[Starvid]

http://peakoil.net/Publications/JimSchl ... 111605.doc

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')TATEMENT OF JAMES SCHLESINGER
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
16 NOVEMBER 2005

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee:
I thank the Committee for this opportunity to discuss the quest for energy security, the implications of our heavy dependence on imported oil, the rise in oil prices, and their manifold political an economic repercussions for our nation. In so many ways, the use of oil as our primary energy source turns out to be a two-edged sword. Given that dependence, the ramifications are too numerous to discuss in detail. Given the necessary limitations on time, I must be selective. Therefore, I shall touch only upon several salient points.
1. Mr. Chairman, the problem of energy security is of relatively recent origin. When mankind depended upon windmills, oxen, horses, etc., energy security was not a strategic problem. Instead, as a strategic problem it is a development of modern times—and reflects most crucially the turn to fossil fuels as increasingly the source of energy. The Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, strongly reinforced by the rapid growth of oil-dependent transportation in the 20th, unavoidably posed the question of security of supply. Imperial Germany took over Lorraine with its coal fields after the Franco-Prussian War—to insure its energy security. When Britain, pushed by Churchill, converted its Navy to oil early in the 20th century, it sought a secure supply of oil under its own control in the Persian Gulf—which incidentally increased its concern for the security of the Suez Canal. For the United States, where the production of oil had started and for long was primarily located, the question of security of supply did not arise until the 1960’s and 1970’s. Since then, we have regularly talked about—and sought by various measures—to achieve greater energy security. Such measures, limited as they were, have generally proved unsatisfactory. The nation’s dependence on imported hydrocarbons has continued to surge.
Mr. Chairman, until such time as new technologies, barely on the horizon, can wean us from our dependence on oil and gas, we shall continue to be plagued by energy insecurity. We shall not end dependence on imported oil nor, what is the hope of some, end dependence on the volatile Middle East—with all the political and economic consequences that flow from that reality. That is not to say that various measures and inventions will not, from time to time, shave our growing dependence, but we will not end it. Instead of energy security, we shall have to acknowledge and to live with various degrees of insecurity.
To be sure, we have certain short-term problems to which I shall presently turn. More importantly, we face a fundamental, longer-term problem. In the decades ahead, we do not know precisely when, we shall reach a point, a plateau or peak, beyond which we shall be unable further to increase production of conventional oil worldwide. We need to understand that problem now and to begin to prepare for that transition.
The underlying problem is that for more than three decades, our production has outrun new discoveries. Most of our giant fields were found forty years ago and more. Even today, the bulk of our production comes from these old—and aging—giant fields. More recent discoveries tend to be small with high decline rates—and are soon exhausted. Since the issue is crucial—and is not widely understood—I have prepared a chart which lays bare the problem.


[The graph is the famous "growing gap" between new reserve findings and production]

