'This Is A Turning Point In
History'
Urgent Action Is Needed
To Avert The Looming Oil Wars
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/EnergyOct2006.htm
As Total Predicts Ceiling
For Peak Oil Production Circa 100M BPD
'Energy Update', October 2006
"The answer to America's oil addiction
lies in Canada. Or so goes one line of thinking. As oil supplies got tighter and crude
prices soared over the last few years, tens of billions of dollars flowed into an effort
to develop the biggest oil reserve outside Saudi Arabia: Alberta's
oil sands. Along with the development rush have come rosy predictions on how much this
secure, close, proven supply of oil might yield. Four million, 6 million, even 10 million
barrels a day, which is nearly half America's total daily consumption and would easily
replace all imports from the Middle East. The only thing is, those numbers may be far too
high."
Curing oil sands fever
CNN,
7 October 2006
"The world will struggle to raise oil
output to levels much greater than 100 million barrels per day, Thierry Desmarest, chief
executive of Total, has given warning ... The French oil major has broken ranks with some
peers in its scepticism that the industry can continue to both replenish and substantially
increase the size of the gobal petrol tank. Rivals, such as ExxonMobil
and BP, have preferred to avoid discussions of peak
oil....."
Total chief says world will find oil target tough
London Times,
8 September 2006
"With global demand for oil set to exceed supply, 'military tensions' and 'big wars' to grab the remaining oil reserves will increase ..... The stark warning came from Michael Meacher MP, a former environment minister of Tony Blair (1997-2003), writing in the Financial Times on 3 September 2006."
Comment: averting the next oil wars
EurActiv, 4 September 2006And Not Just In The Middle East
Japan took possession of the disputed Senkaku Islands in February 2005 in an atmosphere of growing tension with China over territorial waters that are potentially important sources of oil and gas. Beijing described Tokyo's formal claim as 'illegal and unacceptable.' The US State Department has said it would back up any Japanese security claim on the Senkakus. Chinese troops in beach landing training manoeuvres. China's economic success is allowing it to expand its military capability. In August Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso pointed to 12 years of rising military expenditure, describing China as "beginning to pose a considerable threat". In 2004 China overtook Japan as the world's second largest importer of oil.
"Japan needs friends who are rich in
natural resources, and Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi made no bones about what he wanted
from Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan when he became the first Japanese premier to visit the two
countries last month. The country is hardly alone, however, in looking to parts of the
former Soviet Union to meet its energy needs from new sources, and indeed, rivalry among
East Asian nations may well intensify as they compete to woo the region....Only days after
Koizumi left the region last week, China National Petroleum Corp., China`s largest oil
producer, said that together with Korea National Oil Corp., Malaysia`s Petronas, Lukoil of
Russia, and local group Uzbekneftegaz, it had obtained a 20-percent stake in a joint oil
and gas exploration project in Uzbekistan`s Aral Sea extending about 10,000 square
kilometers that potentially has 8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas."
Oil raises China, Japan rivalry
United
Press International, 5 September 2006
"China has overtaken the United States
as Japan's biggest export market, while Chinese economic growth remains heavily dependent
on continued investments by Japanese businesses on its shores. Yet there seems to be no
end in the growing rivalry and sometimes outright hostility between the two East Asian
countries, a situation that has been aggravated in the race for oil and territorial
claims. Earlier last week, the China National Offshore Oil Corp. said that it had begun
gas production in the East China Sea, near the boundary that Japan has staked as its
own.... China's seemingly insatiable appetite for oil has been cited by many energy
analysts as one key factor for driving up petroleum prices in recent years, and that trend
is only expected to continue in coming years, even though the country remains heavily
dependent on mining its coalfields to meet the bulk of its energy needs. What's more, with
virtually no energy resources of its own, Japan remains highly dependent on imported oil
and it has already clashed with China on prospects of securing oil from Russia and central
Asia."
Analysis: China-Japan oil spat confusion
United Press
International, 7 August 2006
"With outgoing prime Minister
Junichiro Koizumi due to step down next month, Japan's neighbors are breathing a sigh of
relief and focusing their attention on his likely successor, Chief Cabinet Secretary
Shinzo Abe .... local media reported last week that he has plans to revise the
country's pacifist constitution to allow Japan's self-defense forces greater participation
in allied military operations."
Much Ado About Abe
TIME,
21 August 2006
"We maintain a massive military presence overseas partly to preserve our oil lifeline. There is no guarantee that even our unrivaled military forces can prevent an energy disaster."
US Senator Richard Lugar
Lugar on Energy: Oil Dependence is Dangerously Unsustainable
Midwest Business, 31 August 2006
| In This Bulletin |
| Bloomberg What's Happening With The Oil Price? Most Analysts Predict Only Temporary Respite |
| Soaring
Exploration And Production Costs As Oil Projects Falter |
| Head Of Total Claims Peak Oil Production Will Go Little Beyond 100 Million Barrels Per Day |
| 'Energy Is Power' Putin Raises The Energy Stakes |
| Financial Times 'Urgent Action Is Needed To Avert The Looming Oil Wars' |
| Playing For Time? ExxonMobil And The USGS Fig Leaf |
| Where This Is All
Taking Us If We Don't Get Our Energy Act Together |
"China has started filling the tanks
of a strategic oil reserve meant to insulate the country from disruptions in supplies, an
official said Friday. The tanks in Zhenhai, a city in the coastal province of Zhejiang,
south of Shanghai, are being filled with domestically produced oil, said Xu Dingming,
deputy director of the Cabinet's State Energy Office. Xu didn't say how much oil had been
pumped into the tanks or when the process was to be completed. 'All of the construction
work (in Zhenhai) has been completed,' Xu told Dow Jones Newswires at an energy
conference. 'Since the storage facility has been built, it must be put into operation as
soon as possible.' The Zhenhai facility, with 16 massive oil tanks, is one of four planned
sites for petroleum reserves. The others are to be built next year and in 2008. Previous
reports said Beijing plans to stockpile up to 100 million barrels of petroleum, or the
equivalent of almost a month's national consumption. The United States operates a similar
reserve. China supplied its own oil for decades from domestic oil fields, but became a net
importer in the 1990s."
Official: China starts filling strategic oil reserve
Associated
Press, 6 October 2006
Bloomberg
What's Happening With The Oil Price?
Most Analysts Predict Only Temporary Respite
"Oil analysts are raising their price
estimates for next year in anticipation of increased demand that may outpace the
development of new deposits. Crude oil will average $64 a barrel in New York in 2007,
according to the median forecast of 29 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg News last week.
That's $2 higher than predicted at the end of the second quarter. Analysts failed to
predict the rise in oil throughout a five-year rally during which prices tripled. 'We see
a very tight market continuing into next year,' said Kevin Norrish, a director of
commodities research for Barclays Capital in London. Barclays expects oil next year to
average $76.70 a barrel, the highest forecast in the survey. 'The recent fall in prices is
due to short-term factors,'' he said in an interview. 'We're looking for fairly strong global
growth, and we don't see capacity expanding by much.' Benchmark oil futures touched a record $78.40 a barrel July 14 on the
New York Mercantile Exchange on concern that fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in
Lebanon would spread through the Middle East, the source of almost a third of the world's
oil. Prices fell after fighting ended in Lebanon and
the Gulf of Mexico storm season passed without a repeat of last year's hurricanes, which crippled oil production and refineries. New York crude ended
yesterday at $61.03 a barrel. Oil's climb from less
than $20 a barrel at the end of 2001 has been driven by the failure of producers to
generate new supplies fast enough to keep pace with rising demand, especially in China. Analysts are betting that trend will
continue. They forecast that oil would be $58 a
barrel at the start of 2006, according to the median in Bloomberg's survey last December.
So far, crude oil has averaged $68.26, higher than any prior year. 'We just haven't seen
dramatic increases in supply,' said James Rollyson, an analyst at Raymond James Financial
Inc. in Houston. Raymond James is predicting $70 oil next year after forecasting $58 at
the beginning of this year. Oil consumption worldwide
climbed 9 percent to an average 83.8 million barrels a day between 2000 and 2005, led by
China and the U.S., according to the U.S. Energy Department. Global oil supply rose 8.6 percent to 84.5 million barrels. Prices surged
during the first half as Iran, the fourth- largest oil producer, pushed ahead with nuclear
fuel enrichment, heightening tensions with the U.S. Iran has the world's second- biggest
proved oil reserves and borders the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway through which
nearly a quarter of the world's oil is shipped.... Strategists who forecast a drop in
prices next year say a slowing U.S. economy will coincide with increased output."
