Time for a US Oil Change?

Underway replenishment

On the heals of last week's post on China surpassing the US to become the biggest importer, two recent articles ponder oil's place in our world, particularly in light of how it was used as a weapon against the US during the Arab-Israeli War.

The first, Does OPEC Still have the US over a Barrel? brings the events of those days back vividly.  If you're old enough, this will conjure up a scary memory. If you're young enough, this may sound like a Tom Clancy (RIP) novel, but it was far too real for those managing the crisis in 1973:

“I’m sitting at my desk at the Pentagon,” recalls James Schlesinger, then secretary of defense, “and a cable comes in, and it reads: ‘In accordance with the orders of His Majesty, we are obliged to cut off all oil supplies to your 6th Fleet and to your forces in western Europe. Signed [Saudi oil minister] Zaki Yamani.’ ”

Major Oil Market Shift of Colossal Importance to DOD and DOD Energy Planners

From this morning's WSJ.  You don't need my help to quickly understand how the shift described below will impact US and DOD policymakers in the years ahead.

The article is titled: Middle East Oil Fuels Fresh China-U.S. Tensions and here's an excerpt that boils is down to the essence:

The turnabout has added to tensions because it leaves the U.S. military securing China's growing oil shipments in the region at a time Beijing resists U.S. pressure on it to back American foreign policy in the Middle East.

For years, China and other oil-consuming nations have benefited as Washington spent billions of dollars a year to police choke points like the Strait of Hormuz and other volatile parts of the Middle East to ensure oil flowed around the globe. 

Energy Security Update: Straight of Hormuz Less Crucial to US in 2012

Uber strategic analyst Tom Barnett points to a recent Financial Times piece on oil metrics and this most important piece of aquatic real estate. Quoting FT:

Earlier this year, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi opened new pipelines that will increase the ability of countries to bypass the strait. Fully operational, 6.5m barrels per day, or about 40 per cent of total flows, will now be able to take alternative routes. “The Middle East is much better prepared now than a year ago to cushion the impact of a disruption in the Strait of Hormuz,” says Edward Morse, head of commodities research at Citigroup and former US deputy assistant secretary of state for international energy policy.

Recommend you read the whole post, which includes a great map and infographic, HERE. Andy

Yergin Speaks Out Again on Favorable US Energy Security Trends

Back in September we wrote a post or two on the latest thinking on US and global energy futures from energy market guru Daniel Yergin. In today's Wall Street Journal he had a bit more say re: Energy Security that I think you'll find both helpful and promising. First, the ...

Bad News

Yergin: It is true that the U.S. is still importing a larger share of its oil than it was in 1973, at the time of the first oil crisis. Even with increased domestic production and higher imports from Canada, it will still be part of the global oil market and vulnerable to disruptions and price spikes.

Again, to reinforce: the US is both a seller and a buyer of oil and gas in the global markets, and no matter what we do, that condition will remain the same. We don't set the prices, and we don't get to keep or use all that we make. We buy from many sources, ranging from very friendly to somewhat hostile, and yet there's some significant security in that diversity. 

Now for what's gotten better lately and promises to improve even further in the years ahead thanks to some new ways to get at oil and gas.

Good News

Yergin: ... the shift in oil sources means the global supply system will become more resilient, our energy supplies will become more secure, and the nation will have more flexibility in dealing with crises. It ... also means that economic benefits—in terms of jobs, manufacturing and services—will register on the ground in North America.

Click HERE for the full article, and one more thing: I'll be attending a DY lecture tomorrow afternoon at MIT. If you have a question you'd like me to ask him, please fire away fast.

Image credit: Mitra Encyclopedia

Getting your Head on Straight re: DOD Energy Strategy and Planning in a Rapidly Changing World

In the earliest days of this blog one of my best sources for clarity was former International Energy Agency (IEA) senior analyst Sohbet Karbuz. This man knows more about the way global energy markets function, and more about the ways DOD participates in them, than perhaps anyone on the planet.

