XPost: uk.politics.misc, alt.politics.british, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.america, alt.conspira   
   y.america-at-war   
   XPost: us.politics   
   From: oO@oO.com   
      
   Published on Monday, March 13, 2006 by Energy Bulletin   
      
   US Army: Peak Oil and the Army's future   
   By Adam Fenderson and Bart Anderson   
      
   "The days of inexpensive, convenient, abundant energy sources are quickly   
   drawing to a close," according to a recently released US Army strategic   
   report. The report posits that a peak in global oil production looks likely   
   to be imminent, with wide reaching implications for the US Army and society   
   in general.   
      
   The report was sent to Energy Bulletin by a reader, and does not appear to   
   be available elsewhere on the internet. However it is marked as unclassified   
   and approved for public release.   
      
   [ UPDATE: Since we wrote those words several hours ago we've been informed   
   that a reference to the document now appears on a Google search, including a   
   link to the full PDF on a .mil server. "Somebody must be watching you guys!"   
   writes reader SG. See notes below. -AF]   
      
   The report, Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Army Installations   
   (PDF &ndash 1.2mb), was conducted by the U.S. Army Engineer Research and   
   Development Center (ERDC), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and is dated   
   September 2005.   
      
   Author Eileen Westervelt, PE, CEM, is a mechanical engineer at the Engineer   
   Research and Development Center (US Army Corps of Engineers) in Champaign,   
   Ill. Author Donald Fournier is a senior research specialist at the   
   University of Illinois' Building Research Council and has worked with the   
   Corps in the past.   
      
   Westervelt and Fournier give special credence to the work of independent   
   energy experts, such as the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas   
   (ASPO) and the Oil Depletion Analysis Center (ODAC). They seem to place very   
   little credibility on the more optimistic oil production forecasts of the   
   international energy agencies. They reproduce ASPO graphs and quote ASPO   
   member Jean Laherrere on why the US Geological Survey (USGS) future oil   
   availability estimates are clearly overly optimistic:   
     The USGS estimate implies a five-fold increase in discovery rate and   
   reserve addition, for which no evidence is presented. Such an improvement in   
   performance is in fact utterly implausible, given the great technological   
   achievements of the industry over the past twenty years, the worldwide   
   search, and the deliberate effort to find the largest remaining prospects.   
   The authors warn that in order to sustain its mission, "the Army must   
   insulate itself from the economic and logistical energy-related problems   
   coming in the near to mid future. This requires a transition to modern,   
   secure, and efficient energy systems, and to building technologies that are   
   safe and environmental friendly." The best energy options they conclude are   
   "energy efficiency and renewable sources." However, "currently, there is no   
   viable substitute for petroleum."   
      
   They do not expect that any transition will be easy: "energy consumption is   
   indispensable to our standard of living and a necessity for the Army to   
   carry out its mission. However, current trends are not sustainable. The   
   impact of excessive, unsustainable energy consumption may undermine the very   
   culture and activities it supports. There is no perfect energy source; all   
   are used at a cost."   
      
   The report includes what looks like a solid overview of the pros and cons of   
   all major renewable and non-renewable energy options. They consider problems   
   associated with hydrogen, shale oil, biofuels and tar sands. On nuclear   
   energy they note that "our current throw-away nuclear cycle uses up the   
   world reserve of low-cost uranium in about 20 years." They hold more hope   
   for certain solar technologies and wind turbines, however, "renewables tend   
   to be a more local or regional commodity and except for a few instances, not   
   necessarily a global resource that is traded between nations."   
      
   Overall this is surprisingly green sounding advice, and one might think out   
   of left field for one of the most environmentally destructive and energy   
   consuming institutions on the planet. And yet the report does not seem to be   
   at odds with the Army's new Energy Strategy which sets out five major   
   initiatives:   
     1.. Eliminate energy waste in existing facilities   
     2.. Increase energy efficiency in new construction and renovations   
     3.. Reduce dependence on fossil fuels   
     4.. Conserve water resources   
     5.. Improve energy security   
   (See: hqda-energypolicy.pnl.gov/programs/plan.asp)   
      
   Westervelt and Fournier assert that changes must be made with urgency.   
   However they express concerns that "we have a large and robust energy system   
   with tremendous inertia, both from a policy perspective and a great   
   resistance to change." In light of this, "the Army needs to present its   
   perspective to higher authorities and be prepared to proceed regardless of   
   the national measures that are taken."   
      
   Westervelt and Fournier suggest "it is time to think strategically about   
   energy and how the Army   
   should respond to the global and national energy picture. A path of   
   enlightened self-interest is encouraged." As we approach Peak Oil, what is   
   ecologically sound and what is perceived to be to in an institution's   
   practical benefit might tend to converge, at least in some respects - even   
   those of an institution such as the US Army.   
      
      
   Links:   
     a.. An 8 page summary of the report (PDF - 75kb)   
     b.. Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Army Installations -   
   full report (PDF - 1.2mb)   
     c.. A related powerpoint presentation by Donald Fournier( PDF &ndash 1mb)   
     d.. Sustainable energy demands decisions that look beyond cost (one-page   
   commentary by Westervelt and Fournier in Public Works Digest, p. 16; PDF -   
   723kb)   
     e.. A Candidate Army Energy and Water Management Strategy by Westervelt   
   and Fournier (118 pages, PDF &ndash 2mb)   
      
      
      
   Some extended quotations from the document:   
      
      
     Energy Implications for Army Installations   
      
     The days of inexpensive, convenient, abundant energy sources are quickly   
   drawing to a close. Domestic natural gas production peaked in 1973. The   
   proved domestic reserve lifetime for natural gas at current consumption   
   rates is about 8.4 yrs. The proved world reserve lifetime for natural gas is   
   about 40 years, but will follow a traditional rise to a peak and then a   
   rapid decline. Domestic oil production peaked in 1970 and continues to   
   decline. Proved domestic reserve lifetime for oil is about 3.4 yrs. World   
   oil production is at or near its peak and current world demand exceeds the   
   supply. Saudi Arabia is considered the bellwether nation for oil production   
   and has not increased production since April 2003. After peak production,   
   supply no longer meets demand, prices and competition increase. World proved   
   reserve lifetime for oil is about 41 years, most of this at a declining   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)