[quote=TexasRep][quote=mikebutler222] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=TexasRep]

US Army Corps of Engineers and Peak Oil
In a report from US Army Corps of Engineers we can read the following statement:[/quote]

If you read the entire report that that TN (Technical Note) comes from; http://www.cecer.army.mil/techreports/Westervelt_EnergyTrend s/Westervelt_EnergyTrendsTR.pdf

You'll also see this statement;

“The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.”

The authors are a mechanical engineer with the CoE and an academic. They quote heavily, the ASPO and other peak oil proponents. Kudos to the Corps for seeking all manners of opinion, they surely can’t be accused of not looking at things from all angles. (BTW, I thought the authors’ comments on the direction of natural gas prices (written in September 2005) was interesting.)

[/quote]

i take it you'd feel better if this came from the Army versus a mechanical engineer with the CoE and an academic?

why?

 I don’t know that I’d “feel better”, but I thought it was worth pointing out that the paper was speculative,  and an effort on the part of CoE to get various points of view on the subject, not DoA policy and position. Were that entire paper DoA policy and position, with its full reliance on P.O. and the many political assertions that it made, I’d be pretty uncomfortable. Leave the P.O. issue aside for a moment, the paper made a great many political assertions that I think regardless of where you stand politically, are inappropriate for a part of the Pentagon to make. Those are the sort of things that should come from a political, elected, policy making Whitehouse.

[quote=mikebutler222]

A question from the back of the class, when the authors say;

“The doubling of oil prices in the past couple of years is not an anomaly, but a picture of the future. Peak oil is at hand with low availability growth for the next 5 to 10 years. “

And later;

“World oil production is at or nears its peak and current world demand exceeds the supply.”

Is it incorrect to believe that they’re suggesting  there’s a current impact on oil prices from peak oil implications?

[/quote]

....wars and rumours of wars as geo-political factions position themselves over the current reserves? if you are a subscriber, no doubt-- if you are not, you'd see this as a temporary terror-premium due to the current Mid-East (and elsewhere) unrest--

how do you see it, mike?

[/quote]

I thought it was pretty obvious that at least these two writers, subscribers to P.O. were making the case that P.O. implications are affecting current oil prices, and they make the case that currently demand exceeds supply. Now, it’s obvious from prior conversations that I don’t agree with them about P.O., much less any effects it might be having on current prices, but I wondered if others read that as I did, that two P.O. believers are making the case that there’s a current price effect.

[quote=dude][/quote]

Feel free to point out what's been "twisted", dude. I thought I asked a pretty straight-forward question and Tex answered it in the same civil manner.

I don’t know that I’d “feel better”, but I thought it was worth pointing out that the paper was speculative,  and an effort on the part of CoE to get various points of view on the subject, not DoA policy and position.

as for anything yet future, speculation is somewhat involved, no?

as for DoA Policy:

Peak Oil is very much their concern as well:

http://army-energy.hqda.pentagon.mil/programs/plan.asp

".....The participants in the writing workshop were drawn from current and former Army staff representing a broad cross section of experience, as well as researchers from the DOE national laboratories. At the writing workshop, Don Fournier, Senior Research Specialist, University of Illinois, gave a presentation and led a discussion on "Energy Trends and Implications" (.pdf, 972Kb) to help the writing team frame the current energy (and water) environment, and provide a background for the development of the Campaign Plan...."

Were that entire paper DoA policy and position, with its full reliance on P.O. and the many political assertions that it made, I’d be pretty uncomfortable.

ditto.

that's why a look at the website can convince (almost) anyone that the Army is taking PO very seriously:

http://army-energy.hqda.pentagon.mil/

Leave the P.O. issue aside for a moment, the paper made a great many political assertions that I think regardless of where you stand politically, are inappropriate for a part of the Pentagon to make. Those are the sort of things that should come from a political, elected, policy making Whitehouse.

agreed- but it seems that the political, elected, policy making Whitehouse is preparing and/or allowing the PO discourse and all issues involved therein to be vetted in the public square--

I don’t know that I’d “feel better”, but I thought it was worth pointing out that the paper was speculative,  and an effort on the part of CoE to get various points of view on the subject, not DoA policy and position. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

as for anything yet future, speculation is somewhat involved, no?

as for DoA Policy:

Peak Oil is very much their concern as well:

http://army-energy.hqda.pentagon.mil/programs/plan.asp

".....The participants in the writing workshop were drawn from current and former Army staff representing a broad cross section of experience, as well as researchers from the DOE national laboratories. At the writing workshop, Don Fournier, Senior Research Specialist, University of Illinois, gave a presentation and led a discussion on "Energy Trends and Implications" (.pdf, 972Kb) to help the writing team frame the current energy (and water) environment, and provide a background for the development of the Campaign Plan...."