Oil Analysts Raise 2007 Forecasts as Demand May Outpace
Supply
Bloomberg,
3 Ocotber 2006
How Are We Doing Against CIBC's 2005 Projection?
"Over the
next five years, crude prices will almost double, averaging close to $77/bbl and reaching
as much as $100/bbl by 2010... Tomorrows price hikes wont be triggered by
sudden supply disruptions like the Arab oil boycott of 1973 or the Iranian Revolution in
1979. Instead, they will follow from the inevitable collision between surging global crude
demand and accelerating depletion of conventional crude supply. By 2010, prices will have to
take out nearly 9 million barrels a day from world oil consumptionno mean feat for a world that
has never been more thirsty for oil....."
Not Just A
Spike
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 13
April 2005
Not Just A Spike
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, World Markets, 13 April 2005
Beware Any Short Term Respites
Now Is The Time To Plan
'Power Politics' ".... PFC Energy is among the top three oil and gas consultancies in the world. Its chairman J. Robinson West is a former US Assistant Secretary of the Interior (1981-1983) and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Economic Affairs (1976-1977). For a time his responsibilities included US off-shore oil policy. He is Vice Chairman of the US Secretary of Energys Advisory Board and a member of the National Petroleum Council (PFC Energy, 2005). In September 2005 West presented a paper to the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation entitled Energy Insecurity (Energy Bulletin, 23 September 2005). Robinsons assessment was that by 2010 there may again be some spare global oil production capacity as new production comes on line from the former Soviet Union, West Africa and the Middle East, although with much of it flowing to Asia. Thereafter, however, the situation is expected to deteriorate. West is not optimistic about breakthroughs in oil technology to ameliorate the situation. He told the committee that: Some optimists say that we have always found technical solutions to increase production before, and will again. Our response is that if breakthrough technology is not in the pipeline now it will have no impact for years. (PFC Energy, 21 September 2005). Indeed the International Energy Agency itself reported that very same week that the top five oil multinationals, including ExxonMobil, BP and Shell, had reduced their annual investment in research and development by almost $2 billion from 1998 to 2000. This was even though the industry was turning to expensive-to-extract unconventional sources, such as tar sands (Times, 23 September 2005). Robinson concluded his presentation to the Senate committee with the following warning: Welcome to the Age of Energy Insecurity. Worldwide production will peak. The result will be skyrocketing prices, with a huge, sustained economic shock. Jobs will be lost. Key sectors of the economy, from agriculture to home building, will be hit hard. Without action, the crisis will certainly bring energy rivalries, if not energy wars. Vast wealth will be shifted, probably away from the U.S. We must confront the issue of demand, primarily in the U.S. and Asia. Politicians in the U.S., from both sides of the aisle and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, are loathe to come between Americans and their cars part status symbol, part toy, part necessity. Solutions must be found, but if the wrong solutions are proposed, the economy as a whole and the suburban economic model in particular the basis of the American consumers wealth will come to a screeching halt. The key is to engage critical stakeholders to come together and push for the political will for change. For the last 20 years U.S. policy has discouraged production and encouraged consumption. This policy is simply not sustainable. If we dither any more, as we have for so long, we will pay a terrible price, the economic equivalent of a Category Five hurricane. Katrina was a Category Four. (PFC Energy, 21 September 2005). A year earlier PFC had presented calculations to Washingtons Center For Strategic And International Studies which indicated a total contribution to the global oil supply from Canadian tar sands of between 2 and 4 million barrels per day by 2025. Including this resource PFC concluded that that global oil production could hit a peak as early as 2015 (but not later than 2025 if demand growth were to slow to 1.1% per annum) after which there will be gradual decline. This forecast provides a peak global daily production of possibly little more than 100 million barrels - in other words, an amount nearly twenty million barrels below the reference case forecast for consumption in 2025 projected by the US Department of Energy in July 2005 (PFC Energy, 8 September 2004; CNN, 9 September 2004; EIA International Energy Outlook, 2005). PFCs bottom line conclusion was that The US will face more competition from emerging strategic players to secure access to oil and that Managing demand becomes a key strategic issue for the US. In short the world in general, and the US in particular, will soon have to learn to consume less oil on a daily basis, even though the global economy can be expected to continue consuming oil for many decades to come. There are only three ways to reduce oil consumption. These are through: Ø
Improved fuel efficiency and
conservation What will happen in the short, medium, and long term will be influenced by how these three elements play out." |
Soaring Exploration And Production
Costs
As Oil Projects Falter
"The costs of finding additional
reserves of oil and gas have soared, an industry study shows, adding to the malaise of
international oil companies. 'Reserves replacement costs surged 73 per cent as increased
capital spending did not translate into incremental reserve additions,' a study of 200 oil
and gas companies found."
Cost of search for energy reserves soars
Financial
Times, 21 September 2006
"High costs will likely derail some
projects in the oil sands, according to Murray Edwards,
the reclusive vice-chairman of Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., one of many firms working
in the overheated Fort McMurray region of Alberta.... 'These projects, long term, need
prices higher than $50 [U.S. a barrel],' Mr. Edwards told reporters after in a rare public
appearance yesterday afternoon at the Alberta Global Business Forum in Banff, an intimate
annual gathering of top business and political leaders.... Pressures around Fort McMurray
-- competition for labour, construction materials such as steel and the region's
overstretched infrastructure -- have already forced one global player to amend its plan.
Paris-based Total SA, which bought into the oil sands a year ago, had hoped to see some
production in 2010 but in August revealed first production is now set for 2013. 'Given the current challenges we face . . . it is going to be
difficult for the Canadian sector to deliver the forecast growth in oil sands volumes over the next 15 years,' Mr. Edwards said in his presentation to the conference. 'Costs are
accelerating to the point where you have to start wondering if projects are still
economic.'"
Edwards sees threat to oil sands projects
Globe
and Mail, 22 September 2006
More On Canada's Oil Sands - Click Here
"The answer to America's oil addiction
lies in Canada. Or so goes one line of thinking. As oil supplies got tighter and crude
prices soared over the last few years, tens of billions of dollars flowed into an effort
to develop the biggest oil reserve outside Saudi Arabia: Alberta's oil sands. Along with
the development rush have come rosy predictions on how much this secure, close, proven
supply of oil might yield. Four million, 6 million, even 10 million barrels a day, which
is nearly half America's total daily consumption and would easily replace all imports from
the Middle East. The only thing is, those numbers may be far too high. Making a barrel of
clean, light crude from the thick, dirty oil sand uses massive amounts of water, massive
amounts of electricity and requires a large pool of labor in an otherwise sparsely
populated area. 'People jump to the assumption that we can immediately ramp up to 9
million barrels per day and save the world,' said Peter Tertzakian, chief energy economist
at ARC Financial, a Calgary-based private equity firm. 'But it's just not going to
happen.'... energy is the first limitation people bring up at the mention of the oil
sands. Tertzakian said it takes the equivalent of 0.7
barrels of oil to create one barrel of oil sands product. What's more, most of the energy needed to make the stuff currently comes
from natural gas, an energy-rich, clean fossil fuel. 'It's like using caviar to make fake
crab meat,' said Marlo Raynolds, executive director of the Pembina Institute, a Canadian
environmental group.... Experts say most of the natural gas Canada currently exports to
the United States will be eaten up by the oil sands projects. To fuel further expansion,
they say, Canada will have to import natural gas from Alaska. Some have even suggested
going nuclear, although that idea has gained little traction so far. Another constraint is
water. Both extracting methods use huge amounts, up to two barrels for every barrel of oil
produced. Even with production running at one million barrels a year, concerns are already
being raised over the drawdown from the major rivers that flow through the region. 'At
some point it's going to reach a tipping point when people say enough is enough,' said
Raynolds.... So how much can they pull from the ground in Alberta? The Canadian government
and many of the companies up there put the number somewhere around 4 million barrels per
day by 2015, still a significant amount roughly equal to America's total crude production.
'The production levels aren't unrealistic at all, it's just a question of time,' said
Sheraz Mian, a senior oil and natural gas analyst at Zacks Investment Research. But others
are less sanguine. The U.S. Energy Information Administration, not generally known for
issuing bearish reports, puts the number at 2.3 million barrels per day by 2015.
Tertzakian estimates maybe 2.5 to 3 million barrels per day and cautions against too much
optimism. 'Nobody should feel comfortable that Canada's oil sands are going to
single-handedly satisfy the world's energy needs,' he said."
