The US military lives by frightening Americans into spending enormous amounts of money to counter threats, which are partly imaginary, from every quarter imaginable.
This is just like the doom-mongers of 1973, who assured us, with back-up from the entire scientific community which depends upon government funding, that oil would dry up in 13 years. We now have many times more oil reserves than in 1973.
Take it with a pinch of salt.

overtonian:
So the current USD 85 price per barrel of oil can only be due to speculators?
We shall see.
Peak Oil is a nebulous concept - after all you can always make oil from coal - or diesel from renewable, vegetable sources.

And your statement:

"This is just like the doom-mongers of 1973, who assured us, with back-up from the entire scientific community which depends upon government funding, that oil would dry up in 13 years"

is palpably false.
The Athabasca tar sands were pointed out as being a huge source of oil in the late 1950's by my grammar school geography teacher.
SASOL was going ful blast then as well.

Do you really think that fossil fuels are an unending resource?
There are many ways of producing hydro-carbons - but it looks like the cheap ways are rapidly running out.

overtonian

This is just like the doom-mongers of 1973, who assured us, with back-up from the entire scientific community which depends upon government funding, that oil would dry up in 13 years.

I don't believe this was the consensus of the scientific community in 1973. Can you back this up with some references?

Besides, peak oil is nothing to do with oil "drying up" or "running out". It's about the end of cheap oil. We've already taken all the cheap, easy to extract stuff out of the ground already. 150 years ago, oil used to bubble up out of the ground under pressure and would be collected in buckets. Those days are long gone. Nowadays it takes massive amounts of energy and cost to extract oil. The day will come when it takes the energy of one barrel of oil to extract a barrel. When that day comes, it doesn't matter how much someone will pay for that barrel, it just won't be worth it.

In 1930, the energy in 1 barrel would extract around 100 barrels. Today it's less tha 20:1 and falling. See http://www.crudeoilpeak.com/downloads/EROEI_Diminishing_Returns.pdf. For oil sands and shale it's even worse, less than 10:1.

Although high oil prices allow more expensive extraction techniques to be used, they would ultimately lead to another global recession.

The solution to the peak oil problem is then to make the US military irrelevant. With a much reduced US military its demand for oil will taper off and free capacity for more productive civilian uses. Peak oil is delayed while alternative energy sources are developed.

The US military already is impotent in spite of all its threats to bring new wars to Iran, North Korea, as a the puppet for Israeli aggression and in imperial aggressions against various small but resource rich countries. Once the Iraq and Afghan wars wind down, as they must as they failed to get results after eight years of bombing and the destruction of these countries, the mighty US war machine will not have a self appointed role to police the world. There is no support from the American people for more wars the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan. Their military machine is broken and will take some 20 years to rebuild to pre-911 levels.

Currently only the US Navy is still mainly intact and the most prolific user of military funding and oil. Eleven superior carriers and their air wings plus support ships to do what? Patrol the seas against piracy? Disaster relief. Fly the flag? A much smaller naval force can do that.

The USN to bomb the bejesus out of small defenseless countries? Nope can't do that anymore as small countries know by now how not to provide excuses for Uncle Sam to do so. Had Afghanistan surrendered Bin Laden Bush would have been at a loss what else to do and there would not have been an Afghan invasion or the false WMD invasion of Iraq. Small country regimes do not threaten Uncle Sam. Iran and North Korea assert their rights to pursue nuclear power generation capacity as allowed under international law. They do not threaten to build nuclear bombs. Save your arguments for later. Under present international law Iran and DPRK has every right to do so and the pre-emptive strike thing is no longer an option.

The USN will fight to keep its expensive floating flagpoles. My solution is for China, which has both the economic and industrial capacity, and the manpower, to develop an asymmetrical naval force. The objective is not to challenge the USN ship for ship or firepower for firepower, but to neutralize the USN's huge investment in ships that can never be used for the purpose its designed for - a gory battle with an enemy aircraft carrier battle fleet as per WWII battles against the IJN. It can be done.

Point & figure chart showing bullish target of $104 for crude oil in the near term (as of 11th April 2010):

http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.pnf?c=$wtic,P

The debate about peak oil has moved on tremendously in the past few years.

The recent Obama decision to allow drilling in some coastal areas of the USA made world news and yet the total reserves represent about two years of US consumption. It's in deep water too so will cost a lot to exploit. Is this panic?