Well, I've come back to him recently to try and grok the significance of some of the reports you may have seen lately saying the US is about to become a net oil & gas exporter, and that large fossil energy firms are increasingly focusing their efforts on unconventional resources (e.g. fracking for nat gas, shale gasoline extraction) in North America and Australia.

Here's some clarity on the contents of a CNA's recently released report on US Energy Security. First of all, the report's authors seem to have gaps in their understanding of the way the global energy markets function. In particular, they ascribe imaginary powers to individual nations and orgs when they say things like:

We are held hostage to price fixing by a cartel that includes actors who would do our nation harm, and we are too often called upon to risk the lives of our sons and daughters to protect fragile oil supplies from this very cartel. 

and ...

OPEC can increase production and drive down gas prices, erasing market incentives for developing alternative fuels ... the price of gasoline at the pump can too easily be manipulated by suppliers.

This doesn't do much to bolster the credibility of those who wrote and reviewed the report. But the report also mixes misleading or mistaken statements like those above with others that are much more on target. Here's Karbuz's take:

None of those [above quoted] claims make any sense. I was thinking about writing a few paragraphs on how the world oil markets functions and how oil prices are set. But I see that a reasonably good answer to those wrong arguments comes again from the report itself: “oil is a global commodity, priced on the global market. No matter how much more we produce here in the U.S., we can’t control the price of oil.”

He's also got a lot to say on the reports recommendations, particularly on biofuels. 

There's much more to process, and by the time you've finished Karbuz's analysis (on his blog, HERE), you'll have a better feel for what's going on, and also better context in which to consider the implications for DOD of the continuously changing energy landscape.  Andy Bochman

2011 Energy Security Book List

There are two new books out in the last few months I want you to know about. Whether you have time to read them, even if I am successful in getting you worked up about them, well, that's another story. So again, it's only two books, which is probably one or two more than you'll be able to get to given your current workload. But here's why you should give them a shot.

The first one is by former Austin Energy CIO Andres Carvallo, called The Advanced Smart Grid: Edge Power Driving Sustainability. Co-authored with frequent technology writer John Cooper, this book is relatively short at ~200 well illustrated pages, and is a pleasure to read. I'm going to re-use some of the laudatory words I recently posted in an Amazon review.

Before they invite you to travel with them into the future, Carvallo and Cooper do a solid job of orienting the reader with concise summaries of where the grid came from, how it's evolved over time, and as accurately as possible, how it's doing in its current state. For the many immigrants who've recently moved to energy from other sectors (like me), this is a great grounding.

The authors then look past the current climate of activity, much of it initially fueled with government grants, to a phase where business drivers alone dictate what gets deployed next. Ultimately, they begin to unveil for us a blurry but emerging vision of "the advanced Smart Grid", that's predicated on pervasive IP networking, tons and tons of data, microgrids, EVs, virtual power plants, new business models and more. For me, it was well worth the time, and depending on your background and/or day job, it might be for you too.

Book number two is from one of the (if not, THE) true giants of global energy thinking over the past decades, Daniel Yergin. Best known (to me, anyway) for his biblical telling of the history and future of the oil industry in The Prize, his new book, The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World, expands in scope to consider all energy sources. Recently reviewed in the NYT, this excerpt seems apropos:

When it comes to assessing the world’s energy future Mr. Yergin is a Churchillian. He argues that we should consider all possible energy sources, the way Winston Churchill considered oil when he spoke to the British Parliament  in 1913. “On no one quality, on no one process, on no one country, on no one route, and on no one field must we be dependent,” Churchill said. “Safety and security in oil lie in variety and variety alone.”

... and one more thing, for which the a smarter grid is the essential precursor:

One of Mr. Yergin’s closing arguments focuses on the importance of thinking seriously about one energy source that “has the potential to have the biggest impact of all.” That source is efficiency. It’s a simple idea, he points out, but one that is oddly “the hardest to wrap one’s mind around.” More efficient buildings, cars, airplanes, computers and other products have the potential to change our world.

