Now is the time at SDA when we juxtapose! From Canada's bright thinkers at DND:
Critical energy and water shortages combined with climate change could provoke wars within the next 15 years, warns a newly-released analysis by the Department of National Defence."Global reserves of crude oil could become problematic by 2025," wrote Maj. John Sheahan in a draft version of the report, Army 2040: First Look. "This implies that (barring the discovery of significant new reserves, and barring the adequate adoption of substitute fossil fuels or alternative fuel and energy sources) critical energy shortages will develop in the time frame of (and perhaps prior to) 2025."
The report noted that alternative fuels and energy may not be enough to respond to rising demand for energy that is forcing oil production to reach its capacity — a threat commonly referred to as "peak oil."
"There can be little doubt that unrestricted access to reliable energy supplies is a global strategic issue, one for which, recently, numerous nations have been willing to fight, and have indeed done so [where, other than Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait?]," said the report, released to Postmedia News through an Access to Information request. "Thus the trend that envisions depletion of fossil fuels such as crude oil in coming decades may also contribute to international tensions if not violent conflict."..
From Neil Reynolds in the Globe and Mail's "Report on Business" (where some of the paper's best stuff of general interest is often relegated):
The London-based World Energy Council says Israel’s Shfela Basin, a half-hour drive south of Jerusalem, holds 250 billion barrels of recoverable shale oil, possibly making the energy-vulnerable country (as expressed by The Wall Street Journal) “the world’s newest energy giant.” With reserves of 260 billion barrels, Saudi Arabia would remain the world’s No. 1 oil country – though not, perhaps, for long. Howard Jonas, CEO of U.S.-based IDT Corp., the company that owns the Shfela Basin concession, says there is much more oil under Israel than under Saudi Arabia: Perhaps, he says, twice as much.Even with a mere 250 billion barrels, the Shfela Basin (or 238 square kilometres of it) would make Israel the third-largest holder of shale reserves in the world – right behind the U.S. with 1.5 trillion barrels and China with 355 billion barrels. Assuming for the moment that Mr. Jonas is correct in his calculations, the U.S. and Israel would together hold shale reserves in excess of two trillion barrels: Enough oil to fuel these two countries (at combined consumption of eight billion barrels a year) for more than 200 years.
And the discovery of further vast energy reserves in the United States and Israel progresses at an accelerated (and now often frenzied) pace...
According to the [NY] Times, 20 of these shale oil plays could increase U.S. oil production by 25 per cent in the next 10 years. “This is very big and it’s coming fast,” says U.S. energy expert Daniel Yergin, chairman of the energy research company IHS CERA. “This is like adding another Venezuela or another Kuwait – except that these fields are in the U.S.”..
Then of course there's the possible shale gas "revolution". Keep scratching one's head over conventional wisdom.
"..Critical energy and water shortages combined with climate change could provoke wars within the next 15 years..."
Yeah. And too much Coors light 'could' cause the craps.
These guys getting paid for this concise analysis?
If those numbers are true, that's great, but it doesn't address the concern cited by the DND which is the "rising demand for energy". These reserves would be sufficient to serve existing demands for the foreseeable future, but there's no indication that the global oil demand is about to hit a plateau. On the contrary, as China and India continue to industrialize, we can expect the demand to rise drastically. That might be a relatively minor issue domestically if we're willing to put a stranglehold on the domestic oil industry and place a limit on exports, but it certainly would create an environment where wars over resources are more likely.
That steaming pile of conventional wisdom, er, "analysis" was originally done last year as part of a study of the future security environment and has been freely available on the web since then...
http://centreforforeignpolicystudies.dal.ca/pdf/CFD-The_Future_Security_Environment_2008-30.pdf
So the Army 2040 paper is taking its cue from this prevailing "strategic analysis". If you check out the methodology outlined at the end of the Future Security document, you'll see that a lot of "experts" in academia and the "security analysis" community were consulted and the ensuing steaming pile of, er, consensus distilled in the report.
and we have tha ability to prevent anyone from taking what we have?????
Of course the assumptions that buttress the DND study make the claim that 'climate change' is driving the water shortage and and 'peak oil' is driving the energy shortage.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/29/the-log-in-the-eye-of-greenpeace/#more-42427
'Matthew 7:5 – Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
As Greenpeace publishes yet another attack on a reputable scientist, (Dr Willie Soon), who happens to disagree with the IPCC, they again ignore the massive funding going into the “green” movement, from corporations including “big oil”, foundations and governments.
Their constant attacks on the integrity of genuine scientists are classic diversionary tactics to avoid close examination of the millions of dollars going into the Global Warming project. A commentary by David and Amy Ridenour in the Washington Times of June 14th last year, showed the major extent of funding to environmental groups by BP, who were being attacked by those same groups over the oil spill in the Gulf.
