PDA

View Full Version : Oil reserves 'exaggerated by one third'



Alpha Dude
03-23-2010, 07:20 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...one-third.html
The scientist and researchers from Oxford University argue that official figures are inflated because member countries of the oil cartel, OPEC, over-reported reserves in the 1980s when competing for global market share.

Their new research argues that estimates of conventional reserves should be downgraded from 1,150bn to 1,350bn barrels to between 850bn and 900bn barrels and claims that demand may outstrip supply as early as 2014. The researchers claim it is an open secret that OPEC is likely to have inflated its reserves, but that the International Energy Agency (IEA), BP, the Energy Information Administration and World Oil do not take this into account in their statistics.

"It is necessary to investigate ambiguities and sources of error that are broadly acknowledged but not taken into account in public data due to political sensitivities," the researchers said. The paper also raises concerns that public statistics have started to incorporate non-conventional reserves such as the Canadian tar sands, where oil and gas are much more difficult to extract and may never be economically attractive to develop.

Sir David said that although the IEA was doing a good job of warning that more investment in oil and gas exploration is needed, governments need to pay more attention to independent research.

"The IEA functions through fees that are paid into it by member companies and has to keep its clients happy," he said. "We're not operating under that basis. This is objective analysis. We're not sitting on any oil fields. It's critically important that reserves have been overstated, and if you take this into account, we're talking supply not meeting demand in 2014-2015."

The concept of "peak oil" has gained traction in recent years, although energy companies such as BP and Shell insist that production will be able to keep pace with growing Asian energy needs.

Sir David said he was "very concerned" that Western governments were not taking the concept of "peak oil" – where demand outstrips production – seriously enough, while China is throwing all its efforts into grabbing as many energy resources as possible.

Sir Richard Branson, founder of the Virgin Group, and Ian Marchant, chief executive of Scottish & Southern Energy, are members of the Peak Oil Industry Taskforce, which is trying to raise awareness of potential shortages in the coming decade.

Dr Oliver Inderwildi, who co-wrote the paper with Sir David and Nick Owen for Oxford University's Smith School, believes radical measures such as switching freight transport to airships could become common in future.

"The belief that alternative fuels such as biofuels could mitigate oil supply shortages and eventually replace fossil fuels is a pie in the sky. Instead of relying on those silver bullet solutions, we have to make better use of the remaining resources by improving efficiency."
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Al-Indunisiy
03-24-2010, 12:50 AM
:sl:

Now, what would you personally do to counter act this 'peak oil' fenomena?
Reply

Al-Indunisiy
03-24-2010, 01:24 AM
:sl:

If my memory serves me right, I've posted a website regarding, haven't I?

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
Reply

islamirama
03-24-2010, 01:41 AM
Originally Posted by Al-Indunisiy
:sl:

If my memory serves me right, I've posted a website regarding, haven't I?

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
Only fools are blind as to why US and its allies are in Iraq and Afghan



In light of this information, Cheney knew the only way for Western oil majors to stay oil majors was to use force to grab what's left in the Middle East. Four years after the invasion of Iraq, this is exactly what is happening. U.K. Independent journalist Geoffrey Lean explains:


"So where is this oil going to come from?" Cheney asked His answer: the Middle East was "where the prize ultimately lies".

Lest there be any doubt about what was at stake, the man who was to become one of the most powerful proponents of the invasion of Iraq went on: "Oil is unique because it is so strategic in nature. We are not talking about soapflakes or leisurewear . . . The Gulf War was a reflection of that reality."

Well, seven years on, Mr. Cheney's solution to the impending oil crisis is well on its way to being implemented. In the aftermath of another war, Iraq's Council of Ministers is today expected to throw open the doors to the country's oil reserves - the third largest in the world - to private companies, the first time a major Middle Eastern producer has ever done so. Source

If you've been wondering why the Bush administration had been spending money, cutting social programs, and starting wars like there's no tomorrow, now you have your answer: as far as they are concerned, there is no tomorrow.



