Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Clueless_Academic

German Military Study Warns Of A Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis

Recommended Posts

Interesting reading which suggests that "Peak Oil" has arrived in 2010 ! The article also outlines Potential Geopolitical consequences ! :blink:

Reading between the lines we can deduce that, if Peak Oil actually occurs, our consumption based society will fragment and breakdown into disarray - unless of course alternative power sources can be brought on stream quickly !! :unsure:

My link

Military Study Warns of a Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis

By Stefan Schultz

A study by a German military think tank has analyzed how "peak oil" might change the global economy. The internal draft document -- leaked on the Internet -- shows for the first time how carefully the German government has considered a potential energy crisis.

The term "peak oil" is used by energy experts to refer to a point in time when global oil reserves pass their zenith and production gradually begins to decline. This would result in a permanent supply crisis -- and fear of it can trigger turbulence in commodity markets and on stock exchanges.

The issue is so politically explosive that it's remarkable when an institution like the Bundeswehr, the German military, uses the term "peak oil" at all. But a military study currently circulating on the German blogosphere goes even further.

The study is a product of the Future Analysis department of the Bundeswehr Transformation Center, a think tank tasked with fixing a direction for the German military. The team of authors, led by Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Will, uses sometimes-dramatic language to depict the consequences of an irreversible depletion of raw materials. It warns of shifts in the global balance of power, of the formation of new relationships based on interdependency, of a decline in importance of the western industrial nations, of the "total collapse of the markets" and of serious political and economic crises.

The study, whose authenticity was confirmed to SPIEGEL ONLINE by sources in government circles, was not meant for publication. The document is said to be in draft stage and to consist solely of scientific opinion, which has not yet been edited by the Defense Ministry and other government bodies.

The lead author, Will, has declined to comment on the study. It remains doubtful that either the Bundeswehr or the German government would have consented to publish the document in its current form. But the study does show how intensively the German government has engaged with the question of peak oil.

Parallels to activities in the UK

The leak has parallels with recent reports from the UK. Only last week the Guardian newspaper reported that the British Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is keeping documents secret which show the UK government is far more concerned about an impending supply crisis than it cares to admit.

According to the Guardian, the DECC, the Bank of England and the British Ministry of Defence are working alongside industry representatives to develop a crisis plan to deal with possible shortfalls in energy supply. Inquiries made by Britain's so-called peak oil workshops to energy experts have been seen by SPIEGEL ONLINE. A DECC spokeswoman sought to play down the process, telling the Guardian the enquiries were "routine" and had no political implications.

The Bundeswehr study may not have immediate political consequences, either, but it shows that the German government fears shortages could quickly arise.

A Litany of Market Failures

According to the German report, there is "some probability that peak oil will occur around the year 2010 and that the impact on security is expected to be felt 15 to 30 years later." The Bundeswehr prediction is consistent with those of well-known scientists who assume global oil production has either already passed its peak or will do so this year.

Market Failures and International Chain Reactions

The political and economic impacts of peak oil on Germany have now been studied for the first time in depth. The crude oil expert Steffen Bukold has evaluated and summarized the findings of the Bundeswehr study. Here is an overview of the central points:

Oil will determine power: The Bundeswehr Transformation Center writes that oil will become one decisive factor in determining the new landscape of international relations: "The relative importance of the oil-producing nations in the international system is growing. These nations are using the advantages resulting from this to expand the scope of their domestic and foreign policies and establish themselves as a new or resurgent regional, or in some cases even global leading powers."

Increasing importance of oil exporters: For importers of oil more competition for resources will mean an increase in the number of nations competing for favor with oil-producing nations. For the latter this opens up a window of opportunity which can be used to implement political, economic or ideological aims. As this window of time will only be open for a limited period, "this could result in a more aggressive assertion of national interests on the part of the oil-producing nations."

Politics in place of the market: The Bundeswehr Transformation Center expects that a supply crisis would roll back the liberalization of the energy market. "The proportion of oil traded on the global, freely accessible oil market will diminish as more oil is traded through bi-national contracts," the study states. In the long run, the study goes on, the global oil market, will only be able to follow the laws of the free market in a restricted way. "Bilateral, conditioned supply agreements and privileged partnerships, such as those seen prior to the oil crises of the 1970s, will once again come to the fore."

■Market failures: The authors paint a bleak picture of the consequences resulting from a shortage of petroleum. As the transportation of goods depends on crude oil, international trade could be subject to colossal tax hikes. "Shortages in the supply of vital goods could arise" as a result, for example in food supplies. Oil is used directly or indirectly in the production of 95 percent of all industrial goods. Price shocks could therefore be seen in almost any industry and throughout all stages of the industrial supply chain. "In the medium term the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy would collapse."

Relapse into planned economy: Since virtually all economic sectors rely heavily on oil, peak oil could lead to a "partial or complete failure of markets," says the study. "A conceivable alternative would be government rationing and the allocation of important goods or the setting of production schedules and other short-term coercive measures to replace market-based mechanisms in times of crisis."