Sounds great, right? Well, the bad news for you travelers is that, from a weight perspective, is that it tops 800 pages, though if you get the ebook version it's as light as can be. Now reading it, or the majority of it, that's another story. If it's too much for you to consider, maybe you can wait and hope for a movie version. But I wouldn't count on it.

Happy reading!

Photo credit: Miamism on Flickr.com
(Cross-posted from the Smart Grid Security Blog)

New Global Natgas Abundance Signals Loosening of Putin and Gazprom's Grip on Europe's Energy Security

Have written before several times (usually in the dead of winter) about Europe putting itself in danger by making energy deals with the devil, usually accompanied by a frighteningly cold picture of a frozen over European city or a sinister picture picture of Vlad Putin.

But now it seems like the tables have turned and we won't be discussing that topic any more. My own awareness of the game changing nature of unconventional natural gas began one year ago with this Daniel Yergin editorial in the Wall Street Journal describing massive new amounts of gas now becoming accessible in the US and elsewhere via new recovery techniques.

There is now so much of this new-found natural gas that it's no longer helpful to call it unconventional. Then came a briefing I was fortunate to attend last month at MIT with BP's chief economist, Christof Rühl. Describing the future of global oil and gas markets, and including projections for renewable energy and nuclear, he said the whopper that's changing everything is the recently realized super-abundance of natural gas ... everywhere.

Here then, is the take-away for Gazprom and its ardent admirers:

Seldom has a giant been hit by so many big blows in one year. First, by repeatedly cutting its deliveries without prior warning, Gazprom has acquired a solid reputation as an unreliable supplier. Second, after the United States has suddenly started mass-producing cheap shale gas and become the biggest gas producer in the world, the European market is flooded with new liquefied natural gas (LNG). Third, there is plenty of shale gas in Europe, and soon production is likely to start there as well. Steadily increased European demand for gas has been replaced by a gas glut, which the International Energy Agency predicts will last for 3-5 years. Fourth, the gas surplus is naturally depressing spot gas prices.

And it gets worse. But I'll leave that to you if you're interested. The full article in European Energy Review can be found here. Depending on where you're reading from, I think you may find it a rather pleasant change of pace.

War Gaming an Israeli Strike on Iran from an Energy Perspective

The Brookings Institute recently conducted a war game centered on a preemptive Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear production facilities. Sounds like a good idea to simulate this thing, but it also seems a little too neat the way they did it (i.e., optimistic) for me. Here's how it starts according to David Sanger in the NY Times:

Without telling the U.S. in advance, Israel strikes at six of Iran's most critical nuclear facilities, using a refueling base hastily set up in the Saudi Arabian desert without Saudi knowledge. ... Convinced that the Saudis had colluded with the Israelis, and emboldened by the measured initial American position, Iran fires missiles at the Saudi oil export processing center at Abqaiq, and tries to incite Shiite Muslims in eastern Saudi Arabia to attack the Saudi regime.

Nothing is said of the impact on worldwide oil availability or prices, but given the way the real markets responds to much less substantial events in Nigeria and elsewhere, we could assume prices would sky rocket.  Then there's an indication of a more sustained attack on Saudi's oil infrastructure and the confidence of global marketplace:

Knowing that its ultimate weapon is its ability to send oil prices sky high, Iran decides to attack Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, an oil industry center, with conventional missiles and begins mining the Strait of Hormuz. A Panamanian-registered, American owned tanker and an American minesweeper are severely damaged. The price of oil spikes, though temporarily.

OK, so there's an impact, but relax, it's only temporary. Why so short lived? Well, maybe because the game itself was short-lived:

The game ends eight days after the initial Israeli strike. But it is clear the United States was leaning toward destroying all Iranian air, ground and sea targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and that Iran's forces were about to suffer a significant defeat.

So there's no real impact to the highly oil dependent US or world economies, and we're about to kick Iran's butt with finality with air strikes alone? Don't get me wrong: I'm all in favor of giving Khamenei, Ahmadinejad and their like a major dose of whoop ass. But I think we'd better get our games on straight before embarking on the real thing.