In 2003, the BBC filmed a three-part, relatively apolitical, documentary entitled "War for Oil" about the role the Bush administration's knowledge of Peak Oil played in their decision to invade and occupy Iraq. As the documentary explains, in private the Bush administration sees the war in Iraq as "a fight for survival." In a purely Machiavellian world, they were probably correct in their thinking.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Al-Indunisiy
03-24-2010, 02:32 AM
:sl:

@islamirama

What tangent does that documentary have upon the link I've shown?
Reply

islamirama
03-24-2010, 02:51 AM
Originally Posted by Al-Indunisiy
:sl:

@islamirama

What tangent does that documentary have upon the link I've shown?
:wa:

Nothing, showing some excerpts from your link. The fools comment was at the delusional (mostly kuffars) on this board who think the illegal war and occupation of Iraq and Afghan was for something other than Oil.
Reply

Joe98
03-24-2010, 03:52 AM
When Saddam was there killing muslims, Iraq was selling oil at world prices. And most of the money went to Saddam's family.

Today Iraq is selling oil at world prices and the money is going to the people of Iraq.

-
Reply

islamirama
03-24-2010, 03:59 AM
Originally Posted by Joe98
When Saddam was there killing muslims, Iraq was selling oil at world prices. And most of the money went to Saddam's family.

Today Iraq is selling oil at world prices and the money is going to the people of Iraq.

-
Saddam allegedly killed 250,000 people in 25 years where as your "liberators" killed over 1 million in the first 3 years of OCCUPATION. As for the oil, Money may be going to Saddam's family (where do you think arab money going?) but he did build a great city. He's army was the worlds 4th largest and strongest. Today that oil is going to US reserves, being stolen by the US Oil tycoons. Over 50,000 fatherless and husbandless families are living in Syria as refuges, forced into prostitution to survive. We have your average Iraqis crying we want Saddam back, he was better than this hell. And we have the ignorant trying to preach to us oil is going to Iraqi people...
Reply

Alpha Dude
03-24-2010, 04:08 AM
Originally Posted by Al-Indunisiy
:sl:

Now, what would you personally do to counter act this 'peak oil' fenomena?
Remove as much reliance on oil based products as possible. Many peak oil believers tend to have a mentality of going one step further and stocking up on everyday items in some hidden bunker, believing entire civilisations and societies will collapse bringing about widespread rioting, looting and all sorts of crimes.

That link you posted was one of the sites that introduced me with peak oil too.

As muslims, the solution doesn't lie in hoarding and caring for ourselves as individuals though. Community is emphasised. We have to spread the word and make more people peak oil aware.

I'm about 85% convinced that it's true.
Reply

Al-Indunisiy
03-24-2010, 07:32 AM
:sl:

@Alpha Dude:

Many peak oil believers tend to have a mentality of going one step further and stocking up on everyday items in some hidden bunker, believing entire civilisations and societies will collapse bringing about widespread rioting, looting and all sorts of crimes.
The question is now, even if they were to stock up, would all of those last?

As muslims, the solution doesn't lie in hoarding and caring for ourselves as individuals though. Community is emphasised. We have to spread the word and make more people peak oil aware.
And again, the question is how to make them care.

Remove as much reliance on oil based products as possible.
That's going to be hard. A lot of what we use are oil derivate. Though the only ones I can think of now are: Fuels, Lubricants, and Plastic.

If we were to think that we should reduce dependence upon them, then we should also think about the alternatives/substitutes thereof.

Btw. Do you think that Mr Savinar here is a little fatalistic about it?
Reply

Alpha Dude
03-24-2010, 10:39 AM
Wa alaykum salam,
The question is now, even if they were to stock up, would all of those last?
Some objects can last a whole lifetime, e.g. glass jars, tin cans, plastic containers. Others last for quite a few years, like tissue paper. Food, I guess, would last the least longest. It also depends how these things are stored.

Everything in modern civilisation is interdependent. If there is a crash of some sort, many services may go down. Supermarkets might not get stocked. Food, water, electric, gas heating. All things to worry about.

Another aspect is riots and looting. How would you be able to make your stocks safe.

However, hoarding like that is not something I would advise. I think it's unIslamic to run for the hills and care for yourself only.