Global chain reaction: "A restructuring of oil supplies will not be equally possible in all regions before the onset of peak oil," says the study. "It is likely that a large number of states will not be in a position to make the necessary investments in time," or with "sufficient magnitude." If there were economic crashes in some regions of the world, Germany could be affected. Germany would not escape the crises of other countries, because it's so tightly integrated into the global economy.

■Crisis of political legitimacy: The Bundeswehr study also raises fears for the survival of democracy itself. Parts of the population could perceive the upheaval triggered by peak oil "as a general systemic crisis." This would create "room for ideological and extremist alternatives to existing forms of government." Fragmentation of the affected population is likely and could "in extreme cases lead to open conflict."

The scenarios outlined by the Bundeswehr Transformation Center are drastic. Even more explosive politically are recommendations to the government that the energy experts have put forward based on these scenarios. They argue that "states dependent on oil imports" will be forced to "show more pragmatism toward oil-producing states in their foreign policy." Political priorities will have to be somewhat subordinated, they claim, to the overriding concern of securing energy supplies.

For example: Germany would have to be more flexible in relation toward Russia's foreign policy objectives. It would also have to show more restraint in its foreign policy toward Israel, to avoid alienating Arab oil-producing nations. Unconditional support for Israel and its right to exist is currently a cornerstone of German foreign policy.

The relationship with Russia, in particular, is of fundamental importance for German access to oil and gas, the study says. "For Germany, this involves a balancing act between stable and privileged relations with Russia and the sensitivities of (Germany's) eastern neighbors." In other words, Germany, if it wants to guarantee its own energy security, should be accommodating in relation to Moscow's foreign policy objectives, even if it means risking damage to its relations with Poland and other Eastern European states.

Peak oil would also have profound consequences for Berlin's posture toward the Middle East, according to the study. "A readjustment of Germany's Middle East policy … in favor of more intensive relations with producer countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, which have the largest conventional oil reserves in the region, might put a strain on German-Israeli relations, depending on the intensity of the policy change," the authors write.

When contacted by SPIEGEL ONLINE, the Defense Ministry declined to comment on the study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For better trade with Iran, (4 Is-real) the Anglo-Saxon meance must be delt with 1st. China/Brics will help with that.........

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is so politically explosive that it's remarkable when an institution like the Bundeswehr, the German military, uses the term "peak oil" at all. But a military study currently circulating on the German blogosphere goes even further.

The study is a product of the Future Analysis department of the Bundeswehr Transformation Center, a think tank tasked with fixing a direction for the German military. The team of authors, led by Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Will, .....

Of course I don't know for anything like certain but Thomas Will sounds more like a US name so there could be some US influence on this Bundeswehr report considering the Nato/US army/military presence in Germany since World War 2. And isn't the US well into all that peak oil stuff and that global warming stuff and such like. On the other hand the report might well be entirely independent and solely Bundeswehr as the article is trying to strongly suggest.

And of course "leaking" it in Der Spiegel online for fairly general consumption tries to get readers used to the previously unthinkable idea of Germany having its own independent army again which I read somewhere they are thinking of doing.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I don't know for anything like certain but Thomas Will sounds more like a US name so there could be some US influence on this Bundeswehr report considering the Nato/US army/military presence in Germany since World War 2. And isn't the US well into all that peak oil stuff and that global warming stuff and such like. On the other hand the report might well be entirely independent and solely Bundeswehr as the article is trying to strongly suggest.

Nuclear energy and the problem goes away in the US for starters. Couple that with nat gas to power automobiles and oil is obsolete. Doesn't take much change on the auto thing either. If this was a wartime strategy it would already have been implemented. This peak oil stuff gets tiresome TBH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This peak oil stuff gets tiresome TBH.

Then don't read about it.

For those who are interested here's a piece that puts some doubts to peak oil having happened already: the reductions in production can easily be explained by a reduction in consumption. We are close to the moment of truth however, with current consumption trends we are supposed to pass the July 08 peak level anytime now.

Trend break in oil supply

by Stuart Staniford 4 Average: 4 (4 votes) Please Log in or register to rate this article.

Screen+shot+2010-09-10+at+7.34.00+AM.png

The <a href="http://www.iea.org/about/job.asp">enthusiastic professionals in Paris report that:

Global oil supply fell 250 kb/d to 86.8 mb/d in August, as non-OPEC output dipped to 52.4 mb/d on seasonal maintenance in Canada, the UK and Russia.

I've added that to the graph above (along with the OPEC data point I discussed yesterday). As often, the agencies don't completely agree on what's going on, with OPEC now seeing July as only a partial restoration of production cuts in June, but the IEA still seeing it as taking production to a higher level. But both concur that August is now below the level of February.

So there is certainly the appearance of a trend break here. To give you some idea, from May 2009 to February 2010, the slope of the three-agency average was 0.25 ± 0.03 mbd/month, while from Feb to August of this year, the slope was -0.02 ± 0.04 mbd/month. So the slope since February is not significantly different than zero. However, the slope is significantly different than last year - the difference between the two is 0.27 ± 0.05, which is highly significant*.

To interpret the fact that global oil production has stagnated for most of this year, we obviously have to look at price trends too:

Screen+shot+2010-09-10+at+8.05.51+AM.png

Prices dropped a few months ago from being over $80 into the $70s, and haven't really climbed very much since. So it still seems to me that the most likely picture here is that a stagnating global economy is not pushing prices high enough to unlock additional supply (which OPEC undoubtedly has).

