Should we be concerned for WW3?

An alarming thought but could it be a harsh reality with the looming Energy crisis. The Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting [1] reports that by 2025 global energy consumption will increase by 57% projected figures up to 2025:

Oil - 77 million barrels a day in 2002 to 119 million barrels per day
Gas - 92 trillion cubic feet in 2002 to 156 trillion feet in 2025 (51% attributed to electric power generation)
Coal - 5262 short million tons in 2002, to 8226 in 2025
Electricity - 14,275 billion kilowatts an hour in 2002, to 26,018 in 2025

World energy demand is expected to increase from 412 quadrillion British thermal units 2002, to 645 quadrillion in 2025, with transportation accounting for 60% of that increase. It is also expected that more than 59% of the energy will come from the Organization of Petroleum Export Companies [2]. Non-OPEC contributors are expected to supply the difference, however, American crude peaked in 1972 and if it hasn’t already done so North America is expected to follow suit with an overall world peak projected for 2030 [3]. The IEO2005 projections for oil production are based on the US Geological mean survey of oil both discovered and non-discovered.

With major OPEC contributors being in the Middle East, sanctions, civil unrest and acts of terrorism had for years jeopardized current and proposed pipelines, and stabilization was paramount, particularly in Iraq (Iraq has the easier to refine sweet oil particularly at the Halfaya with a production capacity expected to reach into the billions of barrels). And as the war on terrorism played out, behind the scenes an energy wooing war was going on, and though purchasing energy products is common emerging markets locking in very high deals isn’t which has created a whole new global paradigm of supply and demand.

China, currently the worlds no 2 consumer though predicted to become no 1, has increased energy purchases from Russia (they are also Russia's biggest buyer of military hardware). China also has stakes in Yuganskneftegaz [4] the second largest oil producer in Russia. Other energy increases for China have come from Iran; with India (20% stake) and China (50% stake) developing the Iranian Yahavaran field [5]. Further increases to China’s energy supply have come from Saudi Arabia along with exploration rights for the al-Khali Basin [6]. Meanwhile, Iran and Russia continue drilling in the Caspian Sea despite division of the area being in dispute, and in February 2005 Russia signed a nuclear fuel deal with Iran [7]. In respect of sanctions against Iran - no foreign investment or supply of LNG conversion technology is permitted; however, Iran recently signed a 21-22 billion dollar LNG (gas) deal with India [8]. The Iran/Pakistan/India pipeline [9] was scheduled to begin in 2006, with potential for the line to then extend from India to China despite the 1996 Iran-Libya Sanctions Act [10] and as the relationship between China and Russia continues to strengthen they have participated in the largest joint military exercises since 1958 [11].

continued:

Continued from above^

In September 4th 2001, Bush [12] had concerns over China's trade of missiles technology and had sought to reassure China that the U.S. missile defence program was not a threat. However, the US had withdrew from the Anti Ballistics Missile Treaty [13] and has been unable to reach agreement on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty [14]. The US also shortened nuclear testing time from 18 to 12 months and proposed a considerable increase [15] in the 2006 budget for bunker buster missiles [16]. A future move into space deployment of missiles may also be possible following the new U.S. Space Transportation policy [17], December 2004.

The surge on Iraq went ahead without UN approval and should the U.S decide to tackle Iran over WMD they will be doing it without the UN; because both China and Russia have veto power [18] and have declared they will veto any action against Iran. Therefore, it is highly possible that should the U.S. decide to continue this push forward into the Middle East, there is a potential for something far more catastrophic than what we have seen so far.

Copyright belongs to me aka Gypsy aka Chi

References:
1 ~ tonto.eia.doe.gov...(2005)04.pdf
2 ~ www.eia.doe.gov...
3 ~ www.mysanantonio.com...
4 ~ www.atimes.com...
5 ~www.atimes.com...
6 ~ www.nautilus.org...
7 ~ www.themoscowtimes.com...
8 ~ www.petroleumiran.com...
9 ~ www.domain-b.com...
10 ~ www.eia.doe.gov...
www.pinr.com...
11 ~ www.pinr.com...


12 ~www.whitehouse.gov...
13 ~ www.fas.org...
14 ~ www.armscontrol.org...
15 ~ feinstein.senate.gov...
16 ~ www.globalsecurity.org...
17 ~ www.ostp.gov...
18 ~ www.un.org...


[edit on 5-12-2006 by Gypsy_Rose]

Personaly I havent been afraid of ww III sence the colapse of the USSR. If we wernt already in a world war currently I wouldent be verry concerned. Least this world war isnt starting out too bad.

It's a fairly interesting topic but...

I read this very same article earlier this year...and found it again.

The entry in its entirety can be found here:
From Looming Clouds of an Energy War

Oddly, your sources are those that are embedded links in the blog post mentioned above.

If you are not the original author, I strongly suggest you give credit to the original author as not to present this work as yours. If you are the original author would you please verify.



mg

Originally posted by missed_gear
It's a fairly interesting topic but...

I read this very same article earlier this year...and found it again.