That's going to be hard. A lot of what we use are oil derivate. Though the only ones I can think of now are: Fuels, Lubricants, and Plastic.
How about food? Agriculture is very dependent on oil for fertilizer. Growing your own vegetables can't be bad, peak or no peak.

Btw. Do you think that Mr Savinar here is a little fatalistic about it?
Yeah, I would agree.
Reply

Al-Indunisiy
03-24-2010, 02:52 PM
:sl:

I found this:
What do you think?



Maybe I'll search for more.
Reply

Asiyah3
03-24-2010, 03:10 PM
Originally Posted by Joe98
When Saddam was there killing muslims, Iraq was selling oil at world prices. And most of the money went to Saddam's family.

Today Iraq is selling oil at world prices and the money is going to the people of Iraq.

-
From where did you make up this nonsense (this time) :rollseyes
Reply

Supreme
03-24-2010, 04:49 PM
Darn. We're gonna have to invade another country for oil. I fancy somewhere tropical, say, Venezuela?
Reply

Argamemnon
03-24-2010, 05:06 PM
Originally Posted by Supreme
Darn. We're gonna have to invade another country for oil. I fancy somewhere tropical, say, Venezuela?
I wonder whether you would joke if your own country was about to be invaded and plundered and its people massacred.
Reply

Supreme
03-24-2010, 05:24 PM
Originally Posted by Argamemnon
I wonder whether you would joke if your own country was about to be invaded and plundered and its people massacred.
People have been trying to do that for hundreds of years, actually. The last attempt was made by Hitler. And yes, we beat him and he failed. Actually, I think the last time that happened was with the Normans. It was more a land thing than an oil thing, but the principal is the same.
Reply

Joe98
03-25-2010, 11:19 AM
Originally Posted by islamirama

Saddam allegedly killed 250,000 people in 25 years where as your "liberators" killed over 1 million in the first 3 years of OCCUPATION.
According to Iraq Body Count http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ The number of civilians killed since 2003 is 95,000 - 105,000.

During the recent election, 30 were killed by suicide bombs in one day.

According to muslims on this forum 1 million have been killed

That equals (approx) 400 per day !

So, when we received reports of the 30 that were killed, how come no reports of the other 370 ???
Reply

Woodrow
03-25-2010, 12:44 PM
Thinking back to 30-40 years ago it was expected the oil would come to an end soon after the year 2000. Reality is finally kicking in.

Here in the Central plains over the past few decades wind power for Electricity has pretty much replaced gasoline operated generators. Solar plants are also being built to take up the areas not yet converted to wind power.

Dependency on petroleum has been very much replaced by bio-fuels in the Dakotas. If things are still going according to plans Petroleum products will be illegal to be sold in South Dakota some time this year. I personally have not used gasoline in over a year except when in parts of Minnesota where E-85 was not yet available.

I think that very quickly the US will be exporting it's surplus petroleum. The Braken Pool here in the Dakotas is now being drilled although only the first 105 wells are now in operation in the Minot area. Most of that oil seems to be targeted for the international market.

There is some issue of how much will be drilled for in the Brakken Pool as much of it is under the region we call the Republic of Lakotah and most of us living in the RoL are opposed to any drilling.

I believe that very rapidly dependence on Petro will become a thing of the past and for much of the world bio-fuels will replace it. It does seem to be an economic reality here. The downside is it will drastically reduce the quantity of food available for export as more grain goes into fuel production instead of flour. But, either way the flour production will suffer, using petroleum is no longer a cost effective method of raising grain. Flour does not pay enough to offset the cost of petroleum.

I doubt if the world is going to see any major loss in fuel except for the source of the fuel. But I do envision a drastic drop in food production, which is were the real disaster is going to be.

Affordable food depends on low cost non-bio fuel.
Reply

islamirama
03-25-2010, 04:21 PM
Originally Posted by Joe98
According to Iraq Body Count http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ The number of civilians killed since 2003 is 95,000 - 105,000.

During the recent election, 30 were killed by suicide bombs in one day.

According to muslims on this forum 1 million have been killed

That equals (approx) 400 per day !

