Review of Lt. Col. Eggen’s thesis, Impact of the Peaking of World Oil Production on the Global Balance of Power

Impact of the Peaking of World Oil Production on the Global Balance of Power, USACGSC, Dec. 2011 (91 pgs)

The U.S. war colleges continue to generate insightful analyses of the potential effects of Peak Oil. Recently the U.S. Army Combined and General Staff College (USACGSC) released an excellent study by Lt. Col. GS Pascal Eggen, Swiss Armed Forces.

The key points of Lt. Col. Eggen’s analysis are summarized in the second paragraph of his Abstract:
“This research has found that the peaking of world oil production will increase the resource awareness of great powers. While oil production will decline, nations will try to preserve their high level of organization. The world politics will shift from idealism, typical of our present growing economy, to realism and offensive realism. The economic rules will move to those of a negative sum game. As a consequence, minor geopolitical players will have to align with great powers, to ensure minimal losses in oil supply. Finally, the great powers will wait until the last moment to start mitigation measures against oil depletion. Indeed, too early a transition towards new sources of energy constitutes a risk to alter their current geopolitical position.”

Lt. Col. Eggen has clearly done a good deal of research for his thesis, including examining the literature on geopolitics, system theory and oil production. He has also done plenty of thinking about the implications of a constrained supply of liquid fuel and the probable human responses to that unprecedented reality. Eggen begins each of his five chapters with a thought-provoking quotation from diverse sources such as Hirsch, Campbell, Einstein, Boulding and FDR, and his bibliography is both extensive and eclectic.

Like most military analysts, Eggen is a realist and approaches the topic of Peak Oil with prudent respect. This reviewer has yet to find a study from the military research community which dismisses Peak Oil as premature alarmism or unworthy of careful consideration. Indeed, Eggen is almost apologetic in pointing out, “The result of this research may seem pessimistic…” (p. 71).

Like the team of German military analysts who examined Peak Oil two years ago, Eggen speaks plainly. He bluntly warns that with respect to the eventual forced transition away from oil, “there is no peaceful and orderly shift to expect” (p. 68). In his section, “Timing is Everything,” he further points out that “breaking [away from oil] too soon induces the loss of some power. Pushed by consumerism, no country will take the risk … until the ceiling of scarcity is hit” (p. 68).

This does not augur well: Dr. Hirsch and others have pointed out that we need a decade or two of sustained, concerted action prior to peaking if we are to avoid its destabilizing effects. Despite the merits of proactive mitigation, the reality is that as tensions increase, there will be powerful incentives (and perhaps strategic imperatives) to hang onto the power bestowed by petroleum, however expensive, despite the longer-term risks of doing so.

Lt. Col. Eggen’s conclusions support those raised by the Bundeswehr and other analysts: “globalization will go in reverse” (p. 65), bilateral deals for oil will increase, and there will be significant risks to domestic security (in addition to the increasing potential for conflict between nations).

In summary, Eggen’s thoughtful analysis is a significant contribution to the military literature on Peak Oil. It should be of interest to senior military personnel, civilian emergency planners and civic leaders at all levels.

The link to the report is here.

Energy Bulletin

11 Comments on "Review of Lt. Col. Eggen’s thesis, Impact of the Peaking of World Oil Production on the Global Balance of Power"

BillT on Tue, 3rd Apr 2012 1:03 pm 



Since we are well past the peak and those 20 years we need are now past, I can only surmise that we are in for a lot of pain because the 1/10% don’t want to lose any of their power or wealth. Of course, most are past 60 and will die before we run out of oil. I wonder if they have found a way to take their wealth with them?

We are like children who are unable to make rational, adult decisions about our future because we are spoiled and stupid. Or at least our politicians are. Perhaps oil will never end, but will be a radioactive remnant of our final war? The one that takes the human species into extinction.

Kenz300 on Tue, 3rd Apr 2012 2:40 pm 



Quote — ” He bluntly warns that with respect to the eventual forced transition away from oil, “there is no peaceful and orderly shift to expect” (p. 68).”
———————

We tend not to make unpleasant decisions until we are forced to. It will be even more unpleasant to wait. Every individual, business and country needs to develop a plan to deal with high energy prices and reduced supplies.

