Algeria & Morocco: Natural Gas Cartels, Fertilizer Mercantilism, and Rising Tensions
Posted by jeffvail on July 14, 2008 - 10:00am
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: algeria, fertilizer, infrastructure protection, infrastructure targeting, lng, mercantilism, Morocco, natural gas, natural gas cartel, original, peak oil, phosphate [list all tags]
| Algeria is one of the world’s most important oil and gas exporters. Morocco has no significant oil and gas production, but has about 2/3 of the world’s rock phosphate reserves, a critical component in global fertilizer supply that increased 300% in price in the past year (.pdf) and may peak alongside global oil production. The two nations have historically been at odds, especially over the phosphate-rich territory of Western Sahara. Now, more than ever, their exports are critical to the energy and food supplies of the world. Alongside increasing importance, tensions between the two are on the rise as the US and Russia provoke the situation with massive opposing arms deals and bi-lateral trade agreements. This article will look at the forces behind these rising tensions and consider issues of fertilizer mercantilism, infrastructure vulnerability, and the potential formation of a natural gas cartel. |

Will Demand for Gas & Fertilizer Bring New Conflict to Morocco & Algeria?
Country Briefs:
Algeria: Algeria is an important exporter of both oil and natural gas (background .ppt on NG supplies to Europe). Algeria is Europe’s third largest supplier of natural gas, providing 30+ bcm via pipelines and 20+ bcm via LNG tanker in 2007. Major projects are currently underway to expand pipeline infrastructure to Italy (via Tunisia) and to Spain (both direct undersea and via Morocco), and to expand LNG export capability. Algeria hopes to expand total natural gas exports to 85 bcm/year by 2010, making their production roughly the equivalent of Norway (Europe’s 2nd largest provider). Significantly, the potential to expand natural gas supplies to Europe enhances Algeria’s importance as an alternative supplier in light of current dependence on uncertain Russian gas supplies. Algeria also faces an active Islamist insurgency, a separate threat from the rising al-Qa'ida in the Land of the Islamic Maghreb, and serious demographic challenges in the form of a 1.22% population growth rate (graph) and sharp ethnic divisions (map).

Figure 1: Algeria's Place Among African Natural Gas Reserves
Morocco: Morocco's importance to the global economy is due to its control of at least 2/3 of the world's reserves of rock phosphate. The USGS has stated that there are no substitutes (.pdf) for rock phosphate in agriculture. With biofuel demand increasing steadily, and world food shortages hitting the headlines, rock phosphate is arguably as important to the world situation as oil supply. Importantly, Patrick Dery has performed a Hubbert Lineraization on world phosphorus production and estimates that we have already passed peak phosphorus (see graph below). While the importance of rock phosphate has been discussed here before, its impact on the situation between Morocco and Algeria has not. Additionally, fertilizer supplies are a critical component of many biofuel projects, creating an interrelationship between phosphate and energy supplies. Like Algeria, Morocco faces an internal Islamist insurgency (though currently less troublesome than in Algeria) and has significant demographic challenges with a population growth rate of 1.6% (graph) and sharp ethnic divides (map).

Figure 2: Peak Phosphorus? A Hubbert Lineraization of Global Phosphate Production
Tensions: The Sand War, Western Sahara, and Islamist Insurgencies
There are several sources of tension between Morocco and Algeria. The two states fought the Sand War from 1963-64 over a mineral-rich border territory. In 1975, when Morocco took control of Western Sahara, Algeria began overtly backing the Polisario Front in an ongoing insurgency that continued unchecked until a 1991 cease fire. Both states also suffer from internal Islamist insurgencies, exacerbated by increasing demographic problems. The situation in Algeria is most severe: after independence from France, the revolutionary National Liberation Front ruled the country until Islamists won the first free elections in 1991, prompting the military to immediately seize control. More than 160,000 people were killed in the ensuing civil war between 1992 and 2002. While the country is relatively peaceful today, factions of the Islamist rebels have remained, operating out of rural regions inside the Malian border and elsewhere in the Sahara, and have recently merged with al-Qa'ida to form AQIM (al-Qa'ida in the Land of the Islamic Maghreb). The group has recently carried out several attacks in Algeria, including the April 11 2007 Algiers Bombing, the December 11 2007 Algiers bombing, the 2007 Batna bombing, and the 2007 Dellys bombing, as well as being possibly involved in the 2007 Casablanca bombing in Morocco. The pace of attacks has not slowed, with at least five bombings in the last two months alone.