So, when we received reports of the 30 that were killed, how come no reports of the other 370 ???
Right, like we are going to the believe the killers in how many they have killed. Try searching this forum, you'll find the news articles and survey results showing over 2 million killed from independent sources.
Reply

Dagless
03-25-2010, 05:15 PM
Originally Posted by Joe98
According to Iraq Body Count http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ The number of civilians killed since 2003 is 95,000 - 105,000.

During the recent election, 30 were killed by suicide bombs in one day.

According to muslims on this forum 1 million have been killed

That equals (approx) 400 per day !

So, when we received reports of the 30 that were killed, how come no reports of the other 370 ???
It tells you on their site:

Confusion about the numbers produced by the project can be avoided by bearing in mind that:

* IBC’s figures are not ‘estimates’ but a record of actual, documented deaths.
* IBC records solely violent deaths.
* IBC records solely civilian (strictly, ‘non-combatant’) deaths.
* IBC’s figures are constantly updated and revised as new data comes in, and frequent consultation is advised.
It wouldn't be difficult to classify a load of kills as "combatants" without evidence.
Reply

Joe98
03-25-2010, 09:35 PM
Originally Posted by islamirama
showing over 2 million killed from independent sources.
March 2003 to March 2010 = 2,557 days

That makes about 782 per day.

Where are the 782 that were killed yesterday?

-
Reply

Joe98
03-25-2010, 09:40 PM
Originally Posted by Dagless
It tells you on their site:
It wouldn't be difficult to classify a load of kills as "combatants" without evidence.
So you are saying that the 100,000 are non combatants. So they were not fighting the Americans.

They were instead, Shia and Sunni blowing each other up!

-
Reply

Joe98
03-25-2010, 09:45 PM
Wind turbines can be used to generate electricity.

But first you must manufacture the wind turbines - and the machines to do that need oil.

No oil = no manufacturing of anything.

-
Reply

islamirama
03-25-2010, 09:56 PM
Originally Posted by Joe98
So you are saying that the 100,000 are non combatants. So they were not fighting the Americans.

They were instead, Shia and Sunni blowing each other up!

-
The number is shocking and sobering. It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on a scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003.



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

More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict started by the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, according to a new survey by a UK polling group.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/mi...393674736.html

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

The Americans learned one lesson from Vietnam: don't count the civilian dead. As a result, no one knows how many Iraqis have been killed in the five years since the invasion. Estimates put the toll at between 100,000 and one million, and now a bitter war of numbers is raging. Jonathan Steele and Suzanne Goldenberg report

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq

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

According to a new study, 1.2 million Iraqis have met violent deaths since the 2003 invasion, the highest estimate of war-related fatalities yet.

http://www.alternet.org/world/62728/

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

March 20, 2009 marks the 6th anniversary of the illegal, utterly unjustified, war criminal invasion of Iraq by US, UK and Australian forces. Post-invasion violent and non-violent excess deaths total 2.3 million and refugees total 6 million in a continuing Iraqi Holocaust and Genocide.

http://www.countercurrents.org/polya210309.htm

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

Today is march 2010, so you can add few hundred thousand to that and its well over 2.5 million. Now go take your fake numbers given by your terrorist regimes and stop derailing the topic.
Reply

S<Chowdhury
03-25-2010, 10:15 PM
Great :( most likely going to a fuel price rise soon then i guess :(, already at 114p a litre
Reply

Dagless
03-25-2010, 10:23 PM
Originally Posted by Joe98
So you are saying that the 100,000 are non combatants. So they were not fighting the Americans.

They were instead, Shia and Sunni blowing each other up!

-
No, they were civilians killed by troops (the ones admitted to).

Originally Posted by Joe98
Wind turbines can be used to generate electricity.

But first you must manufacture the wind turbines - and the machines to do that need oil.

No oil = no manufacturing of anything.

-
No it doesn't. People have been using coal and gas for hundreds of years.
Reply

Joe98
03-26-2010, 12:47 AM
Originally Posted by Dagless
No it doesn't. People have been using coal and gas for hundreds of years.
But coal and gas cannot be used to lubricate a machine in a factory.

