forbes.com By Chris Nelder, 07.24.09, 03:00 PM EDT
Prepare for a radically different lifestyle as global crude oil production peaks and begins to decline.
You will never see cheap gasoline again. You will probably never see cheap energy again. Oil, natural gas and coal are set to peak and go into decline within the next decade, and no technology can change that.
Peaking is a simple concept. We generally exploit natural resources in a bell-shaped curve, with the rate of extraction increasing over time until we reach a peak and then gradually slowing down until we stop using them.
Peak oil is not about "running out of oil"; it's about reaching the peak rate of oil production. It's not the size of the tank that matters, but the size of the tap.
The peak is usually reached when resources become too difficult to extract, or too expensive, or they are replaced by something cheaper, better or more plentiful. Unfortunately, we have no substitutes for oil that are cheaper or better.
According to the best available data, we are now at the peak rate of oil production. After over a century of continual growth, global conventional crude oil production topped out in 2005 at just over 74 million barrels per day (mbpd) and has remained at that level ever since.
The additional "oil" that brings the oft-cited world total to 84 mbpd today (down from 87 mbpd last year; according to U.S. government data) isn't conventional crude, but, rather, unconventional hydrocarbons, including natural gas liquids, "extra heavy" oil, synthetic oil made from Canadian tar sands, refinery gains, liquids produced from the conversion of coal and natural gas, and biofuels.
Oil production is expected to go into terminal decline around 2014. The principal reason is that the largest and most productive fields are becoming depleted while new discoveries have been progressively smaller and of lesser quality. Discovery of new oil peaked over 40 years ago and has been declining ever since despite furious drilling and unprecedentedly high prices.
When it begins to decline, rate of crude production is projected to fall at 5%, or over four mbpd, per year--roughly equivalent to losing the entire production of Latin America or Europe every year. The decline rate will likely accelerate to over 10% per year by 2030.
The Paris-based International Energy Agency estimates that the world would need to add the equivalent of six new Saudi Arabias by 2030 in order to meet declining production and growing demand. Obviously, there aren't another six Saudi Arabias waiting to be discovered, and unconventional liquid fuels simply cannot fill such a yawning gap.
Natural gas is likewise expected to peak some time around 2010-2020, and coal around 2020-2030. Oil, natural gas and coal together provide 86% of the world's primary energy.
By the end of this century, nearly all of the economically recoverable fossil fuels will be gone. From now until then, what remains will be rationed by price. There will be shortages.
Renewable energy--solar, wind, geothermal--currently makes up less than 2% of the world's primary energy supply, and although growing very rapidly, it is not on course to fill the fossil fuel gap, either.
As fossil fuels peak and then decline, the world's economies will be forced for the first time to live within a shrinking, not expanding, energy budget. They will adapt to this new reality by repeating the cycle we saw over the last 18 months: commodity price spikes, leading to economic destruction, leading to supply destruction, leading back to price spikes. Only in recessionary periods, like now, will there be excess supply.
How this will affect the global economy, and our lifestyles, cannot be overstated. Former chief economist for Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce World Markets, Jeff Rubin, and oil investment banker Matthew Simmons have concluded that it means no less than the end of globalization.
Americans, who constitute 4% of the world population but consume 25% of its energy, will have radically different lifestyles. Production of everything will have to be re-localized. Instead of our food traveling an average 1,500 miles before it reaches us, it will have to come from nearby and use organic methods instead of requiring 10 calories of fossil fuel inputs for every calorie of food we eat.
Rather than shipping ore to China and shipping it back to the U.S. as steel, we'll need to revive our domestic steel industry. "Bedroom communities" will die and ideally be reborn as fully functional independent communities. It means the end of long commutes.
The coming energy shortage is the most serious crisis the world has ever faced, but it could have a very positive outcome. In theory, the Earth's wind, solar, geothermal and marine resources could each provide more than the total energy the world consumes every day, if we had the ability to harvest them.
As fossil fuel prices rise, the price of renewably generated electricity will continue to fall. If we are wise and lucky, we will rapidly improve the efficiency of our built environment, deploy renewable capacity and convert to an all-electric infrastructure that runs on it. Fortunately, political momentum is now leaning strongly in this direction.
If we move fast to re-localize production and proceed with the renewable revolution, we could end the 21st century with a largely carbon-free economy, putting an end to climate change and averting resource wars. We would have healthier food and a safer, more resilient and equitable world.
(Chris Nelder is the author of Profit from the Peak--The End of Oil and the Greatest Investment Event of the Century and the coauthor of Investing in Renewable Energy.)