Infrastructure Targeting?
While Algerian Islamists have generally mirrored target selection of Islamist groups elsewhere, one attack in December, 2006, specifically targeted Haliburton workers in Algeria. This tactic, of targeting critical infrastructure and energy industries, has been increasing around the world as non-state groups everywhere realize that they can maximize their return on investment with these targets. With rising internal threats and state sponsored proxy conflicts, and the potential for direct state military attacks no longer too remote to consider, it is concerning that both Algeria and Morocco present some extremely high ROI energy and resource infrastructure targets:
- Morocco: The Fosbucraa Conveyor, the world’s longest conveyor belt, transporting phosphates from the world's largest phosphate mine at Bou Kra 100km to the port of el Aioun. The conveyor was successfully attacked several times by the Polisario Front. Here's a satellite image.
- Algerian pipelines & LNG infrastructure: Algeria is chock full of high-vulnerability, high-consequence targets. Algeria recently signed a 100 million euro contract with French defense firm Thales to secure oil and gas pipelines. With 16,200 km of major pipelines to protect in Algeria alone (and scheduled to increase to 21,000 km by 2010), the task is daunting. Additionally, two potential future infrastructure projects may represent appealing targets. The proposed Trans-Saharan natural gas pipeline, that would deliver Nigerian natural gas to Europe via a 4,550 km pipeline, would represent a lengthy and vulnerable target to multiple groups if it is ever built (construction is “penciled in” to start in 2015). Additionally, speculative plans (such as the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperative, or TREC) to leverage high solar insolation in the Sahara to generate electricity for Europe would require huge transmission infrastructure that would be both highly vulnerable and highly attractive. Neither the Trans-Saharan pipeline nor TREC is in any danger of being built in the immediate future.
Thoughts on the Future: Proxy Wars & Proxy Mercantilism
Recently, the fragile 1991 cease fire agreement with the Western Saharan Polisario Front has become increasingly unstable. Complicating the situation with Western Sahara, French President Sarkozy announced his support to Morocco's decision to postpone indefinitely the self-determination referendum promised in the 1991 accord, along with increased Algerian support to Polisario leadership. All this comes against a backdrop of rising military tensions between Morocco and Algeria. In 2008, the US doubled military aide to Morocco and announced arms deals worth billions of dollars. At the same time, various sources confirmed that Russian concluded a $7.5 billion deal to provide advanced arms to Algeria.
Is there any deeper meaning behind these moves? At least two possibilities must be considered. The first is proxy-mercantilism by the United States to secure control of phosphate supplies. In 2004, the US entered into a bi-lateral free trade agreement with Morocco. This can be explained as a natural extension of the long history of economic and military cooperation between the US and Morocco, but in light of proposed biofuel programs, skyrocketing rock phosphate prices, potentially peaking phosphate production, and mercantilist moves by other great powers, the more nefarious possibilities must be considered. The second possibility is that Russia hopes to leverage increased influence with Algeria to exert greater influence in global natural gas markets. Because Algeria is one of Western Europe's few true alternatives to Russian natural gas supplies, especially given the prospect of sharp increases in Algerian natural gas exports, Algeria represents either a threat to Russian natural gas leverage, or a great enhancement of that leverage by entering a defacto gas cartel. At a minimum, we know that Russia and Algeria are actively engaged in talks on this topic. Also, a recent offer by Gazprom to buy all of Libya's additional oil and gas production supports this suggestions that Russia hopes to control Europe's alternative sources of natural gas.
