US Corps of Engineers report on Peak Oil

[Seahorse]

Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Army Installations

The doubling of oil prices from 2003-2005 is not an anomaly, but a picture of the future. Oil production is approaching its peak; low growth in availability can be expected for the next 5 to 10 years. As worldwide petroleum production peaks, geopolitics and market economics will cause even more significant price increases and security risks. One can only speculate at the outcome from this scenario as world petroleum production declines.

Energy consumption is indispensable to our standard of living and a necessity for the Army to carry out its mission. However, current trends are not sustainable. The impact of excessive, unsustainable energy consumption may undermine the very culture and activities it supports.

Oil shale and tar sands energy ROI is negative, significant environmental impact.

Currently, non-OPEC nations have been at maximum production and will most likely peak as predicted. Figure 2 shows the projected worldwide oil production (based on analyses from the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas [ASPO]). Note that these are considered pessimistic projections. Others predict far higher production for the future, but discoveries to date have not born out the predictions of the optimists.

Demand now exceeds production and we are seeing that effect on prices. After the peak is reached, geopolitics and market economics will result in significant price increases above what we have seen to date. Security risks will also rise. To guess where this is all going to take us is would be too speculative. Oil wars are certainly not out of the question.

http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA440265&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Though not new, I stickied this old report bc it is an important work not easily located on this forum or elsewhere and gives a good overview of the problems facing world oil production.  So, for those new to PO that may visit this site, it makes some basic reading easy for them. 

[anarchist]

thanks, never saw this.

[PerfectScotty]

There you go, more proof of peak oil and its ramifications and from our own government nonetheless ! Good find Seahorse.

[everyman44]

In 100 years, if were here, wikipedia will have a picture of a Seahorse beside the word Doom. Classrooms befuddled.

[horsedrawn]

great to have access to this . Thanks
  I have told friends and family of these reports and still THEY JUST DON"T GET IT!
In there words - Don't worry they will find plenty more oil and plenty of alternatives to make up for it even if there REALLY (  said with much sarcasm ) is such a thing as peak oil.

[Taters]

great to have access to this . Thanks
  I have told friends and family of these reports and still THEY JUST DON"T GET IT!
In there words - Don't worry they will find plenty more oil and plenty of alternatives to make up for it even if there REALLY (  said with much sarcasm ) is such a thing as peak oil.

As Einstein said, "Condemnation without investigation is the highest form of ignorance."

Seems were overrun with the highest form of ignorance these days.

[paland]

Oil production is approaching its peak; low growth in availability can be expected for the next 5 to 10 years.

So they say that we are approaching peak and that growth, albeit slow, can be expected for the next 5 to 10 years?

This difffers drastically from those who say we have already peaked (I am one) and that we will NOT have growth for any more years, much less 5-10.

[LookAroundYou]

Oil production is approaching its peak; low growth in availability can be expected for the next 5 to 10 years.

So they say that we are approaching peak and that growth, albeit slow, can be expected for the next 5 to 10 years?

This difffers drastically from those who say we have already peaked (I am one) and that we will NOT have growth for any more years, much less 5-10.

I just took that to mean they will carrying on using Enron style accounting to show growth and maintian control while we continue to build up our military forces in key regions of the planet.

[DJSNOLA]

I bet the Army Corps does research as well as it builds levees!

[Seahorse]

The question is whether the Corps of Engineers report on PO is accurate.  You suggest that the Corps cannot be trusted bc they couldn't build an adequate levy in New Orleans.  However, forecasting a problem and preparing for it are two different things.  The Corps clearly saw a problem with the levies in NO, but didn't receive the funds to deal with it bc the money went to the war in Iraq.

http://www.alternet.org/story/24871/

So, it appears the Corps does an adequate job of forecasting a problem, but the Federal gov't does a piss poor job of allocating funds to deal with those problems.

[DJSNOLA]

Actually, the Corps had a flaw in its design for our levees from the get go. The outfall canals were improperly tested. Yes, they saw it was a problem, after it failed! Saying the Corps is not at least partly to blame for the failure of our levees is ludicrous.

[Seahorse]

No, I didn't say they weren't partly to blame.  The government may be entirely to blame.  What I'm saying is they recognized the levy problem many years ago, as detailed in the article.  They were clearly aware of it, but funds which were intended to go for levy improvements went to the Iraq war instead.  The point I'm making is the Corps is smart enough to perceive a problem and predict it.  So, just as they perceived the problem with the New Orleans levies, they have perceived a problem with PO.  And, I will predict that instead of preparing for PO, as suggested by the Hirsch report, the government will continue to fund its wars and other more pressing problems of the day.

[everyman44]

It's ludicrous to employ such a massive scale of aggression for power which will fall moot once the petroleum we are assisting to steal is used up shortly there after. Master of the far to long sentence.

[power_of_the_glory]

No, I didn't say they weren't partly to blame.  The government may be entirely to blame.  What I'm saying is they recognized the levy problem many years ago, as detailed in the article.  They were clearly aware of it, but funds which were intended to go for levy improvements went to the Iraq war instead.  The point I'm making is the Corps is smart enough to perceive a problem and predict it.  So, just as they perceived the problem with the New Orleans levies, they have perceived a problem with PO.  And, I will predict that instead of preparing for PO, as suggested by the Hirsch report, the government will continue to fund its wars and other more pressing problems of the day.

I agree, I think that many here give the government to much credit.  IMO, they only see problems from a 2-4 year perspective.  They only plan enough to get to the next election cycle and fail to plan for the long term.  There may be people working for the government (such as the Corp of Engineers) that see the problem coming, but the elected officials won't truly act on it until it is too late. 

[bobd]

This excerpt was particularly amusing to me

"Currently, non-OPEC nations have been at maximum production and will most likely peak as predicted. Figure 2 shows the projected worldwide oil production (based on analyses from the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas [ASPO]). Note that these are considered pessimistic projections. Others predict far higher production for the future, but discoveries to date have not born out the predictions of the optimists."

In other words, the accurate forecast is the one being noted but the author feels the need to point out that it is the most pessimistic? Who are the asshats that consider this pessimistic if it's also the most accurate, and why should that even be noted? Anyone can come up with a more optimistic scenario, it just won't be accurate.