When will global oil production peak? Ask the CIA!

Summary:  The date on which global production peaks depends to a large extent on the Saudi’s.  Political peaking occurs if they decide to no longer increase production.  Geological peaking occurs when they cannot increase production.  The plans of the Saudi Princes shift with the political winds.  The size of their oil reserves are a matter of fact known only to them, and is among their most closely guarded secrets.  Might others also know?  {excerpt from a post on 1 November 2007}.

What do the KGB and CIA know?

A must-read book for any American interested in geopolitics

Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner

While by no means the definitive history of the CIA (which cannot yet be written), or even an objective look at the Agency (probably not yet possible), it is one of the best and most timely accounts of one of the prime instruments in the War on Terror — now the primary strategic concern of the US defense apparatus (see this for evidence).

One contributing factor to the debacle of the Vietnam War was the collapse of the State Department during the commie hunts of the 1950’s (a sub-text found in many accounts of that era, such as David Halberstam’s The Best and the Brightest).  In this sense, the long and expensive futility of the Iraq War results from the long decay of our intelligence apparatus — which Legacy chronicles.  That leaves a future historian the task of recording the collapse of our military agencies, the only leg so far standing in our geopolitical tripod.

There is no need to review this thoroughly researched and footnoted work.  It can speak for itself, as any excerpt shows its quality.  Here is one such, giving concrete illustrations of the post-9/11 militarization of intelligence and the hollowing-out effect of privatization on our intel agencies.

The new NIE, another small step in the Decline of the State

Pat Lang perfectly captures the narrative for the release of the new National Intelligence estimate about Iran.

The “jungle telegraph” in Washington is booming with news of the Iran NIE.  I am told that the reason the conclusions of the NIE were released is that it was communicated to the White House that “intelligence career seniors were lined up to go to jail if necessary” if the document’s gist were not given to the public.  Translation?  Someone in that group would have gone to the media “on the record” to disclose its contents. 

The left finds this meritorious.  The right considers this treasonous.  Both miss the larger dynamic at work.  Jim Hoaglan explains it in this excerpt from his December 9 op-ed in the Washington Post.

Domestically, the most significant fact about the NIE is its public manifestation.  The White House was powerless to prevent publication of a document that made Bush aides unhappy and uncomfortable. The administration went along because it knew that the document — and any attempt to suppress it — would have been immediately leaked. …

The intelligence community has made itself a separate agency of government, answerable essentially to itself.  This NIE makes clear that for better or worse, spy agencies today make the finished product of policy rather than providing the raw materials.

That significant change in the ways of Washington should not go unremarked, even if on balance the consequences of publication of the assessment are positive:  As its authors clearly intended, the document removes any basis for the U.S. military strikes on Iran that many of us have argued would be unwise and unnecessary. …

Bush bears heavy responsibility for the collapse of presidential authority on his watch.  His reckless disregard of the hard work and details of governance have made followership a difficult and dangerous pursuit under him.  The spies understand and reflect that reality in their thinly disguised disavowal of his gravely compromised credibility.

But technology and other forces are undermining hierarchical relationships in social and professional organizations everywhere.  Bush’s successor should not anticipate — with even medium confidence — that things will snap back to “normal” in the world of espionage when he or she arrives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

This is just another step in a long process for America

More answers about Peak Oil! (or just better phrased questions)

Summary of Part I in this series about Peak Oil

1. Peak Oil is coming, very likely sometime in the next 20 years. It could happen today. This will force a major transition in the global economy; as a “crash program” for adaptation will take roughly two decades. We need to start now.
2. We need much more data and much better analysis in order to develop national policies to prepare for Peak Oil.
3. The rulers of Russia and especially the Middle Eastern states have the missing data needed to accurately forecast the date of peak oil. They might not see it as wise to share this information with us.
4. The CIA could have — should have — obtained this data during the past two decades. If this data shows that peak oil lies in the distant future, that would explain the American government’s failure to take even minimal steps to prepare.

Note: these articles do not forecast oil prices or the date of peak oil.

When will global oil production peak? Here is the answer!

Peak Oil will be one of the defining events of this century. Forecasts by professionals in energy-related fields fall in a large range between 2006 and 2025+, with most forecasts by institutions in the later half of this range. Estimates vary widely due to two very different kinds of factors.

Factor #1:  Known Unknowns

• We know so little that about many factors that experts can only guess at their effects over the next 20 years.
• Economic growth. Today growth in global real GDP of 5%/year increases oil consumption by about 1% - 2%/year, although this relationship varies over time.
• Technological progress improving efficiency of energy use (e.g., hybrid cars) and production. Possible new energy sources include cellulosic ethanol, coal to liquids, gas to liquids, solar, fusion, kerogen (AKA “oil shale”).
• Rate of adoption of new technology, which depends on many factors but especially government incentives and the cost of oil.
• Growth of production from new conventional oil fields (e.g., Iraq).
• Decrease in production from mature (post-peak) fields. Ten years ago 3% was a typical assumption, based on history of US (e.g., Texas) fields. Today many large fields (e.g., UK’s North Sea, Mexico’s Cantarell) have decline rates in the low teens.
• Growth of production from unconventional sources of liquid fuels, such as Venezuela’s heavy oil, Alberta’s bitumen (aka “oil sands), deep-sea oil, Artic natural gas, and biofuels.

Factor II:  Known Knowns – known to some, but not by us.

The Plame Affair and the Decline of the State

Here are some speculative thoughts on the Plame Affair seen through the prism of two familiar DNI themes: the Decline of the State and 4GW.  We will start slowly, attempting to clear away details that obscure the important underlying meanings.What is the Plame affair not about?

1.  This is not a policy dispute, certainly not over the decision to invade Iraq.

Excerpt from Special Counsel Fitzgerald’s Press Conference on October 28:

FITZGERALD: This indictment is not about the war. This indictment’s not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.

Both parties overwhelmingly voted for the war, to the extent Congress actually votes on anything these days. Hillary is an enthusiastic supporter of the Iraq Expedition. Kerry campaigned as an experienced Warrior on a platform of staying the course in Iraq. Now he boldly advocates withdrawing 20,000 US troops after the December 17 Iraq elections.

The domestic opposition to the War centers on the political extremes. The left seems more vocal, but fringe right-wing figures such as Patrick Buchanan and William Lind have actively opposed it from the beginning.

2.  It’s not about disclosure of a covert agent’s identity

Much of the commentary on this is guilty of Assuming a Fact Not In Evidence.  Plame’s status in the CIA is the central conundrum of the story, the foundation for the Left’s lurid descriptions of our damaged National Security and calls for Impeachment.

Libby’s indictment does not even attempt to establish that Plume’s status was protected under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. It appears impossible to do so according to the little information publicly known.