Mr. Chairman, the upshot is, quite simply, that, as the years roll by, the entire world will face a prospectively growing problem of energy supply. Moreover, we shall inevitably see a growing dependency on the volatile Middle East. We shall have to learn to live with degrees of insecurity—rather than the elusive security we have long sought. To be sure, some insecurity will be mitigated by the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and other emergency measures. That will provide some protection against (short-term) supply disruptions, but it will not provide protection against the fundamental long-term problem.
2. In addition to the long-term problem of the prospective limit on conventional oil production, we have a number of short-term or cyclical problems that have contributed to the current stringency and current high prices. Spare production capacity has essentially disappeared. This reflects the volatility of oil prices, which has led to a low rate of investment in new capacity, as well as an unexpected surge of demand, particularly from China and the United States. For many years, we have had excess capacity in refining. That, too, has largely disappeared, and we lack capacity to refine the heavy, sour crudes that remain available. Here in the United States, the problem has been amplified by the battering of Gulf infrastructure by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We also have an added, self-inflicted problem of some 17 boutique blends of gasoline, mandated by state authorities.
The insurgency in Iraq has prevented the increase in production, even to the pre-war level, that many expected. Long-term sanctions against Iraq, Iran, and Libya, both U.S. and international, have reduced their contribution to world supply. This has taken place against inelastic domestic production of natural gas. There are, in addition, problems of electric power generation and transmission. The point about all of these is these are not inherent problems. In principal, they would all yield to additional investment. Yet, we must bear in mind that investment activity depends upon price signals, and that there is a long period of gestation before additional investment activity brings supply to market. Some of these problems may, however, be ameliorated by changes in law or in regulation.
By about 2010, we should see a significant increase in oil production as a result of investment activity now under way. There is a danger that any easing of the price of crude oil will, once again, dispel the recognition that there is a finite limit to conventional oil. In no way do the prospective investment decisions solve the long-term, fundamental problem of oil supply.
3. Let me turn now to the political and economic ramifications. Again, let me underscore that energy actions tend to be a two-edged sword. To some extent, the recent higher prices for oil reflect some of our own prior policies and actions. For example, the sanctions imposed upon various rogue nations, by reducing world supply, have resulted in higher prices. Operation Iraqi Freedom, followed by the insurgency, has caused unrest in the Middle East. The consequence has been somewhat lower production and a significant risk premium that, again, has raised the price of oil.
The effect of higher oil prices has been significantly higher incomes for producers. A much higher level of income has meant that a range of nations, including Russia, Iran, Venezuela, as well as Gulf Arab nations have had their economic problems substantially eased. As a result, they have become less amenable to American policy initiatives. Perhaps more importantly, the flow of funds into the Middle East inevitably has added to the monies that can be transferred to terrorists. As long as the motivation is there and controls remain inadequate, that means that the terrorists will continue to be adequately or amply funded. To the extent that we begin to run into supply limitations and to the extent that we all grow more dependent on the Middle East, this problem of spillover funding benefits for terrorists is not going to go away.
4. There are, of course, additional problems of an economic nature. We all understand that higher oil prices can depress spending on other goods and services—and thereby cause slower growth rates and possibly a worldwide recession. The reverse side of rising receipts for producers is, of course, rising out-payments by consumer nations. This can readily augment structural imbalances. This year, the American balance-of-payments deficit looks to be almost three-quarters of a trillion dollars. That is not small change. Of the well over $700 billion of that deficit, some $300 billion comes from oil and gas. It is recognized that the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit represents the locomotive that drives much of the world’s economies. In performing this service—for which we get little thanks—the United States is steadily adding to its financial obligations to others. How long this process can continue is uncertain, but high oil prices add to the dilemma.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I must point to another problem. The United States is today the preponderant military power in the world. Still, our military establishment is heavily dependent upon oil. At a minimum, the rising oil price poses a budgetary problem for the Department of Defense at a time that our national budget is increasingly strained. Moreover, in the longer run, as we face the prospect of a plateau in which we are no longer able worldwide to increase the production of oil against presumably still rising demand, the question is whether the Department of Defense will still be able to obtain the supply of oil products necessary for maintaining our military preponderance. In that prospective world, the Department of Defense will face all sorts of pressures at home and abroad to curtail its use of petroleum products, thereby endangering its overall military effectiveness.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I trust that I have fulfilled the request in your letter of invitation to analyze “the complexity of U.S. reliance on imported energy sources, particularly oil, and the difficulties the U.S. faces in mediating detrimental effects of this dependency.” Even in the short run, actions that we take may substantially increase the resources and reduce the economic and political pressures on states that are hostile to us. In the longer run, unless we take serious steps to prepare for the day that we can no longer increase production of conventional oil, we are faced with the possibility of a major economic shock—and the political unrest that would ensue. The United States has just over four percent of the world’s population and uses roughly twenty-five percent of the world’s oil production. In a sense, this statistic in itself is misleading, because the United States produces roughly twenty to twenty-five percent of the gross world product. Nonetheless, that statistic does underscore our potential vulnerability in an era that we may no longer be able to produce additional conventional crude oil worldwide.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I shall be happy to answer any questions that you or the Members of the Committee may have.u8

[PWALPOCO]

Out of interest , do we know what questions Mr Schlesinger fielded from the Senate ?

Im just curious if any of the PO sunk in and sparked any relevant lines of questioning. Perhaps alarm bells may start to ring if they recall a certain Congressman making similar warnings elsewhere.

Im a little dissapointed that Schlesinger didnt have the courage to be more, how should I say it , assertive(?) about when the peak date was to come.

"In the decades ahead" might give the wrong impression. Certainly I wouldnt have expected him to say "It happened last week" , or even "Well its going to be Thanksgiving", those might be a little too risky to put his reputation on , but "the decades ahead" ... ?!!

He may as well had said "dont worry , it wont happen on your watch , or the next watch for that matter .... hell , forget my testimony lets knock off early and head to the bar" I would have settled for "Before the next decade is out".

