The Peak Oil Crisis: 2012 -- Apocalypse Now?
(snip)
The second set of problems likely to explode in 2012 is the political instability. The most serious is in the Arab world, but as demonstrations in Moscow, China, Kazakhstan, Europe, and even mild ones on Wall Street show, social unrest is turning into a worldwide problem as resources become constrained and economic growth slows. Mankind now has seven billion mouths to feed and these are increasing by 70 million each year. There is going to be a turning point, the only question is when?
Unrest and various geopolitical confrontations have already reduced or eliminated oil exports from Libya, Yemen, and Syria this year. Efforts to sanction Iran seem to be picking up steam and the oil markets are nervous that many countries soon will be forced to stop buying Iranian crude. The Syrian situation continues downhill and the delicate Iraqi political balance that was crafted by the US appears to have lasted for only a few days after the last US troops were withdrawn. It is a good bet that there is going to be less oil exported from the Middle East and possibly Central Asia by the end of next year - raising oil prices despite deteriorating economic conditions.
Read full article: http://www.countercurrents.org/whipple221211.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Have any of you been preparing for Peak Oil? I know that loading your garage with food supplies, fuel, and other necessities seems paranoid from a certain perspective...but on the other hand, those paranoid types are going to be the ones doing well when everything goes to hell and the system falls apart. Any ideas how low-income people in particular can prepare for the effects of Peak Oil? And do you think it's going to be a sudden catastrophe, or more like a frog-in-a-boiling-pot situation?
= new reply since forum marked as read
I have a real problem with your assumptions that "oil production in 2030, will be about the same as 1980". I have seen many predictions but this one appears to be the most rosy one yet. Its estimated that by 2020 the worlds oil production will be 20-30% less than today's totals. I would love to know what you base you numbers upon.
[img]
[/img]
Here is my take on the global oil decline rate. I made this projection four years ago, and I underestimated the length of the peak plateau. Overall though, the curve still looks reasonable to me - especially given the uncertainty in regional decline rates and the impact of the unfolding global depression.
The one thing I didn't factor in is the net export crisis. For the USA I expect that issue to have a far bigger socioeconomic impact than the raw global production decline.
The post-peak decline rate is another question. The best guides we have are the performances of oil fields and countries that are known to be already in decline. Unfortunately, those decline rates vary all over the map. The United States, for instance, has been in decline since 1970 and has lost 40% of its production capacity since then, for a decline rate of about 2% per year. On the other hand, the North Sea basin is showing an annual decline around 10%, and the giant Cantarell field in Mexico is losing production at rates approaching 20% per year.
In order to create a realistic decline model for the world's oil, I have chosen to follow the approach of the Energy Watch Group, which is similar in profile to the projections of Dr. Bakhtiari in his WOCAP model . Both assume a gradually increasing decline rate over time, starting off very gently and ramping up as the years go by.
The main difference is that the EWG model is slightly less aggressive than WOCAP. WOCAP predicts that production will fall from its current value of 4000 million tonnes of oil per year (Mtoe/yr) to 2750 Mtoe/yr in 2020, while the EWG projects a decline to 2900 Mtoe/yr by then. The EWG projects an oil supply of just under 2000 Mtoe in 2030. My model projects a decline rate increasing from 1% per year in 2010 to a constant rate of 5% per year after 2025, resulting in an average decline rate of 4% per year between now and 2050. In 2050 oil production is only 18% of what it is today, as shown in Figure 1.
Last edited Tue Dec 27, 2011, 09:08 PM - Edit history (1)
First lets discuss the use of Nuclear Weapons in a war over oil. If a nuclear power threatens an oil producer with a nuclear strike unless the oil producer turns over all of its oil to the Nuclear power, what would happen is the oil producer say "go ahead nuke us"? The Nuclear power will NOT want to use its Nuclear weapons around the oil fields, think about trying to sell radioactive gasoline back home? Destroying the country's infrastructure, with nuclear weapons, would just make it harder, or not impossible to pump and transport the oil. Thus Nuclear weapons is on limited use of a Nuclear power wants an oil producing country's oil.
