003) indicate that humanity’s Ecological Footprint, our impact upon the planet, has more than tripled since 1961. Our footprint now exceeds the world’s ability to regenerate by about 25 per cent. The consequences of our accelerating pressure on Earth’s natural systems are both predictable and dire. The other index in this report, the Living Planet Index, shows a rapid and continuing loss of biodiversity - populations of vertebrate species have declined by about one third since 1970. This confirms previous trends.

The message of these two indices is clear and urgent: we have been exceeding the Earth’s ability to support our lifestyles for the past 20 years, and we need to stop. We must balance our consumption with the natural world’s capacity to regenerate and absorb our wastes. If we do not, we risk irreversible damage.

We know where to start. The biggest contributor to our footprint is the way in which we generate and use energy. The Living Planet Report indicates that our reliance on fossil fuels to meet our energy needs continues to grow and that climate-changing emissions now make up 48 per cent - almost half - of our global footprint.

We also know from this report that the challenge of reducing our footprint goes to the very heart of our current models for economic development. Comparing the Ecological Footprint with a recognized measure of human development, the United Nations Human Development Index, the report clearly shows that what we currently accept as “high development’’ is a long way away from the world’s stated aim of sustainable development. As countries improve the wellbeing of their people, they are bypassing the goal of sustainability and going into what we call “overshoot” - using far more resources than the planet can sustain. It is inevitable that this path will limit the abilities of poor countries to develop and of rich countries to maintain prosperity.

It is time to make some vital choices. Change that improves living standards while reducing our impact on the natural world will not be easy. But we must recognize that choices we make now will shape our opportunities far into the future. The cities, power plants, and homes we build today will either lock society into damaging over consumption beyond our lifetimes, or begin to propel this and future generations towards sustainable living.

The good news is that this can be done. We already have technologies that can lighten our footprint, including many that can significantly reduce climate-threatening carbon dioxide emissions. And some are getting started. WWF is working with leading companies that are taking action to reduce the footprint - cutting carbon emissions, and promoting sustainability in other sectors, from fisheries to forests. We are also working with governments who are striving to stem biodiversity loss by protecting vital habitats on an unprecedented scale.

But we must all do more. The message of the Living Planet Report 2006 is that we are living beyond our means, and that the choices each of us makes today will shape the possibilities for the generations which follow us.

James P. Leape, Director General of WWF International

Living Planet Index
The index tracks the populations of 1,313 vertebrate species - fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals from all around the world. Separate indices are produced for terrestrial, marine, and freshwater species, and the three trends are then averaged to create an aggregated index. Although vertebrates represent only a fraction of known species, it is assumed that trends in their populations are typical of biodiversity overall.

By tracking wild species, the Living Planet Index is also monitoring the health of ecosystems. Between 1970 and 2003, the index fell by about 30%. This global trend suggests that we are degrading natural ecosystems at a rate unprecedented in human history.

Human Ecological Footprint
Biodiversity suffers when the planet’s biocapacity cannot keep pace with human consumption and waste generation. The Ecological Footprint tracks this in terms of the area of biologically productive land and water needed to provide ecological resources and services - food, fibre, and timber, land on which to build, and land to absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) released by burning fossil fuels. The Earth’s biocapacity is the amount of biologically productive area - cropland, pasture, forest, and fisheries - that is available to meet humanity’s needs.

Since the late 1980s, we have been in overshoot - the Ecological Footprint has exceeded the Earth’s biocapacity - as of 2003 by about 25%. Effectively, the Earth’s regenerative capacity can no longer keep up with demand - people are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste back into resources.

Humanity is no longer living off nature’s interest, but drawing down its capital. This growing pressure on ecosystems is causing habitat destruction or degradation and permanent loss of productivity, threatening both biodiversity and human well-being.

© 2006 WWF - the environmental conservation organisation . Some rights reserved.

» Source: Peak Oil Statistics

Confessions of a Statistician
Article by Dr. Sohbet Karbuz, the former head of Non-OECD Energy Statistics Section of the International Energy Agency. Karbuz’s document examines the accuracy of oil statistics and the reliability of oil market forecasts.

