Oil War Game Concludes With Gasoline At $5.32, Global Recession

[hatrack]

The United States would be all but powerless to protect the American economy in the face of a catastrophic disruption of oil markets, high-level participants in a war game concluded yesterday. The exercise, called "Oil Shockwave" and played out in a Washington hotel ballroom, had real-life former top U.S. officials taking on the role of members of the president's Cabinet convening to respond to escalating energy crises, culminating in $5.32-a-gallon gasoline and a world wobbling into recession.

"The American people are going to pay a terrible price for not having had an energy strategy," said former CIA director Robert M. Gates, who took on the role of national security adviser. Stepping out of character, he added that "the scenarios portrayed were absolutely not alarmist; they're realistic."

The exercise began with ethnic unrest in Nigeria, leading to the collapse of the oil industry in that west African nation. Then al Qaeda launched crippling attacks on key energy facilities in Valdez, Alaska, and Saudi Arabia. But the war game's participants -- including former CIA director R. James Woolsey, former Marine Corps commandant Gen. P.X. Kelley and former EPA administrator Carol Browner, soon realized the U.S. government had few options in the short term to prevent an economic crash in this country and worldwide.

When the exercise's planners first met last year, oil was in the $40-a-barrel range. As they fantasized where oil prices would be for the war game's start in an imagined late 2005, they said, they set them at $58 but worried they were being absurdly pessimistic. Yesterday, the closing price for a barrel of oil was $59.42."

EDIT

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301896.html

[meegbear]

1. But ... but ...

ANWR is supposed to solve all of our oil problems, right? Right?

[izzie]

2. Gee I can hardly drive and fill the car now. Good I am old.

I can give up my car but I pity the still working people.

[don954]

4. I am now able to live with next to no automobile, due to

the nice tri-rail here in south florida, and a nice bike. You know its actually faster to go to the corrner store on my bike than it is to drive?

[orwell]

7. You...

are obviously a radical, subversive, anti-American liberal, who refuses to support American energy jobs by riding your bike.

Congratulations ;)

[brokensymmetry]

3. The powers that be get a clue...

I believe that the coming energy crises will be like nothing we've ever seen before. It will change our lives utterly.

And our "leadership" is all but asleep.

[bemildred]

5. Today's "No Shit, Sherlock" award. nt

[orwell]

6. Translation...

FEAR...give us more money...FEAR...give us more power...FEAR...give us your allegiance...FEAR...we will take care of you...FEAR

I love the "not having an energy strategy" lie. There have been many "energy strategies" proposed, starting in the 70's. The problem is that what is sustainable and still supportive of economic growth is not in the interests of the large energy cartels.

What they should say is "We have been implementing an energy strategy which will maximize our profits and cement our control over global political alignments. We are now in phase III"

Why does anyone listen to anything involving Woolsey, or any other CIA director for that matter. They don't call it "the Company" for nothing.

[phantom power]

8. I'm not sure I follow you. This IS scary.

And it's got nothing to do with the CIA. All this guy is doing, is pointing out what's coming, and also pointing out that we have absolutely no plan to prevent it, or even adapt to it once it happens.

[orwell]

9. Fear Factor

Technologies exist right now to significantly reduce oil consumption and total energy consumption to ameliorate any supply worries caused by a trigger event.

For example, did you know that the current vehicle technology is far more efficient than even ten years ago, perhaps by as much as 25%. The reason US fuel usage has not dropped substantially is that almost all of this efficiency went into building bigger faster cars and SUV's rather than increasing mileage.

Why? Because we were sold a bill of goods. Whose interest does this serve? Take a look at your pump price and figure it out.

How does Europe get by with much higher energy efficiency for GDP produced? They made it a priority.

Have you ever heard the term "negawatts" as coined by Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute. Have you even heard of Amory Lovins or the Rocky Mountain Institute anywhere in the media? If so, you are in the small minority.

Stop being scared. When you are scared you can be manipulated. Start getting informed. Realize that you are being herded into a belief structure that serves very powerful interests.