The entry in its entirety can be found here:
From Looming Clouds of an Energy War

Oddly, your sources are those that are embedded links in the blog post mentioned above.

If you are not the original author, I strongly suggest you give credit to the original author as not to present this work as yours. If you are the original author would you please verify.



mg

Thanks for the advice, however, there is no need to worry as not only am I the original author of this one but I'm also the original author of the Chi blog, and it was also posted on Parity's blog. They also aren't actually the same, but that is largely a result of a 12 month lapse since it was originally written. For the record, I usually only ever post my own work but if I was to use something belonging to another I'd always cite it. Thanks for checking it out though.

Cheers

Those are some conservative estimates arent they? I am shocked that the world energy demand would not double, if not tripple, by 2025.

The war in Iraq is very simple to understand. It's to prevent India and China from obtaining that oil needed for their industrialization.

I'm a child of the Cold War. I lived through the Cuban Missle Crisis, the USSR/US brinkmanship, the whole enchilada. But I can honestly say that I never feared a large-scale world war until the last several years. Despite our mutual posturing during the Cold War, both the US and the USSR knew that even if we 'won' we'd lose. It was all about economics back then. Economics and world power (influence). Things have changed.

The rise of islamofacism has changed things. Their stated goal is to convert the entire world's population and eliminate the unconverted. I, for one, cannot imagine a scenario that will make this go away --- save Mohammed himself decending on a flaming pie and telling them all that they're wrong and to sit down and shut up. I'm afraid that is unlikely.

The energy aspect is real. Of course we had our wake-up call back in the '70s during the Iranian crisis and subsequent energy crisis. Roughly 30yrs to come up with a plan and what did we get? Jack. A Katrina-esque response from the government. Nothing. And here we are today up to our eyeballs in guano and no viable plan. 30yrs for a small group of people to get obscenely wealthy while our security went into the toilet.

The figures provided by the OP are obviously reasonable but assume that there will be no significant changes in energy technology over the next 20yrs. We all better hope they're wrong. By reducing our oil needs by 50% it would be entirely possible to marginalize our reliance on the Middle East. That seems like alot but it is well within the capabilities of current technology. The problem is greed. There are too many well-positioned, highly influential people that are reaping massive profits from oil and they are going to do anything they possibly can to perpetuate that at any and all costs.

Even if we are able to mitigate the escalating energy crunch, I feel the larger problem is the accelerating eschatological tide --- on both sides. That problem, I fear, is the larger one and unsolvable by any kind of technology as far as I can see.

Originally posted by Gypsy_Rose
Thanks for the advice, however, there is no need to worry as not only am I the original author of this one but I'm also the original author of the Chi blog,

That’s great; I noticed you changed the header on the other site…thanks for the clarification.

Population, industrial growth and demands on resources will undoubtedly continue to grow under the assumption of status quo. The assumed causes for a large scale clash over energy are there; but will these possible large scaled clashes over energy predate those over food and/or potable water?

Since China is exampled in the original post, is it not more probable that China will reach a severe food crisis before she has a true energy crisis? The crisis that arises out of food/water shortages are is the ‘stuff of rebellions’ and instability are born, leading to rapid economic and industrial decline lowering the demand for energy. The same holds true for India as well; population increases near 2% and food production growth only at 1.3%....she too, like China, has become a net food importer.

I can foresee a war fought of fishing rights or territorial acquisition before a collective international war is fought over oil.

mg

yes there will be a large scale clash for energy and it is happenning now. the united states needs to change direction in the new technology for transportation. if not it will end up in a revolution in the united states. no joke, we need an answer , NOW. maybe the hydrogen or water car or teslamotors.com car or something else we need it now and not some huge pricetag connected to it so the peoples can not afford it either.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Those are some conservative estimates arent they? I am shocked that the world energy demand would not double, if not tripple, by 2025.

Quite possibly, and it would be interesting to have access to the complete breakdown of the data and statistics they used to come up with the figures.

Originally posted by jtma508
...both the US and the USSR knew that even if we 'won' we'd lose. It was all about economics back then.

I would speculate that despite the current movements that the powers to be realise that would still/always be the case. IMHO the powers to be are merely asserting their position in an attempt to show they will respond if need be, and not because they are on the verge of declaring war.

Originally posted by jtma508
The figures provided by the OP are obviously reasonable but assume that there will be no significant changes in energy technology over the next 20yrs. We all better hope they're wrong. By reducing our oil needs by 50% it would be entirely possible to marginalize our reliance on the Middle East. That seems like alot but it is well within the capabilities of current technology.

Unfortunately though alternative sources of energy are too often fraught with well meaning people concerned for their local environment. And thats not to say people don't have the right to be concerned of course, but all too often we fail to see the bigger picture and in effect by our opposition are binding the hands of those who seek to pursue new lines of energy.

Originally posted by missed_gear

Originally posted by Gypsy_Rose
Thanks for the advice, however, there is no need to worry as not only am I the original author of this one but I'm also the original author of the Chi blog,

That’s great; I noticed you changed the header on the other site…thanks for the clarification.

