Don’t worry, just a little bump - $70 is just around the corner. Short traders just keep making those margin calls, mortgage the house if you have to. Fortunes await you! PO is for pansies and doomers. At $70 short some more ..... it is going back to $22 .... the world is awash with oil ........ reality has nothing to do with it, its all in those charts!!!!!!!!!!
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:05 am Post subject: CFR-National Security Consequences of US Oil Dependency
Here's another in the never-ending production of peakoil papers from the top. Two more are coming next year, one from the GAO.
Council on Foreign Relations
Report of an Independent Task Force
Quote:
The Council on Foreign Relations established an Independent Task Force to examine the consequences of dependence on imported energy for U.S. foreign policy. Since the United States both consumes and imports more oil than any other country, the Task Force has concentrated its deliberations on matters of petroleum. In so doing, it reaches a sobering but inescapable judgment: the lack of sustained attention to energy issues is undercutting U.S. foreign policy and national security.
The Task Force goes on to argue that U.S. energy policy has been plagued by myths, such as the feasibility of achieving ‘‘energy independence’’ through increased drilling or anything else. For the next few decades, the challenge facing the United States is to become better equipped to manage its dependencies rather than pursue the chimera of independence.
It also addresses some widely touted solution myths. Here's #1:
Quote:
Myth #1: The United States can be energy independent.
No, because liquid fuels are essential to the nation’s transportation system. Barring draconian measures, the United States will depend on imported oil for a significant fraction of its transportation fuel needs for at least several decades.
And, like the Hirsch Report, it acknowledges that the transition will involve decades.
Quote:
It is important to recognize that in most cases, change will be slow. The enormous magnitude of equipment and facilities that comprise the energy supply and demand systemimplies that even once technologies begin to be adopted, full replacement of the existing facilities will take several decades.
Quote:
All told, an incremental approach to the challenge—as advocated in this report—will not be adequate.
I will look for more nuggets when I have time to review it in depth.
Link to pdf file _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:07 am Post subject: Re: CFR-National Security Consequences of US Oil Dependency
I wish every politican and talking head could be required to
read and repeat on their sound bites some of the cited paragraphs
of this report.
"Energy independence" is becoming the new buzz term. I have
yet to hear a single speaker of it to furnish any details as to the
nature, or extent of the problem or the list of painful policies
necessary to EVER achieve it.
BTW, does anyone know the last time the US was not a net
oil importer? I have yet to find any figures on the subject prior
to 1949.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1968 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:39 am Post subject: Re: CFR-National Security Consequences of US Oil Dependency
"Energy security" seems to be another buzz-phrase. The New Zealand government's new energy policy was released recently and contains that phrase, as do articles reporting it. However, it still seems to be believed that non-renewables can be part of the answer to achieving energy security. Although renewables are encouraged, they aren't mandated, even though "energy security" is paramount. In reports, we had energy company chiefs reiterating the phrase in explaining some of their non-renewables projects.
Energy security is not possible as long as you are reliant on non-renewables.
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 11:32 am Post subject: Re: CFR-National Security Consequences of US Oil Dependency
The amusing thing about the current situation is that everyone, and I mean everyone, every top politician, is talking about this issue behind the scenes, but there is such a strong sense of the need not to "panic the horses" that not much is coming out in public, except when they make little slips.
It's a rare thing to have a report that is so honest as to say that their own recommendations are a complete crock. _________________ Gravity is not a force, it is a boundary layer.
Everything is coincident.
Love: the state of suspended anticipation.
To get any appreciable distance from the Earth in
a sensible amount of time, you must lie.
Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 7:40 am Post subject: Re: CFR-National Security Consequences of US Oil Dependency
Hm, nice finding but It is instructive to read the whole report because they sure write/say things that make a lot of sense.
Top of page 32:
Quote:
Consumers and businesses want energy services, such as transportation, lighting, and air-conditioning.
The implication is that the service and not how it is rendered it is important (strike against simplistic views about the role of energy and EROEI (has to be even marginally > 1) in generation of such services)
(page 31):
Quote:
The need to reduce imports of oil in the United States and to better
balance the world oil market leads naturally to the following five
policy objectives:
• Increase efficiency of oil and gas use;
• Switch from oil-derived products to alternatives;
• Encourage supply of oil from sources outside the Persian Gulf;
• Make the oil and gas infrastructure more efficient and secure; and
• Increase investment in new energy technologies.
(page 32)
Simply excellent ...
Quote:
However, the lowest cost option from the perspective of energy users may not be the lowest cost option from the perspective of the United States when broader considerations such as energy security, environmental externalities, and long-term welfare are included.
Thus, the United States should adopt policies that encourage consumers and businesses to use less oil and other forms of energy while still obtaining the energy services they need
Under the section of alternatives ... the following are mentioned: biofuels (ethanol/diesel), plug-in hybrids and the GODZILLA that will spread mayhem and mental suffering in the hard core doomer/dieoffer population centers :
Quote:
Thus, nuclear power, among other electric power supply options, offers an important long-term pathway to displacing oil as a transportation fuel.