Start here:

http://www.rmi.org

Peace

[phantom power]

10. Manipulated into... what?

I consider myself to be pretty well informed. Better than the average joe, anyway. But there's always more to learn.

Am I being manipulated into doing something I wasn't aware of?

What belief structure is it, that I subscribe to?

[orwell]

11. Q and A

And it's got nothing to do with the CIA.

Then why are Woolsey and Gates involved?

All this guy is doing, is pointing out what's coming,

You assume "facts" not in evidence. This is a simulation by parties with strong ideological viewpoints. Woolsey is a PNAC signatory.

...and also pointing out that we have absolutely no plan to prevent it, or even adapt to it once it happens.

This can't be known. They certainly wouldn't tell you or I about strategic contingencies. We are only citizens. If US oil supples were truly threatened, we would entertain a nuclear strike if it served our interests. Bush has already said he would use nuclear first strike if he had to.

As far as adaptation, we would adapt very quickly as suddenly the consumers would demand it. And voila...more stuff to sell.

Am I being manipulated into doing something I wasn't aware of?

We all are...constantly. It is called marketing. A prime component of effective marketing is fear.

What belief structure is it, that I subscribe to?

You are reacting through fear. You are reacting as victim. The title of your post includes the words "This IS scary." When you are afraid, you can be manipulated. Scientist have long known that when in a state of fear the flight or fight response shuts down rational thought. It is a natural protective mechanism to fuel adrenaline production and heighten sensory awareness.

People create their own reality all the time. I do it. You do it. We are biochemical machines that respond to belief patterns - reinforced neural pathways...NLP if you will. These socially conditioned neural pathways are well known and expertly exploited by our so called "leaders."

Would that the world was driven by enlightened logic instead of fear. Unfortunately, we all have to break some case hardened neural chains to do so. That is a challenge for each and every one of us.

Good luck!

[phantom power]

13. I didn't aquire my belief in the end of oil from the CIA

This CIA "war game" does nothing but confirm various things that I already believe, based on other sources. For one example, the recent rash of reserve down-grading from the oil companies.

You keep telling me that my fear allows me to be manipulated. But you have still not explained to me what I'm being manipulated to do. Can you be specific? If you tell me "I am being manipulated to do X", and I notice that I'm doing X, well, then maybe you are on to something.

[orwell]

14. Blind Faith

All this guy is doing, is pointing out what's coming,

You have been manipulated into a belief structure. This statement is an example of that. Neither you nor I know what's coming, yet you make this statement with certainty. You also admit to being scared. Why is that? Do you not see any possible correlation here? Is it also possible that there are other outcomes than oil armageddon?

How can you know what's coming? Do you understand that you have accepted as inevitable something which you can not know. How or why do you think that happened.

The difference as I perceive it from our brief exchange is that I am aware that I am bombarded by programming from very sophisticated, highly capitalized sources. I try to be mindful of my fear laden belief structures. And I have many after 50 years of constant media and societal conditioning. Its actually quite laughable when you start to be aware of it.

I'll give up. It's hot. I've got to go water a garden.

Good luck and peace.

[phantom power]

15. Sure, it's possible.

I spend lots of time in this forum, postulating various ways it might possibly be avoided. Or, at least mitigated. But we aren't actually doing any of those things, and so a major oil crisis remains the most likely outcome. Unless a major climate crisis arrives first.

If what you're trying to say is that my view of reality is fallible, and filtered through various fallible media, I'm guilty as charged.

My fear laden belief structures are based on my best assessment of reality. If something comes along to change that, well, then my belief structures will become correspondingly less fear-laden. Or, perhaps correspondingly more fear-laden.

[thegreatwildebeest]

16. Illuminati esque rambles don't help...

You assume "facts" not in evidence. This is a simulation by parties with strong ideological viewpoints. Woolsey is a PNAC signatory.


So? PNAC, is just like many other think tanks in Washington, except with a more ominous tone and vague New World Order trappings. It's the home of every Neo Con under the sun, and basically spits out what various neo-cons use now. And their grand, illustrious plans have been almost miserable failures. Iraq and Afghanistan aren't going as well as they hoped, and its not looking like their other machinations are stopping the various mvoements in the global south etc. I think you give far too much creedance to what are basically idiots in a smoke filled room.