I was in New York in the 30’s. I had a box seat at the depression. I can assure you it was a very educational experience. We shut the country down because of monetary reasons. We had manpower and abundant raw materials. Yet we shut the country down. We’re doing the same kind of thing now but with a different material outlook. We are not in the position we were in 1929–30 with regard to the future. Then the physical system was ready to roll. This time it’s not. We are in a crisis in the evolution of human society. It’s unique to both human and geologic history. It has never happened before and it can’t possibly happen again. You can only use oil once. You can only use metals once. Soon all the oil is going to be burned and all the metals mined and scattered. ~M. King Hubbert, 1983
‘Peak oil’ debate is no longer on hold
BusinessDay, South Africa, 2009/07/21
Put a group of oil experts under one roof for a while and their discussion is likely to drift to the subject of peak oil — a point in time when maximum oil production is reached, after which it goes into permanent decline.
The advent of peak oil has long been brushed aside by some because it seems like a far-fetched, if not a ridiculous, idea concocted by alarmists. This is despite deafening cries that it is a real and serious threat.
Even among those who agree that it will happen, views differ sharply on the date . Some, like author David Strahan, say it could be as soon as 2017.
Recent data show that the debate can no longer be dismissed as a figment of the imagination among peak oil “enthusiasts”.
According to the Washington, US-based Worldwatch Institute, oil production is in decline in 33 of the 48 largest oil-producing countries. The research organisation says most of these countries are past their oil production peaks. Iran peaked in 1974, Nigeria in 1979, Venezuela in 1970 and Mexico in 2004.
Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, is expected to reach its peak in 2014, while in Iraq this is estimated in 2018.
Last year’s study by professional services group Ernst & Young showed that in the period between 2003-07, oil production in the US remained flat at about 1,2-million barrels a day.
Oil companies had difficulty in finding investment and production opportunities, say Ernst & Young.
But not everyone is convinced about peak oil. BP chief economist Christof Rühl says the argument for peak oil is baseless. “Peak oil has been predicted for 150 years. It has never happened, and will stay this way,” Rühl has reportedly said. He says oil is about price and not about availability.
Economist Tony Twine of consultants Econometrix echoes the view that price is everything.
“All energy — gas, oil and coal — is exploitable at a given price. If the price falls below a particular price it becomes worthless to produce. That is why I say many of the peak oil arguments are not well based.
“They all assume an oil price at 30, 60 or 200 a barrel,” he says. What is known as “oil availability” differs at different oil prices, Twine says.
“The projections that are being made about peak oil are sensible in particular contexts. But whether they are universally true is another matter,” he says.
Even in 30-50 years’ time, if oil demand is greater than supply, oil prices will rise “and currently unexploitable deposits will become viable to exploit”, Twine says. Oil wells now considered marginal will become profitable .
Twine says there is a tendency to look at oil in terms of its energy content. “But there is a range of products that come out of a barrel of oil — from fertiliser to solvents that end up in paints, washing powder and synthetic fibres. Almost anything that you can see and feel has a little bit of oil in it.
“As oil becomes scarce and more expensive, its use as a source of energy will diminish. But its use as a feedstock for the chemicals industry will take longer to disappear,” Twine says.
Richard Worthington, climate change programme manager for the World Wildlife Fund in SA, says the advent of peak oil should influence how hydrocarbons are used. “It highlights the need for greater efficiency,” he says. Climate change considerations have superseded peak oil discussions.
Worthington says fears of peak oil should not be the main driver of the move away from fossil- based energy sources. At some stage fossils will be depleted, he says. “Now there is talk of peak oil, then it will be peak energy and then peak coal,” he says.
Indeed, depletion of gas and coal reserves is a double whammy. National oil and gas company PetroSA’s Mossel Bay gas-to- liquids refinery is set to run out of natural gas by 2011.
The offshore fields south of Mossel Bay will not be able to keep up the supply of 36000 barrels a day the refinery needs.
The dwindling gas reserves are to be expected, says Twine.
“Gas and oil fields in SA and Mozambique have always been known to be constrained in terms of reserves. They have always been marginal in terms of big investment spending,” Twine says.
However, he believes that the Mozambique gas fields will have a longer life span and are likely to fuel petrochemicals group Sasol for a longer time. Sasol’s synfuels plant in Secunda gets natural gas from Mozambique through an 865km-long pipeline.
Initially it will be denied. There will be much lying and obfuscation. Then prices will rise and demand will fall. The rich will outbid the poor for available supplies. The system will initially appear to rebalance. The dash for gas will become more frenzied. People will realize nuclear power stations take up to ten years to build. People will also realize wind, waves, solar and other renewables are all pretty marginal and take a lot of energy to construct. There will be a dash for more fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment. The poor will not be able to afford the investment or the fuel. Exploration and exploitation of oil and gas will become completely frenzied. More and more countries will decide to reserve oil and later gas supplies for their own people. Air quality will be ignored as coal production and consumption expand once more. Once the decline really gets under way, liquids production will fall relentlessly by five percent per year. Energy prices will rise remorselessly. Inflation will become endemic. Resource conflicts will break out. ~Colin Campbell, March 2002
Oil And India
By Dr. Vandana Shiva
Oil is a non-renewable resource. We have always known that yet the world has been behaving as if oil is in endless supply. And we in India who have lived in a biodiversity and biomass energy economy are rushing into oil addiction precisely when the global oil supply is running low and prices are running high.
The Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO), an umbrella organization of oil experts, mainly geologists who helped find oil fields are now warning us that there are only a trillion barrels or less of oil left, and the supply will peak within this decade. "Peak Oil", or the topping point, is the highest amount that can ever be pumped. Beyond "peak oil", there will be an overall decline in production and an increase in oil prices. Oil that costs $5 per barrel to extract could become $ 100 per barrel when confidence in supply erodes and demand increases, and there is recognition that we are in a world of shrinking oil supplies, not growing supplies.
Why are we as a country tying our future to a resource that must shrink and become more costly? As we build more superhighways and mega cities, destroying the decentralized fabric of our socio-economic organization, we need to ask how long will this last?
There is another reason to stop this frenzy of oil addiction, and that is climate change, or more accurately, climate chaos. Climate change is caused by fossil fuel emissions, and stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions is an ecological imperative. This is why the Kyoto Protocol to the climate change convention was signed. The insurance industry, which takes over $ 2 trillion in annual premiums, and is bigger than the oil industry, is now a major player in addressing climate change since they have to pay billions out in insurance as cities flood, cyclones such as Katrina uproot entire communities and heat waves kill.
The costs of climate change to the people of India are extremely high. The 1999 Orissa super cyclone and the Bombay floods of July 2006 are just two better-known extreme events linked to a changing climate.
This winter, we had no rains during the wheat season, and heavy downpours during the wheat harvest. Heavy rains before the monsoon in the catchments of the Ganga and Yamuna destroyed crops so that farmers did not even have seeds to sow. And in Sikkim, heavy rains led to landslides, which disrupted Gangtok's water supply. I was in Sikkim during the crisis and we lived on one bucket a day.
The fossil fuel economy is based on two illusions - one, that we can keep up our oil addiction, and two, that substituting renewable energy with fossil fuel has only benefits, no costs. Climate change is very high cost of an economy based on oil. We are starting to eat oil and drink oil. Oil is at the heart of industrial food production and processing, and long distance food transport. The wheat, India is importing is not just bringing weeds, pests and pesticides. It is also carrying thousands of "food miles". Imagine a Tsunami or cyclone if our food supplies become dependent on wheat from U.S and Australia. And imagine the cost of wheat as oil prices rise, and wheat embodies more oil than nutrition.
We are also drinking oil, not water. When Coca Cola and Pepsi pump 1.5 to 2 million gallons a day to fill their soft drink and water bottles, and transport them to the remotest part of India, water embodies oil both in its extraction and transport. It is increasingly impossible to find clean water in our wells and springs. But Aqua Fina and Kinley has reached every village, selling water which has become oil, packaged in a plastic bottle made from oil.
While the political parties protest against the hike in oil prices, society also needs to start taking a long-term view of the ecological, economic and social costs of our growing oil addition. We need to start addressing strategic issues of real and sustainable energy security in the context of peak oil, the end of cheap oil, and the climate chaos that the era of cheap oil has left as an environmental burden on the planet.
(Dr. Vandana Shiva is a physicist, ecologist, activist, editor, and author of many books.)
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.” -Richard Feynman
Future Demand Will Outstrip Supply And OPEC Can’t Help
By A. F. Alhajji
Either EIA &IEA projections are wrong, or a crisis appears to be imminent. The World Energy Outlook 2000, compiled by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), and the International Energy Outlook 2001, authored by the International Energy Agence (IEA), indicate that oil production in the Arabian Gulf States must almost double by year 2020 to meet rising world demand.
The EIA outlooks states, 'The reference case projection implies aggressive efforts by investment capital, to implement a wide range of production capacity expansion. However, the combination of potential profitability and the threat of competition from non-OPEC supplies argues for the pursuit of an aggressive expansion strategy.'
"The reference case requires Gulf states to increase their oil production 80% by 2020. This means adding about 13 million bopd by 2020--with Saudi Arabia increasing its capacity by more than 7 million bopd, to about 17 million bopd. This seems highly unrealistic. So, either EIA & IEA or a supply crisis is coming, because Saudi Arabia and its neighbors cannot increase production by 80% for many technical, financial and political reasons."