Photo Credit: Wired.com

Imagining Smart Grid Adversaries, or "The Cascade Charade"

As most readers of the DOD Energy Blog can attest from direct experience, sometimes we manufacture enemies as placeholders for potential future enemies. Such was the case recently when a smart and well-intentioned student of Chinese origin, Wang Jianwei, published what he thought would be helpful findings for all students of complex, networked systems.

However, not long after its publication, in certain circles his work became known as a blueprint for Chinese attacks on the US power grid. How'd that happen? In order to understand who scrambled the info, you have to follow the path of the information to detect when and by whom it got altered.

It begins with the paper trail from Wang's article published in Safety Science: "Cascade based attack vulnerability on the US Power Grid" (which you can purchase in full for $31.50). The paper was found by a group called the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission and was presented as a threat brief to Congress where things start to simmer with certain congressmen. Ultimately, news of this reaches the New York Times in the form of this article  published on 20 March 2010. My co-blogger on the Smart Grid Security blog, Jack Danahy bought the original paper and read it in its entirety, before writing this post about the whole affair with a focus on the grid.

Of course there are plenty of reasons to keep our eyes open and our guard up. Threats to our electrical insfrastructure can take many shapes, including, as RMI's Amory Lovins points out, squirrels. However, back to the paper that started this tempest. According to Wang and others:

We usually say ‘attack’ so you can see what would happen,” he said. “My emphasis is on how you can protect this. My goal is to find a solution to make the network safer and better protected.” And independent American scientists who read his paper said it was true: Mr. Wang’s work was a conventional technical exercise that in no way could be used to take down a power grid.

Assuming everything originating in China is a threat to the US ignores our current nearly inextricable economic inter-dependency. As it attempts to maintain its very rapid climb out of the third world, China's own energy challenges are staggering. And if climate change is one of your concerns, then the linkage goes even deeper. We have so much to work on; let's not  let our insecurities get in the way of really improving our nation's energy security.

Demonic Duo: Al Qaeda and the Somali Pirates Eye Global Oil

This blog hasn't looked at the wider world lately; events have been largely status quo. But hat tip to Ollie for this item worth watching:

Oil & Gas Journal is citing a recent report that Al Qaeda has its eye on disrupting the safe passage of oil at one of the world's key choke points: the exceedingly narrow Bab al-Mandab straight just off the coast of Yemen.

Here are the key points excerpted from the article:

• DOE says an estimated 3.3 million b/d flowed through the Bab al-Mandab toward Europe, the US, and Asia in 2006. The majority of traffic, about 2.1 million b/d, flows north through the Bab al-Mandab to the Suez-Sumed complex
• By closing or disrupting the Bab al-Mandab, al-Qaeda could keep tankers from the Persian Gulf from reaching the Suez Canal or Sumed Pipeline, while also blocking southern oil transits such as China's transport from Port Sudan - a lifeline for that country's rapidly increasing appetite for energy
• London-based Al-Quds newspaper acknowledges that al-Qaeda's control of the Bab al-Mandab "might not be easy, especially as it does not possess heavy weapons and modern boats that can be used for this purpose. But this does not mean it does not possess the logistical capabilities that can disrupt navigation in this vital international passageway"
• Mentions Somali pirates who have hijacked more than 100 ships-some of them giant oil tankers. "They must surely have gained considerable expertise in how to intercept commercial ships in the past 5 years-during which their activity intensified."

Sounds like a good disruption to disrupt. But also a energy management contingency worth planning for. For a nice review of Bab al-Mandab and other global oil choke points, see this Energy Information Administration (EIA) summary.

Image credit: EIA

Keeping an Eye on Copenhagen for DOD

Climate science was not really on my DOD Energy radar until the CNA report "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change" appeared in 2007. Since then, while climate issues are far removed from the core missions of the day, they are beginning to inform future planning activities and global scenarios, as we'll see more clearly when the QDR 2010 is released to the public in a few months.