Is this the US military's opening salvo? 'Resource wars' - over oil and water - have been predicted for a long time. Just like in the UK, the US military has to constantly justify it existance so 'securing energy supplies' is neater and easier to sell to the folks at home than 'spreading democracy'. Was this Gulf Wars one and two?

Then there's coal. Lots of it and in the right places (Europe, Australia, India, China, USA) and can be processed to allow it to be used instead of petrol. Expensive and dirty ( so forget about trying to stop global warming). Politically problematic but no where near as problematic as asking people to start using public transport or cycling.

I'm confused. Am I suggesting peak oil is now a right wing conspiracy?

I remember reading in textbooks two decades ago that oil will run out in about 30-50 years. That time will soon come and that doomsday scenario might still happen, yet, as it is today, oil is still aplenty. True, taking into account China's and India's predicted growth of oil consumption over the next decades will inevitably generate a big stress on the future world oil supply.

But, year after year, the world's known oil reserves also kept on increasing. The most recent gigantic oil discovery to be found is in the offshore fields of Brazil in the Atlantic (not yet online btw). With more exploration and investment, I believe there are still more oil out there to be discovered in Africa and Central Asia.

Even if aggregate oil supply does stagnate or fall, there are other forms of energy that we can turn to. Coal is obvious while gas is another one. In fact, exploration of gas supply in Australia, Central Asia, and in the offshore fields of western Africa have recently yielded new gigantic discoveries there. A more "radical" alternative is to switch over to nuclear and renewables. Several European countries are already ahead in this sector. And they aren't alone. Just recently, Guardian released an article which stated that hydro, nuclear and wind power will account for 26 per cent of China's electricity generation by the end of this year 2010.

So, in this case I tend to agree with overtonian in that this "threat" of oil shortages is for the most part imaginary. Perhaps, this may just be another pretext for the US military to invade Iran, Venezuela, or any other countries in the Middle East or other resource-rich countries. You know, anything for national security, right?

And in US news the only headline is about Colin Campbell:

"Peak oil drives prices up in the first place. It has its own mechanism. We're sort of at peak demand right now," Campbell told Reuters from his home in the village of Ballydehob, West Cork. "I think presently the price limit is about $100."

For those who have painted alarming pictures of civil unrest as the world economy is forced to move away from conventional fuel and pay high prices for it in the interim, an inbuilt price mechanism to limit demand and move the world to other forms of energy should be a good thing."

In the US press this is touted as good news! Un & underemployment is around 20%, so $90 oil is a good thing, it forces us to be green - just imagine how green we'll be when oil gets back to $150, maybe 50% will be underemployed!

The comments above seem to focus mainly on the timing of peak oil. Surely that is not really the issue.

We know with absolute certainty that oil, coal and gas WILL run out completely at some point, probably during the course of this century. We will then have a population of about 10 billion and no way to feed more than about 10% of them.

Saying something isn't a problem just because it won't cause a fuel surcharge on the summer holiday you just booked seems a tad short sighted.

The warning is the latest in a series from around the world that has turned peak oil ? the moment when demand exceeds supply ? from a distant threat to a more immediate risk.

Peak oil has been an immediate risk for a while, the lack of supply growth has already lead to the current recession. The stability we are seeing now is due to the demand destruction caused by the previously high prices. Renewed economic growth can only see another oil price spike.

Unfortunately this cycle will keep reoccurring until the economic framework starts to break down. This problem is entirely systemic and stagflation is the only outcome.

Robert Hirsch's report for the US DoE stated that to mitigate peak oil we needed a 20 year lead time. The plateau began in 2004-8, and our time is up, we need a crash course solution - a massive war time effort to change our economy and our lifestyles.

We need to localize resource management, jobs and agriculture. Localization is the only solution that doesn't destroy our climate or lead us to war.

also.. why is this story impossible to find... should be on the front ******* page! hell.. why not replace 'Women have brains and uteruses'... jesus...

Energy expended for extraction will approach 1:1, but thats only a problem if your ONLY energy source is oil. If you are using solar/coal/nuclear to power the extraction and refining processes then its not a game ender.
Peak oil is mostly an issue due to the lack of an alternative liquid fuel for transportation.
While coal can be liquified into oil, the sheer scale of the coal to liquids (CTL) infrastructure required to replace the missing oil (and to support new demand from the BRIC's) is staggering.

