A Fuel Shortage Scenario

While I am loathe to quote from the dinosaur media since the accuracy of a substantial portion of their news coverage is questionable, sometimes there are no other sources for a key story.  A recent article in the Irish Independent is just such a story.

  

On June 6, 2022, this article was published by the Irish Independent:

 

 

Leaked government documents outlining the confidential details of an emergency planning exercise called the "Oil Emergency Exercise" that took place on May 26, 2022 which was conducted with participants from Ireland's Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications along with the National Oil Reserves Agency, Fuels for Ireland and the Department of Transport and National Emergency Coordination Group.  The scenario included three mock exercises:

 

1.) a 20 percent reduction in diesel volumes entering Ireland beginning on September 1, 2022

 

2.) fuel stocks are 30 to 35 percent below demand for an eight week period leading up to December 19, 2022

 

3.) Insufficient oil and natural gas to supply electricity in February 2023

 

To put Ireland's oil security into perspective, the island has no pipeline connections to either the EU or United Kingdom and is 100 percent reliant on ship-based transportation of oil and oil byproducts. 

 

Under the first scenario where imported diesel volumes are reduced by 20 percent, the exercise anticipated "diesel stockouts" where fuel stations will run dry and the supply of diesel to critical and emergency services will be threatened.  At this point, the National Oil Reserves Agency (NORA) which maintains a minimum of 90 days supply of oil (Ireland's commitment as part of its membership in the International Energy Agency).  Currently, NORA's minimum level of stock (aka its obligation) is:

  

1.) 1,416,340 tonnes of refined product

2.) 70,000 tonnes of Crude Oil. 

 

Here is a map showing the geographic locations of Ireland's strategic oil supply:

 

Here is a graphic showing the number of obligation days and actual holdings for 2015:

 

 

In the second scenario where fuel stocks are 35 percent below demand for the eight week period prior to December 19, 2022, the National Emergency Coordination Group will be responsible for activating the Oil Emergency Allocation Scheme to control the supply and distribution of diesel.  In this case, diesel supply distribution would be prioritized for essential services and critical workers whereas other motorists would be ordered to limit their driving.  Under the 1971 and 1982 Fuels (Control of Supplies) Act, the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment may enact demand restraint as quoted here with my bold:

 

"Section 3 of the 1971 Act provides for the Minister at times of emergency to take measures controlling, regulating, restricting and prohibiting the import or export of fuel. In the event of a prolonged oil emergency, the National Emergency Coordination Group, which consists of representatives of all Government Departments, key Agencies and industry, would be convened for the duration of the emergency. Decisions by the Minister on measures to reduce fuel consumption or to allocate fuel to priority users would be guided by this cross sectoral “whole of Government” approach.

 

The 2004 Road Traffic Act allows the Minister for Transport to reduce speed limits, as agreed by Government."

  

If fuel rationing is required, according to the leaked document, consumers would be divided into four categories with tier one consumers being comprised of essential workers including farmers and food producers.  Tier four consumers would be classified as motorists making non-essential journeys.  The document does not explain the other two tiers.  Under rationing, only 100 service stations in Ireland which are designated as "critical" would receive fuel supplies which would be sold only to emergency and essential services workers.

  

Additionally, the participants in the exercise considered the following contingency measures should fuel supplies be insufficient:

 

1.) All non-essential workers will be ordered to work from home

 

2.) A limit will be placed on all non-essential car travel

 

3.) A strict limit on the amount of fuel motorists can buy at any one time

 

4.) The implementation of an immediate and strict reduction in the speed limit on motorways.

 

Tthe emergency plan also introduces a scheme whereby motorists with an odd number at the end of their car registration will only be allowed to drive or refuel on alternate days.

  

It is rather sobering to think that the fuel shortage scenarios outlined in this exercise could become reality given the current energy situation in Europe which has become highly reliant on supplies from Russia.  While the scenarios in this exercise are specific to Ireland, many of the same issues will face other nations if there is a shortage of diesel and gasoline.  As well, we should keep in mind that the recommendations made during this exercise could well become our new Great Reset reality as the global ruling class takes it upon itself to take actions against the use of fossil fuels in the name of saving Planet Earth...for themselves.  On the upside, should the restrictions against travel in vehicles be enacted, at least the COVID-19 pandemic got the world used to the idea of being isolated from society as a result of the working from home orders that governments enacted over the past two years.