EIA International Energy Data and Analysis
The Energy Information Administration’s official and comprehensive energy statistics from the US Government. Includes the Annual Energy Outlook 2006 with Projections to 2030.

Enerdata Yearbook
You have to purchase updated data, but their sample of statistical oil supply/demand for 2004 looks comprehensive (pdf files). Includes data about production, imports, exports and consumption. Also includes info about the production of oil products.

Fossil Energy and US Petroleum Reserves (DOE)
Some detailed (and updated) chart information about U.S. strategic oil reserves.

Oil Information Data Service
Several difficult to understand databases that list oil supply and demand statistics for OECD countries (including some non-OECD nations). Statistical information on this site is updated yearly in the month of August.

Oil Reserves - Wikipedia
As always, the Wikipedia is one of the most detailed resources for complete information and links to related websites.

Statistical Review of World Energy 2006
A BP Global website with some great statistical data in pdf format. BP has statistics data on oil production, natural gas production, and coal consumption. They also have some interesting tools such as the energy charting tool and conversion calculator.

The Oil Reserve Fallacy
Website that states “Proven reserves are not a measure of future supply”. They have some interesting comparson charts which examine oil supply estimates from four different sources.

WorldOil Industry Statistics
A simple U.S. based listing of statistical charts and forecast research articles, including a monthly chart of US Gas Prices and Trends.

It is quite apparent from this list of top statistics sources that oil supply and production statistics are hard to find and/or understand. This page will be updated as new information resources are found. If you know of any great statistical resources, please send us an email so we can add it to this page (email at bottom of site). You may also leave relevant and useful comments below.

» Source: ASPO USA (Fall 2006)

Who Should Attend

• Leaders and decision-makers from all sectors;
• Individuals and organizations with investments on the line;
• Individuals and organizations who work in the energy sector;
• Transportation and land planners at all levels and in all sectors;
• Concerned citizens wanting information to help them make a difference.

Purpose

Our experts will provide the most current available information about the evolving peak oil and natural gas challenges. To cover those stories, we’re bringing in widely respected speakers from all over the U.S. and Canada plus Europe, the Middle East and even South America. From world-wide industry analyst PFC Energy to a Brazilian cane-to-ethanol grower, you’ll hear a broad range of perspectives.

ASPO USA has partnered with Boston University researchers to explore the critical role that net-energy analysis should play in our policy decisions going forward. In our present mad dash to develop substitute fuels, are we on the right track? Do we have the right scorecard? Attendees will hear first-hand the early results of that partnership and its critical implication for evaluating our options.

At the same time that we continue to address key gaps in essential information and awareness about the looming peak oil issue, it is time to expand our individual and collective focus towards “intelligent responses” to the challenge. What should the Blueprint for Peak Oil Action be? Given what we know today, what best strategies should we as individuals, organizations and a nation pursue from 2007 forward? Every speaker will be engaged in this discussion; and all conference attendees will be asked for their input as well.

» Source: USA Today

“Lower prices are encouraging people to get back out there and drive,” says Stephen Brown, director of energy economics at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Good weather in much of the USA in September and increased security measures at airports, which turned some people off on flying, also likely encouraged travelers to get behind the wheel, Brown says.

In one of the largest one-month changes on record, the nationwide average gasoline price fell 47 cents, or 17%, in September, according to motorist club AAA and the Oil Price Information Service.

The U.S. average for a gallon of regular Wednesday was $2.219, down 27% from this year’s peak of $3.04 a gallon on Aug. 10 and off 52 cents from a year ago. The lowest average price Wednesday was in Missouri, where it was $2.02 a gallon; the highest was in Hawaii, where the average was $2.98.

While the higher prices this year didn’t actually reduce gasoline consumption in most months, it led to slower-than-normal increases in demand. The historical average is for gains of 1.5% to 2%, API’s Planting says.

Population growth, a healthy economy and lower gasoline prices will likely continue to boost gasoline demand going forward, says Kevin Lindemer, head of the energy group at economic consulting firm Global Insight.

“The underlying forces that create gasoline demand are still there,” he says.

But increased demand will keep propping up prices, warns Alliance to Save Energy President Kateri Callahan, who calls the decline in gas prices “not all good news,” because it makes it harder to persuade people to conserve.

