The Four Horsemen

There's a program on the History Channel as I write this, as part of the Mega Movers series, entitled Oil Apocalypse. It's a quasi-documentary presentation focusing on expert predictions of not when (everyone seems to agree it's 100-150 years) oil supplies will run out, but rather what will happen globally when it does.

Quite interesting. I was unaware that in the 1950's we supplied half of the worlds oil supply. WE were exporters. In 1956 we consumed 7 million barrels a day, but produced 10 million, meaning we exported the remaining three. In that same year the lead geologist for Shell Oil Company made an ominous prediction - he noted that American oil production would peak in 1970, and decline each year there after. He was right. We peaked in that exact year until currently we produce 8.3 million barrels daily, but consume 20 million - obviously meaning we import the other 11.7 million - per day. Now here's why the geologist's accuracy in that prediction is so important, and scary. He also said that world oil production would peak in the first half of the 21st century. And the GAO - in documents they presented in the program - has confirmed that world wide peak production will be reached between 2007 and 2040. Is everyone aware what "peak production" means? The world's collective ability to drill oil will level off at a certain number, on a certain date, even though the demand will continue to grow as populations, manufacturing, transportation, and cities all grow larger. Every car, heated home, jet plane that is built after that will not be part of the peak production equation. Oil supplies 99% of our transportation, and 50% of our home and business enrgy. And that's just our obvious uses. Asphalt, plastics, tires, cosmetics and many pharmaceuticals are all petroleum based. Even worse, not only will it "peak", but as with all things that hit their ceiling, it will begin to fall. You'll have the simultaneous events of dropping supplies and growing demand. So the "apocalyptic" scenarios won't begin the moment the last drop is sucked out of the ground, rather as soon as it is publicly acknowledged by business and government leaders that peak world production has been reached. The price will spike, 100$ a barrel will be a distant memory, and we will very likely hit a world wide recession the likes of which we have never seen.

Now, back to that GAO report. They also noted that at present we (the US government) have "no clear alternative to avert or delay the repercussions of world wide peak production." Now, as one expert pointed out, if you're the leader of any given 1st or 2nd world nation -let alone third - and you're looking at an economic disaster in in 6 months because of a drastic cut in oil supplies, and you've got this huge army sitting there, what do you think that formula will produce? War. Greeks fought Trojans over shipping lanes (despite how hot Helen was). War over vital supplies is as old as man himself. And even before war, for any environmentalists out there, kiss ANWAR and unobstructed gulf coastlines goodbye. The prohibitions on that drilling will join the legendary Dodo asap, of that you can be sure.

As you know, "environmental" concerns are not a concern of mine. Pollution, smog, yes I can get behind stopping that - but man induced global warming due to the expenditure of fossil fuels, we've dealt with that farce. There are two other, real concerns that should have us pushing towards new technologies. First, and most immediate, the homeland of our current enemy is also the homeland of the worlds richest oil supplies. The moment oil is no longer needed from the house of Saud and it's neighbors is the moment Islamic terrorism gets dealt it's death blow. Secondly, we will face shortages once we hit peak production. The economic ramifications of this hitting us while unprepared boggles the mind - it's incalculable. Deep water drilling - 5 miles deep and below - may delay it, but eerily enough that has already begun, meaning the necessity of it has been recognized. And "delay" is failing to plan, which inevitably translates into planning to fail.

So my point is this - Titus lamented over this administration's lack, or clear absence, of any new energy plan for the US. And he's right. One might argue that 9/11 changed their focus entirely, but if the Bund can recognize the two are related in the long term, then they should have also. So, what must the next president do? First, move off the "global warming" argument as the need for new energy. Currently all the hybrids and conservation attempts are fueled (pardon the pun) by this, and in most circles (deservedly so) it's a punch line. That captures the attention of about only a third of our population, and probably less than 10% of the voting populous (not to mention it's a farce). Move towards reality - national security. You can add in that the discovery or invention of new energies will avoid a future catastrophic world wide depression, but focus on national security - now you've got the attention of at least 75% of the nation. Everyone outside of the "Move On" crowd recognizes we face a current threat, and moreover, the region of the world from which it comes.

Along with border security I would say this is the single greatest failing of the current administration - no alternative, independent energy plan. And what astonishes me is if I can learn this over the course of one program, then surely the high clearance level of information they are privy to has made them aware.

So it's simple. You do two things simultaneously. As president you commission a "Energy Manhattan Project" with a mandate that entails all the urgency of defeating the Japanese. And then you go on TV, recite succinctly what I have written about here - defeating terrorism and averting a future world wide catastrophic recession, and announce that the US government will award a multi-trillion dollar contract to the company or individual that comes up with the best, most renewable, home grown alternative to oil. And it has to be original and cost effective. We know about nuclear and clean coal. I doubt many communities will welcome "nuke stations" on the corner in order to some how fill up the family car, let alone ride around in "nuke mobiles"- it's just too taboo. Make Hydro, cold fusion, or something entirely new, feasible, cost effective and efficient, and you win. And your company's stock price is guaranteed for eternity. Then you have turned lose the genius of the private sector, and given yourself a back up plan with the Manhattan Project.

When properly articulated as vital to national security and global business, rather than the cause of "tree huggers" and global warming, middle America will come on board, and that's when it will happen. Who in the current crop of candidates is talking like that? Answer: no one.
FR