Hillary Clinton and Her Fossil Fuel Reality

Back in September 2015, Hillary Clinton had a chance to attend a private meeting of the Building Trades Union or NABTU.  She was seeking their endorsement for her run as president and had a chance to offer her opinion on how much support she would give to the construction of new pipelines, a matter of critical importance to the NABTU since many of its members spend their working careers building pipelines among other infrastructure.  Pipelines for hydrocarbons, particularly oil, have been a hot topic during the Obama Administration since Washington had to make a very difficult decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.  Let's look at some excerpts from the meeting, focussing on the comments that Ms. Clinton made during a question and answer period about Keystone XL.

"QUESTIONER 1: And now the Sierra Club won't support any natural gas. And to be honest, not you, but the Democrats were so disillusioned with Congress on both sides, they expected that -- one we sure as hell didn't expect that we were getting [inaudible] out of the Democrats in the energy sector. But it's encouraging--

HILLARY CLINTON: Well they've come out, and you may not know this, but they've all [inaudible]. I mean I have not said anything about Keystone because I wanted to give the President, the Secretary a chance to make their decision. But I can't wait any longer. And you know from my perspective, this is just one of these issues--

QUESTIONER 2: It's symbolic--

HILLARY CLINTON: It's symbolic and it's not going to go away. They're all hanging on to it. So you know Bernie Sanders is getting lots of support from the most radical environmentalists because he's out there every day bashing the Keystone pipeline. And, you know, I'm not into it for that. I've been-- my view is I want to defend natural gas. I want to defend repairing and building the pipelines we need to fuel our economy. I want to defend fracking under the right circumstances. I want to defend, you know, new, modern [inaudible]. I want to defend this stuff. And you know, I'm already at odds with the most organized and wildest. They come to my rallies and they yell at me and, you know, all the rest of it. They say, 'Will you promise never to take any fossil fuels out of the earth ever again?' No. I won't promise that. Get a life, you know. So I want to get the right balance and that's what I'm [inaudible] about-- getting all the stakeholders together. Everybody's not going to get everything they want, that's not the way it's supposed to work in a democracy, but everybody needs to listen to each other." (my bold)

Get a life?  Perhaps that's a bit harsh statement to environmentalists who actually have a right to "yell" at Ms. Clinton.  Later in this posting, we'll look at one of those confrontations to get a sense of who's really losing control of their emotions.

Back to Hillary Clinton.

"And we need to do-- you know, nuclear, talk about climate change -- nuclear is no greenhouse gas emissions. France has it for nearly 100% of their energy-- they've never had a problem. We've had two problems that people know about: Chernobyl, which was a disaster and [inaudible], and you know Three Mile. Right, those were the problems we had. We've come a long way from there....

You know, I'm having conversations in these town halls and these meetings I'm having with a lot of people who break into my meetings, they hold up posters, they scream at me, and all the rest of that: 'Stop extracting fossil fuels, stop extracting on public lands, come out against nuclear, coal' you name it. They are after everything and I'm just talking through them. And of course they go support somebody else. That's fine and I don't particularly care. But I do think I have to say, look, given everything else we have to do in this country, this is not an issue for me that I'm going to say I support. I want to work on other stuff." (my bold)

Let's look at who is really getting agitated.  As I posted back in April 2016, Ms. Clinton has shown that she can get quite confrontational when someone dares to accuse her of accepting donations from the fossil fuel sector as shown here:

In fact, at that point, despite her vehement protestations to the contrary, Ms. Clinton had already accepted funds from the oil and gas sector and these funds have nearly doubled from $307,561 at the end of March 2016 as shown here:

At $609,059, Hillary Clinton's "gleanings" from the oil and gas sector put her in second place among all candidates of all parties.

In addition, on June 24, 2016, Democrats appointed to the Democratic Party's Platform Committee by Hillary Clinton (six members), Bernie Sanders (five members)  and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (four members), defeated a motion which proposed a moratorium on fracking by a 7 to 6 vote.  Interestingly, two of the members appointed by Hillary Clinton, Carol Browner and Wendy Sherman, work for Albright Stonebridge Group (founded by former Clinton 1 Administration Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright) which has, through a private equity capital investment wing named Albright Capital Management, ownership of a 10 percent stake in EcoStim Energy Solutions as shown here:

EcoStim is a non-conventional oil industry well stimulation and completion company (think fracking, albeit in this case, "environmentally friendly") as you can see on this video:

Through a Stockholder Rights Agreement, Albright Capital Management has the first right to purchase up to 40 percent of any securities that EcoStim sells on the market and , according to the SEC, ACM's emerging Markets Master Fund owns 33.04 percent of EcoStim's outstanding shares.