Mistaken projections. Two recent studies by prominent oil market experts Guy Caruso (Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington) and Prof. Deromt Gately (New York University) show that such EIA and IEA projections are wrong. In his study, 'How likely is the consensus projection of oil production doubling in the Persian Gulf?', Gately states, 'Such projections are not based on behavioral analysis of Gulf countries' decisions. They are merely the calculated residual demand for OPEC oil, the difference between projected world oil demand and non-OPEC oil supply.'
( A. F. Alhajji, "Will Gulf States Live Up to EIA and IEA Projections?"" World Oil, June 2001)
Petrol..., you have created another problem. Already there are problems. You have created, by so-called civilization, petrol problem. Before these motorcars, the people were living very happily. They were transporting. But there was no such civilization that for your earning livelihood you have to go hundred miles away from your home to work there. Therefore you require vehicle. Then you require petrol. Then you require so many nice road. So many things will be. But formerly, it was village. They will take it, “This is primitive.” But remaining primitive, you were more happy than becoming so-called civilized, creating so many problems. ~ Srila Prabhupada (Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam, Hawaii, January 17, 1974)
People are always saying the world will end and it never does. Maybe it won’t this time, either. But, frankly, it’s not looking good. ~Norman Church
A World Following In The Footsteps of United States of Amnesia
By Jeff Berg
For starters the U.S. is the largest consumer of oil in the world by far, it’s not even close, its been that way for a hundred years, and still this isn’t common knowledge. Today the U.S. is consuming 20 million barrels a day, 14 million of those barrels imported. India by contrast is sixth in the world in terms of oil consumption consuming about 2.5 Mb/d (million barrels per day) or just about 1/8 of the U.S. amount. Oh and by the by while they do consume but 1/8 of what the U.S. does on a daily basis they have four times as many people meaning of course that they are consuming but 1/36th (3%) of the U.S. amount on a per capita basis.
No single country in the world comes close to the U.S. numbers, the two next greatest consumers of oil, China and Japan each consume about 1/4 of what the U.S. does. In fact in order to equal U.S. consumption you have to add China, Japan, Germany, Russia and India together. The population of these countries being about 2.75 billion to the U.S. 300 million (9.25 times greater.)
The U.S. leadership knows its extreme vulnerability and has known it for many decades. So well ingrained is this fact among America’s Presidents, its intelligence agencies, the State Department and the Pentagon that Jimmy Carter announced to the world that nothing would stand in the way of the U.S. and its interests in the Middle East region. (Now referred to as ‘The Carter Doctrine’) Today we are seeing just exactly how seriously these words were meant.
The U.S. is a massive and insane energy hog recklessly dependent on the rest of the world for 2/3 of its liquid fuel needs. Its a dangerous weakness and it is spending an extremely precious and finite resource like a “drunken sailor on leave.”
As long as this insanity is confined to this 300 million, it is probably manageable. But suddenly, the third World is waking up and trying to live the American dream and that is a very dangerous turn for humanity.
As we all know, no crude oil refineries have been built in the United States since 1976. During that time, close to 100 ethanol refineries have been built. ~John Shimkus
And There Goes Mexico
By David Brown
AAPG Explorer had an article on doing business in Mexico. It had a fascinating, and fearful statement by a major player in the Mexican oil industry. Luis Ramirez Corzo, the Director-general of exploration and production for Petroleros Mexiconos (Pemex) looked at his country's condition and said:
“Production from Cantarell will begin to decline in 2006, and the drop-off will be brutal—14 percent a year, according to Ramirez.”
“When you put the numbers together, it looks like the production in Mexico is going to decline over the next few years, and the decline is going to be quite steep,’ he said.
“This situation has long set off alarms inside Pemex. But the rest of Mexico doesn’t see the scope of the coming challenge, according to Shaw.
‘I don’t think the public in general understands that they’re about to hit a brick wall,’ he observed.”
“By increasing every year new motorcars, I am creating another problem. If there is no petrol, then the whole business will be spoiled.” That they do not know. And because they do not know, they are called asses, mudha. ~Srila Prabhupada (Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam, Los Angeles, January 2, 1974)
Trouble In The World’s Largest Oil Field - Ghawar
There are four oil fields in the world which produce over one million barrels per day. Ghawar, which produces 4.5 million barrels per day, Cantarell in Mexico, which produces nearly 2 million barrels per day, Burgan in Kuwait which produces 1.7 million barrels per day and Da Qing in China which produces 1 million barrels per day. Ghawar is, therefore, extremely important to the world’s economy and well being. Today the world produces 82.5 million barrels per day which means that Ghawar produces 5.5 percent of the world’s daily production. Should it decline, there would be major problems. As Ghawar goes, so goes Saudi Arabia.