Both notions of phosphate mercantilism and a gas cartel are merely informed speculation at this point, but the stakes are so high that these possibilities must be considered. While there may be no deeper motive behind recent moves with Morocco and Algeria, at a minimum the stakes and tensions are increasing. Because both Algeria and Morocco are fragile Nation-States, with active Islamist separatist movements, significant internal terrorist threats, and complicated ethnic/territorial problems, the potential for interruption in critical exports of phosphate, oil, and gas is increasing.



Jeff,
Fascinating in-depth article! I knew about Algeria's role as a supplier of natural gas to Europe but not about Morocco's production of phosphate.
Looking at the historical data in the Energy Export Databrowser it appears that Algeria's increasing production of Gas is unable to keep up with skyrocketing demand from the three top consumers: Spain, France and Italy. Here's the graph that shows the sum of production and consumption for all 4 nations combined:
For most of the time series, Algerian production increased at the same rate as demand in Spain, France and Italy. But things have gotten dangerously out of balance since about 2000. Looking at the individual graphs for Algeria, Spain, France and Italy it's hard to fathom how Algeria will have enough Gas to further expand LNG exports given that:
Looking at the charts it seems that Spain, France and Italy will be forced into a cozy relationship with Algeria, sucking up as much of the Algerian output as possible.
Figures 13 & 14 The import sources of gas to France.
Jonathan, France, Spain and Italy all have diversified sources of nat gas imports which I suggest you learn about before posting rubbish like this here again.
And whist North Sea gas production may peak next year its is not yet in serious decline.
You may want to spend some time reading this:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3283/
Euan: I don't think Jonathan's post was "rubbish" at all, and I think it's the kind of comment that should be discussed, rather than just dismissed. You can disagree with his Jonathan's contention that France, Spain, and Italy will be "forced" into a cozy relationship with Algeria, and he did overstate the current state of North Sea gas decline, but I don't think his overarching argument is off the mark--after all, North Sea gas will decline in the not-too-distant future. Natural Gas is less globally fungible due to infrastructure issues, as you know, than oil and the diversified nature of a nation's gas supply doesn't make a geographically proximate supplier unimportant. I think Jonathan's point is actually well taken, that a disruption to Algerian natural gas supplies would be highly significant to France, Italy, and Spain. Additionally, despite France's diversified supply, disruption to pipelines serving Spain or Italy would impact France because gas is highly fungible among neighbors that share significant pipeline infrastructure--Spain and Italy would bid up lost Algerian gas in an effort to maintain supply, and France (and other parts of Europe) would feel the impact. To my knowledge, existing LNG trains and associated infrastructure (esp. tankers and port infrastructure) are insufficient to make up lost pipeline supply by merely transferring to LNG. Likewise with disruption of LNG infrastructure--it can't be merely diverted to waiting pipelines...
I was in a bad mood.
If there was a serious disruption to Algerian gas exports it would have a massive effect throughout Europe and the world since the European market is highly interconnected. But this is like saying that a serious disruption to Saudi oil exports would have a major impact upon oil markets. So I'm really not sure what the point is.
Has something happened that makes the threat of such disruption more likely, and in particular more likely in Algeria than anywhere else? What about Egypt and Libya. And if terrorists were seriously intent on disrupting nat gas supplies why not blow up unguarded pipelines in Scotland or N Holland?
Of the thousands of miles of pipeline, most of it will be small diameter gas flow lines - if it gets blown up it would take them a day to repair it. The main targets would be the main arteries and gas processing plants and pumping stations - but those I imagine will be well guarded - like the Abqaiq complex in Saudi.
There has been low grade threat of terror activity in Algeria for so long as I can remember. The main base - Hassi Messoud - in the middle of the Sahara desert is heavily guarded by thousands of Algerian troops.
Euan,
Point taken to do a little more homework here at TOD before posting.
Had I read your in-depth article on The European Gas Market I would not have made those off-the-cuff comments based on a single graphic.
This points out the problem with artificially grouping nations together without having a very good reason for doing so. Algeria, Spain, France & Italy do not constitute anything approaching a closed system as the graphic implies and I'll need to review the various groupings I have set up in the databrowser. (Groupings were one of the main requests from the initial batch of users.)