So along these lines, here's a dispatch from guest blogger and former Naval engineer, Vince Marshall, who's watching the Copenhagen climate summit closely:

Copenhagen: Global Climate Change Insurance for “Uninsured Motorists”

192 Global Climate Change representatives are in Copenhagen trying to hammer out policies on curbing greenhouse gas emissions. The discussions come down to a few relatively simple issues:

• Industrialized nations believe that developing nations will add a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gases as they grow and should take steps to reduce now
• Developing nations counter with two major complaints: the industrialized nations did not do this when they were growing and, more importantly, if this is so important to wealthy nations, how about helping out the poor neighbors by giving money and technology to reduce this burden?

Both sides make strong points and the question becomes this: how important is global climate change and who should pay for mitigation? There is a great set of articles in the Dec 5 edition of The Economist on Climate Change. The editors don’t debate whether climate change exists. They simply observe that climate change mitigation should be considered an “Insurance policy”. We take out insurance policies for our vehicles and homes against fires, floods and earthquakes without a second thought. In very simple terms, Copenhagen is about industrialized nations agreeing to take out “Uninsured Motorist” policies to cover developing nations.

If governments agree that taking out an insurance policy for the entire planet is a good idea, then how much should each country be willing to spend and who should be writing the checks? This comes down to policy and the Economist describes it here.

Global Climate Change “Insurance” can be measured in percentages of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and allocated for mitigation over many decades. We can do this by getting the highest “Bang for the buck” with energy efficiencies first then deciding what the best technologies for each region are in terms of renewables. Base electrical loads using distributed nuclear, such as those from Hyperion and Toshiba should be considered in addition to wind, solar and biomass.

Most likely we will see little outcome from Copenhagen unless the 70% majority of the developing nations (135 of 192 attending) can convince the industrialized nations to transfer large amounts of money and technology to them. This may happen but will probably be on a small scale and not really enough to make a difference.

Whether you believe in human-induced climate change or not, it makes sense to pay attention to these proceedings, as the outcomes may have broad implications for DOD and the nation.

Me, I'm not sure we understand how our planet works nearly well enough to know what to do to make it better, or that we'd even collectively agree on what better means. I believe in the power of the scientific method to iteratively arrive at the truth, but when climate change became politicized (and a billion dollar business), it left the realm of science for good IMHO.

But I understand many if not most folks feel otherwise. Vince has informed me that he'll be preparing a summary post after the conference is concluded to assess what impacts, if any, DOD is likely to feel from this. Stay tuned.

"Little Mermaid at Langelinie" Photo Credit: Erantis.com

Seeking Lessons from the September 3rd Taliban Tanker Incident in Kunduz

The news cycle had come and gone on this report of Taliban-hijacked fuel tankers and NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) attack on them which destroyed them, plus the hijackers, plus a large number of civilians gathered to get a share of the fuel provided by the oh-so-generous Taliban who "only have Afghan peoples' best interests in mind." Actually, it's still in the headlines as a NY Times reporter seeking to cover the aftermath was just taken hostage and rescued.

Of course, this incident is about energy, but it's also about so much more. I couldn't figure out how to tackle it until I received this missive from a friend in DOD who is tuned in to such matters:

Talk about a potpourri of issues ... vulnerable energy supply lines, likely third country nationals owning the original fuel trucks, close air support rules of engagement, host country populations needing energy, and now civilian casualties. 

Now ISAF is going to investigate how this all unfolded, with particular attention to the civilian casualties. Takes the Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel (FBCF) to a whole new level, wouldn't you say?

Havel Tells Europe to Dump Russia from its Energy Script

Former playwright turned revolutionary turned Czech President (now retired) Vaclav Havel has a history of calling out the emperor when his news clothes are lacking. Europe is facing a Devil's Bargain, with Russian entreaties to continue as its trusted supplier of natural gas on one side, balanced against the alternative of seeking new energy sources and risking Russia's wrath. As I've said on this blog previously here, here, and most recently here, it's long past time for Europe to build itself some leverage via development of credible options.