The field was brought on line in 1951. By 1981 it was producing 5.7 million barrels per day. Its production was restricted during the 1980s but by 1996 with the addition of two other areas in the southern area of Ghawar, the production went back up above 5 million per day. In 2001 it was producing around 4.5 million barrels per day. There have been 3400 wells drilled into this reservoir.
“The big risk in Saudi Arabia is that Ghawar’s rate of decline increases to an alarming point,” says Ali Morteza Samsam Bakhtiari, a senior official with the National Iranian Oil Company. “That will set bells ringing all over the oil world because Ghawar underpins Saudi output and Saudi undergirds worldwide production.”
(Jeff Gerth, “Forecast of Rising Oil Demand Challenges Tired Saudi Fields,” February 24, 2004 New York Times )
But This Is What Is Happening “Saudi oilmen are usually a taciturn bunch, guarding their data like state secrets. But this was post September 11 and Riyadh was wooing western journalists and trying to restore the Saudis’ image as dependable, long-term suppliers of energy—not suicidal fanatics nor terrorist financiers. And it was working. “At Ghawar,’ they have to inject water into the field to force the oil out,’ by contrast, he continued, Shayba’s oil contained only trace amounts of water. At Ghawar, the engineer said, the ‘water cut’ was 30%.”
“Ghawar’s water injections were hardly news, but a 30% water cut, if true, was startling. Most new oilfields produce almost pure oil or oil mixed with natural gas—with little water. Over time, however, as the oil is drawn out, operators must replace it with water to keep the oil flowing —until eventually what flows is almost pure water and the field is no longer worth operating.” “Ghawar will not run dry overnight, but the beginning of the end of its oil is in sight.” (Paul Roberts, “New Tyrants for Old as the Oil Starts to Run Out, “ Sunday Times (News Review), May 16, 2004, p. 8)
“Saudi Aramco is injecting a staggering 7 million barrels of sea water per day back into Ghawar, the world’s largest oilfield, in order to prop up pressure. It accounts for 30% of Saudi oil reserves and up to 70% of daily output.” (“Doubts grow about Saudi As Global Swing Producer,” Aberdeen Press & Journal Energy, April 5, 2004, p. 15)
But several people are becoming concerned about the ability of the Saudi’s to maintain production. Here is a tidbit from the Aberdeen Scotland Newspaper of a few weeks ago.
“It seems a growing number of analysts are falling into line with the Simmons & Company International view that Saudi Arabia may be running out of steam and may not be able to perform the role of global swing producer for many more years, despite being credited with oil reserves in the order of 260 billion barrels. The Centre for Global Energy Studies hinted at the beginning of the year that the kingdom appeared to be heading for difficulties. Now one of its analysts has said that having reserves does not equate to production capacity. Citing the Haradh field, he said it required 500,000 barrels per day of water injection to get out 300,000 bpd of oil. Moreover the problem is even more serious in the Khurais field.” (Doubts grow about Saudi As Global Swing Producer,” Aberdeen Press & Journal Energy, April 5, 2004, p. 15)
What is the future of Ghawar and Saudi production? It is not good.
“All production comes from ‘very old fields’, with no major exploration success since the 1960s, and almost every field has high and rising watercut. (“Doubts grow about Saudi As Global Swing Producer,” Aberdeen Press & Journal Energy, April 5, 2004, p. 15)
As Ghawar goes, so goes the world.
“Now, because we have got big, big motorcars, we have to go thirty miles to find out a doctor. So the other inconveniences are also increased. Now we have to find out petrol and flatter the Arabians, “Give me petrol.” ~Srila Prabhupada (Lecture on Bhagavad-gita, London, March 11, 1975)
Any group of beings (human or nonhuman, plant or animal) who take more from their surroundings than they give back will, obviously, deplete their surroundings, after which they will either have to move, or their population will crash. ~ Bill Harding
The Pentagon V. Peak Oil How Wars of the Future May Be Fought Just to Run the Machines That Fight Them
By Michael T. Klare
Sixteen gallons of oil. That’s how much the average American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes on a daily basis — either directly, through the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks, and helicopters, or indirectly, by calling in air strikes. Multiply this figure by 162,000 soldiers in Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 in the surrounding region (including sailors aboard U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf) and you arrive at approximately 3.5 million gallons of oil: the daily petroleum tab for U.S. combat operations in the Middle East war zone.
Multiply that daily tab by 365 and you get 1.3 billion gallons: the estimated annual oil expenditure for U.S. combat operations in Southwest Asia. That’s greater than the total annual oil usage of Bangladesh, population 150 million — and yet it’s a gross underestimate of the Pentagon’s wartime consumption.