Curing oil sands fever
CNN,
7 October 2006
Alternatively
What Hope Lies In The Gulf Of Mexico?
"The story broke the morning after
Labor Day, when the Wall Street Journal ran a front-page piece reporting that Chevron
along with two partners had announced the results of a major oil production test in the
Gulf of Mexico. The partners Chevron, Statoil, and Devon Energy ran the test on a well
known as Jack No. 2 that was drilled last year in the Lower Tertiary zone of the Gulf of
Mexico. This zone is about 80 miles wide, 300 miles long and is located about 175 miles
off shore. The well was unusual in that it went to a depth of 28,000 feet and the drilling
began under 7,000 feet of water. .... As the week wore on however, knowledgeable
geologists and petroleum engineers began to question all the euphoria. First they noted
that the Jack No. 2 test was not conducted on a single oil field that might contain 15
billion barrels oil. Rather, it was one test of a well in a zone that extends for hundreds
of miles under the Gulf of Mexico. Whatever producible oil the zone contains will likely
be found in numerous smaller deposits. A number of wells have already been sunk in the
Lower Tertiary. Some were dry holes and a few struck oil bearing rock, which may have the
potential to produce oil profitably. So far, only a handful of these exploratory wells
have struck deposits of light oil, which may be possible to produce. Others have struck
thicker oils that may be impossible to extract from extreme depths at acceptable rates.
What seems to be turning up in the deeper waters of the Gulf are a series of smaller oil
fields some of which may someday be profitable to produce and some of which
probably wont. Extrapolating this situation to a major new discovery that will delay
the onset of peak oil is clearly a reach. To extract oil from 20,000 feet below the
surface, where the pressures run to 20,000 pounds per square inch (psi) and the
temperature of the oil is in the order of 200 degrees centigrade, is going to be a major
technical challenge. Wells drilled to these depths
will cost in the range of $100 million each. To drill and set in place the production
equipment for one of these fields may cost on the order of $1.5 billion, or more, as the
cost of oil production equipment is inflating rapidly. Add to this the problem of what to do with very hot oil and the
associated natural gas as it comes flowing to the top of a well 7,000 feet under the Gulf
and 175 miles from shore. The decision to attempt production from these ultra-deep fields
will not be taken lightly by the oil companies involved.... Assuming that producing oil
from the Lower Tertiary turns out to be economically and technically feasible, will new
production from the region have anything to do with delaying peak oil? The answer is an
emphatic NO. Knowledgeable observers who have commented on the issue agree that even if
all goes well, it is unlikely that more than 300-500,000 b/d of production could come into
production from all the possible fields in the Lower Tertiary over the next five to seven
years. In the meantime, the world will have burned another 150 to 200 billion barrels of
oil and US production from existing fields will decline from the current 5 million b/d to
somewhere around 4 million b/d. This suggests that it will take some spectacular and
unlikely gains from new production to offset the natural decline currently underway in the
US. Of still greater concern is production from
Mexicos giant 2 million b/d Cantarell oilfield, most of which is exported to the
US. Creditable reports suggest that Cantarell is entering very rapid depletion and may be
producing at a fraction of its current level five years from now. It would be virtually
impossible for this level of new production from the Lower Tertiary to come online in the
next five years. So long as the world continues to consume some 31 billion barrels of oil
a year, there is still nothing in sight that can forestall imminent peak oil."
The Peak Oil Crisis: Hyping Jack No. 2
Falls
Church News-Press, 14 September 2006
Head Of Total Claims
Peak Oil Production Will Go Little Beyond 100 Million Barrels Per Day
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13130-2348180,00.html
|
"The world lacks the means to produce
enough oil to meet rising projections of demand for fuel over the next decade, according
to Christophe de Margerie, head of exploration for Total and heir presumptive to the
leadership of the French energy multinational. The
world is mistakenly focusing on oil reserves when the problem is capacity to produce oil, M de Margerie said in an interview with The Times. Forecasters, such as
the International Energy Agency (IEA), have failed to consider the speed at which new
resources can be brought into production, he believes. 'Numbers
like 120 million barrels per day will never be reached, never,' he said."
World 'cannot meet oil demand'
London Times,
8 April 2006
'Energy Is Power'
Putin Raises The Energy Stakes
"While BPs mishandling of public
opinion and the political process in the US has badly damaged its reputation in the short
term, Shells misreading of government relations in Russia threatens to do it more
lasting damage. For the economics of its $20 billion Sakhalin-2 gasfield are in doubt. And
while Russias treatment of Shell may have been arbitrary, highhanded and
duplicitous, it has not been surprising. Vladimir
Putin views energy assets as his predecessors once regarded nuclear warheads. They are the
means of advancing Russias strategic ambitions in the world.... Shell is not the only one that will have to deal with this new
reality. ExxonMobil has been sent the same message on its Sakhalin investment: scale back
costs or sell out. BP may find it comes under pressure to renegotiate terms of the BP-TNK
joint venture."
Shell needs to oil its Kremlin diplomacy
London Times,
5 October 2006
"Russian energy giant Gazprom OAO will
start building a natural gas pipeline that will connect Russia and China, reported Xinhua
news agency yesterday. The western gas pipeline is considered the main gas route
connecting the gas reserves in Russias West Siberia to West Chinas provinces,
bypassing the Republic of Altai."
Gazprom starts to build pipelines connecting Russia and China
China Knowledge, 4
October 2006
"Rosneft and Gazprom is in the process
of acquiring more oil and gas resources to control not only Russian but also global energy
resources. They will control soon more than half of Russian fossil based energy resources.
That gives a tremendous power for Putin and Kremlin. India,
China and Eastern Europe will be soon dependant on energy from Russian Oil
Block. China is already dependant on it. The
Eastern Europe that rebelled out of Soviet Union ultimately realizes that in order sustain
and achieve prosperity they need cheap energy resources. For them nuclear is not a viable
option. Russian energy is what they to attract Western companies for outsourcing and
achieve above average economic growth. If Russian plans are implemented without a glitch,
shrewd Putin will soon control more than 50% of the oil and gas reserves in the
world."
Rosneft and Gazprom ready to give Putin his ultimate weapon control of worldwide
energy sources
India Daily, 30 September 2006
"The American oil companies Chevron
and ConocoPhillips could be shut out of a massive Arctic gas project in a sharp chilling
of trade relations between Moscow and Washington. Substantial volumes of liquefied gas
from Shtokmanovskoye in the Barents Sea, originally earmarked for export to the United
States, could be redirected to Europe, President Putin said. The shift in policy, revealed
by Mr Putin after talks with the French President and the German Chancellor at the
weekend, will be a blow to efforts by American energy companies to secure access to one of
the worlds largest gasfields. The apparent snub to American interests is further
evidence of increasing tension between Washington and Moscow over trade and the willingness of the Kremlin to use its energy resources as a
political lever."
Russia in threat to turn off gas to US giants
London Times,
26 September 2006
"Speaking at a conference under the
rubric 'Summit on Energy Security' at West Lafayette, Indiana, this month, the powerful
chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar, characterized
Venezuela, Iran and Russia as 'adversarial regimes' that were using
energy supplies as 'leverage' in foreign policy.
Lugar said: 'We are used to thinking in terms of conventional warfare between
nations, but energy is becoming a weapon of choice
for those who possess it.' Senior
Russian figures were quick to dismiss Lugar's admonition as 'groundless Russophobia', but
the US administration is already opening new battle
fronts against Russia in the energy war. Next week's
meeting in Beijing on energy security involving the United States, China, Japan, India and
South Korea is a dramatic manifestation of the new battle plans and war doctrines
that Washington is conceptualizing. The conclave in Beijing, significantly, leaves out
Western Europe.... Lugar underlined the crucial importance of a formal coordination of the
US energy diplomacy with China and India at a juncture when 77% of the world's oil supply
was controlled by 'foreign governments'; when the US paid 17% more for its energy in 2005
than the year before; when energy costs accounted for a third of the US trade deficit; and
when the US was bracing for a whopping US$320 billion bill for its oil imports in the
current year. Beijing was quick to respond to Lugar's kite-flying. Writing in the People's
Daily on April 11, an expert from China's Institute of Contemporary International
Relations, Su Jingxiang, signaled that if only Washington were savvy enough to 'revalue
the tremendous market potential' in China and 'abate unnecessary doubts toward China',
closer cooperation between Beijing and Washington on international energy issues could be
realized. Su rendered some practical advice to Washington's policymakers in this
connection. He questioned the efficacy of past US policies that involved 'seizing
resources' through military intervention and expansion aimed at 'safeguarding the oil
supply'. He pointed out that gunboat diplomacy was no longer workable either in the Middle
East or Latin America as it produced only terrorism and resistance."
