New Era in Energy Politics - 212
Russia and the Need for a New Energy Era
For years
I have said the most patriotic thing a person can do is buy an electric vehicle,
(EVs). Why? One reason, of course, if we continue burning gas and oil the
climate will continue to overheat. Just as important, our military depends on
diesel and jet fuel. I served in the Air
Force, the Army, and the Military Sealift Command for 30 years.
In a
large modern war, our military depends on diesel and jet fuel to move warriors
and their weapons to attack the enemy wherever the enemy is most vulnerable.
Then, when engaged with the enemy, we must keep ourselves supplied with food, ammo
and fuel. This is called projecting power and sustaining the force. With
exception of nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers our military uses oil.
There was a saying in the Military Sealift Command, “Amateurs talk tactics;
professionals talk logistics”.
The
reason I encourage people to purchase EVs is quite simple. Every gallon civilians do not burn is then
available to our military.
You may
say, “But the US produces enough oil to supply both our military and the
civilian sectors.” Yes we do now, but at what risk and for how long?
Right now, the USA, Russia, and Saudi Arabia are extraction and refining super powers. But let’s take a look at how much oil we have in the geologic pantry compared to other countries. Here is what British Petroleum says each country has available in proven reserves of oil. I have included two notes designating whether the country is an autocracy (dictatorship) or a democracy. Then, in a personal judgment call, I labeled them either friendly or unfriendly.
The
percentage of proven reserves for the top 9 countries are noted with the
percentage of their proven reserves followed by my notes.
#1 Venezuela
17.8% Autocratic and Unfriendly
#2 Saudi
Arabia 17.2% Autocratic and Friendly
#3 Canada
9.8% Democratic and Friendly
#4 Iran
9.0% Autocratic and Unfriendly
#5 Iraq
8.0 % Democratic and Friendly (As
long as our military is there.)
#6 Russia
6.2% Autocratic and
Unfriendly
#7 Kuwait
5.9% Autocratic and Friendly
#8 UAE
5.6% Autocratic and Friendly
#9 USA
4.0%
#10 Various others: 16.1% with no nation over 2.8%
As you
can see most oil rich countries are authoritarian regimes and are often
unfriendly to the USA.
The price
of oil at USA pumps is not set by USA producers. The price of oil is set by the
World Oil Market. We are at the mercy of oil producers outside the USA who
control 96% of the oil. With only 4% of the reserves any “drill baby drill”
policy will only have a small effect, and only in the short term.
To give you an idea of the complexity and pitfalls of continuing to use oil consider Venezuela. Venezuela has the world’s largest reserves. At one time it was a super extractor. Today Venezuela only produces a smign of what they have previously. This is because, during the Trump administration, we imposed severe sanctions on the repressive Venezuelian government. The sanctions were effective. The Venezuela Oil Patch has, for all practical purposes, ceased pumping. While the sanctions were justifiable the loss of Venezuelian oil gave other nations, in particular Russia, much more power.
If we want be a “Free and Indepentent People” and save the climate, the only solution is to break our addiction to oil and accelerate the transition to clean energy sources. The full transition, though, will take 20 years even if we aggessively pursue the clean energy sources. In the mean time, while we transition, we must secure some gas and oil.
Here is a well reasoned opinion by the Washington Post Editorial Board:
“With his brutal
invasion of Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin has opened a new era in
global politics — and laid bare the vulnerabilities of the post-Cold War
international system. Among these vulnerabilities, dependence on Russian oil
and gas has proved the Achilles’ heel of security for Europe and, by extension,
the United States. Quite simply, Russia has fossil fuels in abundance and has
used this as a geopolitical tool to influence consuming countries such as
Germany and Italy, blunting their willingness to take a stand against Mr.
Putin’s aggressive policies until it is too late. The lesson is that the West
needs an energy policy that is not only environmentally sustainable but
geopolitically sustainable as well. Cutting off the United States’ relatively
modest oil imports from Russia, as many in Congress are demanding, may send a
necessary message of repudiation to Mr. Putin. But, it is no substitute for a
long-term approach, which will have to carefully balance urgency and realism.
First, urgency. The case
for shifting from fossil fuels to renewables was already strong. The need to
cut dependency on Russia — which provides 40 percent of the European Union’s
natural gas — only strengthens it. European Union countries are already
investing heavily in renewables; the United States still has an opportunity to
follow their example by approving the green energy programs in President
Biden’s Build Back Better plan or, even more usefully, enacting a tax on
carbon.
The fact is, however, that
Russia’s invasion disrupted global peace long before the world’s most developed
industrial economies had come close to transcending fossil fuels. In the United
States, 79 percent of the U.S. primary energy consumption in 2020
came from oil, natural gas and coal, according to the Energy Department. The
comparable figure for the European Union is about 74.5 percent. This is
where realism comes in: As we work toward less reliance on fossil fuels, the
United States and its allies must make sure the oil and gas we still use comes
in sufficient quantity from suppliers politically compatible with the West. The
alternative would be shortages and crippling cost increases, for consumers and
businesses, and that could undermine the political consensus for a strong stand
against Russia. Indeed, it could directly strengthen Russia by increasing prices
for its remaining oil and gas exports.
Germany has taken a step in the right direction by suspending the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia and announcing that it will expedite the construction of two new liquefied natural gas terminals that could receive supplies from other countries, including the United States. Europe is also willing and able to prevent shortages this year by tapping its reserves. Soon, it may have to do more: extending the life of Germany’s last three nuclear power plants, or building new ones elsewhere; increasing production at gas fields in the Netherlands despite possible increased seismic risks. The United States can and should expand gas production for export, consistent with environmental safeguards. From now on, democracies need to set energy policy not only to save the planet but also to stop Russia from dominating it.”
Venezuelan Oil search: Washington Post.com/politics/2022/03/07/biden-venezuela-oil-russia
Russia and Energy analysis search: Rhodium Group US Policy Options to Reduce Russian Energy Dependence.
Comments
Post a Comment