-
Reply

Dagless
03-26-2010, 01:30 AM
Originally Posted by Joe98
But coal and gas cannot be used to lubricate a machine in a factory.

-
Not all lubricant is oil based.
Reply

Woodrow
03-26-2010, 06:35 PM
Originally Posted by Joe98
Wind turbines can be used to generate electricity.

But first you must manufacture the wind turbines - and the machines to do that need oil.

No oil = no manufacturing of anything.

-
That is true. Which is what makes it all the more important to use current petroleum to develop non-petroleum based energy sources. Keep in mind while we have become dependent on petroleum for energy, it is a very recent phenomena and short term.

Mankind has lived many millennium with out petroleum dependent energy. Petroleum is not the only energy source, it is simply the current lowest cost one and that is ending.
Reply

aadil77
03-26-2010, 07:28 PM
Originally Posted by S<Chowdhury
Great :( most likely going to a fuel price rise soon then i guess :(, already at 114p a litre
time for us to get deisel cars, even tho they sound crap
Reply

Woodrow
03-26-2010, 09:33 PM
Time has come for all of us to stop and face reality. Oil will be gone durinjg the lifetime of nearly every person reading this.

That is not necessarily a bad thing. Oil has benefited the world and people. But it has also polluted and damaged much of the environment. It has also been behind the bloodiest and most ignorant conflicts in world history.

It has served it's purpose, now we need to wake up and learn how to develop better, cleaner and safer sources of low cost energy. Oil is not the issue, the energy produced from oil is the issue. Our goal needs to be the development of safer, more friendly energy sources.
Reply

islamirama
03-26-2010, 11:35 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Time has come for all of us to stop and face reality. Oil will be gone durinjg the lifetime of nearly every person reading this.

That is not necessarily a bad thing. Oil has benefited the world and people. But it has also polluted and damaged much of the environment. It has also been behind the bloodiest and most ignorant conflicts in world history.

.
and the sand diggers will go back to being sand n*i*gg*a*s, taking their nationalist and western a$$ kissing w/them...
Reply

Woodrow
03-27-2010, 02:53 AM
Originally Posted by islamirama
and the sand diggers will go back to being sand n*i*gg*a*s, taking their nationalist and western a$$ kissing w/them...
Although I disagree with your wording I think you have a point in your message.

Oil was not a blessing to the people of the Mideast. It corrupted the people, brought war to the land and ruined the land so that when the wells are gone and oil is no longer a source of life, the majority will be left with no means of income. This was fast, short term wealth and only benefited a few.

If a message is to be learned, the lesson is not to place reliance on the material world. Material things only lead to fitnah, weaken the people and after the damage leave shattered lives.

Oil property is a cruel master to serve. People on oil reserves do not control it, it becomes a chain that either controls or destroys them, In my life time I saw it destroy the lives of the Choctaw, Commanche and Cherokee in Oklahoma, ruin the Gulf Coast fishing, and now threatening the Lakotah Sioux up here on the Brakken Oil Pool.

The next oil war will most likely be here within the center of the USA as the Big 7 oil companies attempt to exploit the land and get the oil deposits the Republic of Lakotah sits on top of.
Reply

Al-Indunisiy
04-10-2010, 03:18 PM
:sl:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23406/?a=f
Reply

Al-Indunisiy
04-10-2010, 03:29 PM
Petroleum-Based Products Shape Our Lives: Does that Mean We Are Irreversibly Dependent on Oil?
by Adam Williams on August 8, 2008

in Energy & Fuel, Sustainability

If oil is so ingrained in the modern world we all know — ubiquitous in the manufacturing and transporting of countless consumer products — does that mean we are hopelessly dependent upon it?

The question came to mind after receiving a comment from Morris (no last name given) on a previous post of mine here at sustainablog.org, World Naked Bike Ride: Is Anything Gained by Protesting Oil Dependency in the Buff?

Not to put words in Morris’s mouth, but he seems to suggest that oil cannot be escaped. Is he right? Even if he is, does that mean we should abandon efforts to break our addiction to crude?

Sure, he makes a valid point in reminding us that oil has been used to make the very bicycles naked riders use in their World Naked Bike Ride protests around the world.