I should probably stick to groupings that are either geologic in nature like the North Sea or political in nature like the EU or OECD.
-- Jon
Jon - as I've said before many of your charts are useful for quick checks on exports. But I think you agree this one's not that helpful and could even be misleading for a reader not experienced enough to know what lies behind the numbers.
Figure 27 Destinations for Algerian pipeline gas exports.
Figure 28 Destinations for Algerian LNG gas exports.
The European gas market is complex with a high degree of interconnectivity of supplies. many countries would be affected by a failure of Algerian gas exports - not only those countries that actually receive Algerian gas directly.
But I'm still left wondering if the threat level in Algeria has some how increased significantly that shoudl make us more concerned now than before.
As explained above I was in a bad mood yesterday - sorry for being a bit gruff.
Euan,
No offense taken. I understand how it can be frustrating to have to explain things over again when you've done such an excellent job of explaining them the first time.
We both agree that this particular chart is misleading and I'll be removing it. Part of the reason I've been posting so many charts is to gauge their usefulness and your comments let me know that this one in particular, and arbitrary groupings in general, are problematic. This is very valuable information for me as I definitely don't want to add to the confusion!
I hope to be adding more styles of charts in the future and I'll be looking to your work and that of others here at TOD for inspiration. A couple of ideas I'm working on include:
I look forward to the continuing conversation and discussion about how best we can bring this information to the non-cognoscenti.
Happy Exploring!
-- Jon
We often focus too much on oil and not enough on natural gas or coal --oil depletion must be seen in context of the larger energy supply equation.
Similarly, in the real world, the entire energy sector itself is now strongly interacting with other scarce resources such as phosphate, water or farmland to create profoundly dangerous negative synergies. By their actions in Algeria and Morroco, it is clear that the United States, France and Russia all are doing their best to position themselves against such an outcome.
In my opinion, there is no greater potential for a "sleeper" or dark horse of a crisis to emerge than the interplay between the energy, food and fertilizer sectors --with phosphate and natural gas acting as eyes of the coming storm.
I have been covering agricultural commodities for some time now and the disturbing, disintegrating connections between fossil fuels, food and fertilizer are starting to come together like some revelation from the opening moments of a sci-fi disaster flick.
Some may not like the comparison, those who believe that markets tell resources to materialize will consider that last sentence extreme. And yet, we've really got to watch fertilizer because it is in this sector that the relationships between fossil fuels, food and politics will begin to explode apart.
Similarly, in the real world, the entire energy sector itself is now strongly interacting with other scarce resources such as phosphate, water or farmland to create profoundly dangerous negative synergies.
Exactly right. The uphill side of the oil age was driven by the same but positive synergies! I would love to see some young (or at least energetic) mind trace out the upside synergies in detail, not as an abstract academic exercise, but in order to give us a better insight into the "negative synergies" that are operating now. How closely does the unwinding mirror the winding? Far beyond just interesting.
I don't think they invert like your saying. Here is why. To use Old Testament slang :)
Oil production beget NPK beget demand for Phosphorous
Low oil production beget corn ethanol beget NPK beget demand for Phosphrous.
Heavy Sour crude beget demand for NG for coking beget no NG for NPK and distilling beget expensive corn ethanol
The problem is demand created by more oil actually increases and oil suppy decreases it does not decrease so the less oil we have the more demand we have for all the other critical commodities with the center being NPK and NG.
Oh crap :)
But this is why I've said we won't go down because of oil depletion partial substition of biofuels increased EROI etc are going to result in us running out of cheap NPK or NG before we run out of oil.
Once cheap NG and NPK fertilizer are gone the party is over. And I bet the price increases in these once they become critical will blow your mind.
We can substitute for oil esp in transportation we may not "like" changing our lifestyle but we cannot easily substitute for NG and NPK.