On the other hand, if the oil producing country has the bomb, it has very good reason to use Nuclear Weapons on any attacking military force, but well before it reaches the oil fields.
Conventional weapons, do to their smaller blast area, would be more advantages to the attacking military force. Less damage to the oil fields, the infrastructure to maintain, pump and export oil from those fields and less damage to the infrastructure that people running those fields will have to live in.
Thus any ATTACKING force will avoid the use of Nuclear Weapons, preferring conventional weapons (Including "smart weapons"
.
Furthermore, once the field is taken, how do you treat the people who live in that area? The best solution is to move citizens from the occupying country into the area where the oil fields exist, and such citizens will provide all of the services needed by the occupying forces AND oil field workers.
Given that the US will want the oil, how do we get US Citizens to want to live in Kuwait AND the areas north and east of it, where most of Iran's oil is, AND to the South of Kuwait, just across the Saudi Arabian Border, where most of Arabia oil is? I am NOT talking about people living among the natives in those areas, but people living in that area in sizable self contain housing projects AFTER we kick out of the locals for being hostile to the US occupation of their homes. Other then such Roman Colony type situations, the US will have to make some sort of deal with the locals, a deal we would have had to agree to if we never moved in (i.e. no war).
In simple terms, the old military maxim, went that it takes three times the number of soldiers to hold something, then to take it, will have to be modified given the situation in the oil fields that is take more then 10 times the troops to hold the oil fields and how oil is exported, then it would take to take such oil fields and oil export infrastructure. We can take those oil fields, but sooner or later we will have to do one of two things, either kill every man, woman and child within 50 miles of the oil fields, and replace them with Americans OR cut a deal with the Native, which in most cases would have been the same deal if we NEVER tried to take the oil fields.
A second problem, is how do we get the oil to take those fields, when we need the oil in the fields to do the attack? i.e. we have to use the oil produced in those fields to take over those fields. No access to oil, no oil to run the tanks and other military equipment we would have to use to take those fields.
Chemical and Biological weapons are good at getting rid of hostile local civilian populations, but how do we replace the people we kill off?
Now, if we accept that fact that the neither the US. Europe, Japan or China (Russia is expected to stay an oil exporter over the next two decades) would nuke an oil producer do to their need for oil, that leaves fights among those four over oil from an oil producer (And NOT Russia, for Russia has the Nuclear and conventional weapons to defend its oil fields, which tend to be deep inside Russia). All four countries will face the same problems as mentioned above AND that each of them would gladly support any local opposition to any move by any one of them as to the oil. i.e. lots of light weapons to the locals to fight who ever invades, on the promise of oil
That leaves Venezuela and the Persian Gulf as areas the great powers will fight over. Venezuela is jungle, while the area around where the oil exists has been hostile to Chavez, the leadership of that area has never decided to oppose Chavez militarily for the simple reason Chavez has support even in that part of Venezuela and that would be all Chavez needs to keep the area under Control. That area MAY switch sides (i.e. support the US) the problem it is to small to stay truly separate from the rest of Venezuela, where Chavez has massive support. That support will provide Chavez the men he would need to do an effective Guerrilla Campaign. Thus Venezuela is out of the picture.
The Persian Gulf is another story, the oil fields are in an area of high Shiite populations. Well their are Arabs in the Part of those fields in Iran, the local Arabs are mostly Shiite not Sunni Moslems. For that reason has NOT been much of a problem in Iran, but has been a constant headache for Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Both have used Carrot and Stick policy in the area, generous benefits to the locals, but will crush anything that looks like a revolt.
For the US to take that area it would have to do one of two things, first ally itself with Iran and take over the area and give it to Iran to rule. Tell Iran, it can keep both areas as long as the oil produced in the area goes to the US first. The downside of this policy is the US will have to ally with the present Government of Iran.
The second option is to take the Iranian fields and kick out all the local Shiites into Iran. This does two things, it removes a security risk to US hold on the Iranian oil fields AND scares the Shiites in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia what can happen to them unless they cooperate with the US Occupation. The downside is every Shiite in the Middle East (Including Iraq) will hate out guts and we will have to be on guard for Guerrilla activities. This would require a massive increase in US Infantry forces, more then we can recruit so the draft will have to return. The opposition to the Draft in the US will kill this option, at least for a time.