Russia sets the pace in energy race
Asia Times, 23
September 2006
"First Russian President Vladimir
Putin attacked OAO Yukos Oil Co. Now it's Royal Dutch Shell Plc. This week's threat to
shut down Shell's $20 billion Sakhalin Island project, the country's biggest foreign
investment, is another maneuver to force companies in Russia to share more profits with
the state, analysts said. It's a reminder of the tactics used in Putin's dismantlement of
Yukos, whose assets ended up at state-run OAO Gazprom and OAO Rosneft after the government
filed $30 billion in tax claims against the company."
Shell Faces Sakhalin Grab; Putin Seeks Energy Control
Bloomberg,
22 September 2006
Financial Times
'Urgent Action Is Needed To Avert The Looming Oil Wars'
| Posted at http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/5072/2/ |
| Urgent
action is needed to avert the looming oil wars By Michael Meacher Financial Times (UK) http://www.ft.com/cms/s/04d8a486-3bb2-11db-96c9-0000779e2340.html (subscribers only) While the world's attention is focused on the aftermath of the Israel-Hizbollah war, more far-reaching and dangerous threats to global security are growing dramatically. In July, Samuel Bodman, U.S. energy secretary, said that for the foreseeable future "we're going to see oil demand exceeding supply." The month before, Bill Clinton, former U.S. president, raised the alarm that the world could be out of "recoverable oil" in 35-50 years, elevating the risk of "resource-based wars of all kinds." Last November, Joe Lieberman, former vice-presidential candidate, warned efforts by the U.S. and China to use imports to meet growing demand may escalate competition to something "as hot and dangerous" as the nuclear arms race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Yet all this passes almost without mention in Britain. The world is consuming about 84m barrels a day, but because of increasing demand from accelerating economic growth in China, India and other countries, the U.S. Energy Information Administration recently forecast demand at 121m barrels a day by 2025. Yet a near-50 per cent increase in demand cannot be met in 20 years. As the head of exploration at Total recently said: "Numbers like 120m barrels per day will never be reached, never." First, the oil is not there. For the past decade the world has used some 24bn barrels a year, but has found on average fewer than 10bn barrels of new oil annually. Second, even if it were available, the cost implications are prohibitive. The World Energy Outlook 2005 estimated investment of $17,000bn would be needed to bring the oil to consumers: half again more than U.S. gross domestic product. Third, the infrastructure does not exist to deliver it without unmanageable price spikes. Global spare production and refining capacity is virtually gone. In the next 20 years, the West's dependence on the key Gulf producers -- Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates -- will almost double, as their share of world oil production rises from one-quarter to almost half. With Russia and Venezuela, they are expected to be responsible for more than 60 per cent of world oil production by 2025. Already, production by non-Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is nearing its peak and subsequent decline. When, by 2010, it cannot meet incremental demand, OPEC will become less able to accommodate short-term fluctuations. Volatile price hikes will be inevitable and demand growth will have to be curtailed. There are only three ways out of this looming crisis. One is "demand destruction," which falling supply will to some extent enforce, but almost certainly too little, too late. A second route is to diversify out of fossil fuels and into renewable sources of energy and energy conservation. There are no signs that this is being pursued worldwide on the scale necessary. The third route, which is both short-sighted and counterproductive but the one being pursued at present, is to grab the lion's share of ever-dwindling oil repositories. General John Abizaid, commander of the U.S. Central Command, told the House Appropriations Committee in March that American forces may need to stay in Iraq indefinitely because of the oil. In opposition, over the past year China, India, Russia, and Iran have signed energy deals valued at some $500bn with one another and have begun creating a central Asian "energy club" that would have its own pipeline network and energy market. The Shanghai Co-operation Organization not only includes China and Russia, but is about to invite Iran, India, and Pakistan to be full members. The economic end-game is clearly to dilute U.S. efforts to dominate the Caspian Sea's energy reserves. The SCO is on track to become an organization that challenges the geopolitical reach of the U.S. The situation over gas is even more threatening. Deepening ties between Russia and Algeria are causing concern that the recent talks between Russia's Gazprom and Sonatrach, the Algerian state energy company, could be the first step in the formation of a natural gas cartel. The dwindling number of supplier nations could encourage the formation of an OPEC of gas. An alliance between the top three or four gas exporters -- which would be much more effective than the oil OPEC -- is a nightmare for global markets. This is a turning point in history. Never before has a resource as fundamental as oil faced rapid decline without a substitute in sight. The self-destructive strategy of cornering diminishing oil and gas supplies must urgently be switched to building a new world energy order based on a renewables and hydrogen economy, alongside energy conservation. If it is not, we risk a second Great Depression, rising military tensions, and the prospect of big wars. --The writer is Labor MP for Oldham West and Royton and a former environment minister. |
Also
posted by the Financial Express, Bandgladesh, 7 September - FT Syndication Service |
[Note: Some reports have interpreted the $17 trillion investment requirement identified by the IEA as relating exclusively to the oil and gas sector. However, this figure relates to the whole of the energy sector including non-oil and gas infrastructure - Energy Update] |
"I fear we're going to be at
war for decades, not years ..... one major component of that war is oil."
James Woolsey, former Director of The CIA
Report On The Annual Policy
Forum Of The American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
Washington, 6-7 December 2004
RenewableEnergyAccess.com,
14 December 2004
"We do have a vital strategic interest
in the oil reserves that are in that [Persian Gulf] area. But what I would like to see is a
candid discussion of what our interests in the area are, what our equities are, and what
the downside of maintaining a presence in the area is. We haven't seen any of that ....
It's policy that has created these issues, and the policy should be openly debated in
front of the American public, and not just kind of brushed away and disguised as a 'war against terror'."
Philip Giraldi, former CIA counter-terrorism official
The Weekend Interview Show, July 2005
"In the long run, we're not safer
because we're still operating on the assumption that we're hated because of our freedoms,
when in fact we're hated because of our actions in the Islamic world. There's our military
presence in Islamic countries, the perception that we control the Muslim worlds oil
production, our support for Israel and for countries that oppress Muslims such as China,
Russia, and India, and our own support for Arab tyrannies. The deal we made with Qadaffi
in Libya looks like hypocrisy: we'll make peace with a brutal dictator if it gets us oil. President Bush is right when he says all
people aspire to freedom but he doesn't recognize that people have different definitions
of democracy. Publicly promoting democracy while supporting tyranny may be the most
damaging thing we do. From the standpoint of democracy, Saudi Arabia looks much worse than
Iran. We use the term 'Islamofascism'but we're supporting it in Saudi Arabia, with
Mubarak in Egypt, and even Jordan is a police state. We don't have a strategy because we
don't have a clue about what motivates our enemies.... We need to acknowledge that we are
at war, not because of who we are, but because of what we do. We are confronting a jihad
that is inspired by the tangible and visible impact of our policies. People are willing to
die for that, and we're not going to win by killing them off one by one. We have a dozen
years of reliable polling in the Middle East, and it shows overwhelming hostility to our
policiesand at the same time it shows majorities that admire the way we live, our
ability to feed and clothe our children and find work. We need to tell the truth to set
the stage for a discussion of our foreign policy. At
the core of the debate is oil. As long as we
and our allies are dependent on Gulf oil, we can't do anything about the perception that
we support Arab tyrannythe Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and other regimes in the region.
Without the problem of oil, who cares who rules Saudi Arabia? If we solved the oil
problem, we could back away from the contradiction of being democracy promoters and
tyranny protectors. We should have started on this
back in 1973, at the time of the first Arab oil
embargo, but we've never moved away from our dependence. As
it stands, we are going to have to fight wars if anything endangers the oil supply in the
Middle East. What you want with foreign policy is
options. Right now we don't have options because our economy and our allies' economies are
dependent on Middle East oil."
Michael Scheuer, former chief of the CIA's Bin Laden unit
Six Questions for Michael Scheuer on National Security
Harper's Magazine,
23 August 2006
"Such openness is rare; it set me back
on my heels. The question came last Monday as I finished a lecture in Pewaukee,
Wisconsinthe first of a handful of talks I gave for 'Great Decisions 2005,' a
program of the Institute of World Affairs, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. With the
'weapons of mass destruction' of recent memory having evaporated as casus belli for the
invasion and occupation of Iraq, I had decided to experiment with a tutorial on what I believe to be the real reasons behind the warfirst
and foremost, oil. Passing by a phalanx of
late-model gas-guzzlers on my way in, I found myself wondering how my observations on the
oil factor would be received. In the end, I was more than a little surprised that none of
the 250 folks in that very conservative audience seemed to have much of a problem...
