The European Commission published the Second Energy Review (SER-2) November 2008. Entitled “Securing our Energy Future”, it was made available during the same week the IEA's World Energy Outlook was released, which stole much of the impact it could have had and delayed serious insight up to now.

This Strategy attempts to set a Course of Action towards three main Goals:

• Sustainability
• Competitiveness
• Security of Supply

This log entry is the first of a series that will try to build a critical but constructive review of this crucial element of future Energy Policy in Europe.

Here is a recent talk given by Fatih Birol to the Council of Foreign Relations:

Below the fold is a TOD:Campfire post on Passive Solar, from longtime TOD reader Will Stewart. Will is a Systems Engineer in the Energy industry - he will have a follow up post in the near future. Please add your own experience and expertise with passive solar, including links and images in the comment section - the sun is as close as we get to a perpetual energy subsidy.....how we best access and take advantage of it is the subject of tonights post. For submissions to this series, please email campfire@theoildrum.com or todcampfire@gmail.com.

LATEST Russia will resume gas exports to Europe as soon as EU monitors arrive at gas compressor stations along the route, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said.

With news breaking that Russia has just suspended all exports of gas to and through Ukraine, what will the impact be on Europe and why has Russia chosen once again to take such drastic action?

Exports of gas from Russia fell 6% between 2006 and 2007 according to the BP statistical review of world energy. Production fell from 612.1 to 607.4 billion cubic meters (bcm) per annum and domestic consumption rose from 432.1 to 438.8 bcm per annum leading to a fall in exported gas.

Is Russia withholding gas supplies leading to higher prices and manipulation of its market position? Or is the Russian gas supply system unable to meet demand?

Michael T. Klare - Oil 2009: Be Careful What You Wish For

Only yesterday, it seems, we were bemoaning the high price of oil. Under the headline "Oil's Rapid Rise Stirs Talk of $200 a Barrel This Year," the July 7 issue of the Wall Street Journal warned that prices that high would put "extreme strains on large sectors of the U.S. economy." Today, oil, at over $40 a barrel, costs less than one-third what it did in July, and some economists have predicted that it could fall as low as $25 a barrel in 2009.

Prices that low -- and their equivalents at the gas pump -- will no doubt be viewed as a godsend by many hard-hit American consumers, even if they ensure severe economic hardship in oil-producing countries like Nigeria, Russia, Iran, Kuwait, and Venezuela that depend on energy exports for a large share of their national income. Here, however, is a simple but crucial reality to keep in mind: No matter how much it costs, whether it's rising or falling, oil has a profound impact on the world we inhabit -- and this will be no less true in 2009 than in 2008.

The following guest post was written by Tom Standing, a member of ASPO-USA and a "semi-retired, part-time civil engineer for the City of San Francisco." Here Tom takes on the calculations for a 280 MW solar thermal plant in Arizona that I looked at back in February. My conclusion from that essay was that the electrical capacity of the U.S. could in theory be met on 10,000 square miles of land (with the normal caveats about storage, costs, etc.) Tom peels the onion a few more layers and puts the energy production into perspective.

Shell seeks Colo. water for oil shale production

Shell Oil has filed for the first major water right on the Yampa River in northwest Colorado for its oil shale development plans.

Shell applied Dec. 30 in state Water Court to use about 8 percent of the Yampa's peak spring flow.

Shell spokesman Tracy Boyd says the water would be shipped to a reservoir for later use in oil shale production.

Critics say extracting oil from shale will use too much of the West's scarce water. Some estimates say it could take up to three barrels of water to produce a single barrel of oil.

Nate's interview on the Reality Report from December 29 is now available from Global Public Media. I think it is very good. According to the write-up:

In this edition of The Reality Report host Jason Bradford interviews Nate Hagens. In a show broadcast over a year ago Nate described the financial deleveraging process and how this could lead to commodity deflation, including "$50 oil."

Topics in this program highlight how the current financial melt down and impact the timing and severity of peak oil and natural gas--including the dreaded "natural gas cliff" as rigs go idle due to low prices. We discuss whether this means economic growth now over, and if so, how should societies adjust?

This is a link to the site where you can download or stream the talk. It is about 50 minutes long. (Per Jason: If you could ask TOD readers for help with GPM transcription services that would be handy. If interested/able they can contact laurel@postcarbon.org)

In this post, I consider some major issues contributing to our current financial problems, before making a financial forecast for 2009. These are

1. Why so many asset classes are so highly correlated in times of distress. This chart gives my interpretation of part of the problem.

Figure 1
2. Why growth is essential for keeping the current debt-based financial system operating.

3. Where we are now, and the role reduced resources (including peak oil) are likely to play as we go forward.

4. My forecast for 2009.

The Costly Compromises of Oil From Sand

OTTAWA — A major source of oil for the United States must now confront another problem: its carbon footprint.

Canada, in large part because of the production capacity of its oil sands, is now the largest oil supplier to the United States. But environmental groups in both countries are pushing for a slowdown or even a halt to further oil sands development, which is concentrated in northern Alberta.

Not all oil is alike when it comes to environmental impact, and many environmentalists single out production from the oil sands as the epitome of “dirty oil.” In a recent study, the RAND Corporation estimated that oil from the oil sands generates about 10 to 30 percent more greenhouse gases than conventional crude.

That may place oil sands exports in a precarious position when Barack Obama becomes president this month and moves forward with a climate change program.