BP was also a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, (not the same as the Climate Action Network) contributing substantial funding to the climate-change-related lobbying efforts of the environmental groups within it, which include the Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Nature Conservancy and the World Resources Institute.
The new “climate friendly” BP was first promoted by BP CEO, Lord John Browne in 1997, (then Sir John Browne), now on the Climate Change Advisory Board of Deutsche Bank along with Dr Pachauri of the IPCC and Professor John Schellnhuber of the German Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
A report in the Washington Examiner, entitled “Working for Big Green can be a very enriching experience” by Mark Tapscott, showed that the leaders of 15 top Big Green environmental groups are paid more than $300,000 in annual compensation, with a half million dollar plus figure for the top “earner”.'
Obviously, "big oil" would be delighted to see oil prices skyrocket as that would drive up profits.
Oil companies funding the ECO green 'peak oil' theory stand to make record profits due to an overstated 'scarcity of resource' theory.
If you artificially skew or overstate the the scarcity of 'supply' side of the equation the natural 'demand' will bring the profits.
And we are not talking 'hope and pocket change' here folks. Read trillions of dollars to 'big oil' to accept the green 'peak oil' myth...
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, C in C
1st St. Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North"
"where, other than Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait?"
Um, libya?
One question. When havent there been wars?
People obviously don't need any reason to fight. People after all, are preditors.
This is why nay Nation with a brain the size of a pea pod has a standing army.
Reserves in place are meaningless. recoverable oil is the key.
These "discoveries" made possible by new fracturing/shale drilling technology are coming fast and furious. As somebody else put it -- I'd credit him if I could remember who -- we are at the dawn of the age of fossil fuels.
Cal2 - I can't speak for well oil, but any company with something to be mined that is listed on a stock market as Reserves has to have a plan for how to extract it, what losses mining and processing will cause (ie recovery and yield), where the wastes go, and how the product will go to market (including appropriate costs). The plan has to follow the applicable laws and standards of the country (including taxation estimates) and still show that it makes a profit. Resources don't need that level of detail, but reserves do.
Alex - if supplies were finite and we lived in a command economy, you'd be right. There's a lot of money to be made in finding a new way to generate oil from another source and getting a patent. There's a lot of companies that want to make money by supplying at the lowest price that they can. I'll bet on human ingenuity (and greed, for lack of a better word) rather than "we're doomed! There's none left, and we'll have to make do without!" any day. There's a reason Ehrlich lost his bet with Simons
I am so sick of this crap i really ...why do people not realize that oil gold so on and so forth are produced by the EARTH daily as a result of all of the techtonic plate ,lava so on and so forth moving about doing it's thing ...why try to sell me fear gimmi a break iti s like crying over an oil spill who gives a F@CK it came from the earth it will be consumed by the earth or it's in habitant's be it microbial or human or something in between !!! god is great he made it so so why fret about it, gimmi a freakin break!!!
Man stop with this crap it makes me sick !!
I am so sick of this crap i really ...why do people not realize that oil gold so on and so forth are produced by the EARTH daily as a result of all of the techtonic plate ,lava so on and so forth moving about doing it's thing ...why try to sell me fear gimmi a break iti s like crying over an oil spill who gives a F@CK it came from the earth it will be consumed by the earth or it's in habitant's be it microbial or human or something in between !!! god is great he made it so so why fret about it, gimmi a freakin break!!!
Man stop with this crap it makes me sick !!
And the Arabs want Israeli land for what reason again..?
Hmmmmmm.....?
Oh...
And conflict because of resource issues?
Tom Clancy - Red Storm Rising
C_Miner: oh,I agree with you - we almost certainly will find other ways of creating or extracting oil, or we'll find technologies to replace it. The real questions are how long it'll take, who will make the key discoveries, and how much damage will be done in the meantime.
Even with Conservative majority government, there is pressure on defense budgets. So what better way to promote spending and embellish this government's environmental credentials than to prepare to fight the Green Wars of the future.
Alex - yup. And the mess will be biggest in the poorer countries where they can't be bothered to use the latest, cleanest technology because there's too many people just getting by. I suspect that the more anti-pollution devices are mandated here and the more expensive (and less efficient) products become as a result, the dirtier the developing world becomes.
Shale oil is much harder to get at than West Texas Lite. Not only because it's trapped in shale deposits, but it's not really oil. It's "kerogen" -- the "precursor to oil":
"it is not energy dense .... must either be strip-mined and converted aboveground or cooked [belowground] by electric heaters ... producing a barrel of synthetic [shale oil] crude requires as many as three barrels of water .... can introduce dangerous amounts of heavy metals into the water system ..."
Quotes from the July issue of Popular Science, where you can read more.
All told, it's harder to get at than the Oil Sands. So we won't run out of energy ... just cheap energy.