So what happens now? Does oil supply resume growing again and surpass the July 2008 peak? Or does it begin to go down again?

My educated guess would be this: in the short term, I see the global economy stagnant. European countries are belt-tightening (especially the U.K.). The US is too paralyzed by political polarization to take much action of any kind, but the growth effects of the stimulus from ARRA are mostly over. Deleveraging still has a long way to go and will exert a dampening effect over much of the globe.

In the medium term, it seems that the place to watch is Greece. We know the European stress tests left out sovereign default, which I am cynical enough to think means that European regulators knew important banks couldn't cope with a Greek default. But it's a little hard to see how Greece doesn't default (did everyone see that amazing Michael Lewis piece in Vanity Fair?). And if it did, I assume that would trigger Financial Crisis 2.0 (probably less severe than Financial Crisis 1.0 in 2008) which in turn would probably trigger another jog down in global oil consumption/production.

Here are the latest European Bond Spreads (courtesy Atlanta Fed):

Screen+shot+2010-09-10+at+8.32.40+AM.png

Greece is paying absolutely usurious interest rates.

I guess leading reasons to think otherwise: the Fed and the ECB might, at some point, become sufficiently alarmed about deflation to start to take stronger quantitative easing measures and manage to provoke some kind of recovery. However, I have to think any such recovery could only be very shallow and temporary. In a world with a major Too Much Debt problem, lowering interest rates to provoke more borrowing cannot be a lasting strategy for fixing the problem.

The other possibility is that emerging economies could continue to grow their oil consumption enough to offset falls in developed countries. But their oil consumption is still much smaller, and many of the largest emerging economies are still very export dependent.

So on balance, I think it's more likely than not that oil supply will drift sideways for a while, and then fall a mbd or three in a financial shock. However, the world is a very complex place, and I wouldn't place more than, say, 65% confidence in the bet that it will break downwards rather than upwards.

(*Nerdy footnote: Note that the significance would be reduced somewhat by the fact that we decided where to place the putative trend break after looking at the data, but not likely enough to erase this big of an effect).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here's another take on it. The site is I think a pearl I stumbled on yesterday. Even though I don't subscribe to everything they say, their take on MSM is such that reading it over time will be like taking the red pill in Matrix IMO.

http://www.thedailybell.com/1362/Peak-Oil-Bites-the-Dust.html

Peak Oil Bites the Dust?

Saturday, September 11, 2010 – by Staff Report

Empty%20Oil%20Can.jpg

What peak oil? Why an oil glut is ahead ... In May, less than a month after the blowout of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, a key milestone was achieved with little notice: Total U.S. supplies of petroleum and products refined from it (including the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) surpassed 1.8 billion barrels, reaching the highest level in the last 20 years. Since then the total has continued to edge upward, hitting 1.87 billion barrels in the week ended August 27, according to the Energy Information Administration. Despite the Iraq War and the resulting production disruptions, despite the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf, despite turmoil in Nigeria and ongoing cross-border transshipment quarrels in Central Asia and the multiple, repeated declarations that "peak oil" has arrived and supplies will inevitably dwindle, the United States has more petroleum on hand today than it has had since at least the beginning of the first Gulf War. – CNN

Dominant Social Theme: Please do not peer to closely at the man behind the curtain.

Free-Market Analysis: Here at The Daily Bell we continue to cheerfully cover the degeneration of the elite's dominant social themes. (See other story in today's Bell.) The 21st century's truth telling via the Internet and the endless ravel of the financial crisis has proven increasingly lethal to the attempts of various fear-based promotions in our view. As we continually monitor the waxing and waning of these promotional schemes (that is all we try to do, in fact), we are astonished by their growing lack of effectiveness.

Many are well aware of the foundering of the global warming meme, but the rationale for the Afghan war is in deep trouble along with the promotional arguments (narratives) that accompany it. Similarly, central banking is not held in high esteem, though it is one of the most important of the elite's promotions; and in our view the Federal Reserve's credibility especially has been badly tarnished. It is increasingly difficult in fact for the elite to argue that the command-and-control "capitalism" of modern regulatory democracy is in any way effective or even necessary.

One would think that questions about 9/11 would have subsided by now but in fact the questions only continue to grow on the Internet and show no signs of subsiding. The Tea Party movement in America has undermined the legitimacy of the two-party duopoly and people are actively seeking out (shudder) libertarian solutions.

The Keynesian meme that was supposed to provide intellectual cover for financial authoritarianism increasingly gives way to Misesian, individual Human Action. The European Union seems to be degenerating and now there is this – intimations of mortality for an especially pernicious promotion: Peak Oil. Here is the conclusion of the article excerpted above:

More than anything, though, the looming oil surplus calls into question the concept of peak oil, at least in the near future, along with the whole science of forecasting future oil supplies. Adam Brandt, a professor at Stanford's Department of Energy Resources Engineering, released a study last month examining the various models that have been used to predict the future of world oil supplies. "Data do not support assertions that any one model type is most useful for forecasting future oil production," Brandt concludes. "In fact, evidence suggests that existing models have fared poorly in predicting global oil production." (- CNN)

In fact, as we have long pointed out the entire premise of Peak Oil was flawed. It was rooted in the Malthusian pre-neo-classical perspective that trends (once observed) were not to be affected by the perceptions of those who composed them. In other words, according to Thomas Malthus, if one observed that population would eventually exceed the food supply, people themselves were assumed, like potted plants, to acquiesce to the trend without taking further action. They were supposed to starve, passively, along with their families.