Such numbers cannot do full justice to the extraordinary gas-guzzling expense of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. After all, for every soldier stationed “in theater,” there are two more in transit, in training, or otherwise in line for eventual deployment to the war zone — soldiers who also consume enormous amounts of oil, even if less than their compatriots overseas. Moreover, to sustain an “expeditionary” army located halfway around the world, the Department of Defense must move millions of tons of arms, ammunition, food, fuel, and equipment every year by plane or ship, consuming additional tanker-loads of petroleum. Add this to the tally and the Pentagon’s war-related oil budget jumps appreciably, though exactly how much we have no real way of knowing.
And foreign wars, sad to say, account for but a small fraction of the Pentagon’s total petroleum consumption. Possessing the world’s largest fleet of modern aircraft, helicopters, ships, tanks, armored vehicles, and support systems — virtually all powered by oil — the Department of Defense (DoD) is, in fact, the world’s leading consumer of petroleum. It can be difficult to obtain precise details on the DoD’s daily oil hit, but an April 2007 report by a defense contractor, LMI Government Consulting, suggests that the Pentagon might consume as much as 340,000 barrels (14 million gallons) every day. This is greater than the total national consumption of Sweden or Switzerland.
Not Guns V. Butter, But Guns V. Oil For anyone who drives a motor vehicle these days, this has ominous implications. With the price of gasoline now 75 cents to a dollar more than it was just six months ago, it’s obvious that the Pentagon is facing a potentially serious budgetary crunch. Just like any ordinary American family, the DoD (department of defense) has to make some hard choices: It can use its normal amount of petroleum and pay more at the Pentagon’s equivalent of the pump, while cutting back on other basic expenses; or it can cut back on its gas use in order to protect favored weapons systems under development. Of course, the DoD has a third option: It can go before Congress and plead for yet another supplemental budget hike, but this is sure to provoke renewed calls for a timetable for an American troop withdrawal from Iraq, and so is an unlikely prospect at this time.
Nor is this destined to prove a temporary issue. As recently as two years ago, the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) was confidently predicting that the price of crude oil would hover in the $30 per barrel range for another quarter century or so, leading to gasoline prices of about $2 per gallon. But then came Hurricane Katrina, the crisis in Iran, the insurgency in southern Nigeria, and a host of other problems that tightened the oil market, prompting the DoE to raise its long-range price projection into the $50 per barrel range. This is the amount that figures in many current governmental budgetary forecasts — including, presumably, those of the Department of Defense. But just how realistic is this? The price of a barrel of crude oil today is hovering in the $66 range. Many energy analysts now say that a price range of $150-$200 per barrel (or possibly even significantly more) is far more likely to be our fate for the foreseeable future.
A price rise of this magnitude, when translated into the cost of gasoline, aviation fuel, diesel fuel, home-heating oil, and petrochemicals will play havoc with the budgets of families, farms, businesses, and local governments. Sooner or later, it will force people to make profound changes in their daily lives — as benign as purchasing a hybrid vehicle in place of an SUV or as painful as cutting back on home heating or health care simply to make an unavoidable drive to work. It will have an equally severe affect on the Pentagon budget. As the world’s number one consumer of petroleum products, the DoD will obviously be disproportionately affected by a doubling in the price of crude oil. If it can’t turn to Congress for redress, it will have to reduce its profligate consumption of oil and/or cut back on other expenses, including weapons purchases.
The rising price of oil is producing what Pentagon contractor LMI calls a “fiscal disconnect” between the military’s long-range objectives and the realities of the energy market place. “The need to recapitalize obsolete and damaged equipment [from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan] and to develop high-technology systems to implement future operational concepts is growing,” it explained in an April 2007 report. However, an inability “to control increased energy costs from fuel and supporting infrastructure diverts resources that would otherwise be available to procure new capabilities.”
And this is likely to be the least of the Pentagon’s worries. The Department of Defense is, after all, the world’s richest military organization, and so can be expected to tap into hidden accounts of one sort or another in order to pay its oil bills and finance its many pet weapons projects. However, this assumes that sufficient petroleum will be available on world markets to meet the Pentagon’s ever-growing needs — by no means a foregone conclusion. Like every other large consumer, the DoD must now confront the looming — but hard to assess — reality of “Peak Oil”; the very real possibility that global oil production is at or near its maximum sustainable (”peak”) output and will soon commence an irreversible decline.
That global oil output will eventually reach a peak and then decline is no longer a matter of debate; all major energy organizations have now embraced this view. What remains open for argument is precisely when this moment will arrive. Some experts place it comfortably in the future — meaning two or three decades down the pike — while others put it in this very decade. If there is a consensus emerging, it is that peak-oil output will occur somewhere around 2015. Whatever the timing of this momentous event, it is apparent that the world faces a profound shift in the global availability of energy, as we move from a situation of relative abundance to one of relative scarcity. It should be noted, moreover, that this shift will apply, above all, to the form of energy most in demand by the Pentagon: the petroleum liquids used to power planes, ships, and armored vehicles.