A realistic appraisal of the current R&D situation in the US (page 37):
Quote:
However, the Task Force is critical of the continuing U.S.
federal RD&D effort; it is fragmented, unfocused, and tries to be all
things to all people.
And the punchlines keep coming ...
Quote:
One measure would reduce the growth in demand for gasoline
over time: a substantial federal excise tax on gasoline.
( page 37 )
Quote:
Asecond measurewould tighten and reform the CorporateAverage
Fuel Economy rules.
( page 38 )
Quote:
The third option would be to place a cap on gasoline consumption
and adopt a system of tradable vouchers.
( page 38 )
Quote:
The protectionist $0.54 per gallon tariff on imported ethanol
should be removed.
( page 39 )
Quote:
The Task Force believes that the United States should make
greater use of nuclear power.
(page 40 .. their recommendation is fully justified IMHO)
Read the additional view section too ... it includes gems like the following sentence :
Quote:
Most gravely, oil consumers are in effect financing both sides of the war on terrorism.
I will leave the recommendation sections about the Foreign Relations alone for now ... does not really call for resource wars, quite the contrary.
But why do people emphasize the slowness of the "switch-over" process? It took more than 150 years to build the present O&G infrastructure, so why should the change happen overnight? Where is the evidence that such a rapid transition is required?
Merry Xmas _________________ "Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1968 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 2:36 pm Post subject: Re: CFR-National Security Consequences of US Oil Dependency
Hmm. I haven't read the report but, from the quotes given here, does this seem like a good characterisation?
The American way of life is not negotiable. All the energy services that Americans want (though the report says "need") can be provided by using a mix of energy sources. Implication is that these "needs" can be met indefinitely. Reduce oil consumption but there is no need to remove it completely. If the US can't produce all the ethanol it "needs" remove trade barriers to getting it from elsewhere (with the implication that the world can produce all it needs indefinitely). Nuclear power is renewable (that is the implication of a recommendation to increase the dependence on nuclear).
I didn't notice a quote about actually making do with less energy in future and there appears to be no realisation that the only energy security is in using renewable energy at or below the rate of renewal. Is there such a realisation in the report?
Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:21 pm Post subject: Re: CFR-National Security Consequences of US Oil Dependency
TonyPrep wrote:
I didn't notice a quote about actually making do with less energy in future and there appears to be no realisation that the only energy security is in using renewable energy at or below the rate of renewal. Is there such a realisation in the report?
Tony
Actually efficiency is a way to make more with less ... and the need to provide for transportation by driving less is also covered extensively. _________________ "Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1968 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:30 pm Post subject: Re: CFR-National Security Consequences of US Oil Dependency
EnergySpin wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
I didn't notice a quote about actually making do with less energy in future and there appears to be no realisation that the only energy security is in using renewable energy at or below the rate of renewal. Is there such a realisation in the report?
Tony
Actually efficiency is a way to make more with less ... and the need to provide for transportation by driving less is also covered extensively.
Not if efficiency is jut a way to continue the party. Eventually, you end up using more. And, from the quotes you gave, efficiency only applied to petroleum use. That's no good long term.
Joined: Sep 29, 2004 Posts: 2330 Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:48 pm Post subject: Re: CFR-National Security Consequences of US Oil Dependency
When I read stuff like this I can't help but wonder what life would be like today had Gore won the 2000 election. Both Bush’s' have undone a lot of the environmental and conservation standards which were put in place during the Nixon/Ford/Carter administrations. The entire Bush family is a disgrace and will be remembered by future generations that way. I can see myself with my Grandchildren in 20 years lamenting about these times. _________________ "That's the problem with mercy, kid... It just ain't professional" - Fast Eddie, The Color of Money
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:28 am Post subject: Re: CFR-National Security Consequences of US Oil Dependency
Kingcoal wrote:
When I read stuff like this I can't help but wonder what life would be like today had Gore won the 2000 election.
Very bad things, like he would let economic depression to happen in the USA in order to force drastic changes to achieve his environmentalist goals and to accomplish the great global warming swindle upon the American people. If he has everything his way, he would reverse his predecessor's decision on the Kyoto Protocols and force the Congress to ratify it without the public consensus.
More scientists, once defending human-induced global warming studies, are questioning the extreme political and scientific implications out of global warming debates and policies. The recent International Climate Change report that came out last January is nothing but a governmental policy cookbook for mass human depopulation of the planet.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1968 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:19 pm Post subject: Re: CFR-National Security Consequences of US Oil Dependency
No, the report that came out in February is a consensus document (and, as such, very conservative) from 2,500 climate scientists about the changes already seen and coming in the climate, and the highly likely causes. How people choose to respond is up to them.
Depression is coming whether we like it or not. It sounds as if you are in complete denial about both PO and climate change. Hard decisions need to be taken; it sounds like you don't want to contemplate those decisions.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