“People have a false sense of security that (gasoline prices) are going to stay low and go lower,” Callahan says.

Swati Gunale of Indianapolis has been planning for months to drive to Arkansas this weekend for a volunteer vacation, where she will be helping to build a hiking trail along the Buffalo National River.

Although the 33-year-old would have taken the trip even with gas prices high, the decline in costs at the pump will make her vacation less costly.

“It’s an added bonus for me,” she says.

» Source: LA Times

The first step toward curing an addiction is to admit its existence. So it was encouraging when President Bush admitted in January that “America is addicted to oil.” But America hasn’t been good about going to recovery meetings - which makes it harder for the U.S. to get the world’s other oil addicts to go too.

For China, India, Japan and every other industrial nation, a steady supply of oil is essential to economic growth. And as competition for oil increases, so does the temptation to make it the focus of foreign policy. Bush has warned against the hazards of this approach, and U.S. history - especially in the Middle East - is a catalog of its dangers. But he’d be more convincing, to Americans and other world leaders, if his policy more closely matched his rhetoric.

Now other nations are beginning to do as the U.S. does, not as it says. China has an $8-billion investment in Sudan’s oil sector, for example, which helps explain why it turns a blind eye while the thugs who run Sudan ravage Darfur. The argument used to be that as China’s economy became more integrated with the world’s, it would become a more responsible player in world affairs. This was half right. For the most part, ideology has given way to pragmatism in Chinese foreign policy. Beijing tries to avoid conflict with its biggest trading partner, the United States.

But this same pragmatism also leads China to pursue other policy goals at odds with the U.S. China professes to be genuinely worried about nuclear proliferation, for instance, yet U.S. diplomats have made no headway in persuading Beijing to back U.N. sanctions against Tehran. Perhaps not coincidentally, China imports 11.5% of its oil from Iran and is considering investing at least $70 billion to get more.

And it’s not just China competing for oil. Energy-poor Japan is highly dependent on Middle East oil and so was cool toward Israel for decades (relations are better now, but still low-key). India, meanwhile, with 17% of the world’s population and just 0.8% of known oil and gas reserves, is also racing to secure supplies. It hosted Venezuelan President (and Bush nemesis) Hugo Chavez last year and signed an oil deal with Venezuela. South Korea gets a third of its oil from Saudi Arabia and is trying to hedge its bets by investing in fields from Venezuela to Vietnam.

The rise of Asian powers - and their pursuit of policies designed to secure a steady supply of oil - is a geopolitical watershed, albeit a predictable one. Even if the U.S. were to reduce its oil dependency, its ability to act multilaterally could be constrained by the energy arrangements of other nations.

For these and other reasons, the development of alternative energy technologies that can reduce demand at home and be exported abroad is both an economic necessity and a national security priority. It’s far too important to be left to the environmentalists - or the states, the lobbyists (for nuclear power or ethanol) or even to philanthropists such as Richard Branson. In our globalized economies, lasting peace is unlikely without energy security.

» Source: Energy Tribune

Disaster struck “Peak Oil” cheerleaders this month as Chevron announced the discovery of massive new oil reserves in the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico. “Dang it!” one expert was overheard shouting while being shepherded from MSNBC’s greenroom. “We’ve been predicting the end of oil for a century now, and it finally looked like we were right. Why won’t people just give up looking for a better future so we can all feel prophetic and important for once?”

Okay, I made up that part about MSNBC. Peak oil naysayers would never admit they were wrong or admit that the Chevron discovery is a major blow to their theory. To an optimist, the glass is half full. To a pessimist, the glass is half empty. To a peak oil theorist, the glass is hidden in the next room, but he’s sure it’s damn near empty.

Together, these twin problems - the reluctance of humans to passively accept doom and the fact that we never quite know what we don’t know - are the bane of predicting peak oil production. Which doesn’t mean that oil will never peak - it will. It just means that we won’t know that the peak has occurred until well after it has passed, and (due to pesky human ingenuity) we may not even notice it that much when it does actually peak. We’ll be too busy exploiting some new advance in energy. Dang.