This is the real challenge, to begin to build CTL infrastructure of the scale required, fast enough to prop up the supply at a given cost. The question as to when this will happen is partially policitical and partially economic. Economically when the oil price settles above the cost per barrel to mine, refine and distribute CTL and when it looks likely that it will stay above that break even price, we will see the infrastructure being built. This will be a difficult process because the increased demand for coal will raise coals price, this altering the break even point and simultaneously high oil prices will stifle economic growth, leading to lower demand and perversely lower oil prices.

One important question is; "Is the break even price per barrel for CTL low enough that this price can be achieved before the global economy grinds to a halt?" Thats a really important question, but luckily according to a quick google the technology seems to be profitable above $50USD per barrel, and China is already investing in the infrastructure and buying coal companies globally.

Peak Oil is about liquid fuels, its going to be challenging and will likely involve large scale economic dislocation during a time when the oil price rises enough to disrupt economic growth, but its not necessarilly the end of the world.

If you think there is plenty of oil out there, why is Saudi Arabia building platforms to drill for oil in the ocean? Soon they will keep their dwindling supplies for themselves as will many other countries.

also.. why is this story impossible to find... should be on the front ******* page! hell.. why not replace 'Women have brains and uteruses'... jesus...

Well, denial, as we all know, is a river in Egypt.

Actually, why not replace "Are big shoulders over?"

The Guardian is really going downhill these days.

BannedInBoston

Your post made zero sense. You claim that the solution to the peak oil problem is to "make the US military irrelevant", even though China is the largest consumer of oil. After describing the US armed forces as "impotent" and "broken" (thus negating your argument to render it irrelevant), you suggest that China develop a superior military to neutralize the current American advantage...as another solution to the problem of peak oil?

Why is the US military projecting the world oil supply in 2015? Is this the job for a military? I thought oil forecast was made by oil companies, market analyzers and OPEC nations. Since when did a military get involved in such predictions? Are they warning the world about the next war based on oil?

> In a recent interview with French newspaper, Le Monde, Glen
> Sweetnam, main oil adviser to the Obama administration, admitted that
> "a chance exists that we may experience a decline" of world liquid
> fuels production between 2011 and 2015 if the investment was not
> forthcoming.

This article is actually from a blog on "Le Monde"'s web site :
[ http://petrole.blog.lemonde.fr ]
and it goes way beyond a simple interview :

"WASHINGTON CONSIDERS A DECLINE OF WORLD OIL PRODUCTION AS OF 2011"
http://petrole.blog.lemonde.fr/2010/03/25/washington-considers-a-decline-of-world-oil-production-as-of-2011/

see also (april 6) :
"THE PENTAGON ALSO EXPECTS AN IMMINENT OIL SHOCK" (en français)
http://petrole.blog.lemonde.fr/2010/04/06/le-pentagone-sattend-a-un-choc-petrolier-imminent/

"Peak Oil is a nebulous concept - after all you can always make oil from coal - or diesel from renewable, vegetable sources."

True ish, but last time I checked it would need all the arable farmland of Europe just to produce enough diesel fuel for the UK, and the good people of Europe might not be happy if we did that.
And if we did that, where would our wine come from?

Coal is the better option.

Once again, no mention of climate change. If I were paranoid, I'd say it was deliberate.

The consumption of fossil fuels is dumping huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and oceans, causing climate change on a scale never seen by mankind in all its history.

We should, perhaps, be cheering that something is causing us to ease up on consumption, and not trying to keep on keeping on polluting the planet.

Could this simply another manufactured crisis being fostered upon us by the elite in order to create a fear in minds of the public that will allow them to coerce us into accepting another element of their increasingly shitter reality.

Another false PROBLEM created to generate a predictable public REACTION in which the elite will offer us their SOLUTION.

It's time to listen to the loonies on the grass.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Could this simply another manufactured crisis being fostered upon us by the elite in order to create a fear in minds of the public that will allow them to coerce us into accepting another element of their increasingly shitter reality.

lol... no. If it was, there would actually be some coverage..