My UK farmer friends saw the biofuels impact on fertiliser prices starting if I remember ~18mo ago (they must do forward buying) because, initially, USA setaside was being brought to cultivation and US merchants apparently had bought a lot of world potassium. The mines (e.g. USA, Russia) apparently are doing catch up.
Rock phosphate however is likely the more longer term critical limiting factor.
We need to try to consider separately NPK from one another. 2% of world energy is devoted to fertiliser N production. 5% of NG goes to ammonia production (energy + feedstock). N fertiliser production could in future command a higher priority as needed? Reasonable estimates suggest a doubling of N production needed in the next 50 years. The world must increasingly re-cycle all the soil nutrients.
A lot of useful stuff is at the IFA. They are sanguine about future phosphate just now, see quote and link below.
I would like to see better estimates of the relative losses to the environment from agricultural systems of each mineral resource.
Generally speaking, Asian mainstay cereals production re-cycles more NPK in situ , especially P & K, and needs smaller annual replenishment with synthesised N, compared with N American, European or similar agriculture systems.
World competition from biofuels for agricultural resources must put strain on future food production.
Phil
Very good article, again. Thank you very much.
Personally I find it interesting, that I haven't seen any cost calculations comparing short term resource-mercantilism vs. closed-loop nutrient recycling (e.g. phosphorus) domestically.
Granted, if one plays purely on the grand geo-strategic (resource) chessboard, it makes more sense to import P than to just recycle it, but just importing it alone also makes no sense in the long run. Recycling systemically is the key.
Thus, are there any governmental or business development happening on this front (i.e. productive sanitation systems, reducing P input to cattle feed and thus waste, reduction of P into wastewater systems, etc) in OECD countries?
Surely this kind of systemic issue calls for systemic solutions, right?
Or are we still so far away from expensive phosphorus prices that it doesn't make economical sense to start planning for large-scale closed loop recycling of phosphorus?
Inquiring minds want to know :)
I've wondered about the ability of closed-loop nutrient cycle practices to scale myself. The USGS comment that there's "no substitute for rock phosphates in agriculture" struck me--I was tempted to add a qualifier "in modern methods of industrial farming." I know that there are substitutes in existing small-scale, organic farming practices, but I don't know 1) how well these can scale economically and 2) how these impact yield.
Islamic fundamentalists that carry out terrorism are not the friends of either the governments of Morocco or Algeria. The Western Sahara has been under a UN watch with 3,000 peacekeepers for 18 years. Morocco is the historical owner of the territory and the territory is controlled by Morocco and that control has the support of the practically all of the Moroccan people. There is a autonomy plan before the UN, supported by the US, France and others that would resolve the issue and allow the 100,000 people living in camps for 30 years in Algeria to return to their former home and have governmental assistance. The alternative presented by the Polisario is a non starter. Nobody in the world wants a "country with 100,000 people that could easily be controlled by terrorists.
Both Morocco and Algeria have sound state policy reasons to resolve the Western Sahara issue peacefully, and stop Islamic fundamentalist terrorism now.
I agree that the states of Morocco and Algeria have sound reasons to want the Western Sahara issue resolved, peacefully. They also, however, have sound state policy reasons to want the situation resolved in their favor, and that is probably mutually exclusive between Morocco and Algeria. With pressure from Nicolas Sarkozy and others, the scheduled plebiscite for Western Sahara has recently been delayed--again, and prospects of Morocco actually allowing Western Sahara to gain any level of economic control to the West of the giant sand berm they've constructed for defense (and where all the Phosphate is located) is slim to none. I think it's precisely because there are so few people in Western Sahara that the area has such potential for proxy-conflict, whether that's between Morocco and Algeria (with or without US/Russian funding & arms), between externally funded Islamist groups like AQIM, or merely by existing Polisario rebels acting in an environment of superempowered individuals.
The interest of the region as a whole is best served by peaceful resolution of the situation in Western Sahara, but in many ways it is also a zero-sum game: either Morocco, Algeria, or Islamist groups can best serve their interests, at the expense of the interest of the region as a whole, by seeking to "win" the conflict, not achieve peace. History suggests that, when faced with such a situation, humans try to win--especially when they think they have a good chance of doing so due to backing of a major external power...