For some reason - perhaps because it is so vital to modernity - the energy industry attracts more than its share of prophets of doom. As I’ve written before on these fine glossy pages, which are more than worth the subscription price, the idea that one actually lives at the end of days is very satisfying, egotistically. I mean, I’m significant - so big things will happen while I’m here, right?

But even if oil were to peak on cue (eventually someone will successfully predict it just through persistence alone), why do so many believe that economic disaster will follow? I’m sure whale oil supplies have long since peaked, despite the deep water exploration efforts of Captain Ahab, yet we do not live in the dark for lack of rendered blubber to fuel our lamps.

Alternatives were found and the truly critical supply - of energy, not whale oil - has risen meteorically since the barely noticed peak in whale oil of the 1800s.

That is how it will likely be with crude oil. The supply will be extended as long as possible, and then gradually replaced by another fuel. Mankind did not get this far by sticking to nuts and berries, or grass, or wood, or coal, or any other single energy source - however vital it seemed in its peak age. Predictions of doom surrounding the eventual peak of oil ignore this history. The passive, withering world envisioned by some peak oil prophets simply doesn’t exist.

As a matter of fact, the aura of doom that eternally surrounds energy reminds me of nothing so much as the absolutely atrocious 1979 film, “Quintet.” This movie was bad - so bad that the memory of it has lurked suppressed in my mind for 20 years, waiting to be awakened by current events. I was pretty sure that, like most bad movies, it starred Michael Caine, but looking it up I was surprised that it was actually Paul Newman. That is how bad it was. My mind had systematically imagined Michael Caine into every scene in an effort to spare Paul Newman.

In this gauze-filtered disaster, matched only by Kevin Costner’s “Waterworld” (which may have starred Michael Caine), the future is a huge Ice Age - that being the climate change people fretted about most in 1979. And in this glacial future, people just scurry around living off the residual firewood, food, and fashion of the pre-Ice Age world - wasting away, betting their declining resources in a stupid suicide game (a nice metaphor for the zero-sum conception of markets), and in general not being very creative or industrious at all. They just wait to freeze to death when the fuel runs out. And that is why the movie is so bad. People just don’t act like that.

Chronic predictions of disaster surrounding declining energy supplies are the economic equivalent of “Quintet” - unrealistic fantasy, divorced from the dynamism of human nature. And like “Quintet,” they are best forgotten - or at least blamed on Michael Caine.

» Source: Science Daily

The Larsen ice shelf at the northern end of the Antarctic Peninsula experienced a dramatic collapse between January 31 and March 7, 2002. First, melt ponds appeared on the ice shelf during these summer months (seen in blue on the shelf), then a minor collapse of about 800 square kilometers occurred. Finally, a 2600 square kilometer collapse took place, leaving thousands of sliver icebergs and berg fragments where the shelf formerly lay. Brownish streaks within the floating chunks mark areas where rocks and morainal debris are exposed from the former underside and interior of the shelf.

Global warming and the ozone hole have changed Antarctic weather patterns such that strengthened westerly winds force warm air eastward over the natural barrier created by the Antarctic Peninsula’s 2 km-high mountain chain. On days when this happens in summer temperatures in the north-east Peninsula warm by around 5 degrees C, creating the conditions that allowed the drainage of melt-water into crevasses on the Larsen Ice Shelf, a key process that led to its break-up in 2002.

Lead author Dr Gareth Marshall from the British Antarctic Survey said, “This is the first time that anyone has been able to demonstrate a physical process directly linking the break-up of the Larsen Ice Shelf to human activity. Climate change does not impact our planet evenly - it changes weather patterns in a complex way that takes detailed research and computer modelling techniques to unravel. What we’ve observed at one of the planet’s more remote regions is a regional amplifying mechanism that led to the dramatic climate change we see over the Antarctic Peninsula.”

Reference: Marshall GJ, Orr A, van Lipzig NPM, King JC. 2006. The impact of a changing Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode on Antarctic Peninsula summer temperatures. Journal of Climate 19: 5388*5404.

The collapse of the 3250 km2 Larsen B Ice Shelf took place in 2002. During the past 40 years the average summer temperatures in this region of the north-east Peninsula has been 2.2°C. The western Antarctic Peninsula has showed the biggest increase in temperatures (primarily in winter) observed anywhere on Earth over the past half-century.