Canadian writer Linda McQuaig, author of 'It's the Crude, Dude', has noted that decades
from now it will all seem a no-brainer. Historians will calmly discuss the war in Iraq and
identify oil as one of the key factors in the decision to launch it. They will point to
growing US dependence on foreign oil, the competition with China, India, and others for a
world oil supply with terminal illness, and the fact that (as Deputy Secretary of Defense
Paul Wolfowitz has put it) Iraq 'swims on a sea of oil.' It will all seem so obvious as to
provoke little more than a yawn. But that will be then. Now is now. How best to
explain the abrupt transition from early-nineties prudence to the present day recklessness
of this administration? How to fathom the continued cynicism that trades throwaway
soldiers for the chimera of controlling Middle East oil? .... Shortly after George
W. Bush entered the White House in January 2001, Vice President Cheney's energy task force
dragged out the maps of Iraq's oil fields. (We now have some of the relevant
documents, courtesy of a bitterly contested Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. But
the courts have upheld the White House decision to keep the task force proceedings, and
even the names of its members, secret.) To be fair, taking over Middle East oil
fields was not a new idea. In 1975 Henry Kissinger, using a pseudonym, wrote an article for Harpers titled
'Seizing Arab Oil,' outlining plans to do just that, preventing Arab countries from
having absolute control over the modern world's most vital commodity. But in those days
there was a USSR to put the brakes on such adventurism..... [After my tutorial] Some
twenty folks did linger in a small circle that was dominated by a persistent, well dressed
man (let's call him Joe), who just would not let go: 'Surely you agree that we need the
oil. Then what's your problem? Some 1,450 killed thus far are far fewer than the toll in
Vietnam where we lost 58,000; it's a small price to pay... a sustainable rate to bear.
What IS your problem?'."
Ray
McGovern, former CIA presidential intelligence briefer
We Need the Oil, Right? So What's the Problem?
TruthOut, 14
February 2005
Robert Baer |
Playing For Time?
ExxonMobil And The USGS Fig Leaf
Exxon's Public Position Boils Down To This
"The world has an abundant supply of
oil, and high petrol prices are just the reality of a globally traded commodity, ExxonMobil Australia
chairman Mark Nolan said today. Mr Nolan used his speech to the Asia Pacific oil and gas
conference in Adelaide today to debunk the theory of peak oil, which suggests oil supplies
have peaked and will dwindle over the next 20 years.... 'The fact is that the world has an
abundance of oil and there is little question, scientifically, that abundant energy
resources exist,' Mr Nolan said. According to the US
Geological Survey, the earth currently has more than
three trillion barrels of conventional, recoverable oil resources. So far we have produced
one trillion.
Peak oil theories wrong, says ExxonMobil boss
Australian
Associated Press, 11 September 2006
But The Three Trillion Figure
Is Based On Controversial Work By The US Geological Survey
"Last
spring, the White House publicly embraced plans by Saudi Arabia to increase its oil
production capacity significantly. But privately, some officials and others advising the
government are skeptical about some of those Saudi forecasts
.. doubts about Saudi
Arabia's assurances of how much it can expand capacity - and for how long - have been
raised in a secret intelligence report and in a separate
analysis by a leading government oil adviser, according to a federal government official
and the oil expert. If those skeptical assessments are correct, the administration's hopes
of increasing supplies would become still more difficult to fulfill.... a senior intelligence
official, who insisted on remaining anonymous because he was not permitted to speak
publicly on the issue, said that the Saudi plans to increase production by nearly 14
percent in the next four years were not enough to meet global demand. Even the Energy
Information Administration recently scaled back its expectations of how much more oil the
Saudis could pump in 20 years.... under pressure from the United States and other
consumers, the Saudis promised to pump more oil. Saudi Aramco, the state-owned oil
company, was planning to increase capacity to 12.5 million barrels a day by 2009. Before
long, Ali al-Naimi, the oil minister, and Saudi oil executives were saying that the
country could add 200 billion barrels - from existing fields and yet-to-be-discovered
resources - to its reserves, enabling production of 15 million barrels a day for 50 years
or perhaps longer. Just before meeting with Prince Abdullah in April, President Bush said
he wanted 'a straight answer' about how much extra oil the Saudis could pump. At that
session in Texas, the prince reaffirmed the previously announced expansion plans. Saudi
Arabia's capacity now stands at about 11 million barrels a day. The Saudis pump about 9.5
million barrels, leaving a cushion of about 1.5 million barrels, mostly of heavier grades
not very usable in the West. ......But there are doubts
about the Saudi assertions about how much oil they have. Data about reserves is tightly guarded, and the
Saudis dismiss skeptics as uninformed. But they do not dismiss Edward O. Price Jr., the
former head of exploration for Saudi Aramco and an adviser to the United States government
on Persian Gulf oil during both Iraq wars. He questioned future reliance on Saudi capacity
in an article in The New York Times last year and wanted to know from his former
colleagues how they reached their estimate of more than 150 billion barrels of extra oil.
Twenty years ago, a detailed study by geologists from four large American oil companies
then in partnership with Aramco found little in the way of undiscovered oil resources, he
said. Mr. Saleri, who manages Saudi reservoirs, met with Mr. Price in the United States
last year. Saudi Aramco officials declined to respond to questions about the meeting. But
Mr. Price said in an interview that Mr. Saleri told him that the basis for the higher oil figures was a global study in 2000 by the United States Geological Survey estimating Saudi Arabia's
undiscovered resources at 87 billion barrels. Mr. Price said he responded that the
estimates 'by the U.S.G.S. had no credibility and far
exceeded the detailed studies by the old Aramco team.' The Aramco study,
unlike the survey estimate, involved detailed field work. Questions about Saudi Arabia's
long-term estimates were also raised last year in a report by the National Intelligence
Council, an advisory panel that produces the government's most authoritative intelligence
estimates, according to a government official who insisted on not being identified because the report was classified."
Doubts Raised on Saudi Vow for More Oil
New York Times, 28 October 2005
Not Even
Geologists At BP Believe The 3 Trillion Figure
Although CEO Lord Browne Doesn't Talk Publicly About This
('Don't Mention The War' Syndrome)
"BP
exploration consultant Francis Harper said he estimated the world's total original usable
oil resources - the amount of oil before drilling began - at about 2.4 trillion barrels of
oil. This is considerably less than the 3 trillion assumed by bullish commentators such as
the US government's Geological
Survey. This points to oil
production peaking between 2010
and 2020.... His comments are
a rare entry by a global oil company into the debate on the life of global oil
supplies.... He added that oil companies' public positions on the issue masked debate
within them. 'There are people
in BP who happen to be economists and so happen to think there's no problem, and there are
people in BP who are geologists who are saying it's getting hard to find.'... Seth Kleinman at PFC Energy said oil companies
had held back from such statements. 'There's a certain degree of hesitancy for oil
companies to go on the record and say, 'we are doing well with oil prices where they are
now, but 10 years down the road things actually look pretty dire'."
Oil supply to peak sooner than
we think, says BP scientist
The Business, 7 November 2004
"BP CEO Lord
Browne made an attempt to calm the world concerning an oil crisis as his company published third-quarter profits
had surged by 43 % to almost $ 4 bn, due to record crude prices. Lord Browne confirmed
that oil prices will stay very changeable, however he noted, 'It is not helpful for the
world to believe that it is running out of oil. We are evidently not.' All oil producers
were increasing output and some had increased their spending on exploration and production
from $ 62 bn in 2000 to almost $ 100 bn last year. Lord Browne said that if demand
returned to historic levels the supply-demand proportion would be back to 'more normal
levels' by 2008. He acknowledged that if demand continued to grow at the same exceptional
level as it had this year, the world would run out of spare capacity, but he added: 'I
think that would be a bit of a stretch, in my view. Oil is not immune from the general
vagaries of the world economic situation.' In the medium term, he said, BP expected the
oil price to stay above $ 30 a barrel 'underpinned by OPEC discipline and their needs for
revenue.'"
BP makes attempt to calm the world concerning oil crisis
Neftegaz, 27
October 2004
"Oil giant BP
plans to invest $3 billion to upgrade its refineries to process heavy crude oil from
Canada, BP Chief Executive John Browne said Thursday.... He said U.S. retail gasoline
prices are high because of expensive crude oil, not a
shortage of refining capacity."