Eventually, the classical perception of economics was superseded by neo-classical economics with the Austrian school's magnificent perception of marginal utility – the idea that prices were variable especially at the margin and only the market itself could determine these values. Marginal utility along with Adam Smith's concept of the Invisible Hand underpin (excuse the pun) the modern economic revolution started by the Austrians and sublimely expressed in Ludwig von Mises' opus Human Action.

Mises postulated that the progress of nations was actually the progress of individuals. There is nothing accomplished by the ritualistic recitations of group think. There is only the spontaneous Hayakian cooperation of individuals pursuing their own enlightened self-interest. Given these sentiments expressed so eloquently in the past 50 years, there are hardly any words in our admittedly sparse vocabularies to describe the condescension and ignorance of the Peak Oil meme.

The Malthusian idea that people will sit patiently "freezing in the dark" as Big Oil struggles unsuccessfully to cope with falling oil supplies was an obscene variant of past condescending interpretations of economics. It never made sense to us and we have stated it emphatically as opportunities have presented themselves. We have long pointed out that oil may indeed be abiotic, the result of natural processes deep below the earth's crust.

And we have also pointed out how Big Oil has funded Green environmental movements to ensure that much of the Western land-mass is now off-limits for drilling. The result is that drilling is done in third-world countries where the supply chain is extended and available for endless cost-elaborations and delivery-risk. It is also no coincidence in our view that off-shore drilling has become a popular alternative oil-drilling methodology.

It is not expensive to drill on land but to drill at sea and at depth is monumentally costly and dangerous. This sort of barrier-to-entry favors Big Oil considerably. Finally, all who wish to can go onto YouTube and see for themselves the various energy alternatives developed by clever entrepreneurs. Curiously these never seem to be reported on by the mainstream media, which is continually concerned with the false, fear-based promotion of "conservation" and reduced energy consumption.

Thus it is, we are delighted that the Peak Oil meme is now being questioned by such state media excrescences as CNN. We note once more as we have before that there is a growing trend in mainstream media to reset the boundaries of permissible conversation about the elite's various promotions. This is in line with our predictions that the elite itself will have to take "a step back" as the truth-telling of the Internet continually undermines long-running but increasingly unpersuasive themes.

There are many more non-elite than elite. If the many billions cannot be convincingly instructed that the current shape of society is predestined and necessary, then all the legislation in the world will not avail those who seek to dominate society through lies and wars. Once credibility has been mislaid, the law itself may be seen as increasingly illegitimate. And once this happens, the elite is exposed to a good deal of "blowback."

Conclusion: Promotions are most important to the elite, and the inability of the elite to convincingly implement them in the 21st century, if that is what is happening (and we argue this is so) has numerous ramifications from both an investment and real-world industrial standpoint. Most importantly, the larger generational, familial campaign of the elite to impose some sort of world governance is increasingly at risk. We have long predicted this and see no reason to revise our analysis. The crumbling of the monstrous, mainstream-media lie that is Peak Oil would be most gratifying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stefan Schultz

'S.S.'

Surname Origin: German, Jewish

A German occupational name for the man in charge of a village (magistrate, sheriff, overseer) originally derived from the Middle High German word "schulteize" meaning the person in charge of collecting payments on behalf of the lord of the manor

Scottish equivalent would be a 'Factor'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I don't know for anything like certain but Thomas Will sounds more like a US name so there could be some US influence on this Bundeswehr report considering the Nato/US army/military presence in Germany since World War 2. And isn't the US well into all that peak oil stuff and that global warming stuff and such like. On the other hand the report might well be entirely independent and solely Bundeswehr as the article is trying to strongly suggest.

could get interesting.

There's lots of wordplay happening.

this Thomas Will guy actually speaks a lot of sense.

Nothing to do with political aims,in fact it's imperitive now for the west to INNOVATE ways to consume less of the black stuff rather than legislate.

It's not the news centrally planned governments(or proponents of it) want to hear.They would much rather seek to use a period of scarcity(artificially created or otherwise),as a means to increase their own control.......but there are quite a few people who are waking up to the game of these guys hoovering up assets internationally before such an "event"

some common ground between the US and EU(and our traditional allies like AUS and india) needs to be attained...treating each bloc as part of the same family(which basically we are),instead of a competitor,but the yanks will NEVER go for full federalisation....so we really need a "hands off" type government,that will keep at least some degree of sovereignty between countries.....charlemagnes approach to europe actually seemed to work,because he didn't want total control over everything.....so I suggest we need something broadly similar between uncle sam and the EU.......if the EU will stop grasping for more and more power.

the real competition for resources will come from those "up 'n' coming economies that have not yet developed,but seek to achieve a half decent standard of living...but with about 3-4 times the population of the west.

making better use of the resources we have is a no-brainer....just prevent the government from meddling.