Arthur on Tue, 3rd Apr 2012 7:20 pm 



Kenz300, indeed. There will be no politician, let alone a public willing to listen, who will say: “industrial society is over folks, sorry bout that”. Instead, a politician will prefer to blame somebody else, like Iran, for withholding oil and thus driving up prices. Nice excuse to invade Iran, install a crony and help yourself at the tap and postpone the shtf.

Oh wait, and then there is China… Of all the major powers, Russia is the best positioned to become the laughing third, while China and the US get really embroiled. And the position of the US is not too bad either for the moment, since they can produce 50% of their current liquid fuel needs and that is enough from keeping the society from breaking down totally. China is in the worst position, relatively speaking.

Hubbertsfreak on Tue, 3rd Apr 2012 7:34 pm 



I skimmed the report. The major flaw in my mind, was that he used IEA Data and put the peak around 2025 instead of something more accurate like say, I dunno, 2005.

Rick on Tue, 3rd Apr 2012 8:41 pm 



Global Peak Oil happened in 2005!

DC on Tue, 3rd Apr 2012 10:50 pm 



Small wonder one of Corporate amerikas mercenaries finally got around to talking about PO. Of couse the US military is worried about PO! They are the single greatest user(waster) of FF on the planet. Tanks and Humves that almost get negative MPG, jets that burn more fuel in one hour than even a fat amerikan that drives to the sidewalk to pick up there morning paper does in a year.

Of couse, they burn all that fuel so the US can steal everyone elses fuel and ship it home to power ‘super-bowls’ and circuses, Wall-mart and Homeland In-security, and indust-ag. 4% of the world even in a permnanet recession still uses 25% of the worlds oil. The US military is worried because they need oil in order to prevent China or anyone from getting ‘too’ much oil for themselves. The US doesnt mind if China buys oil per se, they just dont want them to get ‘too much’ of it.

So yes, the US does have a plan to deal with PO, its called the US military, Ironic the mercenary that wrote that couldnt see the obvious truth there.

Rick Munroe on Tue, 3rd Apr 2012 10:52 pm 



re. Peak around 2025

I decided not to challenge Lt. Col. Eggen on that point. He (like most analysts) is working with the “all-liquids” figure, not strictly conventional oil (which does appear to have peaked at around 74 mbpd seven years ago).

Global “all-liquids” production continues to increase, so contrary to Rick (not me) above, I don’t think we should claim that PO is past tense just yet.

I do think that 2025 for all-liquids is optimistic, but in any event, we are as close to 2025 as we are to 2000, and 2025 will arrive soon enough.

If Eggen is correct in his view that we are unlikely to move away from oil until the last minute, then the eventual date of the all-liquids peak may not be all that significant (since we seem incapable of using the pre-peak interval for meaningful mitigation, as common sense would dictate).

Rick Munroe on Tue, 3rd Apr 2012 11:06 pm 



DC,

Please take the time to properly examine Lt. Col. Eggen’s report before dismissing him as a mercenary or concluding that USA’s alleged plan to use military force to solve its PO dilemma could do the trick.

Like the Bundeswehr analysts before him, Eggen warns of domestic unrest: the effects of ‘the end of cheap oil’ will be felt on the streets of America just as acutely (and logically, even worse) than in other regions.

Kenz300 on Wed, 4th Apr 2012 1:26 am 



Chaos is not good for anyone.

Economic security and national security will depend on access to energy.

Every country needs to develop a plan to balance its population, resources, food, water, energy and jobs.

BillT on Wed, 4th Apr 2012 2:37 am 



Rick, All liquids are NOT equal. 74 million barrels of light sweet crude are light years away from 74 million barrels of any other flammable liquid. Not only do you have to consider energy lost to methods of discovery and recovery, but also transport and refining. ALL of these energy costs are growing quickly as we now pump from miles underground and then transport that low grade oil long distances to refineries that can handle it and then back again to the market. Every step eats into the net energy we actually get from those 74 million barrels. Take out those losses and you will see that net energy from all forms of liquids have been falling for some time. Peak NET energy is past, in ALL forms. Adjust.

Rick Munroe on Wed, 4th Apr 2012 5:10 am 



“All liquids are NOT equal”

Bill,
I agree, and did not argue otherwise.
Most of the differential between conventional production (74 mbpd) and total all-liquids (now almost 89 mbpd) is NGLs, which have several qualitative differences from conventional crude oil.

My point simply was that Eggen, like most analysts these days, works with the larger, all-liquids volume.