The Bush Doctrine Faces Peak Oil Peak oil is not one of the global threats the Department of Defense has ever had to face before; and, like other U.S. government agencies, it tended to avoid the issue, viewing it until recently as a peripheral matter. As intimations of peak oil’s imminent arrival increased, however, it has been forced to sit up and take notice. Spurred perhaps by rising fuel prices, or by the growing attention being devoted to “energy security” by academic strategists, the DoD has suddenly taken an interest in the problem. To guide its exploration of the issue, the Office of Force Transformation within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy commissioned LMI to conduct a study on the implications of future energy scarcity for Pentagon strategic planning.
The resulting study, “Transforming the Way the DoD Looks at Energy,” was a bombshell. Determining that the Pentagon’s favored strategy of global military engagement is incompatible with a world of declining oil output, LMI concluded that “current planning presents a situation in which the aggregate operational capability of the force may be unsustainable in the long term.”
LMI arrived at this conclusion from a careful analysis of current U.S. military doctrine. At the heart of the national military strategy imposed by the Bush administration — the Bush Doctrine — are two core principles: transformation, or the conversion of America’s stodgy, tank-heavy Cold War military apparatus into an agile, continent-hopping high-tech, futuristic war machine; and pre-emption, or the initiation of hostilities against “rogue states” like Iraq and Iran, thought to be pursuing weapons of mass destruction. What both principles entail is a substantial increase in the Pentagon’s consumption of petroleum products — either because such plans rely, to an increased extent, on air and sea-power or because they imply an accelerated tempo of military operations.
As summarized by LMI, implementation of the Bush Doctrine requires that “our forces must expand geographically and be more mobile and expeditionary so that they can be engaged in more theaters and prepared for expedient deployment anywhere in the world”; at the same time, they “must transition from a reactive to a proactive force posture to deter enemy forces from organizing for and conducting potentially catastrophic attacks.” It follows that, “to carry out these activities, the U.S. military will have to be even more energy intense…. Considering the trend in operational fuel consumption and future capability needs, this ‘new’ force employment construct will likely demand more energy/fuel in the deployed setting.”
The resulting increase in petroleum consumption is likely to prove dramatic. During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the average American soldier consumed only four gallons of oil per day; as a result of George W. Bush’s initiatives, a U.S. soldier in Iraq is now using four times as much. If this rate of increase continues unabated, the next major war could entail an expenditure of 64 gallons per soldier per day.
It was the unassailable logic of this situation that led LMI to conclude that there is a severe “operational disconnect” between the Bush administration’s principles for future war-fighting and the global energy situation. The administration has, the company notes, “tethered operational capability to high-technology solutions that require continued growth in energy sources” — and done so at the worst possible moment historically. After all, the likelihood is that the global energy supply is about to begin diminishing rather than expanding. Clearly, writes LMI in its April 2007 report, “it may not be possible to execute operational concepts and capabilities to achieve our security strategy if the energy implications are not considered.” And when those energy implications are considered, the strategy appears “unsustainable.”
Pentagon As A Global Oil-Protection Service How will the military respond to this unexpected challenge? One approach, favored by some within the DoD, is to go “green” — that is, to emphasize the accelerated development and acquisition of fuel-efficient weapons systems so that the Pentagon can retain its commitment to the Bush Doctrine, but consume less oil while doing so. This approach, if feasible, would have the obvious attraction of allowing the Pentagon to assume an environmentally-friendly facade while maintaining and developing its existing, interventionist force structure.
But there is also a more sinister approach that may be far more highly favored by senior officials: To ensure itself a “reliable” source of oil in perpetuity, the Pentagon will increase its efforts to maintain control over foreign sources of supply, notably oil fields and refineries in the Persian Gulf region, especially in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. This would help explain the recent talk of U.S. plans to retain “enduring” bases in Iraq, along with its already impressive and elaborate basing infrastructure in these other countries.
The U.S. military first began procuring petroleum products from Persian Gulf suppliers to sustain combat operations in the Middle East and Asia during World War II, and has been doing so ever since. It was, in part, to protect this vital source of petroleum for military purposes that, in 1945, President Roosevelt first proposed the deployment of an American military presence in the Persian Gulf region. Later, the protection of Persian Gulf oil became more important for the economic well-being of the United States, as articulated in President Jimmy Carter’s “Carter Doctrine” speech of January 23, 1980 as well as in President George H. W. Bush’s August 1990 decision to stop Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, which led to the first Gulf War — and, many would argue, the decision of the younger Bush to invade Iraq over a decade later.
Along the way, the American military has been transformed into a “global oil-protection service” for the benefit of U.S. corporations and consumers, fighting overseas battles and establishing its bases to ensure that we get our daily fuel fix. It would be both sad and ironic, if the military now began fighting wars mainly so that it could be guaranteed the fuel to run its own planes, ships, and tanks — consuming hundreds of billions of dollars a year that could instead be spent on the development of petroleum alternatives.