So, when you put all of this information together, it certainly appears that the Democrats under Hillary Clinton's guidance, have swung somewhat closer to the "dark right side" when it comes to their sincerity about combatting climate change.  As I've said before, when it comes to politicians, money is a very persuasive master and it never pays to bite the wealthy hand that "feeds" you.  

I guess that when you are a politician you do whatever it takes to get power, a concept that is beyond the understanding of most mere mortals.

Hillary Clinton and Her Ties to the Fossil Fuel Industry

This particular "exchange" between Hillary Clinton and Eva Resnick-Day from Greenpeace in late March 2016 provides us with an interesting glimpse into the current race between the two Democratic presidential candidates:

My, but Ms. Clinton certainly can wag that grandmotherly finger when she gets her dander up, can't she?

As background, Greenpeace and its partners launched their "Fix Democracy" pledge back in January 2016 which asked all major presidential candidates to reject campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry as follows:

Let’s reiterate the key points from the pledge:

“I pledge allegiance to a democracy of, by, and for the people.

If elected, I pledge to fight for a people-powered democracy where every voice is heard

By defending the right to vote for all, and

Supporting common-sense measures like public funding for campaigns and overturning Citizens United to ensure a government by and for the people, not the biggest donors.

And I will prove that I work for the people by refusing money from fossil fuel interests and by championing these solutions for a people powered democracy on the campaign trail.”

Bernie Sanders was the first presidential candidate to sign the pledge and, in sharp contrast, this is what Hillary Clinton had to say in response to the request from Greenpeace et al:

"I believe it’s time to reclaim our democracy, reform our distorted campaign finance system, and restore access to the ballot box in all 50 states.

That starts with reversing Citizens United. As president, I’ll appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize that Citizens United is bad for America. If necessary, I’ll fight for a constitutional amendment that overturns it. But I won’t stop there—I’ll also fight to increase transparency in our politics by requiring federal contractors to fully disclose their political spending and calling on the Securities and Exchange Commission to require that publicly traded companies do the same.

And I’ll get rid of the special tax breaks that are going to oil and gas companies and use that money to invest in making America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century. There’s a reason that the Koch brothers have pledged to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in this election—because they want a Republican who will dance to their tune.  The fossil fuel companies know my agenda is to stop their agenda. I will take them on and win—and make sure America leads the fight against climate change.

And I believe nothing is more vital to our democracy than protecting our right to vote. We should be making it easier to vote, not harder. I’ll fight to restore the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. I believe all Americans should be automatically registered to vote on their 18th birthdays, unless they opt out. Every state should have at least 20 days of early in-person voting. And no one should ever have to wait more than 30 minutes to cast a ballot.

Citizens United and its aftermath have twisted and perverted our democratic system. Now the deck is stacked even more in favor of those at the top. But as Al Smith, another Democrat from New York, once said, “All the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy.” So that’s what we need now: more transparency, more accountability, and above all, more citizens exercising their right to vote."

You will notice that there is absolutely nothing about Ms. Clinton rejecting support from the oil and gas sector.

With that, let's look at Hillary Clinton's connections to the oil and gas industry.  According to the most recent findings from the Center for Responsive Politics/Open Secrets, as of March 31, 2016, here is how much each of the current and past presidential candidates has received from the oil and gas sector:

While Hillary Clinton's $307,561 is far less than Ted Cruz's $1,013,249, it is nearly six times Bernie Sander's oil and gas sector contributions of $53,760 and thirty times as much as Donald Trump's $10,763.

Not only has Ms. Clinton received money from voters working for fossil fuel companies, she has received donations from fossil fuel lobbyists and bundlers as follows:

1.) In-house oil and gas industry lobbyists have donated $20,050 and in-house company lobbyists have bundled an additional $140,400.

2.) Lobbyists hired by the oil and gas industry have donated $109,750 and nine hired oil and gas industry lobbyists have bundled an additional $1,186,810.

Of all 54 in-house and hired oil and gas sector lobbyists, 43 made the maximum allowable contribution of $2,700.

3.) Lobbyists hired by the coal sector contributed $8,600 with three of the four contributing the maximum of $2,700.

This brings the combined total direct and bundled contributions from fossil fuel company lobbyists to $1,465,610. 

So much for Ms. Clinton’s finger-wagging and righteous indignation when she is being accused of something that she is, quite clearly, guilty of doing.