Here's Havel in Bloomberg:

Rather than buy gas from Russia, Europe should pursue projects like the Nabucco pipeline to import gas from the Caspian Sea region through Turkey, Havel said. On May 6, the European Union approved an initial investment of 200 million euros ($277 million) for the pipeline which was endorsed by Turkey two days later. It’s expected to begin operation in 2015, according to the EU. “They should have come up with that years ago,” Havel said referring to the Nabucco plan, and said Europe must wean itself from fossil fuels.

As one DOD Energy Blog reader noted, this situation mirrors in some ways the brittle grid challenge facing DOD facilities. The initial get-well path is the creation of "energy islands" so critical functions can be powered in the event of an outage. European communities reliant on Russia for heating should be doing everything they can to produce energy locally via renewables and any other resources they can find (e.g., waste to heat). Much of Western Europe has been building out renewables at a tremendous rate, but Eastern Europe lags, and both need to aggressively explore and execute every possible energy option. Full article is here.

Yet the problem of scale remains, as well as the many pitfalls that plague new pipeline projects (see excellent backgrounder on the problems facing Nabucco by DOD and European energy expert Sohbet Karbuz here.)

Russia's Pipeline Plans are Europe's Energy Security Hell

How'd you like to be in Europe's shoes? I wouldn't:

The EU currently relies on Russia for a quarter of its total gas supplies. Of the bloc's 27 member states, seven are almost totally dependent on Russian gas.

If I were Europe, I'd be doing every conceivable thing to get free of Russia's noose ... before it tightens again in Winter. This written from the perspective of another country dependent on less-than-friendly energy suppliers. Maybe it's easier to see how crazy this situation is when it's not your own country ... although I'm not sure why.

Then again, short term ... are there any truly viable options?

Map Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Journal of Energy Security's Anti-Piracy Drill Down

While I noted the adverse energy security impacts of the recent bout of piracy in a February post here, this article from the Journal of Energy Security, on the same subject, got my attention for its high level of scholarship and analysis. The overview of the different anti-pirate technologies being considered, especially the different laser varieties and the unmanned surface vessels (USVs), is particularly interesting.

Until recently, large scale piracy on the high seas (vs. piracy in the digital world) seemed highly improbable. And yet its occurrence is having a big impact on shipping companies, their customers, and many of the world's navies. Piracy hit close to home for me when a friend in the NATO bureau at US State Department headquarters was recently reassigned to focus full time on coordinating anti-piracy procedures and policies with our allies.

Map: Wikimedia Commons

Energy Cold War

Michael G. Frodl writing in this month's National Defense Magazine calls it what it is: an "Energy Cold War" that crosses many fronts. His is a fairly comprehensive listing of the many battlefields (some hot, some not) where energy resources are being contested today. One of them is no surprise:

Fuel supplies intended for U.S. troops in Afghanistan ... are creating a security risk. More than 90 percent of the fuel and materiel destined to U.S. and NATO operations in Afghanistan go through Pakistan. The Taliban and other Islamist forces in Pakistan have been attacking supply convoys in transit. 

IMHO, whether by land, sea or air, the opportunities for disrupting fuel supply lines are always greater than or equal to the number of supply lines. Someday maybe Star Trek-like transporter tech will allow us to bypass these modes and we'll have moved on to dilithium crystals. You don't even want to ask what that supply route looks like!

Energy Security a Major Concern for China as Well

And you thought Energy Security was only something that keeps certain US officials up at night? The good news and the bad news is: we are not alone. Europe is increasingly being squeezed by Russia who, through the pseudo company Gazprom, can turn off the lights and heat in many major cities at (almost) a moment's notice. And now you can add China, with its formerly rapidly expanding and very energy intensive economy to the club:

Chinese security analysts fear that oil import dependency is a potential pressure point that could be exploited by future adversaries of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Approximately 80 percent of China’s 3.3 million barrels per day (bpd) in crude oil imports passes through the Straits of Malacca. Such funneling could facilitate interdiction of China’s oil lifeline in times of crisis.