To quote a portion of his comment:

“If it weren’t for oil they wouldn’t be riding those bikes, they’d be walking, barefoot, naked with no glasses! Not to mention the streets would be dirt, not paved. There would be no electric lights, no drinks at the end of the ride, no music. Should I go on?”


Yes, let’s go just a little further. I did a quick Internet search for more oil-based products. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge publishes a list of oil uses on its Web site.

Here is a brief excerpt:

Guitar strings
Pantyhose
Golf bags
Dentures
Candles
Hair coloring
Aspirin
Footballs
Food preservatives
Shampoo
Lipstick
Electric blankets
Ammonia
Pillows
Okay, Morris. You’re right. I’m laying my head on a partially petroleum-based product to sleep every night. And I wash my hair with a product that also is partially petroleum-based. And I eat petroleum-laced foods.


Okay. Sure, that’s a tad discomforting to think the oil we ship over from the Middle East is ending up in my food, but does that solve the question about giving in to the dependency? We should just quit worrying about our addiction?

Alcoholics are not told, “Go ahead, drink yourself into self-destruction. After all, there’s tiny amounts of alcohol in hygiene products and seemingly countless food items. You’ll never escape it, so why try?”

Of course not. Alcoholics are coaxed off of the habit and, hopefully, back into productive, healthy lifestyles.

So let’s keep our eyes on the ball, huh? This topic, as most things in life, lands somewhere in the gray area between the extremes of opposing perspectives. No one is riding bikes sans clothing because of a notion that they are calling an end to all uses of oil.

It’s not either you are for oil or against it, an all or nothing, polarizing situation of ultimate right or wrong.

The call is for some reasonable re-assessments of where we stand with 21st Century environmental conditions, and the 21st Century technology we have to cope with the related problems. These issues didn’t exist on this scale a hundred years ago when the car was invented. Cars have evolved, so why shouldn’t fuel evolve, too?

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, nearly 35 gallons of every 42-gallon barrel of crude oil (shown in the graphic above) is used for one type of transportation fuel or another. The rest, in various other forms, is what goes into the consumer products we use on a daily basis.

A call for alternative energies that reduce our addiction to foreign oil, and a call to lessen our willingness to accept unnecessarily low fuel economy from automakers and the mileage standards set by the government does not mean we all have to give up modern conveniences, overall hygiene or sleeping with sheets, mattresses and pillows.

Speaking out for improvements in energy policies, even if riding in the buff to do it, is not a lost cause. The only lost cause in the debate about energy is to give up and assume our oil habit is irreversible.

Related posts:

Gas Hole the Movie: History of Oil Prices and Alternative Energy

Addressing Peak Oil at the Local Level

Biofuels Part I: Corn Ethanol Isn’t the Solution

Graphic Source: U.S. Department of Energy


Source: http://blog.sustainablog.org/petrole...endent-on-oil/
Reply

Woodrow
04-10-2010, 04:10 PM
At the moment it may seem we are eternally dependent upon petroleum. Remember this is fairly new to us. For most of human existance oil was no more than a wasted product that was capable of ruining farm land. Except for about these past 3 generation we as a people had no need of petroleum. we did not need it in the past and can adjust to not having it in the future.
Reply

Alpha Dude
04-13-2010, 07:54 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...duction-supply
The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact.

The energy crisis outlined in a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, comes as the price of petrol in Britain reaches record levels and the cost of crude is predicted to soon top $100 a barrel.

"By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day," says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis.

It adds: "While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India."

The US military says its views cannot be taken as US government policy but admits they are meant to provide the Joint Forces with "an intellectual foundation upon which we will construct the concept to guide out future force developments."

The warning is the latest in a series from around the world that has turned peak oil – the moment when demand exceeds supply – from a distant threat to a more immediate risk.

The Wicks Review on UK energy policy published last summer effectively dismissed fears but Lord Hunt, the British energy minister, met concerned industrialists two weeks ago in a sign that it is rapidly changing its mind on the seriousness of the issue.

The Paris-based International Energy Agency remains confident that there is no short-term risk of oil shortages but privately some senior officials have admitted there is considerable disagreement internally about this upbeat stance.