BP to upgrade refineries to take Canada heavy oil
Reuters,
15 June 2006
"... last week
Browne [CEO of BP] admitted that production fell for the fourth quarter in a row, down 2.5
per cent on a year ago. Questions over where future production would come from began the
erosion of confidence in BP in the 1990s. The company is transformed, but, as Browne
prepares to step down (he reaches the company retirement age in spring 2008), the
questions are beginning to reappear.... as Neil McMahon at Sanford Bernstein wrote
recently: 'Russia is simply not enough.' The TNK deal reversed a production decline from
2003, while Thunder Horse in the Mexican Gulf and Kizomba off Angola will keep production
up for another five years. But BP production falls from some 4.5 million barrels per day
in 2010 back to 4 million barrels per day by 2020. McMahon notes that in the Mexican Gulf
, projects are becoming more challenging. He adds that Russian discontent with Western
majors poses questions over projects there. By contrast, Shell and Exxon, the largest of
the three, peak later, though they see fall-offs by 2020."
Spectres loom for booming BP
Observer, 9
July 2006
"[BP's] Lord
Browne's said that most exploration for new supplies had halted [in Iraq] when the Iraqis
nationalised their industry.... he believed there was a plenty of oil and gas waiting to
be discovered in Iraq and that BP should be in prime position to capitalise [after a war
with Iraq] because it had found most of the country's oil before being thrown out in the
1970s.... Lord Browne will be listened to carefully in Downing Street because the BP
executive team has such close links with the UK government that it was once dubbed Blair
Petroleum."
BP chief fears US will carve up Iraqi oil riches
Guardian, 30 October 2002
Or At Shell?
"..... My view is that 'easy' oil
[i.e. conventional oil] has probably
passed its peak."
Jeroen van der Veer, CEO of Royal
Dutch Shell
Financial
Times, 24 January 2006
Or At Chevron?
"International
oil companies have advertising campaigns warning that the world is running out of oil and
calling on the public to help the industry do something about it....ExxonMobil, the
world's largest energy group, said in a recent advertisement: 'The world faces enormous
energy challenges. There are no easy answers.' .... Chevron, the US's second-largest
energy group, sends a similar message, but goes two steps further. 'One thing is clear:
The era of easy oil is over. We call upon scientists and educators, politicians and
policy-makers, environmentalists, leaders of industry and each one of you to be part of
reshaping the next era of energy. Inaction is not an option,' was the message in a recent
advertising campaign. The company has even set up a website, www.willyoujoinus.com, warning of
the pressures of high demand and fewer fields and offering a forum of discussion."
Big Oil warns of coming
energy crunch
Financial Times, 4 August 2005
And
In Reality Behind The Scenes
Exxon Knows The Situation Is 'Challenging'
"Our industry can certainly be proud
of its past achievements. Yet the challenges we will face in the coming years will be every bit as great as
those encountered in the past, due in part to ever-increasing global energy use. For
example, we estimate that world oil and gas production from existing fields is declining
at an average rate of about 4 to 6 percent a year. To meet projected demand in 2015, the
industry will have to add about 100 million oil-equivalent barrels a day of new
production. That's equal to about 80 percent of today's production level. In other words, by
2015, we will need to find, develop and produce a volume of new oil and gas that is equal
to eight out of every 10 barrels being produced today."
John Thompson, President of ExxonMobil Exploration
The
Lamp (published for ExxonMobil shareholders), 2003, Vol. 85 No.1

Graph from ExxonMobil report 4 February 2004, p4 (2004 marker added for
illustration)
'A
Report on Energy Trends, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Alternative Energy'
And So Does The US Government
"U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman
said Tuesday that oil producers have 'lost control of the market,' which is currently in
hands of oil traders. Bodman, speaking in an interview with CNBC, said the producers of
oil 'are unable to appropriately respond to the demands that the marketplace is putting on
them.' Bodman, who is in Baghdad and was being interviewed via a television link, also
said oil demand will exceed supply for the next year or two. 'At least at the present time and for the foreseeable future, I would
guess for the next year or two, we're going to see demand exceeding supply,' Bodman said. 'And we're going to be dealing with a very
emotional situation in that environment.' Bodman said there is a crisis for American
families that haven't budgeted for higher gasoline prices, but he said the U.S. economy is
absorbing the shock. 'I believe that we see that the American economy is quite resilient,'
Bodman said. 'It is surprisingly quite able to handle high oil and gasoline prices. But,
you know, heaven knows...how long that will last.'"
Sec. Bodman: Oil Producers Unable To Respond To Demand
Dow Jones, 18 July 2006
Where This
Is All Taking Us
If We Don't Get Our Energy Act Together
"The U.S. and China, the world's top two oil consuming nations, must work
together to avoid a competition for foreign supplies that might lead to military conflict,
U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman said.... China's demand for oil is forecast to grow 2.9
percent a year between now and 2025, and U.S. demand will grow 1.5 percent a year. Efforts by each nation to use imports to meet growing
demand may escalate competition for oil to something 'as hot and dangerous' as the nuclear
arms race between the U.S. and Soviet Union, Lieberman, 63, said in a speech today in
Washington.... 'There is a problem because China, like the United States, is tying its energy deals
to military assistance,' said Michael
Klare, author of 'Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing
Dependency on Imported Petroleum.' 'In the short term, it's more a case of stirring up local conflicts, where the U.S. and China are
competing for the loyalty of oil producing countries, but that does have a tendency over time to escalate into something bigger,'
said Klare, a professor at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts." |
"For the world
as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset
our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand.
By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil
demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in
production from existing reserves. That
means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So
where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of
about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business.
While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the
world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though
companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow."
Dick Cheney, Chief Executive of Halliburton,
now Vice President of the United States
Speech at London
Institute of Petroleum, Autumn Lunch 1999
"Saudi Arabia, which produces about 9
million bpd of crude and is the world's top oil exporter, was China's largest supplier for
the last four years at least, customs data showed.... Saudi Arabia will regain its
position as the biggest crude oil supplier to China once Chinese refineries are upgraded,
after being overtaken by Angola earlier this year, a senior Saudi Aramco official said.
China has ramped up imports of Angolan heavy sweet crude, which suits its plants better,
but Saudi Arabia will reclaim its role as the main supplier in the long term, said Ibrahim
Mishari, Saudi Aramco's vice-president marketing and supply planning. 'They will import more because of proximity and lower costs,' Mishari told an oil seminar."
Saudi to reclaim top China oil supplier role
Reuters,
6 September 2006
"The world
faces the real threat of a new conflict over oil as China competes with existing world
powers for scarce resources to feed its growing economy, according to a report published
today. The State of the World 2006, released by the Worldwatch Institute, says
that last year China became the second- largest importer of oil, after the US, while consuming 26 per cent of the world's steel, 32 per cent
of rice production, 37 per cent of cotton and 47 per cent of cement. China is set to
become the world's largest carmaker in the coming decade. While environmentalists are concerned about the impact on the world's
climate and the drain on its resources, strategists fear that the competition for energy,
particularly oil, could destabilise the planet. According to the report, China was nearly self-sufficient in oil in the
mid-1990s. But over the past decade its consumption has doubled and it has now overtaken
Japan as the second-largest importer of oil, with 3.2 million barrels a day in 2004. It
predicts that if the economies of China and India continue to grow at their current rate,
the world will not be able to produce enough oil to meet demand by 2050, when consumption
will have grown from the current 85 million barrels a day to 200 million barrels. 'Few
geologists believe that output will reach even half those levels before beginning to
decline,' the report says. As a result China is already looking for new oil
suppliers from Siberia to Sudan, often dealing with notorious regimes, such as the junta
in Burma. Of even greater concern is the
possibility that open conflict could break out between nations competing for resources or
trying to protect their supply lines, such as key trade routes, currently patrolled by the
US Navy."
'Find a couple of spare planets or face global oil war'
London Times, 12
January 2006
"Nearly two years ago now, I wrote a
long article entitled 'The Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline: myth or reality?' published in the Middle
East Economic Survey 1 December 2003 and at the same time in Arabic in the Journal
of Palestinian Studies. A summary also appeared in Gulf News on 19 February
2004 under the title 'Will Israel get Iraqi oil?' .... The growth in world oil demand will
be more pronounced in Asia than any other region in the world. Asia's dependence on Gulf oil will increase sharply in the years
to come. Therefore, Iraq and other Gulf countries are likely to expand their Gulf
terminals rather than the Mediterranean terminals.....