Also of note: there is some prospect for offshore oil production in Western Sahara (probably nothing monumental or comparable to their phosphate reserves), but this is currently on hold as the UN has ruled that Morocco does not have the sovereignty required to authorize exploitation of the territory.
It is not a zero sum game to not allow Islamic fundamentalists to gain control of the Western Sahara. Morocco has already "won" the territory. 2/3 of the population of the territory is Moroccan. The area has a Moroccan history of many centuries. The 35 million Moroccans consider the Western Sahara Moroccan. The "plebiscite" issue is a joke. Who should be in the plebiscite? Only the 100,000 camp people? Or all the people in the territory, which is 2/3 Moroccan? The autonomy proposal of Morocco, with protection of human rights is the only plan that has wheels. The cold war is over, The Polisario is a product of the cold war and is controlled by a cadre of self appointed rulers that have no means to support themselves except entities that want to fund their position.
The national interests of the U.S, France, Spain, and Europe in general, are all backing the Moroccan autonomy proposal now. Morocco is the gatekeeper to Europe. It has been a friend of the U.S. since the beginning of this Country. And it's a fait acompli.
The conflict between the states of Morocco and the Islamic fundamentalists is definitely a zero-sum game as their goals are mutually exclusive--if the state of Morocco wins, the Islamists lose.
As for Western Saharan autonomy being a fait acompli, autonomy without resource control is illusory (this is the proposal), and autonomy with any meaningful degree of resource control won't happen. This is precisely why Kerr-Mcgee pulled out of oil exploration off Western Sahara--the critical issue of resource control hasn't been resolved. As long as there are people in Western Sahara who think the resources belong to them, but who don't have true control over them, there is significant potential for a proxy conflict. The issue of who takes part in the plebiscite is one of "Colonial Cartography." The groups struggling for control have not, and will continue to not care about what lines in the sand the Spanish drew in past centuries, so I agree that any plebiscite would be a joke, but so is any hope for true peace without reconciling the territorial claims of non-state groups with resource control. The Moroccan autonomy plan won't resolve that issue, so won't really reduce tensions. Morocco may well be able to keep a lid on tensions by force alone, but they haven't resolved the underlying--and ongoing--source of those tensions. As with other geopolitical feedback loops, as Morocco's phosphate reserves become more and more valuable, this will only stoke existing tensions further--at some point, whether by indigenous effort or proxy conflict, Morocco will no longer be able to prevail by force alone. When that will be, however, is highly uncertain...
Phosphate, it's sort of like the oil. Does the oil belong to the Arabs in Kuwait(Polisario), or to all the Arabs in the vicinity including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan(Morroco)? What about Eqypt(Algeria)?
Yes,
Scale is of the essence. Even organic farming can't rely exclusively on recycled fertilizers -- provided the stuff is 'mined' rather than synthesised, it's considered kosher and 'natural'.
So I think what are needed here are hard data: just HOW MUCH fertilizer is required to generate HOW MANY food calories from plants grown on HOW MANY hectares of land? Must do some googling ...
My understanding is that the closest organic farming can get to a closed nutrient cycle is with integration of human manure from consumption of the agricultural product back into the same field. This is very challenging to scale--it seems to work for intensive plots of land in China that have been farmed continuously for at least a thousand years without any record of addition of outside nutrients, but even then probably only slows the nutrient decay to an acceptably low rate, doesn't actually close the cycle.
Our ancestors depended on periodic flooding to replenish the soil.
Also the use of manure from animals grazed outside the fields works to concentrate nutrients.
I think if you look you will see that the use of muddy water, external manure and flooding
of the river basins works to inject more minerals into the cultivated areas they are not closed.
Also of course fish/chicken and other animal parts are critical inputs.
Given that the decay rate is low small additions like this are sufficient to keep the fertility up.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEEDD1F3EF933A2575BC0A...
Sorry but another good link.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T4D-4K6644S-1...