Apart from that Im more positive that the word is getting more of an audience.

Paul

[Starvid]

Aha!

http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2005/hrg051116a.html


This is Schlesingers testimony, again: http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/200 ... 051116.pdf

The former CIA boss Woolsey was also there. He talks about solutions, very good and pretty realistic: http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/200 ... 051116.pdf

And this is the hearing itself, televised!: http://foreign.senate.gov/archives/2005 ... 111605.ram


edit: Excerpt from Woolsey:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he dangers from oil dependence in today’s world require us both to look to ways to reduce
demand for oil and to increase supply of transportation fuel by methods beyond the increase of
oil production.
The realistic opportunities for reducing demand soon suggest that government policies should
encourage hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles, particularly the battery work needed to bring plugin
versions thereof to the market, and modern diesel technology. The realistic opportunities for
increasing supply of transportation fuel soon suggest that government policies should encourage
the commercialization of alternative fuels that can be used in the existing infrastructure:
cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel/renewable diesel. Both of these fuels could be introduced more
quickly and efficiently if they achieve cost advantages from the utilization of waste products as
feedstocks.
The effects of these policies are multiplicative. All should be pursued since it is impossible to
predict which will be fully successful or at what pace, even though all are today either beginning
commercial production or are nearly to that point. The battery development for plug-in hybrids
is of substantial importance and should for the time being replace the current r&d emphasis on
automotive hydrogen fuel cells.

[shakespear1]

I wonder why Mr Schlesinger is the man to deliver this message. Where does he fit in the Power Pyramid to do this?

[Starvid]

I am watching the TV hearing now, and it feels surreal.

One year ago when I became aware of Peak Oil it was considered a fringe extremist crazy view, almost a conspiracy theory. But I had the feeling it must be true, it all seemed so obvious. And now, the US Senate have started talking about it.

It gives you this warm feeling inside: I was right, and I was right long before many professional analysts understood what it was all about. Most of them still haven't grasped this issue.

And the solutions I advocate are the very same solutions Woolsey and the others are talking about.

[Daryl]

For those of you who don't know, Woolsey is a former director of CIA. A very plugged-in neo-con. Very big public supporter of the Iraq War. Was a constant talking head on US TV during the run up to war promoting it.

[Starvid]

"Let me be very blunt. We should FORGET about 95 % of our effort on hydrogen fuel cells for transportation.

[...]

Hydrogen fuel cells for transportation in the near term are, in my judgement, a snare and a delusion, and we should stop spending the kind of money on them that we are spending now."

Well, that answers that old question "Why should we push fuel cells when they are obviously stupid?"

Well, we just shouldn't.

[Starvid]

Schlesinger: "I hesitate to mention to you gentlemen that politicians don't usually like to be asociated with bad news. And that, [points to "Growing gap"-graph] is bad news. And it is very hard to persuade people to emulate Jimmy Carter and go out there and say "there is a problem coming""

[Peak_Modernity]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd this is the hearing itself, televised!: http://foreign.senate.gov/archives/2005 ... 111605.ram

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Peak_Modernity', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd this is the hearing itself, televised!: http://foreign.senate.gov/archives/2005 ... 111605.ram

[Starvid]

Haha!

I posted these papers on Energybulletin.net and they are already up on that page. One single individual can obviously do a difference!

[Peak_Modernity]

Thanks

[nuhax]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'F')or those of you who don't know, Woolsey is a former director of CIA. A very plugged-in neo-con. Very big public supporter of the Iraq War. Was a constant talking head on US TV during the run up to war promoting it.

[joewp]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')James Schlesinger, Secretary of Energy in President Carter's Cabinet recently noted that in the energy crisis "we have a classic case of exponential growth against a finite source."

[MacG]

Stunning! Thanks! They actually use the expression "Rome's burning!"

[Mesuge]

Thanks for this video. This is the best PO/energy political debate on the american TV so far.. The problem is that it has been probably seen by 0.01% of population..

What ran in second plan and is quite fascinating is that girl sitting behind Schlessinger. Looked like an low rank reporter or senate staffer. She came late, was taking notes not particularly interested in the subject, then came the 1960s world discovery peak chart and she seemed to be suprised by it, as time went on started struggling with the words about looming crisis. And in the end during the question time period she seemed to be quite hooked on the topic..

Woolsey is an ethanolistic cornocupian and transfer of the entire US car fleet in 5-10 yrs. to hybrids with carbon lightweight body? That's nonsense.. Although he deserves credit for debunking the hydrogen car scam so eloquently.

