Click on the headline (link) for the full TEXT.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
The peak oil crisis: rationing by price
Tom Whipple, Falls Church News-Press
We are just about through winter, and as yet, nothing really bad seems to have happened to the world’s energy supplies. Unless, of course, you were among the unlucky folk who keep warm with Russian natural gas and, depending on where you live, were subjected to state blackmail, or diverted gas, or blown-up pipelines, or perhaps reduced flows during one of the coldest winters in recorded history.
On the American side of the globe, however, all was well. An unusually warm winter led to bulging oil and gas stockpiles and somewhat lower prices. In the Mid-East, the Saudis stopped Al Qaeda from blowing up an important oil facility and, despite significant increases in the violence in Iraq and the rhetoric in Iran , for now, oil continues to flow from both countries.
Demand is growing nicely. In the United States , we managed to consume 2.5 percent more gasoline in February that we did last year. That’s an additional 9.1 million gallons per day. The Chinese just announced they had imported 3.2 million barrels a day during January— a 69% increase over last year. Some economic forecasters have noted how little $60 oil seems to be affecting economic growth, and are predicting banner years ahead with world economic growth doing better than 4%.
On the supply side, however, things did not fare quite as well during the winter.
(9-15 March 2006)
Frank Sesno to present new CNN documentary on oil crisis
Mason Gazette
Frank Sesno, professor of public policy and communication and CNN special correspondent, will offer a preview screening of his latest CNN documentary about America’s energy reliance, “We Were Warned: Tomorrow’s Oil Crisis,” on Monday, March 6, from 1:30 to 2:30 p.m. in the Johnson Center Cinema on the Fairfax Campus.
Former CIA Director James Woolsey will join the screening and discussion. Woolsey is featured in the film and will be testifying on March 7 before the U.S. Senate Energy Committee. Woolsey’s position is that the United States’ energy dependence is our chief national security challenge.
The documentary opens with a hypothetical,but entirely plausible,scenario that takes place one September day in the not-too-distant future. A category 5 hurricane roars through Houston, destroying oil refineries, drilling platforms and pipelines, all of which are vital to our nation’s fuel supply.
Three days later, terrorists attack two key oil installations in Saudi Arabia, home to the world’s largest supplier of crude. In the days and weeks that follow, gasoline prices hit record highs, food prices soar as trucks cannot afford to make deliveries and Americans begin to realize that their very way of life is in peril.
Throughout the documentary, Frank Sesno speaks with petroleum experts, scientists and engineers, all of whom are scrambling to make alternative fuels viable and plentiful; and industry experts who agree that the era of easy-to-extract oil is over. The crude that is left on the planet is difficult and expensive to obtain.
The program is part of CNN’s award-winning documentary series “CNN Presents.” It is scheduled to air on CNN on Saturday, March 18, at 8 p.m., with a rebroadcast that night at 11 p.m., and Sunday, March 19, at 8 and 11 p.m.
(2 March 2006)
UPDATE (March 13): The CNN Presents website should have more information shortly.
The reality Of India-US nuclear deal
Binu Mathew, Countercurrents.org
…The deal has come through at a time of soaring petroleum prices and also when the threat of peak oil has come to be accepted as a reality by trade pundits. The last decade saw the growing economies of India and China putting pressure on the global supply of fossil fuels consuming ever larger quantities. As the threat of peak oil lurk in the not so distant future it was imperative for the world’s lone super power to shut the rivals out of the competition. It has been the corner stone of American foreign policy of the recent past, invading Iraq and Afghanistan, pampering the house of Saud’s , threatening Iran and Venezuela, playing murky games in Darfur.
The nuclear deal with India is not a benevolent gift from the emperor to a client state. It was a clever move to put India out of the competition for fossil fuels which is getting ever scarcer. Bush spelt it out very cleverly in New Delhi – “It’s in our economic interests that India have a civilian nuclear power industry to help take the pressure off the global demand for energy.To the extent that we can reduce demand for fossil fuels, it will help the American consumer.”
In the Cabinet reshuffle of last month , Mani Shankar Aiyar was stripped of the Petroleum, Oil and Natural Gas portfolio at a critical juncture in the trajectory of India’s energy economy. The charge was transferred to Murli Deora, one of India’s most right-wing, pro-U.S., and pro-big business politicians.
Mani Shankar Aiyar had been named by several of India’s leading newspapers as the most able member of the UPA cabinet. He was a vocal proponent of the scheme to build a pipeline to deliver Iranian gas to Pakistan and India. The Bush administration has repeatedly made clear that it is adamantly opposed to the building of such a pipeline.
…Murali Deora on the other hand is so closely identified with the U.S. that he is seen as a contact or liaison man by many. He himself makes no bones about his proximity to the U.S. or his intimacy with business houses, some with a major stake in petroleum.
(3 March 2006)
Also posted at Znet.
Smoke & monetary policy
Jeff Vail, A Theory of Power (blog)
On Tuesday I had a conversation with a few Senior Executives in the Department of the Interior about how to solve the Peak Oil problem–and we all came to the same conclusion: there is a structural block to the solution to this problem, because to do so would require massive and immediate investment that would not pay dividends for at least 10 years–longer than the 2, 4, and occasionally 6 or 8 year cycles in American politics that proscribe our national time-horizon. It just isn’t politically realistic to back a project that won’t pay off in time for the next relevant election cycle–even if you could find politicians that would be willing to sacrifice their own re-election for the greater good, they would still be hamstringed by the unavailability of the campaign funding on which they require, and would likely lose in the next election to a candidate who is promising a short-term benefit… We’re structurally short-sighted, which goes right along with my general thesis that the structure of our institutions, much more than the individuals within them, is the real root of our problems.
Some people believe that we can circumvent this structural problem with government by relying on the market, on private business, to make the kind of long-term investments that will save us. The problem here is that this structurally short-sighted government still sets the parameters within which private business operates, through interest rates and monetary policy.
(9 March 2006)