Ice sheet - is the huge mass of ice, up to 4 km thick, that covers Antarctica’s bedrock. It flows from the centre of the continent towards the coast where it feeds ice shelves.

Ice shelf - is the floating extension of the grounded ice sheet. It is composed of freshwater ice that originally fell as snow, either in situ or inland and brought to the ice shelf by glaciers. As they are already floating any disintegration (like Larsen B) will have no impact on sea level. Sea level will rise only if the ice held back by the ice shelf flows more quickly into the sea.

Loss of ice shelves near the Antarctic Peninsula is one of the most obvious signs of climate change. Elsewhere in Antarctica ice shelves are shrinking, which most scientists believe is because of a recent increase in the rate at which the ocean melts the ice.

British Antarctic Survey is a world leader in research into global issues in an Antarctic context. It is the UK’s national operator and is a component of the Natural Environment Research Council. It has an annual budget of around £40 million, runs nine research programmes and operates five research stations, two Royal Research Ships and five aircraft in and around Antarctica. More information about the work of the Survey can be found on our website: http://www.antarctica.ac.uk

» Source: Black Hills (Video)

Peak Oil is the simplest label for the problem of energy resource depletion, or more specifically, the peak in global oil production. Oil is a finite, non-renewable resource, one that has powered phenomenal economic and population growth over the last century and a half. The rate of oil ‘production,’ meaning extraction and refining (currently about 84 million barrels/day), has grown in most years over the last century, but once we go through the halfway point of all reserves, production becomes ever more likely to decline, hence ‘peak’. Peak Oil means not ‘running out of oil’, but ‘running out of cheap oil’. For societies leveraged on ever increasing amounts of cheap oil, the consequences may be dire. Without significant successful cultural reform, economic and social decline seems inevitable.

Why does oil peak?

Oil companies have, extracted the easier-to-reach, cheap oil first. The oil pumped first was on land, near the surface, under pressure, light and ’sweet’ (meaning low sulfur content) and therefore easy to refine into gasoline. The remaining oil, sometimes off shore, far from markets, in smaller fields, or of lesser quality, takes ever more money and energy to extract and refine. Under these conditions, the rate of extraction inevitably drops. Furthermore, all oil fields eventually reach a point where they become economically, and energetically, no longer viable. If it takes the energy of a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil, then further extraction is pointless.

Who came up with the idea of Peak Oil?
M. King Hubbert

In the 1950s a U.S. geologist working for Shell, M. King Hubbert, noticed that oil discoveries graphed over time, tended to follow a bell shape curve. He posited that the rate of oil production would follow a similar curve, now known as the Hubbert Curve (see figure). In 1956 Hubbert predicted that production from the US lower 48 states would peak between 1965 and 1970. Shell tried to pressure Hubbert into not making his projections public, but the notoriously stubborn Hubbert went ahead and released them. In anycase, most people inside and outside the industry quickly dismissed Hubbert’s predictions. In 1970 US oil producers had never produced as much, and Hubbert’s predictions were a fading memory. But Hubbert was right, US continental oil production did peak in 1970, although it was not widely recognized for several years, and only with the benefit of hindsight.

No oil producing region fits the bell shaped curve exactly because production is dependent on various geological, economic and political factors, but the Hubbert Curve remains a powerful predictive tool.

Although it passed by largely unnoticed, the U.S. oil peak was arguably the most significant geopolitical event of the mid to late 20th Century, creating the conditions for the energy crises of the 1970s, leading to far greater U.S. strategic emphasis on controling foreign sources of oil, and spelling the begining of the end of the status of the U.S as the world’s major creditor nation. The U.S. of course was able to import oil from elsewhere, and life continued there with only minimal interuption. When global oil production peaks however, the implications will be far greater.

So when will oil peak globally?

Hubbert went on to predict a global oil peak between 1995 and 2000. He may have been close to the mark except that the oil shocks of the 1970s slowed our use of oil. As the following figure shows, global oil discovery peaked in the late 1960s. Since the mid-1980s, oil companies have been finding less oil than we have been consuming.