According to Dr Google, it looks as though organic farming can't survive on recycling alone:
Source:
http://www.fibl.org/english/research/soil-sciences/dok/nutrient-balances...
Organic agriculture, as practiced in the US, forbids the use of un-composted manure of any kind and humanure is verboten. Jeff is suggesting recycling the nutrients in humanure to make a partially closed system. See Farmers of Forty Centuries by Franklin King to see how not to "do" humanure. See The Humanure Handbook by Joe Jenkins to see the right way of incorporating humanure into small-scale agriculture.
http://www.reddit.com/info/6rop4/comments/ (energy)
http://www.reddit.com/info/6rop5/comments/ (business)
Hello JeffVail,
Thxs so much for this keypost, I have been hoping and asking for TopTODer examination of this NPK issue for sometime now. As other TODers have already noted upthread: the flowrate nexus of energy, water, NPK, and the other required trace elements, all comes together to quite visibly reveal their interactions in the balance of our food supply.
I have posted much before on Morocco's phosphates and ideal geo-location for sealane control, plus a brief examination of their history. Additionally, by examining the UN FAO Fertilizer Forecast from the basis of Hubbert Downslope analysis: I have posted some speculation as to where this might be headed.
IMO, the general public is slowly grasping a beginning understanding of FF's depletion, but the FF supply chain is nothing compared to the total food supply chain complexity starting with global I-NPK & sulphur extraction, beneficiation, global distribution, and so on. As posted much before: we need a rapid ramping of O-NPK recycling.
NPK are Elements [Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium]: there are No Substitutes to leverage photosynthesis above a Liebig Minimum. I-NPK [Industrial], O-NPK [Organic], are just different forms to deliver the Elements to the topsoil.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Bob:
From your posts I know where the industrial nitrogen based fertizer comes from (synthesized from nat. gas) and the phosphorus comes from (mining in various countries, USA much comes from Florida), but where does the industrial potassium originate?
Is the potassium also likely to someday have supply problems? Thanks for the info.
Mark in St. Louis, MO
Mark,
This article dated 22 April 2008 might help answer your question (hat tip: Dr Google):
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/JD22Ad02.html
Extract:
Canada. Apparently they have a large ancient salt bed there in Saskatchewan with mine-worthy quantities of this water soluble mineral:
http://www.potashcorp.com/about_potashcorp/
Hello Mbnewtrain,
The USGS is your Google friend [2-page PDF Warning]:
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/potash/mcs-2008-potas.p...
-----------------
2008 Potash summary
------------------
Think Canpotex and Uralkali, these potash [potassium, K] cartels own the reserves, therefore control the flowrates. IMO, more potash powerful than OPEC's similar flowrate control over oil.
The Qinghai district of Tibet (essentially the north part of western Quebec, administered separately from 'outer Tibet', formerly the Amdo district of Tibet) has lots of potash in Qinghai lake. Don't know why the Chinese haven't done a better job of extracting potash from it.
I think you make a critical point, Bob: there is a high degree of interdependence among the various parts of our resource supply chains. Critically, as several of them approach (or pass) peak production rate, the interconnections will be additive in the effective rate of decline. Declining oil production will decrease our ability to effectively produce mineral fertilizers, and declining mineral fertilizers will increase the decline rate of oil production--my main thesis is that decline in EACH of these resources will individually act as a catalyst for a whole set of geopolitical feedback loops, and that the resulting geopolitical instability will disrupt production in ALL of these resources.
It is very interesting, especially in the light of this release from LEAP/E2020 for the 2nd half of 2008:
"6. Arab world: Pro-Western regimes go adrift / 60 percent risk of socio-political explosion on Egypt-Morocco axis"
Unfortunately without subscription, there is no further explanation to this.
http://europe2020.org/spip.php?article553&lang=en
Hello Jeff,
Yep, cascading blowbacks interacting are a real bitch. Just like FFs, the varied N, P, and K reserves maybe be huge [but still depleting], but it doesn't matter. It is the flowrates, baby. Leanan and others, beside me, have already po