Miner, that's a fair point, but the flip-side of the coin is that mandating anti-pollution devices and "clean" technologies here means an increased incentive to make those technologies cheap and efficient. And making them cheap and efficient is the most important step to getting them accepted by poor nations.
Of course, that applies much more to practical technologies than to pure pollution-control measures, but it works for both. A cheaper alternative to gasoline would be adopted by poor nations ASAP, while a cheap way of reducing ozone emissions might take a while :p
I think it balances out in the long run. The biggest real problem with mandated pollution reduction measures is that, in the short term, it gives companies a pretty goo incentive to offshore their manufacturing. That's why we're sending so much of our electronic waste to China - they can dispose of it cheaply because they have no rules to stop them trashing the environment.
The 100 year supply of natural gas would turn into a 10 year supply, if it were used to power fleets of vehicles. The 100 year supply of oil in the oilsands would turn into a 10 year supply, if the Chinese were to buy up reserves, and increase production/demand. Even the global supply of uranium would disappear in a few decades, if we were to replace all oil generated energy with nuclear power. There IS a finite supply of cheap energy. And, Paul in Calgary, the urban legend of abiotic oil does not belong in any serious discussion about energy reserves. That scam has been grabbing a few dollars from a few suckers for many years. The timeline is the hard thing to pin down. With countries like China and India introducing millions of new cars to the demand side every year, we're going to shrink reserves at an alarming rate.
So many nukes, so little time.
"..Critical energy and water shortages combined with climate change could provoke wars within the next 15 years..."
Apparently they haven't noticed; shortages of food due to conversion to biofuel to appease environmentalist conciences is already provoking wars.
The myth that we're about to run out of oil has been with us since the 19th century. Not gonna happen. Former Saudi oil minister Sheikh Yamani had it right when he said, "The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil." (Of course, he was way off on his time scale, he figured alternatives would be in place by 2005.)
Alex, we already have found other ways of creating oil. Thermal depolymerization can make oil from garbage or sewage at $80 per barrel, and it's estimated that using that process, the US could eliminate all oil imports.
Yep, thermal depolymerization is promising, but so far it's only been proven on a very small scale. There's no real data on how well it can scale up, and the claim that "it's estimated that using that process, the US could eliminate all oil imports" is completely spurious. I'm sure someone 'estimated' that, but at this point it's little better than guesswork. We see this with most new technologies - they make all sorts of wonderful claims, work very well on a small scale, and then completely disappear because they don't scale up. Algae-based oil production is another such example.
Don't get me wrong - I'd be very happy if you turned out to be 100% correct. I just think it's much too early to be jumping on that particular bandwagon.
BTW, I love the Saudi quote. History is full of useful examples that show the futility of predicting the very-long-term use of resources ... but I've never seen a quote which sums it up so well. Thanks!
Alex- yup, agreed. I do recall hearing a quote about Thomas Edison's electric generator, talking about how it would never catch on because there weren't enough whales to supply the oil that would be needed to have a generator in each neighbourhood, and how mineral oils wouldn't burn well enough. Chemistry has gotten better since ("mineral oils" and other sources burn cleanly enough now) , and we generate a lot more power than that pessimist would have dreamed. Oh, and we still have a few whales kicking around too, it turns out they weren't as important to the process as originally planned. Whoever does find a scalable algae (or other biomass converting) energy form that has a high enough energy density will be the next Rockefeller, Ford, or Hilton. The name will be known world-wide, and it'll be tough ensuring that the grand-kids have a work ethic because there is so much residual wealth to be left to them.
Please allow me to strum my harp/grind my axe.
This legitimizing of playing the race card is a direct result of, amongst other things, the loss of the practice of our nation's founding Judeo-Christian faith.
Under God, it was understood that all of us were created equal, whatever gender or race. If you want to see a genuine United Nations, where young and old, white, yellow, and black, work together for the betterment of others, go to church, especially the Roman Catholic Church, of which James Joyce said, "Here comes everybody!"
Now that the majority no longer believe in God and, as a result, don't recognize or honour each individual's equality before God, we've begun to make arbitrary distinctions -- and laws and policies based on them. They're flimsy, they're fickle, and they're failing. we're
Whoops! Sorry! Above comment belongs on another thread ... ;-(
So, what is the point of the first article? Build up a military that can take on the US? I am sort of worried that Russia can't really defend its far east from China, should China really want it. That could turn ugly fast.
tim:
I've heard that scenario before. Don't know how realistic it is. I suppose it depends on how badly China needs extra resources, and if Russia is willing to supply them cheaply.
Sun Tzu wrote, "In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good."
I suspect that if were to China move militarily, it would not be until Russia is seized in some sort of internal conflict that precludes any sort of response at all.