This can't be known. They certainly wouldn't tell you or I about strategic contingencies. We are only citizens. If US oil supples were truly threatened, we would entertain a nuclear strike if it served our interests. Bush has already said he would use nuclear first strike if he had to.

Of course they wouldn't. And there are obviously contingency plans to keep the government in control in case of a crisis (hence the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as well as the bajillion self sustaining bases and command centers sprinkled through America and elsewhere). But I hesitate to think there would be some nuclear war over oil. It would essentially be mutally assured destruction.

We all are...constantly. It is called marketing. A prime component of effective marketing is fear.

I agree. But I think you give too much credit to the powers that be for orchestrating things. It's not a 1984 world (quite yet anyways) and most of the real leg work is done by people stupid enough to believe the powers that be in fact wield any serious power (its mostly a shell game, albeit a shell game with some pretty damn big consequences ie: missles, tanks etc).


Would that the world was driven by enlightened logic instead of fear. Unfortunately, we all have to break some case hardened neural chains to do so. That is a challenge for each and every one of us.

Enlightened logic? And what enlightened logic is that? Your messages sound like vague Illuminati-esque ramblings, and there is nothing logical about presuming that there are some secret, hidden things moving about everything behind our backs. You don't have to dig very deep till you find that, hey hey hey, the machinations happen right in FRONT of our eyes.

People give far too much creedance to the powers that be. We haven't hit 1984 yet people.

[zdv]

17. RMI

Your mention of techno-fixes amuses me. Exactly what technologies will allow the US to reduce its petroleum consumption by over 50% and natural gas consumption by at least 5% to back out the use of imports? What are the costs of the technologies and why aren't they being deployed? You point toward European efficiencies but their import dependence is just as bad as the USA.

I can't help but wonder about an organization (Rocky Mountain Institute) devoted to energy issues but chooses a location that can only be accessed by automobile. RMI seems like a car worshipping organization anyway (see the obsession with the hypercar) so I suppose it is not surprising to see they are interested in pioneering new ways to consume lots of resources. Has anyone there ever heard of Jevons paradox?

The key point of the 'war game' is that the US is completely dependent on imported energy supplies - anyone that looks at reality can figure that out. The same calculations that accurately predicted US oil production would peak (14 years ahead of time) now predict world oil production is likely to peak within the next 3 years. There is a growing amount of evidence that the primary fuel of industrial civilization will be increasingly scarce.

With that said, it is quite possible this story is a 'seed' planted in the media to try and encourage fear and/or awareness about the future. But in my opinion, energy shortages and scarcity are the most likely future and it is well past time that awareness spreads about the reality of the US' energy situation. You are right that the psychological tendency toward fear is counterproductive, but so is the tendency toward believing in a savior or easy solution. There is no easy way to fix the US' (or the world's) unsustainable energy usage.

[Coastie for Truth]

18. I guess that I am a manipulated moron on energy

I think that Lovins is a creative thinker - and I have met him, I have read his books. I am also familiar with Paul Hawken and with Stan Ovshinsky and with Vittorio DeNora and Karl Kordesch and with Berkeley's John Newman (I taught from his book).

And I have read the works of "Bird, Stewart and Lightfoot" and their followers, including "Smith and Van Ness" and "Sherwood and Pigford" -- and I do know the difference between Rifkin Free Energy and Gibbs Free Energy and Helmholtz Free Energy.

Your mention of techno-fixes amuses me. Exactly what technologies will allow the US to reduce its petroleum consumption by over 50% and natural gas consumption by at least 5% to back out the use of imports? What are the costs of the technologies and why aren't they being deployed? You point toward European efficiencies but their import dependence is just as bad as the USA.

I can't help but wonder about an organization (Rocky Mountain Institute) devoted to energy issues but chooses a location that can only be accessed by automobile. RMI seems like a car worshipping organization anyway (see the obsession with the hypercar) so I suppose it is not surprising to see they are interested in pioneering new ways to consume lots of resources. Has anyone there ever heard of Jevons paradox?