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Peak oil is a very serious problem for the world. If it was the only serious problem then it would be overcome with little more than a decade or two of global depression. However, it is simply the most immediate and visible of the global limits to growth. Modern industrial society, agriculture and globalisation are all predicated on exponentially growing supplies of cheap (mostly fossil) energy. Once the supply of net energy stops growing, so does the global economy. As the global population is still rising, economic, and probably social and population collapse are then inevitable.

For detailed analysis and discussion:

www.theoildrum.com

Doesn't really matter WHEN it will happen, be it in 2, 3 ou 5 years time. It is general concensous that it WILL happen. This alone will perciptate things to come because the markets runs on expectations.

Peak oil has been a niggling little whisper that only a few oil industry specialists and experts would talk about. Worse than that, it is something you are only aware of once you are sure you are heading downhill on the production curve with no way up.

This article suggests that the supply/demand concerns which hiked oil prices in 2007, and resulted in the credit crunch are very real. Unless we achieve more than 88mbpd output the world will find it difficult to secure growth in conventional terms.

And remember this is about a resource which is already liquid. Yes you can make liquid fuels from tar and coal, and yes they may be abundant.

But they require more energy, and therefore are more expensive. (Energy Invested Over Energy Returned ratio starts to get smaller), and this can only mean one thing. Even if you achieve growth, it is going to be more difficult and more expensive.

And yes, there are more deposits of heavy and liquid oil being found, but the places where oil comes from are becoming fewer, and therefore distribution becomes the energy overhead. This means that in order to keep up you need more containers, and people running around picking up and delivering the fuel.

If you can imagine for one moment that instead of every house having tap water, every street only having one tap, and the distribution issue will be neighbours running around with jerry cans. Instead of plastic jerry-cans of water think secure oil pipelines, refineries and ships.

So peak oil is not just about the physical availability of oil, it is about the forms in which that oil exists and how it can be moved to where it is required.

In much the same way as you would probably take fewer showers, have fewer cups of tea, and re-use water, if you had to wander down the road with a jerry can, we?ll have to urgently have to address how we use oil.

Oil is used in fertiliser, pesticides, drugs, plastics, and apart from powering V8 SUV?s is a major input to how we live life today. And how we live life has been exported to China, India and Indonesia. Another 3 billion people craving to drive cars, fly, and have satellite TV?s.

So we have a big problem, and the solution is frugality and social re-engineering.

And lastly, if you think that the US has only just seen this coming ... think again. Oil is a strategic resource, and Iraq has a whole heap of it.

PS .. the undulating plateau of production, at least versus consumption, is one I would adhere to.

Available resources will trigger search for easy to exploit resources, and investments in infrastructure which could be guaranteed to be paid back with the oil available.

It will also encourage frugality and alternative production, industrial, and economic values.

But was an undulating plateau needs is worldwide and economic acceptance of the inevitable.

GuardianWatch1

Have you ever thought that all of what you say are not seperate crisis, but all part of one predictable one?

The huge amount of credit being a subsidy for diminishing industrial output from the west as corporations looked east to maximise earnings?

The credit driving economic expansion, and demands for more resources

9/11 being caused not just for new laws, but to promte and invasion into the middle east to secure stable oil supplies?

The vunerability of stable oil supplies being the catalyst for the credit crunch?

What I am saying is, that it is too late to be frightened.

The time to be frightened was when Regan/Thatcher won the cold war and neo-con .economic arguments for globalisation.

Now is the time not to be frightened, but to take action.

Why is the US military projecting the world oil supply in 2015? Is this the job for a military? I thought oil forecast was made by oil companies, market analyzers and OPEC nations. Since when did a military get involved in such predictions? Are they warning the world about the next war based on oil?

The Pentagon was briefed about Peak Oil years ago by, among others, Matt Simmons of Simmons International (which you can Google). Matt Simmons' company is the only independent energy investment company in the US and Matt Simmons has been educating those willing to listen for years. His website shows all his presentations and production graphs.

He is a businessman, not a politician or a 'greenie' - he also seems to be a pretty decent human being.

If you want to know what the then powers-that-were thought in response to peak oil, you can Google 'Cheney and peak oil' and find all about his views and why the military would want to know:

http://www.peakoil.net/Publications/Cheney_PeakOil_FCD.pdf

If they actually believed this, they'd be pulling out of Iraq and cutting aid to Israel and Egypt wouldn't they?

