[MonteQuest]

The report that Rep. Roscoe Bartlett refers to:

Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Army Installations

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he doubling of oil prices from 2003-2005 is not an anomaly, but a picture of the future. Oil production is approaching its peak; low growth in availability can be expected for the next 5 to 10 years. As worldwide petroleum production peaks, geopolitics and market economics will cause even more significant price increases and security risks. One can only speculate at the outcome from this scenario as world petroleum production declines.

[Battle_Scarred_Galactico]

I'm glad to see someone is living in the real world.

[pup55]

I believe this is the earlier thread:

http://peakoil.com/fortopic18248-0-asc-45.html

Anyway, the question of the day is: Is this one of those activities for which a negative EROEI will be ignored?

Example: you need a lot of diesel to run the bountiful number of AFV's (tanks) now in the US Army. Do you convert your remaining coal supply to diesel somehow to keep these things running, or use the supply more efficiently for other more useful activities.

For a clue, we can go back to the $5000 toilet seat: Typically our elected officials have regarded the military as a "money is no object" activity. I imagine "eroei is no object" would be the approach for awhile.

[whereagles]

This report is public? The stuff inside should be for the strategic command only

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', 'I') believe this is the earlier thread:

http://peakoil.com/fortopic18248-0-asc-45.html

Anyway, the question of the day is: Is this one of those activities for which a negative EROEI will be ignored?

Example: you need a lot of diesel to run the bountiful number of AFV's (tanks) now in the US Army. Do you convert your remaining coal supply to diesel somehow to keep these things running, or use the supply more efficiently for other more useful activities.

For a clue, we can go back to the $5000 toilet seat: Typically our elected officials have regarded the military as a "money is no object" activity. I imagine "eroei is no object" would be the approach for awhile.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', 'I') believe this is the earlier thread:

http://peakoil.com/fortopic18248-0-asc-45.html

Anyway, the question of the day is: Is this one of those activities for which a negative EROEI will be ignored?

[seahorse]

Iraq is the US' "Stalingrad"

[dinopello]

There is an interview with one of the report's authors by David Room

http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/700

[Frank]

I have to wonder if the issue will get more attention in the White House, as it's coming from the army and not a bunch of unpatriotic liberals...

Also interesting is that they refused to speculate with any precision on a PO date (2005-2020, non-OPEC first).

[DJ_Mittens]

The military is not naive, as much of their population is. They know exactly what is going on. And yes, to keep that fuel pumping, they will do whatever is necessary.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'W')ill the military then turn against the people?

[Ludi]

In the US, our government is being replaced by a fascist dictatorship of sorts with the prez deciding he is above the law (see his "signing statements"). Fortunately it seems large chunks of the military are no longer on his side. I don't think a military coup is likely, though possible.

I'm very interested to see what excuse will be used to disuade the populace from voting come this Fall. I foresee an outbreak of Avian Flu, personally.

[PO_TimeCr0ss]

Wow, this report is amazing. Even more so that it comes from the ACE.

My jaw slammed into the floor upon some of the things said in this report. I would wish that such a groundbreaking report would be more publisized.

[rwwff]

This is one of the things that strikes me as peculiar about American politics, really ever since Clinton won his first election with less than a majority of the popular vote. People on the party opposite think they are being taken over by a fascist dictatorship; when all that has really happened is that they lost an election, and elections have consequences. I'm hoping that this is a passing trend, because its certainly not healthy. If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008, it won' t be the end of American Democracy, and who knows, if we get lucky, we can get a Democrat pres and a Republican congress then maybe we can cut out all this earmark spending that has just gone wacko in recent years.

As to the military and peak oil, I think yall can relax, the US can produce internally enough diesel and kerosene to run our military vehicles for a very long time. Its the question of how much would be left over for civilian use that is the serious issue. Personally, as long as the troops don't have to skimp with regard to fuel, ammo, and food; I feel pretty ok about the taxes I pay.

[EnviroEngr]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')he report that Rep. Roscoe Bartlett refers to:

Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Army Installations

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he doubling of oil prices from 2003-2005 is not an anomaly, but a picture of the future. Oil production is approaching its peak; low growth in availability can be expected for the next 5 to 10 years. As worldwide petroleum production peaks, geopolitics and market economics will cause even more significant price increases and security risks. One can only speculate at the outcome from this scenario as world petroleum production declines.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnviroEngr', ' ')I'm having a strange Déjà Vu experience here. Wasn't this published last Fall sometime? Did Roscoe publish it or pieces of it?

Maybe it really is time for some back ward visits....

[ThunderChunky]

Did they make any suggestions in the report?

[0mar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ThunderChunky', 'D')id they make any suggestions in the report?

[Cabrone]

Thanks for posting this very sobering document up. When a body such as the US Army are saying that we may well peak in a few years and then goes on to say that 'oil wars are certainly not out of the question' you have to sit up and take serious note.

Up till now all the PO literature that I have read is from the main authors in this subject, guys who you could argue have a vested interest to exaggerate the real picture but I can't see why the US army would have any such motivation.

I note that this document is not restricted in any way so why isn't the media getting this message getting out to the general populace? There would be some panic but I'd like to think that most people who read it would take note and get serious about their oil guzzling lifestyles.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cabrone', ' ')I note that this document is not restricted in any way so why isn't the media getting this message getting out to the general populace?

[FatherOfTwo]

Thanks for posting Monte! (I must have missed it the first time around) That one is hard to ignore even for some of the die hard optimists that I know. I like the quote from the executive summary:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.')..the Army must immediately begin to consider the short- and long-term issues involved in developing enduring energy policies and solutions for its military installations. To sustain its mission and ensure its capability to project and support the forces, the Army must insulate itself from the economic and logistical energy-related problems coming in the near to mid future.