Exactly what technologies will allow the US to reduce its petroleum consumption by over 50% and natural gas consumption by at least 5% to back out the use of imports?

1. Mass transit and rapid transit.
2. Pedestrian friendly transit village living.
3. Hybrid cars - using sophisticated "drive by wire" engine management (see the annual "Automotive Issue" of the IEEE Spectrum).

a. Push CAFE up to 35-40 mpg
b. Flexible fuel
c. Plug In hybrids
d. Clean diesel hybrids

4. Photovoltaic - Google "Ovonics" and "Ovshinsky"
5. Wind power.
6. Fischer-Tropsch synthetic gasoline.

What are the costs of the technologies and why aren't they being deployed?

Certainly the City Planniny and Transit technologies are cost effective now. Raising CAFE and hybrids and "drive by wire" engine controls are cost effective now at $50/bbl oil.

Certainly wind power is cost effective now.

Certainly PV is within a cost effective range for peak power on a hot August afternoon where the alternative is a brown out.

Why haven't they been implemented--

1) Quarter to quarter management by industry. And a lot of our relevaent CEO's really believe that Alaskan oil will bail them - and that more Bush Wars for Oil will bail them out. I only worked on EV projects in Motwon for 7-8 years. Google "Lutz" and "hybrid" to see what I mean.

2. Politics - Do you want a dissertation on the politics of Texas (Big Oil) and of Michigan (Michigan is a one party state - The GMFORDDAIMLERCHRYSLERUAW Party -- and as much as we love John Conyers - he has consistently voted against raising CAFE.)

The UAW (do you remember UAW Bureaucrat David Bonior) has convinced its members that raising CAFE or subsidizing any high efficiency vehicle technology will cost UAW members their job. I think it is the exact opposite -- as GM and Ford sink into Junk Bond Status.

You point toward European efficiencies but their import dependence is just as bad as the USA.

Because they were not blessed with the oil deposit that we had and wasted.

I can't help but wonder about an organization (Rocky Mountain Institute) devoted to energy issues but chooses a location that can only be accessed by automobile. RMI seems like a car worshipping organization anyway (see the obsession with the hypercar) so I suppose it is not surprising to see they are interested in pioneering new ways to consume lots of resources.

Have you actually read Lovins' books, been to RMI, met Lovins and heard him speak -- or is the response some kind of a Malthusian response from Kunstler.

BTW - I have read Kunstler, and Lovins, and Hawken and Lovins --- and Deffeyes and Evans (Economic Geology).

BTW - I have heard of Jevons Paradox - an 1856 observation that states that as efficieny increases - usage increases. This is the argument made by GM's in house PhD economists, and GM Professor Lester Lave (Carnegie Mellon Univ) and Exxon Mobil Professor Andy Kliett (Penn State) against raising CAFE. My experience - when I replace my SUV with a first generation Prius -- my gasoline consumption decreased.

BTW- I have only been in the alternative, renewable, and green energy field - as a working engineer and as an adjunct professor and as a regulator - for 30+ of my 40+ years in the engineering profession.

[zdv]

20. alt. energy....

1. Mass transit and rapid transit.
2. Pedestrian friendly transit village living.
3. Hybrid cars - using sophisticated "drive by wire" engine management (see the annual "Automotive Issue" of the IEEE Spectrum).

a. Push CAFE up to 35-40 mpg
b. Flexible fuel
c. Plug In hybrids
d. Clean diesel hybrids


4. Photovoltaic - Google "Ovonics" and "Ovshinsky"
5. Wind power.
6. Fischer-Tropsch synthetic gasoline.

While these are desirable technologies, I have not seen evidence to convince me they can be implemented in such a way as to allow something as monstrous as a 50% reduction in petroleum use. Also, those technologies only indirectly address consumption sources such as home heating and jet fuel. However I realize you did not make the original claim.