Future fuel supplies are of acute importance to the US army because it is believed to be the biggest single user of petrol in the world. BP chief executive, Tony Hayward, said recently that there was little chance of crude from the carbon-heavy Canadian tar sands being banned in America because the US military like to have local supplies rather than rely on the politically unstable Middle East.

But there are signs that the US Department of Energy might also be changing its stance on peak oil. In a recent interview with French newspaper, Le Monde, Glen Sweetnam, main oil adviser to the Obama administration, admitted that "a chance exists that we may experience a decline" of world liquid fuels production between 2011 and 2015 if the investment was not forthcoming.

Lionel Badal, a post-graduate student at Kings College, London, who has been researching peak oil theories, said the review by the American military moves the debate on.

"It's surprising to see that the US Army, unlike the US Department of Energy, publicly warns of major oil shortages in the near-term. Now it could be interesting to know on which study the information is based on," he said.

"The Energy Information Administration (of the department of energy) has been saying for years that Peak Oil was "decades away". In light of the report from the US Joint Forces Command, is the EIA still confident of its previous highly optimistic conclusions?"

The Joint Operating Environment report paints a bleak picture of what can happen on occasions when there is serious economic upheaval. "One should not forget that the Great Depression spawned a number of totalitarian regimes that sought economic prosperity for their nations by ruthless conquest," it points out.
Reply

Woodrow
04-14-2010, 03:21 AM
Originally Posted by Alpha Dude
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...duction-supply
The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact.

The energy crisis outlined in a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, comes as the price of petrol in Britain reaches record levels and the cost of crude is predicted to soon top $100 a barrel.

"By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day," says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis.

It adds: "While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India."

The US military says its views cannot be taken as US government policy but admits they are meant to provide the Joint Forces with "an intellectual foundation upon which we will construct the concept to guide out future force developments."

The warning is the latest in a series from around the world that has turned peak oil – the moment when demand exceeds supply – from a distant threat to a more immediate risk.

The Wicks Review on UK energy policy published last summer effectively dismissed fears but Lord Hunt, the British energy minister, met concerned industrialists two weeks ago in a sign that it is rapidly changing its mind on the seriousness of the issue.

The Paris-based International Energy Agency remains confident that there is no short-term risk of oil shortages but privately some senior officials have admitted there is considerable disagreement internally about this upbeat stance.

Future fuel supplies are of acute importance to the US army because it is believed to be the biggest single user of petrol in the world. BP chief executive, Tony Hayward, said recently that there was little chance of crude from the carbon-heavy Canadian tar sands being banned in America because the US military like to have local supplies rather than rely on the politically unstable Middle East.

But there are signs that the US Department of Energy might also be changing its stance on peak oil. In a recent interview with French newspaper, Le Monde, Glen Sweetnam, main oil adviser to the Obama administration, admitted that "a chance exists that we may experience a decline" of world liquid fuels production between 2011 and 2015 if the investment was not forthcoming.

Lionel Badal, a post-graduate student at Kings College, London, who has been researching peak oil theories, said the review by the American military moves the debate on.

"It's surprising to see that the US Army, unlike the US Department of Energy, publicly warns of major oil shortages in the near-term. Now it could be interesting to know on which study the information is based on," he said.

"The Energy Information Administration (of the department of energy) has been saying for years that Peak Oil was "decades away". In light of the report from the US Joint Forces Command, is the EIA still confident of its previous highly optimistic conclusions?"

The Joint Operating Environment report paints a bleak picture of what can happen on occasions when there is serious economic upheaval. "One should not forget that the Great Depression spawned a number of totalitarian regimes that sought economic prosperity for their nations by ruthless conquest," it points out.
:sl: Nephew,

I hope that will impress the urgency upon the average American Our daily petroleum usage in 2007 was "United States: 20,680,000 bbl/day 2007" SOURCE: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/en...il-consumption

A 10 million barrel per day drop would reduce the petroleum supply to about half of the current daily needs.

The Alarm clock just rang, time to wake up and stop wasting petroleum on idiotic junk like wars.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!