I believe in Peak Oil and I believe in manmade Climate Change.

I find it hard to believe the US military, however. Are there some substantial defence cuts coming up to help pay for Obama's health bill? Are the military trying to justify their existence? And need for investment in more tanks and missiles etc. etc.?

Higher oil prices will drive the move to alternatives. Alternatives cannot provide all we need at the moment. More investment and improvements in technology may save us over time, but there will be many hard years ahead.

Some nice ideas in here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriquez_wants_to_grow_energy.html

Iraq is the short term solution to peak oil as it can probably pump 10-12 million barrels per day and delay much of this.

Many people think Iraq was invaded to control its oil. The value for America is not in owning Iraqs oil, its in delaying the point at which it is paying $200 a barrel by increasing supply. America I think imports about 50% of its oil or about 10 million barrels per day. Paying $100 instead of $200 for ten years saves $3.65 trillion or the same amount as Iraq will make selling 10 million barrels per day for 10 years at $100.

China is buying a lot more cars and at the same time investing heavily in securing reserves around the world as a hedge against price rises.

Oil demand at 83 million barrels a day caused the price to slump to $30, oil demand at 87 million caused it to go to $150. Supply doesn't have to decline much for this to start getting quite expensive as oil is currently so necessary to everything we do. Put quite simply we have to pay for a reasonable amount of it no matter what it costs.

If they actually believed this, they'd be pulling out of Iraq and cutting aid to Israel and Egypt wouldn't they?

Umm... they're in Iraq and Afghanistan to secure the distribution of oil. Israel is a powerful western ally in the region which maintains the strength of the US military. Their goal in the Middle east is to secure distribution around the Caspian basin.

Hmmm.and suddenly Mad max...does not seem so absurd after all..well maybe.. ..we could have a hydrogen based economy very quickly ...now that oil is reaching silly prices again...and again...until collapse?...also we can buids nuclear stations based on thorium reactors......theres also a power plant that used liquid molten sodium( or something like that)..i think its an OZZy design..then of course theres wind and wave power...hardly touched yet and solar power....but the window to get there is slowly closing...everything we make or move or use ...needs cheap oil...that day is over...perhaps when we are all desperate enough ...and food becomes scarce..as does our ability to make items or products...we might start to look at research.which universities with good football teams dont like to talk about...over a thousand peer reviewed papers and the US Navy research lab and motorola...already know that cold fusion ...can be made to work....ego time is over....investment is needed now...not shale oil...and extra nuclear stations to get us through the dip in oil...which is coming...still the changes will be enormous...hopefully peaceful....the word ...sustainability....springs to mind...rather nicely

Peak Oil is a fact, but latest confirmations from the oil industry says that the current proven reserves can last for 42 years at the current depletion rate. However, recently huge discoveries have been made in the Gulf of Maxico which adds to the existing proven reserves. On the other hand, investment in E&P are slowing down in some mature oil areas such as the North Sea which is witnessing a significant slow down in drilling activities. However, the report says that the US military does not want to depend on imported oil for its security of supply and not to have political problems, but these option can be changed on one hand and on the other hand it does not mean that the World will have a supply problem by 2011-12. It is just an expectation for the US military forces. Governments are doing what they can to increase supply and bring oil reserves which were shelved years ago for not being comercially viable into production nowadays in particular that oil prices and advances in technology changed the description of these fields positively. We just wish not to see another war around the World for the sake of energy resources and hoping that renewables will find their ways soon to our consumption requirements.

It is amazing that with all of our knowledge and historical hindsight, we as peoples of the world can't see the wool being pulled over our eyes DAILY. Propaganda everywhere! Counter, Recounter psychological warfare from all angles. Check it, the US military is a monster machine that uses up most of the world's resources along with its cohorts, namely the British, Australians, Chinese, Russians etc etc. They use up more of the earth's resources than most of the world's billion population. Talk about oil! They waste more resources than we probably use. Sure there will be a oil shortage...bet on it. What the US military is telling us is that with the oil they are wasting now and will wasting in the future that there won't be enough to go around. Check the concept: protecting us from us. How far out is that! If we want to buy some time we must get rid of some of these cars, militaries and there weapons of destruction, cut back on planes, and other transport methods that use huge amounts of our resources, but granted, we as a people, with the wooled pulled over our eyes are trapped.