» Source: Whiskey and Gunpowder

What will the world look like on the backside of Hubbert’s Peak? What you see depends upon where you stand. If you happen to stand in the Pentagon, the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Defense, the view is rather sobering. Well, what I mean to say is that if the view is not rather sobering, then whoever is doing the looking had better get their eyes checked.

The U.S. government, as a whole, consumes not quite 2% of all the liquid fuel that the entire U.S. economy uses in a given year. That translates into about 440,000 barrels of oil per day, or slightly more than the entire output of the oil field at Prudhoe Bay, when the pipelines are not shut down due to corrosion. Multiply by 365 days per year, and the U.S. government burns up about 160 million barrels of oil per year, at a cost of something over $10 billion at recent price levels.

Of the total U.S. government liquid fuel use, about 97% of that is consumed by the Department of Defense, making that agency the world’s single largest fuel-burning entity. But even within the U.S. DOD, the respective services are themselves gargantuan users of liquid fuel. According to data supplied by the Defense Energy Support Center, the interservice breakdown for fuel use is as follows:

• Department of the Air Force: 53%
• Department of the Navy (including Marine Corps): 32%
• Department of the Army: 12%

In recent testimony before the U.S. Congress, a DOD representative stated that “mobility” type fuel, used in aircraft, ships, and vehicles, accounts for almost 75% of total DOD energy consumption. Thus fuel used to heat and power buildings and facilities accounts for about 25% of DOD energy usage. In terms of fuel types, jet fuel accounts for 58% of mobility fuel. (Jet fuel is used in aircraft and nonaircraft platforms, such as tanks, other ground vehicles, and power generators.) The balance of energy usage comes from marine diesel, electricity, fuel oil, gasoline, and other sources, such as nuclear, wind, and solar. Yes, the DOD is one of the largest single generators and users of renewable power in the U.S.

Walk the Line

Any way you look at it, the Air Force, Army, and the Navy and Marine Corps just plain use a lot of gas, or I should call it “mobility fuel.” You certainly know it when you see it, especially if you have ever walked the line along just about any U.S. military installation and taken a glance at the equipment. The Air Force is all about airlift and platforms that can deliver strike packages from the air. The Navy and Marine Corps are all about sealift and sea-delivered strike packages. And the Army is all about maneuvering and fighting, seizing and holding. And this is merely a bare-bones simplification of the respective service missions, which are quite broad, complex, and very much interrelated.

But the point on which I want to focus in this discussion is that the availability of liquid fuel is one of the fundamental assumptions at all levels of U.S. military activities. From the tactical level of fighting to the operational level of war, and from operations to the highest levels of strategic thinking, “burning gas” (whoops, I mean “mobility fuel”) is built into all U.S. doctrine. Energy, and in particular energy derived from liquid fuel, is at the heart and soul of the U.S. military power.

The Navy, for Example…

For example, let me illustrate this point. Let’s take a look at one service, the U.S. Navy, and its concept of operations. A recent and authoritative publication entitled Naval Operations Concept 2006, co-signed by both the chief of naval operations and the commandant of the Marine Corps, listed what it called “Strategic Missions” and “Naval Missions” of the Navy and Marine Corps. The Strategic Missions are:

• Homeland defense
• War on terror and irregular warfare
• Conventional campaigns
• Deterrence
• Shaping and stability operations.

Each of these “strategic” missions could be the subject of many articles, if not many volumes. I have not the space in this article to describe the details of each mission, but I hope that you can see how each mission involves a vast scope of complex operations in order to carry it out. All of these missions require trained personnel and suitable equipment, such as ships, aircraft, ground vehicles, and other devices that are bolted to the floors of fixed installation or which orbit the Earth and look down from on high. And all of this equipment requires energy in order to move it into position and make it all work.

Subordinate to the Strategic Missions, but embodied within them from the standpoint of operations, are a series of what are called Naval Missions. These are, according to the recent Naval Operations Concept 2006 publication:

• Forward naval presence
• Crisis response
• Expeditionary power projection
• Maritime security operations
• Sea control
• Deterrence
• Security cooperation
• Civil-military operations
• Counterinsurgency
• Counterterrorism
• Counterproliferation
• Air and missile defense
• Information operations

Again, all of these “naval” missions could be the subject of many articles, if not many volumes. I cannot go into detail here, but each mission requires people and equipment to carry it out. And most surely, each and every mission requires energy sources to power the systems.