Chuck Hagel and Ben Nelson were spot on target that people need a huge crisis to stop sleepwalking through PO..

'..Rome is burning..' that sealed it huh


Btw. Moderator could you pls. put this video in the peak video archive?

[dub_scratch]

Its great that leaders and other officials are discussing the PO situation. But I think they often are cought-up with the wrong mindset. Sen Luger expressed the need to move away from oil but without diminishing American use of cars. This is a mental block that will keep us from achieving significant oil reductions as long as so many hold on. Luger and others do not realize that our ability do greatly diminish the car is our trump card. Why do we need to have all these traffic jams anyway? We can maintain as high of a standard of living on half of the vehicle miles traveled. And we can do it in a very short time, unlike all the alternative car/fuel schemes that are risky and unproven.

Low VMT lifestyles are a proven means of greatly diminishing our oil use. Why dismiss it?

[EnviroEngr]

Media Admin:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')tw. Moderator could you pls. put this video in the peak video archive?

[Starvid]

Via the Energy bulletin.

James Schlesinger is a former US secretary of defense, the first US secretary of energy and a former director of the CIA. The following article was posted in the respected conservative paper The National Interest.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... _n16003773

Some excerpts:



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')...]

What is the cause of the run-up in energy prices? Is the cause short term (cyclical) or long term? Though the debate continues, the answer is both.

Clearly there have been substantial cyclical elements and "contradictions" at work. For several decades, there has been spare capacity in both oil production and refining. Volatile prices for oil and low margins in refining have discouraged investment. The International Energy Agency, which expresses confidence in the adequacy of oil reserves, urges substantially increased investment in new production capacity and has recently warned that, in the absence of such investment, oil prices will increase sharply. (1) Such an increase in investment clearly would be desirable, but it is more easily said than done.

In the preceding period of low activity, both the personnel and the physical capacity in the oil service industry have diminished--and it will take time to recruit and train personnel, to restore capacity and to produce equipment. It is interesting to note that the capacity of OPEC itself has shrunk in this last quarter-century from 38 million barrels per day (BPD) to 31 million BPD. The bulk of the shrinkage occurred in Iran, Iraq and Libya, which have been the targets of both U.S. and international sanctions. Though knowledgeable people were aware of the shrinkage of spare capacity, it was still thought to be adequate--until the recent surge of demand, especially from China and the United States, brought us to the point that it was insufficient to satisfy the growing demand at prevailing prices.

Three additional points should be kept in mind. First, crude oil production capacity has not been wholly exhausted. The minister of petroleum of Saudi Arabia, Ali Naimi, points to the unutilized 1.5 million BPD in his country and states that he stands ready to serve additional buyers. The minister is making something of a rhetorical point: For the moment, that additional crude oil production capacity is unusable. There is a mismatch between the types of crude available and what refiners are able to process. For many decades there has been a marked excess of refining capacity--and very low margins in refining. There has been only a modest incentive to invest in additional capacity. With sufficient light crude apparently available, there has been little incentive to invest in capacity to process the heavy, sour crudes of the sort still available in Saudi Arabia.

[...]

... it is the international oil companies (IOCs) that have lots of cash. Their inclination has been to invest in new production capacity, counting only on prices being in the range of $20 to $30 per barrel--and not necessarily expecting the current high prices to be sustained. But while the IOCs have the cash, it is basically the national oil companies (NOCs) that have the reserves. The IOCs seek equity oil, and for the most part, equity investment in reserves controlled by NOCs has not been permitted. So, there exists another mismatch between those who have the resources to invest and the availability of suitable places to invest.

[...]

In the 1950s and 1960s, oil production and consumption more than doubled in each decade. Annual growth rates in consumption of 8, 9 or 10 percent were typical.

By contrast, no one, not even the most optimistic observers, expects a doubling of production in the decades ahead. The present expectation is markedly different. In increasing numbers, now approaching a consensus, knowledgeable analysts believe that the world will, over the next several decades, reach a peak--or plateau--in conventional oil production. (2) Timing varies among these observers, but generally there is agreement on the outcome. (3)

The implication is clear. Even present trends are unsustainable. Sometime in the decades ahead, the world will no longer be able to accommodate rising energy demand with increased production of conventional oil.

[dub_scratch]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', '
')
Not energy crisis but a liquid fuel crisis!