"
Saadalla Al-Fathi, former head of the Energy Studies
Department at the OPEC Secretariat
Not with our oil
Al-Ahram Weekly, 29 September 2005
"This comfortable world, as we have known it, is coming to
a crucial turning point. And energy, specifically the cost and security of energy supply,
lies at the apex of this turning point....
So, while some of the problems, such as Kyoto, have had much attention, others, such as
the long-term security of energy supply upon which our prosperity has depended, have been
neglected. Now, suddenly, new risks are appearing on the horizon. There are new dangers that could alter our quality of
life over the next 20 years. They could put at risk the comfortable social order we have
created for ourselves, to which most of the rest of the world has been conditioned to
aspire. A key factor in the changing balances of world energy is Russia.... So perhaps we
should heed some distant storm warnings. Perhaps we should be concerned when Russia and
China seem to be coming to recognise the scale of opportunity that a strategic partnership
can offer them in terms of energy security and global influence? And when the US Department of Energy forecasts that, by 2020, the annual shortfall
in Opec oil production, against global demand, will exceed the biggest-ever production of
Saudi Arabia, the traditional swing producer. And when we expect Canadian gas exports
to the US to dwindle and shortly cease because of the need for energy for the processing
of tar sands.... What we believe to have
been the definitive triumph of the Western democratic way over the sterile misery of the
Soviet system may be turning out not to have been the victorious end of the Cold War after
all, but just one battle in an unending struggle for global power and influence. The key weapon in the battle lines now being drawn is energy.
Even if market forces prevail in setting costs of oil and gas, it seems clear that having
so heavily depleted its own relatively low-cost hydrocarbon reserves, the OECD will have
no influence over the supply or over the very much higher future costs of that
supply."
Energy question may spell end of the good life for
the West
London
Times, 27 December 2005
".... the implications of China's exploding thirst for crude oil are epic in scope... Based on our analysis of the intense economic, crude oil, and military confrontations developing among the China Rim regions largest economies,
we believe that the most aggressive crude oil price targets calling for $100 per barrel within the next three years will prove to be conservative.... it is our opinion that the 'likely direction of surprise' in crude oil prices will continue to be to the upside.... There is not just one new economic behmoth emerging in the China Rim region, there are two... The simultaneous economic rise of China and India will have a huge impact on worldwide crude oil markets.... The rapid and simultaneous rise of at least two behmoth economies, China and India, comes at time when the world's oil production appears poised to peak. A sustained upward move in crude oil prices is likely to create drilling economics that will favor the exploitation of reserves that were previously uneconomical to tap. However, the marginal increase in reserves that might result is unlikely, in our view, to substantially offset the crude oil impact of an eventual worldwide 'peak' in crude oil production...While China's economic rise is fostering a worldwide grab for crude oil reserves, it is also creating a 'war chest' with which China is financing the rapid modernization of the People's Liberation Army (PLA). The PLA, in turn, is the ultimate guarantor of China's energy security. One of the key purposes of this analysis is to provide our research users with a 'context' or 'unified theory' for interrelating economic, crude oil, and military developments on the China rim.... The Laguna Research Partners Energy Security Index measures total military expenditures per barrel of crude oil consumed. We calculate ESI for nations and regions.... These figures lend credence to our view that the US is currently critical to the energy security of both India and Russia - in defence of sea lanes and oil fields, respectively - vis-a-vis China... Our ... calculations show that China and the United States make estimated non-core military expenditures of US $47.01 AND US $42.38 per barrel of crude oil imported, respectively...[Japan, South Korea, India and Taiwan] have been beneficiaries of the US energy security umbrella. China's economic, crude oil, and military emergence, though, is prompting all of these leading China Rim crude oil importers to implement increasingly aggressive defence postures... From a short-term standpoint, worldwide crude oil demand is continuing to expand, but the world's crude oil production infrastructure is running at 'near full' capacity. From a long-term perspective, major new China Rim region buyers of crude oil - China and India - are emerging during a period when worldwide crude oil is approaching a peak. Meaningful new crude oil demand from Brazil will likely add to demand-side pressures during this critical 'peak oil' transition..."Iraq
At Risk Of Slipping Away?
Is The New Shia Dominated Government In Baghdad Loyal To Washington
Or To Tehran And Its Allies In Beijing?
"Top oil multinationals expect the revival of a Saddam-era oilfield deal between Iraq and China to pave the way for contracts giving them access to Iraq's vast untapped
reserves. Wednesday's news that Iraq's oil ministry would discuss handing China the first
foreign contract to develop oil resources was no surprise to Western oil executives, who
say Chinese companies are eager to drill in the field they signed up for in the mid-1990s.
Western oil majors were not competing for the small al-Ahdab field in central-southern
Iraq. But some have taken heart that Baghdad is opening up and looks ready to honour its
deal with China rather than hand the field to a company from the United States, which has
142,000 troops in the country."
Iraq's revival of China deal heartens oil majors
Reuters,
28 September 2006
"Friction
between occupation authorities [in Iraq] and Shi'ite fundamentalists, leading to
occasional violent confrontations, reflects possibly irreconcilable differences. The most
visible, but likely most tractable, of these has been the Islamist commitment to sharia
law, which flatly contradicts the occupation's commitment to a secular state. Only slightly less visible has been the affinity of the
Shi'ite parties for Iran, expressed in their unwavering desire to establish political,
cultural and economic relations with their Shi'ite neighbor. This has led to public disputes between the Shi'ite parties and
the US leadership, which sees Iran as its
principal enemy in the Middle East."
A government with no military, no territory
Asia Times, 11 March 2006
"Move
over, Big Oil. There's a new oilman on the world stage - China. China's takeover bid for
Unocal Corp. makes clear to sticker-shocked Americans that the 1.3 billion Chinese people
are demanding an ever-larger supply of the world's energy to fuel their booming economy
and are willing to get it wherever necessary. From Central Asia to Latin America, Africa,
the Middle East and even Canada, Chinese firms are pumping oil and natural gas in many
areas that the United States was counting on to meet its own record-high demand.... While the Bush administration tries to build
international pressure against Iran over its nuclear aspirations, China has signed a $70
billion long- term oil and gas supply deal with the Tehran... Chinese firms signed numerous contracts to co-produce oil and
natural gas. Iran is China's largest single
source of foreign oil, providing 13 percent of China's total annual imports..."
China on global hunt to quench its thirst for oil
San
Francisco Chronicle, 26 June 2005
America's Battle Against China |
What We Need To Do Now
"It would be an expression of national
will to do something about the fact that we have been regarding the Middle East as very
heavily our gasoline station for now half a century or more, and it really is time to
stop."
James Woolsey, Former Director of The CIA
Profile: Impact of War in Iraq on World Oil Prices
NPR
News, 15 October 2002
| "What is needed most urgently is not a counter-terrorism policy; but an
alternative energy policy, so that Persian Gulf and other oil producing Islamic countries
can be left alone to manage their own affairs in the way that they themselves see fit.
Without the latter we will always be failing in our pursuit of that most elusive goal - a
successful formula for the former. We will continue to be confronted by failure on all
fronts - diplomatically, militarily, economically and environmentally. We have now reached
a point, both politically and geologically, where the price of failure is likely to be on
an altogether greater scale than anything we have ever experienced before. Chevron's surprise 'energy debate' initiative perhaps represents just a flicker of hope that such a
realisation may be finally dawning. As their plea puts it: '....one thing is clear: the era of easy oil is over.... Many of the world's oil and gas fields are maturing. And new energy
discoveries are mainly occurring in places where resources are difficult to
extract-physically, technically, economically, and politically. When growing demand meets
tighter supplies, the result is more competition for the same resources. We can wait until
a crisis forces us to do something. Or we can commit to working together, and start by
asking the tough questions...We call upon scientists and educators, politicians and
policymakers, environmentalists, leaders of industry and each one of you to be part of
reshaping the next era of energy.'" Energy Update, August 2005 |
"Sir Richard Branson, the billionaire entrepreneur, has warned that any conflict with Iran could push oil prices over $100 a barrel and trigger 'the biggest recession we have ever seen'. Iran is the worlds fourth-largest oil producer. International concerns over the countrys nuclear developments have risen in the past month, but Sir Richard warned that any military intervention in the region would prove 'disastrous' for the world economy.
Speaking to Times Online from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Sir Richard called for urgent investment in alternative energy sources to replace the rapidly dwindling stocks of fossil fuels such as crude oil.... Sir Richard was also critical of the efforts of the major oil companies, which over the past year have booked record profits on the back of record-high oil prices. He said they had so far 'only dabbled' in exploring green energy sources."But Will We?