In "No Oil for the Lamps of China?" in the Naval Warfare College Review, Gabriel Collins and William Murray make it clear that China has ample cause to be concerned about keeping the oil routes open. Unlike the US, its ability to defend those lanes is far from mature. The paper also gets pretty detailed about how to perform an energy blockade of China, and what China's most likely responses would be. Very interesting reading about energy as an offensive and a defensive weapon.

Reader Response on DOD Fuel Tail Vulnerability

When I started this blog last summer I decided I wanted to limit it to one voice: mine. Some readers have discussed the merits (or lack thereof) of individual posts with me via email and that's been great. But we're at the point now where the frequency and quality of the back-channel comments has me considering turning comments on as an experiment. Here's one worth sharing on yesterday's post re: fuel and logistics issues, base closure in Kyrgzstan and our Afghanistan operations:

We need to include the risk of our logistics tail to war gaming and campaign analysis per [the DSB Task Force on Energy reports] and should be doing everything we can to reduce the size of that tail (or at least make informed decisions relative to the capabilities of systems). Combine this with the likely closure of the Manas base and you have the reason why FBCF and the associated EEKPP are about capability, not merely "efficiency."

Bingo. Weighting energy considerations appropriately in all aspects of DOD planning is not mainly about saving money (though it does), or limiting carbon emissions (though it will), or reducing US/DOD's dependence on foreign and finite oil (it does that too), it's first and foremost about tilting the odds in our favor ... and keeping the success and safety of our Soldiers, Marines and Airmen front and center.

Be Concerned About Russia Week: Part II

Actually, I won't likely post on Russia for a bit after this. But a recent article in DefenseTech caught my attention as it relates to my day job in cyber security. When Putin, Medvedev & co. aren't turning off their natural gas pipelines or taking out journalists, they're stealthily unleashing cyber attacks on their former USSR neighbors. This time is was Kyrgzstan, home to one of the most important air strips in the world used by the DOD. Well, that was the case until maybe today. Loss of that base would add tremendous additional burdens on DOD fuel and other logistics requirements related to Afghanistan. There's lots more going on than here than offensive cyberwar, but it's clearly part of the overall package of threats Russia holds over its much weaker neighbors.

Back at home, the DHS classifies the US national grid and the large power generating facilities as critical national infrastructure. Considerations of energy security from a DOD and national perspective have to consider the vulnerability of our power generation and transmission systems to cyber attack. And while we talk about this, Russia sure is getting a lot of hands-on practice. Oh yeah, and China too (see: Titan Rain).

Putin's Energy Weapons

We've hit this topic many times before and we'll touch it again no doubt: from a DOD and US perspective, energy security is partly about becoming less reliant on foreign sources because energy can become a weapon used against us and its allies. When Putin ordered the natural gas flow through the Ukrainian pipelines cut off last month, it was about economics ... and a whole lot more. The might Russia used to project with its military arsenal is now conveyed with its control over some of the largest supplies of oil and gas in the world. On Putin and energy in WSJ last week:

"I would describe it as very much his personal project,” said Clifford G. Gaddy, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington and an expert in Russia’s energy policy. “It is the heart of what he has done from the very beginning.” Indeed, from his earliest days in power in 2000, Mr. Putin, who left the presidency in 2008 and became prime minister, decided natural resource exports and energy in particular would not only finance the country’s economic rebirth but also help restore Russia’s lost greatness after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Fine. But the logical response of countries held hostage by Russia's manipulation would be to wean themselves, as rapidly as possible, off the substance that binds and threatens them, right?

As they did two years ago after a similar supply disruption, European officials have promised in the wake of the Ukraine dispute to take steps to diversify the Continent’s sources of gas to end its reliance on Russia, which supplies nearly 30 percent of the total. European dependence is expected to grow as North Sea gas fields decline.

So while logic would dictate a brisk move away from Russian supplies, other factors will play a bigger role, and likely keep Europe and the former Soviet Union in Russia's energy grip for the foreseeable future. Lest we feel superior, however, very similar forces have been at work between OPEC and the US for decades. Only now are we beginning to move in the right direction. Let's move quickly.

Photo: Wikimedia Commons