I was going to delete the whole blog, but figured it was just as easy to offer some clarification. Once I remembered how to navigate the site of course.

Originally posted by missed_gear
The assumed causes for a large scale clash over energy are there; but will these possible large scaled clashes over energy predate those over food and/or potable water? Since China is exampled in the original post, is it not more probable that China will reach a severe food crisis before she has a true energy crisis? The crisis that arises out of food/water shortages are is the ‘stuff of rebellions’ and instability are born, leading to rapid economic and industrial decline lowering the demand for energy. The same holds true for India as well; population increases near 2% and food production growth only at 1.3%....she too, like China, has become a net food importer.


mg

Some interesting points, and yes I would agree that the food/water situation may become an issue in the long term also, however, China has over recent years considerably increased both its agricultural and health care budget with an end goal of becoming mostly self sustainable. India, has also strengthened it's relationships with other countries in the area of immigration, and as a result their population growth is expected (particularly here in Australia) to offset the population decline of other countries. You can have all the food/goods under the sun but without a means to produce and transport on a large scale it would be useless and life as we know it would drastically change, particularly when you consider the 'home' economy of rising costs etc.

[edit on 6-12-2006 by Gypsy_Rose]

Russia appears to be the wild card. Should China feel the energy availability from Russia is threatened, they may feel the need to firm up a mid and far Eastern alliance for the purpose of an Eastern oil cartel more powerful and plentiful than the West's.

I've read that Bush wasn't interested in invading Afghanistan after 911, he wanted to go right for Iraq. In response to the Eastern oil cartel Chavez proposed with Hussien, I imagine. His advisor's had to talk him into attacking Afghanistan first.

The taliban are Russia's enemies, as far as the pipeline there is concerned. Now they are ours. Bush probably wanted to avoid alienating those who fought the Russians during their attempts to secure the region.

As far as food sources, we shouldn't underestimate the thirst and famine that may result from global warming. Especially where water is concerned.

Only 3% of all the water is freshwater, safe for drinking—and most of this is unavailable for human use. Roughly a full three quarters of all freshwater is part of the frozen and largely uninhabited ice caps and glaciers. What remains for our use is about 1% of the total. (North America’s Great Lakes and Russia’s Lake Baikal make up about two-fifths of this volume.)
www.realtruth.org...

Water will be a more valuable resource than oil. Given the current inertia of consumption and growing scarcity of resources, it does appear a fight is likely.

Originally posted by Gypsy_Rose
however, China has over recent years considerably increased both its agricultural and health care budget with an end goal of becoming mostly self sustainable.

Hu began urgent studies in late 2004 on China’s food security which were based on the declining grain production. But the question has always been (at least form 2002 on), can China become self sustaining in agriculture? Potable and fresh water is an entirely different problem and I agree with the previous poster.

The pressures from feeding its people, changes in diet demand and a strong desire to produce large quantities of ethanol for fuel have placed tremendous pressures on the agricultural sector that can not produce enough to sustain itself and may never catch-up.

Originally posted by Gypsy_Rose
You can have all the food/goods under the sun but without a means to produce and transport on a large scale it would be useless and life as we know it would drastically change,

This is true, however, agricultural fuel consumption in both production and distribution are miniscule in comparison the private and industrial consumption. What is equally true is that the basic need for food and water is greater than that of the need for oil. Agriculture drives the factors affecting China's private and indutrial economy. Fuel consumption is directly related to private and industrial demands. China’s inability to sustain its own people in food production while incurring very large agricultural deficits has a ripple effect through the global community as well as her overall economy.

Along the same lines, these current increases in fuel demands will continue to have a large negative effect on agricultural prices and output which is a fast track to exponential inflation and food shortages effecting fuel consumption. These factors are enjoined and respectively involved in their own downward eschatological spiral which is amplified by their grossly enormous populations.

To this point:
China's small shortage in 2004, this shortage increased grain prices 26% (10% increase in food prices), added 3.9% to the consumer price index and caused the first rate increase (27 basis points) by China’s central bank in nine years. These shortages , despite rapid government intervention, are expected to continue increase with greater increments.

To place this in a clearer perspective, China’s continuing decrease in grain production (as in 2004 and continue today) of 70+ million tons is the equivalent to the entire grain harvest of Canada. Quite a substancial loss.

The possibilities of wars, as you mention, can just as easily be stoked by the poorer nations competing for food and water while starving because of these large behemoth populaces, polluters and economies attempting to feed themselves while supplementing fuel consumption with biofuels...constantly driving-up the grain prices. China is already moving beyond her borders to open extremely large agricultural production ranges. An example is the Tianguan Distillery, opening a 32,000-acre cassava production base in Laos

As the world food prices continue to rise, scant water grows in demand and staple food becomes even more scarce, will these host nations allow China to continue to harvest crops and deplete water inside their borders only for export? …and what will China do to protect her growing agricultural interests in other nations as her demand for biofuels increases pressures on her already over taxed agricultural sectors? If China abandons its' ethanol ambitions for the sake of food production then her consumption of oil increases and as does the demand for water and so on…


mg