Edited by oracle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BP disaster has probably killed off deep-sea oil drilling, which was to be the saviour of those who believed in 'infinite oil'.

Edited by blankster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear energy and the problem goes away in the US for starters. Couple that with nat gas to power automobiles and oil is obsolete. Doesn't take much change on the auto thing either. If this was a wartime strategy it would already have been implemented. This peak oil stuff gets tiresome TBH.

For the US to replace the energy they currently get from oil with nuclear power, over a period of 20 years, they would need to bring a new nuclear reactor on stream every 2.7 days. This also doesn't take into consideration the massive infrastructure requirement to cope with electric cars & lorries. Plus, what would the impact on the price/supply of rare earth metals be if we had to switch to building all electric cars? (HINT: China have cornered the market in rare earth metals.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Germans already have experience of finding alternatives:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jul-aug/becker.htm

Air University Review, July-August 1981

The Role of Synthetic Fuel

In World War II Germany

implications for today?

Dr. Peter W. Becker

The United States is faced with an acute energy problem. Our dependence on imported petroleum, which accounts for half of the country’s consumption, has caused rising balance of payments deficits that weaken the dollar and contribute to inflation. More worrisome in the long run for the future of this country is the realization that eventually most oil deposits, both foreign and domestic, will be depleted. This grim specter is accompanied by a lack of control over foreign supplies, leaving us dependent on the goodwill and mercy of the oil-producing states.

There are, of course, other sources from which energy can be derived, sources such as nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, solar and thermal power, and the like. But for the foreseeable future they either present many environmental threats or are not yet sufficiently developed to replace our dependence on foreign oil supplies. A sensible energy policy for the time being no doubt would rely on many different sources of energy until a more efficient, effective, and safe method has emerged. Such an approach will include the production of synthetic fuel derived from coal. This method was first effectively used by the Germans during World War II, so an examination of Germany’s situation at that time could be instructive.

As a highly developed industrial state, Germany was dependent even in peacetime on external sources for an adequate supply of oil. Even though Germany’s 1938 oil consumption of little more than 44 million barrels was considerably less than Great Britain’s 76 million barrels, Russia’s 183 million barrels, and the one billion barrels used by the United States, in wartime Germany’s needs for an adequate supply of liquid fuel would be absolutely essential for successful military operations on the ground and, even more so, in the air.1 For Germany, it was precisely the outbreak of the war in 1939 and the concurrent termination of overseas imports that most endangered its ability to conduct mobile warfare.

German oil supplies came from three different sources: imports of crude and finished petroleum products from abroad, production by domestic oil fields, and syntheses of petroleum products from coal.

In 1938, of the total consumption of 44 million barrels, imports from overseas accounted for 28 million barrels or roughly 60 percent of the total supply. An additional 3.8 million barrels were imported overland from European sources (2.8 million barrels came from Romania alone), and another 3.8 million barrels were derived from domestic oil production. The remainder of the total, 9 million barrels, were produced synthetically. Although the total overseas imports were even higher in 1939 before the onset of the blockade in September (33 million barrels), this high proportion of overseas imports only indicated how precarious the fuel situation would become should Germany be cut off from them.2

At the outbreak of the war, Germany’s stockpiles of fuel consisted of a total of 15 million barrels. The campaigns in Norway, Holland, Belgium, and France added another 5 million barrels in booty, and imports from the Soviet Union accounted for 4 million barrels in 1940 and 1.6 million barrels in the first half of 1941. Yet a High Command study in May of 1941 noted that with monthly military requirements for 7.25 million barrels and imports and home production of only 5.35 million barrels, German stocks would be exhausted by August 1941. The 26 percent shortfall could only be made up with petroleum from Russia. The need to provide the lacking 1.9 million barrels per month and the urgency to gain possession of the Russian oil fields in the Caucasus mountains, together with Ukrainian grain and Donets coal, were thus prime elements in the German decision to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941.3

The smallest of the Russian oil fields at Maikop was captured in August 1942, and it was expected that the two remaining fields and refineries in Grozny and Baku also would fall into German hands. Had the German forces been able to capture these fields and hold them, Germany’s petroleum worries would have been over. Prior to the Russian campaign, Maikop produced 19 million barrels annually, Grozny 32 million barrels, and Baku 170 million barrels.4

Grozny and Baku, however, were never captured, and only Maikop yielded to German exploitation. As was the case in all areas of Russian production, the retreating forces had done a thorough job of destroying or dismantling the usable installations; consequently, the Germans had to start from scratch. In view of past experience with this type of Russian policy, such destruction was expected, and Field Marshal Hermann Göring’s staff had begun making the necessary preparations in advance. But a shortage of transport that was competing with military requirements, a shortage of drill equipment as well as drillers, and the absence of refining capacity at Maikop created such difficulties that when the German forces were compelled to withdraw from Maikop in January 1943 in order to avoid being cut off after the fall of Stalingrad, Germany had failed to obtain a single drop of Caucasian oil. Nevertheless, the Germans were able to extract about 4.7 million barrels from the Soviet Union, a quantity that they would have received anyway under the provisions of the friendship treaty of 1939.5

More at the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Germans already have experience of finding alternatives:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jul-aug/becker.htm

More at the link.