I also believe you have soft-pedaled the discussion of the costs of technologies. The fundamental reason why all of those technologies have not been adopted is not politics and conspiracy, it is the simple fact that it is simpler and cheaper to extract massive amounts of energy from fossil fuels. This was true throughout the 20th century and is still true today. The implied costs of your list of technologies includes reduced suburban living choices (from mass transit and pedestrian friendly housing), more expensive vehicle designs (hybrids), less abundant electricity (I will be shocked if PV and wind combined ever outproduce coal and NG at high quantity), and less abundant fuel (how much biodiesel can really be produced?).

I believe technology should be applied to our energy situation, but I believe it is deceptive to pretend these technologies are cost-free and enable a continuation of the status quo. While Oil/NG supply disruption will be devastating to the American economy, I believe a strong push toward 'defossilizing' with technology will be as well.

Have you actually read Lovins' books, been to RMI, met Lovins and heard him speak -- or is the response some kind of a Malthusian response from Kunstler.

BTW- I have only been in the alternative, renewable, and green energy field - as a working engineer and as an adjunct professor and as a regulator - for 30+ of my 40+ years in the engineering profession.

My familiarity with Lovins is limited to what is published on his website. I have no reason to believe he is not a great thinker, however my opinion is that the fundamental approach of RMI insufficiently addresses the idea that growth (in all forms) must have limits. More energy conserving devices typically require a much more advanced industrial base to support them, something I don't see the 'green' community discussing very often. Which leads to a question I have about RMI (since you are familiar with them). What is their vision for how heavy industry will operate in a 'fossil-less' economy? I'm talking about things like steel mills, foundries, semiconductor fabs, etc. My guess is the answer is "hydrogen generated from windmills" - which isn't very reassuring.

To answer your other question, I am a Malthusian (everyone's favorite pejorative for one who doesn't believe in endless growth) and Kunstler is definitely somebody with a similar viewpoint to myself. Hopefully I can now be properly filed in your mental rolodex.

My profession has nothing at all to do with energy issues. I am simply somebody wishing to be more informed. I do appreciate the ability to talk to someone with your background and experience. However my only qualm about your "resume" is that it suggests you may be heavily invested in the emotion of alternative energies and less willing to address their deficiencies.

[Coastie for Truth]

23. I am unable to believe the

Malthusianism of Kunstler -- and I have been a dirty finger nail, dirty hands engineer in several areas of alternative, renewable, and clean engineering -- for 30+ years.

[thegreatwildebeest]

19. Technocratic they might be...

Your mention of techno-fixes amuses me. Exactly what technologies will allow the US to reduce its petroleum consumption by over 50% and natural gas consumption by at least 5% to back out the use of imports? What are the costs of the technologies and why aren't they being deployed? You point toward European efficiencies but their import dependence is just as bad as the USA.

There import dependence is just as bad because most of them have NO or barely any oil in their countries, compared to our (diminishing) fields.

I myself am not a big fan of "techno-fixes", since they turn individuals into spectators (yet again) of a process that they should be deeply involved with. And when I say deeply involved with I don't mean buying new cars or reading pedantic diatribes from over the hill journalists. I mean putting in the work themselves, and the knowledge necessary to implement such lotech fixes.


I can't help but wonder about an organization (Rocky Mountain Institute) devoted to energy issues but chooses a location that can only be accessed by automobile. RMI seems like a car worshipping organization anyway (see the obsession with the hypercar) so I suppose it is not surprising to see they are interested in pioneering new ways to consume lots of resources. Has anyone there ever heard of Jevons paradox?

Yes, the irony is rich. And yes the RMI is obsessed with cars and supposed "Free market" solutions. But their not idiots and to a certain extent their plan is probably the one most likely to win people in the halls of power over (I certainly know its not mine).


The key point of the 'war game' is that the US is completely dependent on imported energy supplies - anyone that looks at reality can figure that out. The same calculations that accurately predicted US oil production would peak (14 years ahead of time) now predict world oil production is likely to peak within the next 3 years. There is a growing amount of evidence that the primary fuel of industrial civilization will be increasingly scarce.

Tell us something we don't know.