Where Are the Aircraft Carriers?

There is a famous saying within the halls of politics and political-military statecraft in and around Washington, D.C. It goes something like this: “When something bad happens in the world, the president of the United States turns to his advisers and asks, ‘Where are the aircraft carriers?’” The president might actually say “aircraft carriers.” But he could just as soon mean, “Where are the submarines?” or “Can I get strategic airlift into that area?” or “Do you have some Marines on a ship nearby?” or “What else can you give me to help shape the events?”

The “bad” thing to which the president refers might be a civil war in equatorial Africa, or a hot war in the Middle East, or a tsunami in Indonesia, or an earthquake in Iran or Pakistan. Whatever it is, the U.S. president has grown accustomed, over the past half century or so, to having the military flexibility to send in large ships, with embarked aircraft and trained combat or medical forces in close proximity, and to do it on a rapid basis. Or Mr. President has the ability to send long-range airlifters into a particular theater, there to disgorge people and equipment that can make a difference in a hurry.

But when you boil it all down and distill this “influencing and shaping” process to its very essence, this entire concept of operations is based on U.S. military equipment burning gas.

Don’t Run Out of Gas

The strange thing is that in the keystone documents that define and control the elements of strategy of the U.S., you hardly ever see a reference to that “mobility fuel” as being the sine qua non of U.S. military power. Look, for example, in the National Security Strategy of the United States. Or look in the National Military Strategy of the United States (PDF). Or try the National Strategy for Maritime Security .

These important publications discuss big-picture operational and strategic issues, but provide essentially no guidance on one very fundamental concept. That is, “Don’t run out of gas.”

Some of That “Logistics” Stuff

Perhaps the point of not running out of gas is so fundamental that it is considered silly even to raise it in such ethereal policy documents. Within the political and military planning process at almost every level, “mobility fuel” is usually relegated to the nether world of “logistics.” That is, if our guys need fuel to drive their ships or airplanes, then the logistics people will get it and deliver it to where it is needed. After all, that is why we have logistics people, right?

One well-known comment on the subject came from U.S. Navy Adm. Ernest J. King (no relation to me, by the way). At one point during the Second World War, Adm. King said, “I do not know what the hell this ‘Logistics’ stuff is that everyone is talking about, but I want some of it.” Of course, Adm. King was just kidding around when he said that. Every military planner knows that supplies will make or break a campaign. “Modern” logistics had its start with the campaigns of Wallenstein in the 17th century. In the early 1800s, no less an authority than Napoleon said, “An army travels on its stomach.” Today, a modern army travels only as far as its supply lines will carry it. Run out of supplies, and you may as well be in Stalingrad or Dien Bien Phu, if not part of an encircled Egyptian army on the Sinai Peninsula.

Which brings us back to the concept of Hubbert’s Peak, or the “peak” in the volume of conventional oil that can be extracted on a daily basis from the crust of the Earth. U.S. military power, in all its forms, is distinctly a creation of a world in which large quantities of conventional oil were available, and relatively affordable. The U.S. military machine is built on and around cheap and available “mobility fuel,” and virtually its entire body of doctrine is founded on pre-Peak Oil thinking. If the world is at or fast approaching a state of Peak Oil, where does that leave us?

“Who Is in Charge?”

In a three-paragraph memo dated Dec. 14, 2005, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld noted to his deputy, Gordon England, that the DOD “should be doing all it can” to save energy. Rumsfeld then went on to ask whether the DOD was doing enough, asking: “Who in the department is in charge?”

Memo to Mr. Rumsfeld: “Sir, no one is really in charge.”

Nobody is in charge? That is not quite what they teach at the Harvard Business School. But perhaps a better way to look at it is that there is no single point within the DOD at which all wiring diagrams end, except for maybe one office currently occupied by a certain Donald Rumsfeld. So aside from the occupant of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, there is no one person to blame if things go wrong. Not, of course, that things ever go wrong in the field of energy supply, right? (Just kidding.)