I want to bump this thread, because i feel it is pointless discussing the housing market and a house price crash and BAU when very soon no economic growth will be possible and borrowing from the future will be impossible and a debt based money system where 97% of all money in circulation is issued as debt will implode

I even think it is pointless going for cuts as if we can ever reduce our current borrowing to zero let alone pay off our national debt. We may as well go for broke and borrow like a debt junky, or print like a madman and use the money to become 100% self sufficient in our own food production, low carbon low energy house building scheme were we build millions of homes - feck the nimbys and build wind farms in every town as well as off shore and become as self sufficient in energy as possible, nationalize all off shore oil and gas production - they way we are playing the game is to comit suicide the way we are going at the moment

Does the government not understand peak oil or something? It's already happened to our own oil production? Or does the gov believe in the magic elexia?

Do the elite that run our Gov some how think they will be imune and shielded from the riots?

Bump Bump Bump lets discuss

there are no simple answers as mentioned above - we cannot all go Nuclear and if we did we would not avoid the worst of peak oil. There are simply not enough resources to go round for everybody anymore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to bump this thread, because i feel it is pointless discussing the housing market and a house price crash and BAU when very soon no economic growth will be possible and borrowing from the future will be impossible and a debt based money system where 97% of all money in circulation is issued as debt will implode

I even think it is pointless going for cuts as if we can ever reduce our current borrowing to zero let alone pay off our national debt. We may as well go for broke and borrow like a debt junky, or print like a madman and use the money to become 100% self sufficient in our own food production, low carbon low energy house building scheme were we build millions of homes - feck the nimbys and build wind farms in every town as well as off shore and become as self sufficient in energy as possible, nationalize all off shore oil and gas production - they way we are playing the game is to comit suicide the way we are going at the moment

Does the government not understand peak oil or something? It's already happened to our own oil production? Or does the gov believe in the magic elexia?

Do the elite that run our Gov some how think they will be imune and shielded from the riots?

Bump Bump Bump lets discuss

there are no simple answers as mentioned above - we cannot all go Nuclear and if we did we would not avoid the worst of peak oil. There are simply not enough resources to go round for everybody anymore

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to bump this thread, because i feel it is pointless discussing the housing market and a house price crash and BAU when very soon no economic growth will be possible and borrowing from the future will be impossible and a debt based money system where 97% of all money in circulation is issued as debt will implode

I even think it is pointless going for cuts as if we can ever reduce our current borrowing to zero let alone pay off our national debt. We may as well go for broke and borrow like a debt junky, or print like a madman and use the money to become 100% self sufficient in our own food production, low carbon low energy house building scheme were we build millions of homes - feck the nimbys and build wind farms in every town as well as off shore and become as self sufficient in energy as possible, nationalize all off shore oil and gas production - they way we are playing the game is to comit suicide the way we are going at the moment

Does the government not understand peak oil or something? It's already happened to our own oil production? Or does the gov believe in the magic elexia?

Do the elite that run our Gov some how think they will be imune and shielded from the riots?

Bump Bump Bump lets discuss

there are no simple answers as mentioned above - we cannot all go Nuclear and if we did we would not avoid the worst of peak oil. There are simply not enough resources to go round for everybody anymore

I believe theres plenty of Gas - both on the internet and in the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As quoted from Wikipedia: My link

The Olduvai theory was introduced in 1989 by power system engineer Richard C. Duncan as the "transient-pulse theory of Industrial Civilization".[1] The theory was backed up with data in the 1993 paper "The life-expectancy of industrial civilization: The decline to global equilibrium".[2]

In June, 1996, Duncan introduced a paper titled "The Olduvai Theory: Sliding Towards a Post-Industrial Stone Age" where the term "Olduvai Theory" replaced "transient-pulse theory" used in previous papers.[3] Duncan further updated his theory in "The Peak of World Oil Production and the Road to the Olduvai Gorge", at the Summit 2000 Pardee Keynote Symposia of the Geological Society of America, on November 13, 2000.[4] In 2005, Duncan extended his data set to include up to 2003 in "The Olduvai Theory Energy, Population, and Industrial Civilization".[5]

[edit] Details of theory

Industrial Civilization is defined in Duncan's paper as the time approximately from when energy production per capita rises from 37% of the peak value to when it falls to below 37% of its peak value (1930-2030)[3] i.e. the peak in energy production per capita is in between these two endpoints and these two endpoints have values of 37% of the peak value.

The Olduvai theory claims that exponential growth of energy production ended in 1979, that energy use per capita will show no growth through 2008, and that after 2008 energy growth will become sharply negative, culminating, after a Malthusian catastrophe, in a world population of 2 billion circa 2050. [5]

The Olduvai Theory divides human history into three phases. The first "pre-industrial" phase stretches over most of human history when simple tools and weak machines limited economic growth. The second "industrial" phase encompasses modern industrial civilization where machines temporarily lift all limits to growth. The final "de-industrial" phase follows where industrial economies decline to a period of equilibrium with renewable resources and the natural environment.[4]

The decline of the industrial phase is broken into three sections:

The Olduvai slope (1979–1999) - energy per capita 'declined at 0.33%/year'

The Olduvai slide (2000–2011) - 'begins ... with the escalating warfare in the Middle East... marks the all-time peak of world oil production'.