(Michael T. Klare, professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College, is the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum, Owl Books)
Copyright 2007 Michael T. Klare
“Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box.” ~Italian Proverb
“The purpose is that you grow some castor seed, press it, get oil, put in any pot, and one wick, the light is there. So even understanding that you have improved the lighting system, but that is not the only necessity of my life. But to improve from the castor seed lamp, castor oil lamp, to this electricity, you have to work so hard. You have to go to the middle of ocean and drill it and get out petroleum and... In this way your real business of life is finished.” ~ Srila Prabhupada ( Conversation, West Virginia, June 24, 1976)
These politicians, they create an atmosphere... Therefore I say the head of the state, they must be clean. But they are all motivated. Therefore the whole world is in chaotic condition. Generally politician has got a particular motive behind him. And when they cannot pull on they declare war. Pakistan, since the beginning, they could not make the economic condition very sound. But when the people were too much agitated, they declared war with India. The whole attention was... And they have been educated in such a way that India is their strongest enemy. Anything Indian, they dislike in Pakistan. So this is going on by the politicians. They are creating situation because they are not honest, they are not clean. ...and the fight is going on, and the poor people in the state, they are suffering. -Srila Prabhupada (Room Conversation, with Richard Webster, May 24, 1974, Rome)
“To our grandfathers and grandchildren, the cavemen....” (Rene Barjavel 1911 - 1985)
“But what is the use of these big, big motorbuses and acquire petrol, machine, factory, so many things? But nature’s way there is already means of transport. The horses are there. The bulls are there. But they will eat them, and they will create these motor big, big buses and then petrol, then fight...” ~Srila Prabhupada (Morning walk, Mauritius, 2 Oct, 1975)
“Petroleum’s worth as a portable, dense energy source powering the vast majority of vehicles and as the base of many industrial chemicals makes it one of the world’s most important commodities. Access to it was a major factor in several military conflicts in last one hundred years.” ~Joseph Moore
There will be no stamp commemorating year 1959-2059. Oil industry will not observe its bicentenary.
Recklessly Wasteful
A Conversation With His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
Prabhupada: I think that in Bible there is a story, prodigal son? So we are prodigal son. We are all sons of God, now we have become prodigal sons. What is the meaning of prodigal? “Without any responsibility,” is it not? Do whatever you like.
Translator: Run away from the protection of the family.
Prabhupada: Yes. That is our position, that we are sons of God, we have given up protection of God. God is protecting in all circumstances.
Hari Sauri: It says “Prodigal: recklessly wasteful.”
Prabhupäda: That’s it. This is the... We are all recklessly wasteful sons of God. We are sons of God, there is no doubt, but at the present moment, recklessly wasteful. We are wasting our valuable life even, we are so reckless. So the Krishna consciousness movement is to check their recklessness and bring them into senses of responsibility, going back home, back to Godhead. This is Krishna consciousness. But people are so reckless, as soon as you say something of God, immediately they laugh, “Oh, what is nonsense, God.” This is the supreme recklessness. India was very serious about God. Still, India is serious. Now, the present leaders, they are thinking that Indians are spoiled, simply thinking of God—they’re not thinking like the Americans and Europeans for economic development. So this is the position, and it is very difficult, but still we can do something this to the humanity, by preaching this Krsna consciousness movement. And those who are fortunate, they’ll come, take up seriously. These reckless prodigal sons, we have got so many examples. For example, just like there is some stock of petroleum and they got information that from petroleum they can run on cars without horse. So, manufacture millions of cars and spoil the whole oil. This is recklessness. And when it is finished, then they’ll cry. And it will be finished. This is going on. Recklessness. Just as a reckless boy, father has left some property, use it, use it. As soon as you get. The sooner it is finished, that’s all. That is recklessness. There is some strength in the body, and as soon as he gets a little taste of sex life, “Oh, spend it, spend it,” whole energy spent. The brain becomes vacant. This is recklessness. Beginning from twelfth year, by the thirty year, everything finished. Then he’s impotent. In our childhood—in our childhood means, say, eighty years ago, or say, a hundred years ago—there was no motorcar. And now, wherever you go, in any country, you see thousands and millions of car. This is recklessness. Hundreds years ago they could do without motorcar, and now they cannot live without a car. In this way, unnecessarily, they’re increasing bodily or material necessities of life. This is recklessness.
(Room Conversation With French Commander, August 3, 1976, France)
“People really feel that, when they go to the gas pump now, that the oil cartel is holding them by the legs and tipping them upside down and shaking money out of their pockets.” -Ed Markey