We Haven't In The Case Of Global Warming
"Yesterdays letters page had an
epistle on the same subject from a number of important figures, including Friends of the
Earth and the environment spokesthings of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties.
This letter called for a climate change Bill which would establish a 'legally binding
target' for the reduction of CO2. Step through the wobbly lines with me back to September
2000 and the fuel crisis. Men with names such as Haddock are blockading the fuel depots,
the newspapers and broadcasters are lauding a new Peasants Revolt, and the
Government looks around it to see how widespread is support for the fuel duty escalator,
originally conceived as a measure to assist in emission control. It looks to its right and
sees: 'Tory representatives at their partys annual conference in Bournemouth have
overwhelmingly backed a motion calling for the immediate lowering of fuel duty. Said
Richard Ottaway, the then Tory Treasury spokesman, It wasnt until the Labour
luvvies in Islington couldnt get to the delicatessen to buy their sun-dried tomatoes
that the Prime Minister knew he had a crisis on his hands. The Government looks to
its ecological left and hears: 'Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy has called on the
Government to cap fuel taxes for five years. In his conference speech, Liberal Democrat
Treasury spokesman Matthew Taylor said, People power is here to stay. I believe we
must be part of that revolution. When tax comes to fuel it appears that no one much
cares for the environmental arguments, so Labour abandons the fuel tax escalator, though
you will now find on the Lib Dem website a criticism of it for doing so. This is not a
party political thing. Labour in opposition would have behaved the same. But it created in me a cynicism about whether the British people
(and British media) would allow its governments to take difficult measures that impact
upon their lives...."
We're all dead against global warming. But when it comes to the crunch . . .
London Times, 5 September 2006
The Alternative Is Even More Death And Destruction
"I had a debate recently with a
thinking woman whose views tend to be somewhat to the left of my own. While she is a
business maven, she is also a mother, and when I mentioned that her son would be a great
candidate for a service academy -- to serve as an officer in the greatest armed force in
history -- she turned white as a ghost and said, 'My son or daughter will never carry a
gun in some stupid war! No way! I'll never let them be in the military!'. Hysterics aside,
the emotional response could be decoded to read that she could not envision a situation in
which her offspring should ever be sacrificed at the alter of freedom. 'There's a war
going on in Iraq right now, you warmonger,' she hissed. 'Would you ask your son to be over
there, getting shot at? Or no reason other than to guard the big oil interests' energy
assets? You want your son to die for nothing?' As a matter of fact, I said, he's trying to
get into the Air Force Academy or West Point. He wants to fly a jet, drive a tank, or
swoop a helicopter, but he also loves the idea of hoisting an M-16 as a grunt and becoming
history's ultimate weapon the armed infantryman.... After hearing all the
objections a mother can raise to having a son in the uniform of the U.S. Armed Services,
she insisted that we're
fighting for oil because of a conspiracy....
As far as Iraq and Iran go, the idea of developing
new technologies that will eliminate the need to
safeguard America's energy interests with armed force is a few decades away, even with a
crash program. And crash programs are generally against the laws of economics.... I
continue to press the point that politics is an extension of economics. Economics is as
strong a force as physics. So long as oil is still
(relatively) cheap, we will continue to do what we must to keep our hands on it. But that still leaves one last nagging doubt in my mind. About my
son, strapping on Nomex gloves and firing up the jet of his Cobra helicopter? I'd still
feel better about him doing that if he were protecting the existence of America from the
threat of invasion rather than to protect oil assets or economic scenarios. In the Cold
War, it was worth risking my own life to go toe-to-toe with the Russkies in order to
defeat the sweeping octopus of World Communism and make the world safe for democracy. But to have my son risk his life to keep gasoline from reaching $5
a gallon? Maybe Left Wing Mom had a point
after all. But please, don't tell her I said so."
Should Our Children 'Die for Oil'?
Military.com, 6
September 2006
Don't Be Fooled By The War Marketing Rhetoric Of 'Freedom
And Democracy'
Ultimately It Comes Down To This
"We're there because the fact of the matter is that part
of the world controls the world supply of oil, and whoever controls the supply of oil, especially if it were a man like Saddam
Hussein, with a large army and sophisticated weapons, would have a stranglehold on the
American economy and on indeed on the world economy."
Dick Cheney, US Secretary of Defense 1990
New York Times, 24 February 2006
"In Ron
Suskinds recent book 'The Price of Loyalty,' former [US] Treasury Secretary Paul
ONeill charges that [Vice President Dick] Cheney
agitated for U.S. intervention [in Iraq] well before the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001. Additional evidence that Cheney played an early planning role is contained in a
previously undisclosed National Security Council document, dated February 3, 2001. The
top-secret document, written by a high-level N.S.C. official, concerned Cheneys
newly formed Energy Task Force. It directed the N.S.C. staff to coöperate fully with the
Energy Task Force as it considered the 'melding' of two seemingly unrelated areas of
policy: 'the review of operational policies towards rogue states,' such as Iraq, and
'actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil
and gas fields.'
Contract Sport
New Yorker, 9 February 2004
"The United States may want to keep a long-term military presence
in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists
in the region and protect oil supplies, the army general overseeing US operations in Iraq has said. While the
Bush administration has downplayed prospects for permanent US bases in Iraq, General John
Abizaid told a House of Representatives subcommittee on Tuesday he could not rule that
out.... Abizaid cited the need to fight al-Qaida and other extremists groups and 'the need
to be able to deter ambitions of an expansionistic Iran' as potential reasons to keep some level of troops in the region in the long term.... 'Clearly our long-term vision
for a military presence in the region requires a
robust counter-terrorist capability,' Abizaid said.... Abizaid also said the United States
and its allies have a vital interest in the oil-rich
region. 'Ultimately
it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own
nation and everybody else in the world depend,' he said.... Representative David Price, a North Carolina Democrat, questioned
'what kind of signal that sends to the American people and to the Iraqis and the region
... if somehow there is ambiguity on our ultimate designs in terms of a military presence
in Iraq'".
US 'may want to keep Iraq bases'
Reuters, 15 March
2006
"... we've
been in the Middle East more than 50 years. We've been in the Middle East ever since the
-- however you would like to call the dependency upon oil has developed. And our forces
have been there either as naval, air or land forces in one way or another for an awful
long time. And once the British pulled out the Arabian gulf, it became more and more
necessary for us to provide more and more force in the region..... And ultimately, it comes down to the free flow of
goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else's depends
upon.... We need to maintain a presence that protects the small nations and ensures the
continued stability of the region and the flow of those resources that are essential to
our well-being." |
"Former UN chief weapons inspector
Hans Blix has said that oil was one of the reasons for the US-led invasion of Iraq, a
Swedish news agency reports. 'I did not think so at first. But the US is incredibly
dependent on oil,' news agency TT quoted Blix as saying at a security seminar in
Stockholm. 'They wanted to secure oil in
case competition on the world market becomes too hard.' Blix, who helped oversee the dismantling of Iraq's weapons
programs before the war, said another reason for the invasion was a need to
move US troops from Saudi Arabia, TT
reported. Competition over oil is creating
tension between the United States and China,
Blix said........."
Blix says war motivated by oil
Australian Associated Press, 7
April 2005
"The Bush Administration began
making plans for an invasion of Iraq, including the use of American troops, within days of President Bush's inauguration in January of 2001 -- not eight months later after the 9/11 attacks, as has been
previously reported. That's what former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says in his first
interview about his time as a White House insider.... In the book, O'Neill is quoted as
saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting questioned why
Iraq should be invaded. 'It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it.
The president saying 'Go find me a way to do
this,' says O'Neill in the book.... "
Saddam Ouster Planned Early '01?
CBS News,
10 January 2004
"The
Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight
has revealed.... Insiders told Newsnight that planning
began 'within weeks' of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US. An Iraqi-born oil
industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and
the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat. Mr
Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein
on behalf of the Bush administration.... The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a
secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of
all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using
Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec
quotas. The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by
Fadhil Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel. Mr Ebel, a
former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington, told Newsnight he flew to the London meeting at the
request of the State Department."
Secret US plans for Iraq's oil
BBC Online, 17 March
2005
"The super-giant fields of southeastern Iraq are the largest concentration of super-giants to be found anywhere in the world.... large parts of Iraq are still virgin - its large hydrocarbon reserves are still waiting to be developed to their full potential, while most other Middle East countries are fully exploiting their reserves. .... International oil com