The good news is, I believe, that there are actually a lot of people within the DOD who are doing different things about energy, but no one person or office monitors or controls things. Yes, it sounds counterintuitive, but maybe we should call it a “market” approach to solving energy problems. From the most advanced research and development laboratories to the troops in the field, people within the DOD are thinking about energy issues. And there is some very good thinking going on.

Out in the Fleet and Field

The Marine Corps commanding general in Anbar Province, Iraq, has recently placed a top-priority request for renewable energy systems to power fixed bases and installations in his area of responsibility. Currently, U.S. military operations in Anbar are dependent on long logistics lines, stretching back into Kuwait, over which large volumes of fuel must be hauled just to do such a mundane thing as power generators that keep the lights on and run the computers. The drivers, trucks, and, of course, the fuel, are all subject to attack along the lines of travel. The Marine Corps general wants to reduce the requirement for liquid fuel supplies, and has requested systems that are based on photovoltaic power generation, supplemented by easily installed wind systems, coupled to battery storage cells. These systems are in production, have already been deployed elsewhere in the world, and are available. This is one form of post-Peak Oil military thinking.

The U.S. Army is redesigning the ubiquitous Humvee. One of the key complaints about this versatile battlefield vehicle is that it consumes too much fuel. The Humvee has become an icon of the military services over the past two decades, since it replaced the World War II-era Jeep. But the Humvee gets as few as 4 miles per gallon in city driving and a paltry 8 miles per gallon on the highway. The Army wants to see a Humvee replacement that weighs 30-40% less and that uses proportionately less fuel.

The U.S. Air Force is qualifying new types of fuel derived from both natural gas and coal. On Sept, 19, 2006, a B-52 bomber actually flew with one engine mount using a newly produced liquid fuel derived entirely from natural gas. Due to the nature of the manufacturing process, the fuel contains virtually no sulfur and hardly any heavy metals, as opposed to jet fuel derived from refined petroleum. In ground-based testing, the engines that burned this new type of fuel did not experience any measurable loss of performance and required less maintenance. Another virtue of this synthetic fuel is that it has a storage life that is orders of magnitude longer than petroleum-derived fuels.

The U.S. Navy is experimenting with ship designs and construction techniques that are orders of magnitude more efficient than in years past. Naval architects and ship designers are working to build performance into ship systems, anticipating future oil costs in the range of $200 per barrel. Some novel ideas envision certain future classes of Navy ships using masts and sails, with the sails and the exterior of the hulls coated with photovoltaic cells. All of this is with the goal of reducing the requirement for liquid “mobility fuel.”

Ashore, both the Navy and the Air Force are among the largest generators and consumers of “green energy“, almost all of it derived from windmills. And all of this has been happening with no one really, as the expression goes, “in charge.”

“More Than Anyone Else”

There is an old criticism of the military, along the lines that “the generals always plan to fight the last war.” In my view, however, I think that it depends on the general, and it depends on the war. One could just as easily say that it is the bulk of politicians, the mainstream media, and the large body of the people who are the ones fixated on fighting that “last war.” Don’t be so hard on the people who are tasked with doing the hard work of making the U.S. national defense system work. It is actually quite a difficult job.

According to U.S. Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett, a Republican member of Congress from Western Maryland, the U.S. military is “doing more than anyone else - in the government or around the country” to address a future in which energy supplies will be scarce and expensive. Rep. Bartlett adds, “I don’t think the country as a whole has any perception of the danger” of America’s reliance on foreign oil.

As I wrote at the beginning of this article, what you see depends on where you stand. For all of its vast size and energy usage, some of the most pioneering work in addressing the issue of Peak Oil is presently being conducted within the DOD. It is too much to say that we are witness to “Hubbert’s Defense Department.” But the resources of the DOD are vast, and this department of the U.S. government appears to be getting the message.

The question for the DOD is the same as the question for the U.S. broadly, and for the developed world generally. How fast can we adapt to a post-Peak Oil future? Can we change consumption habits faster than depletion leads to the declining availability of conventional oil? As I have said in other articles in Whiskey and Gunpowder, this is a race against time.

Until we meet again…
Byron W. King