The Olduvai cliff (2012–2030) - 'begins ... in 2012 when an epidemic of permanent blackouts spreads worldwide, i.e. first there are waves of brownouts and temporary blackouts, then finally the electric power networks themselves expire'. It is unclear how this is connected to oil production, as very little electricity generation is fueled by oil

3102033734_da41a5010c_z.jpg?zz=1

Timeline

Perry Arnett postulates (2007) the following timeline:[6]

1979: US per capita energy use peaked; still floundering on a plateau in 2006, but ready to fall precipitously (‘cliff’) at any time

2005: World crude oil probably peaked; still on an undulating plateau in 2007; starts off the ‘cliff’ ~2010-2012 or before

2005: World food production (grains) peaked

2008 (or sooner): World Natural Gas peaks

2010 (or sooner): Natural Gas ‘cliff’ arrives

2012 (or sooner): US electricity blackouts and brownouts become the norm

2012: US potable, available water peak and ‘cliff’; shortages and waterborne diseases increase

2015: US Health Care System in complete chaos, breakdown and failure; sanitation, drugs, return of communicable diseases, poorer nutrition etc.

2015: World “Dieoff” begins in earnest; largely starvation, disease and poor healthcare caused

2030: US per-capita energy consumption hits the “30% mark-AFTER peak”, equaling year 1930 lifestyles again (probably much sooner than 2030)

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, global food production will exceed population growth between today and 2030.

603f3_JS-Peak-Oil.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As quoted from Wikipedia: My link

The Olduvai theory was introduced in 1989 by power system engineer Richard C. Duncan as the "transient-pulse theory of Industrial Civilization".[1] The theory was backed up with data in the 1993 paper "The life-expectancy of industrial civilization: The decline to global equilibrium".[2]

In June, 1996, Duncan introduced a paper titled "The Olduvai Theory: Sliding Towards a Post-Industrial Stone Age" where the term "Olduvai Theory" replaced "transient-pulse theory" used in previous papers.[3] Duncan further updated his theory in "The Peak of World Oil Production and the Road to the Olduvai Gorge", at the Summit 2000 Pardee Keynote Symposia of the Geological Society of America, on November 13, 2000.[4] In 2005, Duncan extended his data set to include up to 2003 in "The Olduvai Theory Energy, Population, and Industrial Civilization".[5]

[edit] Details of theory

Industrial Civilization is defined in Duncan's paper as the time approximately from when energy production per capita rises from 37% of the peak value to when it falls to below 37% of its peak value (1930-2030)[3] i.e. the peak in energy production per capita is in between these two endpoints and these two endpoints have values of 37% of the peak value.

The Olduvai theory claims that exponential growth of energy production ended in 1979, that energy use per capita will show no growth through 2008, and that after 2008 energy growth will become sharply negative, culminating, after a Malthusian catastrophe, in a world population of 2 billion circa 2050. [5]

The Olduvai Theory divides human history into three phases. The first "pre-industrial" phase stretches over most of human history when simple tools and weak machines limited economic growth. The second "industrial" phase encompasses modern industrial civilization where machines temporarily lift all limits to growth. The final "de-industrial" phase follows where industrial economies decline to a period of equilibrium with renewable resources and the natural environment.[4]

The decline of the industrial phase is broken into three sections:

The Olduvai slope (1979–1999) - energy per capita 'declined at 0.33%/year'

The Olduvai slide (2000–2011) - 'begins ... with the escalating warfare in the Middle East... marks the all-time peak of world oil production'.

The Olduvai cliff (2012–2030) - 'begins ... in 2012 when an epidemic of permanent blackouts spreads worldwide, i.e. first there are waves of brownouts and temporary blackouts, then finally the electric power networks themselves expire'. It is unclear how this is connected to oil production, as very little electricity generation is fueled by oil

3102033734_da41a5010c_z.jpg?zz=1

Timeline

Perry Arnett postulates (2007) the following timeline:[6]

1979: US per capita energy use peaked; still floundering on a plateau in 2006, but ready to fall precipitously (‘cliff’) at any time

2005: World crude oil probably peaked; still on an undulating plateau in 2007; starts off the ‘cliff’ ~2010-2012 or before

2005: World food production (grains) peaked

2008 (or sooner): World Natural Gas peaks

2010 (or sooner): Natural Gas ‘cliff’ arrives

2012 (or sooner): US electricity blackouts and brownouts become the norm

2012: US potable, available water peak and ‘cliff’; shortages and waterborne diseases increase

2015: US Health Care System in complete chaos, breakdown and failure; sanitation, drugs, return of communicable diseases, poorer nutrition etc.

2015: World “Dieoff” begins in earnest; largely starvation, disease and poor healthcare caused

2030: US per-capita energy consumption hits the “30% mark-AFTER peak”, equaling year 1930 lifestyles again (probably much sooner than 2030)

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, global food production will exceed population growth between today and 2030.