My point is Military options when it comes Oil are limited, limited more do to the nature of how we pump and transport oil then anything else. It takes a lot less effort to STOP oil being pumped and transported then it takes to pump and transport such oil and the US advantages over Europe, Japan and China is NOT that great. US will have to share or use almost as much (if not more) oil to protect the oil being produced, The cost in oil usage to protect the oil being produced will reduce the military options when it comes to protecting such oil production.
Now, some military efforts will be made, but sooner or later all sides will realize they will have more oil for internal use if they just agree to divide the oil being produced. Into that decision will be the oil producers playing all four sides against each other for they internal benefit. Thus military action will be limited, the greater concern will be protecting oil production from internal foes as it becomes clear that he who has access to oil, will be in a more powerful position then he that has no access. I am looking at INTERNAL US problems, as oil prices goes up and people demand first claim on the oil. This can lead to internal problems, including riots. A factor the military will have to adjust to, and such adjustment will make the military less capable of taking over oil fields.
The main problem will be that as the Military trains and prepare to handle riots in the US suburbs do to lack of oil, it will lose the ability to do offensive action overseas. The training and equipment is different for each type of conflict and the worse thing to do is send a riot control trained army to fight an army trained to defeat another army in open warfare (Almost as bad as sending an army trained to defeat another army to put down a riot, the training and equipment of that type of army is less then ideal for riot control).
Side note: The US army coming out of Iraq, is much more set up for urban Warfare then it was in 2002 when the US took Baghdad. The Stryker vehicles can take a good bit of punishment, but not a blast from a true anti-tank weapon and does NOT have the off road capacity of the M1 Tank nor the M2 Bradley Infantry vehicle.
On the other hand the Stryker, being a wheeled vehicle, can go much further and quicker then a tracked vehicle like the M1 and M2 Bradley. The Stryker is an ideal urban fighting vehicle, enough protection from small arms fire, enough fire power to destroy any possible hiding position urban fighters can take cover behind, transport enough troops AND be available day after day. The Stryker would to a lousy weapon against something like the T-72 and the BMP-2 of the old Soviet Union, but the M2 and M1 would be off duty for maintenance in any urban fighting that can go on for days, weeks if not months (As what happened in Iraq), unlike the Stryker which can be on duty and available for use when M1 tanks and M2 Bradley are out of service (Tracks on M1 and M2 Bradley still are limited to about 2000 miles before they need to be replaced, tires on the Stryker can go up to 50,000 miles before they need to be replaced).
Thus, the Stryker is a good vehicle in the fighting that has occurred in Iraq SINCE the end of the invasion of Iraq, but it would have been a lousy vehicle in the march to Baghdad that occurred during the invasion of Iraq.
The US Army today, is better able to defeat what the US faced from 2003 till 2010 in Iraq then in was in 2003 when the guerrilla war began, on the other hand the Army is less capable of doing something like the march on Baghdad, This can all change with some training, i.e. switch some units back to M1 tanks and M2 Bradleys and then be prepared to convert back to Strykers if and when such vehicles is needed. The US may decide to do both, give some units M2 Bradleys and other units Strykers and keep such units for the two different types of warfare. The issue then becomes can the US afford to maintain such dual fighting forces? Only time and money will tell.
For a 1998 report on Wheel vs Track armor see:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/2wheels98.pdf
I also thought that, so I purchased a 1.5 acre property 3 years ago. While I still like the place, I'm starting to worry that the 5-10 mile drive to a major suburban area and our jobs might become a serious disadvantage later on. I'm almost thinking I should have purchased a smaller suburban lot (we passed up several 0.5-0.7 acre double lot homes at the time). It doesn't really matter now; I'm pretty much upside-down on the mortgage so there's no going back now 
Do you have any concerns about people buying in suburban areas instead, and if so, why? Are you worried about civil unrest, or is it jut that most suburban lots can't be used for food production due to poor soil and small size?