If by “concern” you mean they are considering the likelihood of it and possible implications, I agree. It would be foolish for them to do otherwise, at least at the outset. That doesn’t mean their anywhere near accepting the theory as reality or making that theory and the assertions behind it as a position they’ve adopted. I think SanFranbroker made a fine summary of the case that you can accept that oil is a finite resource without adopting the entirety of P.O., wouldn't you agree?

Were that entire paper DoA policy and position, with its full reliance on P.O. and the many political assertions that it made, I’d be pretty uncomfortable.

ditto.

that's why a look at the website can convince (almost) anyone that the Army is taking <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />PO very seriously:

http://army-energy.hqda.pentagon.mil/

“Very seriously”? I don’t know about that. They haven’t excluded it from discussion, I’d agree. The link you provided didn’t address P.O. (unless I missed it somewhere), but a general policy of energy efficiency. Energy efficiency and proper stewardship of the taxpayer’s dime is worthwhile goal that doesn’t require anyone to adopt the theory of P.O., right?

Leave the P.O. issue aside for a moment, the paper made a great many political assertions that I think regardless of where you stand politically, are inappropriate for a part of the Pentagon to make. Those are the sort of things that should come from a political, elected, policy making Whitehouse.

agreed- but it seems that the political, elected, policy making Whitehouse is preparing and/or allowing the PO discourse and all issues involved therein to be vetted in the public square--

 Again, agreed, although the CoE’s office on providing energy to military installations hardly seems to be a place the Whitehouse would chose to air these issues. Sounds more in-house to me. But, as I’ve been saying, “vetted” and “discussed” is a long, long way from saying they’re onboard with the theory and its implications. Referring to a Corp of Engineers “report” without making it clear it’s not CoE position or policy, but simply input from one employee co-written by an academic can be misleading

MikeB,

Honestly I ran out of stamina long ago on reading these long debates (although I'm sure y'all are having a productive debate/discussion which is great).  I'm just being a little of a sh*thead that's all.  Thanks for taking it in stride, since you certainly can dish it out as well.  Hug's 'n kisses.

[quote=dude]

MikeB,

Honestly I ran out of stamina long ago on reading these long debates (although I'm sure y'all are having a productive debate/discussion which is great).  I'm just being a little of a sh*thead that's all.  Thanks for taking it in stride, since you certainly can dish it out as well.  Hug's 'n kisses.

[quote=Revealer]OK, boys and girls. For today’s lesson…What is the name of the WORLD’S second largest oil field whose production declined 5% last year and is expected to decline another 14% this yr. Clue…Western Hemisphere.[/quote] Now, for today’s lesson. What series of events has lead to a 1%/yr. (for past 25 yrs.) decline in U.S. refinery efficiency. Clue…quality. 

[quote=Revealer][quote=Revealer]OK, boys and girls. For today’s lesson…What is the name of the WORLD’S second largest oil field whose production declined 5% last year and is expected to decline another 14% this yr. Clue…Western Hemisphere.[/quote] Now, for today’s lesson. What series of events has lead to a 1%/yr. (for past 25 yrs.) decline in U.S. refinery efficiency. Clue…quality. [/quote] NO ONE had the answer. Well an “F” for y’all. Answer is…Most of the higher grade crude in the world has been used up. The crude grades being refined are getting of lower and lower quality ergo the reduction in efficiency of refineries (we won’t even discuss no refinery cap. being added)…Now for today’s lesson. How many cubic feet of nat.gas (yes,nat.gas) is used to extract one barrel of oil from the canadian tar sands? Clue…tar. 

that's why a look at the website can convince (almost) anyone that the Army is taking <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 />PO very seriously:
http://army-energy.hqda.pentagon.mil/<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

“Very seriously”? I don’t know about that. They haven’t excluded it from discussion, I’d agree. The link you provided didn’t address P.O. (unless I missed it somewhere), but a general policy of energy efficiency. Energy efficiency and proper stewardship of the taxpayer’s dime is worthwhile goal that doesn’t require anyone to adopt the theory of P.O., right?

sorry- i've been mostly away-

answer- right.

but the army's energy campaign was highly influenced by PO:(from website) especially the link from  "Energy Trends and Implications" (.pdf, 972Kb):

"....To facilitate the development of the Campaign Plan, an Industry Stakeholders workshop was held on 12 July followed by a writing workshop 13-14 July. The agenda from the Industry Stakeholders workshop (.pdf, 28Kb) is available for downloading and contains links to the industry presentations.

The participants in the writing workshop were drawn from current and former Army staff representing a broad cross section of experience, as well as researchers from the DOE national laboratories. At the writing workshop, Don Fournier, Senior Research Specialist, University of Illinois, gave a presentation and led a discussion on "Energy Trends and Implications" (.pdf, 972Kb) to help the writing team frame the current energy (and water) environment, and provide a background for the development of the Campaign Plan.

A summary discussion of the first draft of the Campaign Plan was presented to interested parties during Energy 2005 on 17 August. View the presentation (.pdf, 164Kb)......"