603f3_JS-Peak-Oil.gif

There's something a bit autistic about these charts and their hysterical timelines. Yes, everyone gets that for virtually all of recorded history productivity gains averaged little more than 0.02% per year, yet since the industrial revolution productivity shot up to closer to 3% a year, but have been softening since the 1980's. That much is pretty much agreed upon. But the fact is that no-one, absolutely no-one, can say what comes next.

It may be that the industrial age was a temporary blip in an otherwise unrelenting malthusian reality.

Alternatively any one of scores of new technologies, from thorium nuclear power to nano technology, from fusion to bio-engineering, could unlock centuries of further growth and prosperity.

No-one knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's something a bit autistic about these charts and their hysterical timelines. Yes, everyone gets that for virtually all of recorded history productivity gains averaged little more than 0.02% per year, yet since the industrial revolution productivity shot up to closer to 3% a year, but have been softening since the 1980's. That much is pretty much agreed upon. But the fact is that no-one, absolutely no-one, can say what comes next.

It may be that the industrial age was a temporary blip in an otherwise unrelenting malthusian reality.

Alternatively any one of scores of new technologies, from thorium nuclear power to nano technology, from fusion to bio-engineering, could unlock centuries of further growth and prosperity.

No-one knows.

Yes I totally agree !

Science Historian, James Burke, wrote a book in the 70's titled 'CONNECTIONS' (also made into a tv series by BBC) which plotted the interconnections between scientific discoveries over time and how they built upon one another.

Thus far, mankind has proved capable of adapting to new environmental challenges through innovatiion - thus ensuring his survival.

We will face a new geopolitical reality in the 21st century......... and I hope we can use new technological advancements, such as nano-technology, for the benefit of society once we emerge from a post oil culture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcSxL8GUn-g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

could get interesting.

There's lots of wordplay happening.

this Thomas Will guy actually speaks a lot of sense.

Nothing to do with political aims,in fact it's imperitive now for the west to INNOVATE ways to consume less of the black stuff rather than legislate.

It's not the news centrally planned governments(or proponents of it) want to hear.They would much rather seek to use a period of scarcity(artificially created or otherwise),as a means to increase their own control.......but there are quite a few people who are waking up to the game of these guys hoovering up assets internationally before such an "event"

some common ground between the US and EU(and our traditional allies like AUS and india) needs to be attained...treating each bloc as part of the same family(which basically we are),instead of a competitor,but the yanks will NEVER go for full federalisation....so we really need a "hands off" type government,that will keep at least some degree of sovereignty between countries.....charlemagnes approach to europe actually seemed to work,because he didn't want total control over everything.....so I suggest we need something broadly similar between uncle sam and the EU.......if the EU will stop grasping for more and more power.

the real competition for resources will come from those "up 'n' coming economies that have not yet developed,but seek to achieve a half decent standard of living...but with about 3-4 times the population of the west.

making better use of the resources we have is a no-brainer....just prevent the government from meddling.

That World resources report posted today about Worlds Billionaires buying up crop land in foreign countries (then laying bets thru hedge funds on a rising price of foodstuffs)

It says that over 80% of the former crop land that has been bought directly or indirectly thru their phoney farm-bank companies is not cultivated!

It's right there in front of you - the profit gathering hedging scum bastards of the earth are already depriving the world of crops - to force a fake shortage!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That World resources report posted today about Worlds Billionaires buying up crop land in foreign countries (then laying bets thru hedge funds on a rising price of foodstuffs)

I haven't seen this, could you give me a pointer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stefan Schultz

'S.S.'

Surname Origin: German, Jewish

A German occupational name for the man in charge of a village (magistrate, sheriff, overseer) originally derived from the Middle High German word "schulteize" meaning the person in charge of collecting payments on behalf of the lord of the manor

Scottish equivalent would be a 'Factor'

So what.

You can always be relied upon to make some irrelevant and idiotic comment about spelling, names or initiials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I totally agree !

Science Historian, James Burke, wrote a book in the 70's titled 'CONNECTIONS' (also made into a tv series by BBC) which plotted the interconnections between scientific discoveries over time and how they built upon one another.

Thus far, mankind has proved capable of adapting to new environmental challenges through innovatiion - thus ensuring his survival.

We will face a new geopolitical reality in the 21st century......... and I hope we can use new technological advancements, such as nano-technology, for the benefit of society once we emerge from a post oil culture.

We have had incredibly rapid technological innovation, mostly thanks to cheap energy.

You are assuming that we have enough cheap energy to continue to fuel this scientific progress. If we have reached Hubberts peak then this is almost certainly not the case.

I think we can make it, but I believe we have to globally review our priorities and pull together... sadly we are all too busy killing each other over anti-science bronze age myths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump Bump Bump lets discuss

there are no simple answers as mentioned above - we cannot all go Nuclear and if we did we would not avoid the worst of peak oil. There are simply not enough resources to go round for everybody anymore

I'm more worried at the German Military agonising over scarcity of resources. IIRC a similar fear causes not a little unpleasantness 70-odd years ago...

(at least now we don't have hyperinflation that destroys middle-class savings. Or a depression which chucks millions of workers on the dole. Oh, hang on...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 145 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.