One Love

Yup. Epic fail. At least I'm here and I know how to walk. I told that Army recruiter no thanks. But I didn't tell her I think I might already have PTSD

Iran is going to get it.

The US military is being disingenuous, because there was a gigantic oil reserve find off the coast of Alaska a few years ago. It was promptly classified, so public knowledge that America has more oil than Saudi Arabia has been stifled. Of course this seem outrageous and hard to believe, but research it on the web - there is a great video and book by a person (a priest of all things) who was at ground zero when the discovery was made. There is very little chance this is a hoax - the guy has too much detail in his story.

By the way, it really makes you wonder what the intended use of all that US oil reserve is. Will it be military, so our war machine could run for years without a foreign supplier?

GuardianWatch1,

Can't you think for your self?

"is this another manufactured etc etc..."

NO.

Use your noggin mate and do some research. Find some answers for yourself.

IF the US were to foster a free, global market for energy then the military could close most of the foreign bases and position the troops to secure the US borders.

"Peak Oil is a fact, but latest confirmations from the oil industry says that the current proven reserves can last for 42 years at the current depletion rate. "

Its almost usless of them to make statments like this and I can only assume they do so to be deceptive. No resource will ever be depleted at the 'current rate' when the world population is exponentially growing at the rate of about 80 million people per year, a doubling time of 44 years.

Oil production has plateaued since late 2004. That means since then production hasnt kept up with demand hence the 2008 price spike. We are currently going through the worst worldwide economic crisis since the great depression and oil production hasnt even gone into decline yet.

Watch the excellent 1 hr documentary "Blood and Oil" - it's on youtube or DVD. Explains a lot.

What is particularly shocking is the attitude of the 'developed world' which expects, and indeed demands, that any country with oil & gas reserves must 'exploit' them and sell them to the developed world, rather than being a resource for the country which owns it. When they don't play ball, they're accused of aggression, so we rush in there with our young men and women and miliitary might to show them what true aggression really is.

Time for each country to look to its own energy independence, or we're doomed to experience the unending horror of global resource wars.

The data has been obvious for years, if only people looked. They took the rosy outlook from the IEA and EIA for granted, not thinking that those agencies MUST not raise a panic.

So, Finally, more and more people are going to come in-line with reality. Otherwise, they are going to look very stupid in the next few years.

They will say all kinds of things like:

Peak Demand
Lack of investment
Political issues
Etc.

All that really needs to be said, unless your ego won't allow it, is Peak Oil

IF the US were to foster a free, global market for energy then the military could close most of the foreign bases and position the troops to secure the US borders.

The US cant and wont make a free global energy market... Firstly it wants to monopolize the market, and secondly if there was free trade it would inevitably lose out to china.

I am glad to see most people here understand the topic very well, perhaps due to the link to this story from the oildrum (excellent site)... For people who don't, my personal favorite documentary on this subject is "Oil Smoke and Mirrors", which explains the situation perfectly.

DrHafezAbdo,

Discovery rates are still smaller than depletion rates, and have been since the 1960's.

For example a huge discovery recently was off the shores of Brazil. 8 billion barrels.

Sounds a lot, and in monetary terms represents about a 680 billion dollars orth of oil at $85 per barrel. Great for Brazil ... but ...

8 Billion barels of oil discovered @ 83 million barrels per day global demand = 96 days worth of oil

Mmm. Not much really, we might need to discover a bit more....

Ah, World Leaders Pretend...

Brzezinski had the answer in 1997. He advised the US administration that a catastrophic event like Pearl Harbour would likely bring US public opinion on-side for a major military incursion to secure the oil assets of Central Asia and the Middle East. What's that? It's already happened? Well, perhaps but not the way Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and Brzezinski's pay masters had envisaged.

Iraqi oil production has remained stalled as lucrative contracts have turned out to be somewhat less than the bean-feast that US oil giants were anticipating. For the UK, having BP partnered with China signals a very definite end to the 'special relationship' with our colonial cousins across the Pond. So, the forecast by the US military is not so much about Peak Oil but Peak Oil under current circumstances. In the meantime, it's a safe bet that there are countries that will see building relationships that are to the detriment of the US's energy strategy as a major part of their foreign policy.

David Gale - Independent PPC - Derby North