With that said, it is quite possible this story is a 'seed' planted in the media to try and encourage fear and/or awareness about the future. But in my opinion, energy shortages and scarcity are the most likely future and it is well past time that awareness spreads about the reality of the US' energy situation. You are right that the psychological tendency toward fear is counterproductive, but so is the tendency toward believing in a savior or easy solution. There is no easy way to fix the US' (or the world's) unsustainable energy usage.

So this is what its come down to? Illuminati and 1984-esque rambles about "planted" news stories and great machinations from above? I don't give the dupes at the top that much credit (they're too ham fisted for that).And what is this armcahir psychology? I'm sure none of the people on here who ramble about "peoples" (ie: everyone but the person speaking) response to fear are psychologists or even taken a absic psych course, let alone know enough to predict jack diddly. I'm tired of the ridiculous "End Is Nigh" Kunstler sign holders and the equally ridiculous "Men In Smoke Filled Room" fear mongerers.

[zdv]

21. planted news

So this is what its come down to? Illuminati and 1984-esque rambles about "planted" news stories and great machinations from above? I don't give the dupes at the top that much credit (they're too ham fisted for that).

In 1976, the Church Commission uncovered the fact that the CIA secretly employed over 50 American journalists during the Cold War era. If you don't think it happens, you are being naive.

I'm tired of the ridiculous "End Is Nigh" Kunstler sign holders and the equally ridiculous "Men In Smoke Filled Room" fear mongerers.

Then it's best to pretend they don't exist!

[thegreatwildebeest]

22. Oh stop being sanctimonious...

Get off your high horse and stop thinking you've got some special insight into the evil machinations of the nefarious government.

In 1976, the Church Commission uncovered the fact that the CIA secretly employed over 50 American journalists during the Cold War era. If you don't think it happens, you are being naive.

And the CIA hired tons of anthropologists to be their eyes and ears in foreign countries, the FBI ran huge COINTELPRO operations to discredit leftist organizations, as well as promoting and spreading false news, rumours, and letter campaigns (some of them are mildly hilarious). The US Government puts out tons of so called "video news releases", the ONDCP for years collaborated with tv show writers to put in anti-drug messages, "Missing Kid Fingerprinting" is just a ploy to get everyone in their database, and military recruiters walk around highschools with impunity.

Even local law enforcement is involved, in the many ham fisted ways it tries. Cops show up at peace rallies or attempt to mingle in various open to the public meetings. As an anarchist I know a thing or too about police survelliance, raids of collective houses and independent media centers, tapping, harassment, sweeps of arrests. I'm sure I have a decent sized file on me somewhere within the bureacratic morass.

In summation, don't deign to me to tell me about government subversion and attempts to mess up political activists. I've had the experience, and others I know have had the experience. And not some ludicrous fairy tale nonense, about vague attempts at manipulating people, but real in your face cops and jail time. I've seen people beat, had false charges filed at them, and other such absurdities. So don't tell me "Then it's best to pretend they don't exist!", when I'm sure you've never even had a modicum of such harassment applied to you.

[pstans]

12. I would agree with what you said

if the Bu$h administration was actually doing something about the Energy crisis. Killing innocent Iraqi's and helping his oil buddies rake in the profits is not the solution. The United States needs a massive project similar to the Manhattan Project aimed at building Renewable Energy sources, ridding ourselves of our dependence on foreign oil, and creating high tech jobs. Check out http://www.apolloalliance.org/ for some information on the idea.

It is the Democrats leading the way on this. Senators Reid, Durbin, Bingaman, Cantwell, Feingold all spoke about the importance of Renewable energy when the Energy bill was debated. Other than Senator McCain, the Republicans were largely against anything that took market share away from the Oil and Coal companies.

If free markets could take care of this problem, it seems that these Oil and Coal companies would have already seen their supplies dwindling and would have invested in Wind, Solar, and Biomass energy. Yet, they are still playing this game of denial and refuse to come to gripes with reality.


http://www.endofsuburbia.com
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com
http://www.kunstler.com
I hope Democrats come into power and start solving this problem before it is too late. Unfortanatly, they might not have much time.