PowerSwitch

I have received this response:

Dear Mr Hemming

The assessment of the Government's Energy Group of the remaining lifespan of global oil reserves was outlined in the Energy White Paper 2003 "Our energy future - creating a low carbon economy" (http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/index.shtml). To quote from paragraph 6.15, 'Globally, conventional oil reserves are sufficient to meet projected demand for around 30 years, although new discoveries will be needed to renew reserves. Together with non-conventional reserves such as oil shales and improvements in technology, there is the potential for oil reserves to last twice as long.'

Notwithstanding recent strong rates of global oil consumption growth - which themselves are unlikely to persist - the Government's current assessment is that global oil production is not about to imminently reach a peak. As you know, the International Energy Agency's (IEA) 2004 World Energy Outlook contained a detailed analysis of the uncertainties surrounding global oil (and gas) reserves and, whilst noting that there is uncertainty about the exact size of global oil reserves, it concluded that global production of conventional oil will not peak before 2030 if the necessary investments are made. Furthermore, in its April Oil Market Report, the IEA noted that global oil production capacity is likely to grow by a yearly average of 1.75 million barrels per day through to 2010.

However, I am not complacent. Like the IEA, the Government recognises that significant investment will be required to turn these reserves into production. The UK is therefore working with producers, consumers and the international community to improve the conditions for investment in the international energy sector. On the demand side, the Government is working with developing countries to encourage more effective management of energy demand, through energy efficiency improvements and the development of renewable sources of energy. Domestically, Government is working with industry to maximise the economic potential of North Sea supplies.

The Government also recognises that global oil (and gas) reserves are finite, and as set out in the Energy White Paper, is already putting in place policies that will help ease the UK economy away from power supplied primarily through fossil fuel supply as well as bringing about reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. But I am fully aware of the need to do scenario work - from worst to best case - on oil and gas reserves and our ability to be prepared for each of them. This is something I currently have in hand.

On 15 November 2005, at 11.00 there is a meeting of MP's to discuss a related topic - carbon capture and storage. I will be attending and speaking at the meeting, and if you would find it useful to attend, you may wish to contact Bob Blizzard MP, who is arranging it. The meeting will take place in Committee Room 15.

Regards

Dave King

Sir David King
Chief Scientific Adviser to HM Government
Room 372
Office of Science and Technology
1 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0ET

This is the key part of his email:

"But I am fully aware of the need to do scenario work - from worst to best case - on oil and gas reserves and our ability to be prepared for each of them. This is something I currently have in hand."

Yes, everything apart from that last bit is a word for word reply that I have seen from the government time and time and time again!

For example, see this post

I notice he quotes the IEA as saying

global production of conventional oil will not peak before 2030 if the necessary investments are made

Aren't the "necessary investments" something like several trillion dollars over the next 25 years?!?!? "Are they being made?" might be the question to ask him...

"it concluded that global production of conventional oil will not peak before 2030"

Well if the Government are using that as the basis of their planning, then God help us all.

"Furthermore, in its April Oil Market Report, the IEA noted that global oil production capacity is likely to grow by a yearly average of 1.75 million barrels per day through to 2010."

I don't believe this either. At least this can be repudiated as the facts come through....

Time for some MPs to wake the rest up surely! This is the most important issue in existance. If our MPs are totally unaware of the impending situation how can we have any hope in the future governance of our country.

WAKE UP PLEASE!!!!

If they do believe this 2030 peak , then why on earth did we invade Iraq like a desperate drug(oil) addict?

They know, its just there plan is either a) Sh*te, or b) Such political suicide they cannot implement until it blindingly obvious to everyone with half a brain.

Then its a question if its too late.

Totally_Baffled wrote:If they do believe this 2030 peak , then why on earth did we invade Iraq like a desperate drug(oil) addict?

1) because a huge wodge of proven reserves are in a relatively small area of the globe around the Persian Gulf

2) USA considers uninterupted flow of oil from the Gulf to be of prime importance to national security. USA cant afford for the global economy to go down the tubes. If it did who would service the US debt?

3) to enable US troops to withdraw from Saudi Arabia (and set themselves up in permanent bases in Iraq) as requested by the Saudis - thus lancing one of the major boils of fundamentalist inflamation - 'crusader infidels' stationed in the Holy Land of Mecca and Medina

4) because Tony Blair is pathologically narcissistic and has come under the sway of a psychopath resident in the White House. Does anybody else clock the way TB unconsciously apes Dubyas mannerisms for while after he's been on a visit? Ask a psychiatrist what this means.

5) Threats and bribery (as usual) , probably to do with defence technology transfer I would guess. Part of our 'special relationship' with the USA.

Dubya said play with us or we won't let you play with our big boys toys. Trident missile replacement or something like that. We are one of the worlds major armaments manufacturers after all. Whats good for BAe Systems is good for the UK as far as New Labour is concerned.

TB also had to go along or he wont get any lucrative directorships from weapons companies when he's retired as PM. He's obviously salivating over those as it irks him that his wife earns more than he does. Typical attitudes of a Narcissist

mikepepler wrote:I notice he quotes the IEA as saying

global production of conventional oil will not peak before 2030 if the necessary investments are made

Aren't the "necessary investments" something like several trillion dollars over the next 25 years?!?!? "Are they being made?" might be the question to ask him...

I dont find anything in their writing which indicate a peak in 2030, they rather expect falling off a cliff. Out of oil. Completely. "If the necessary investments are made". "If everyone drill and pump like crazy, we can have the pleasure of running off a cliff in 2030..." Great.

MacG wrote: "If everyone drill and pump like crazy, we can have the pleasure of running off a cliff in 2030..." Great.

Ignorance is bliss... so long as the SHTF when I'm out of office and retired to the Bahamas....

And on the subject of the David King - I dont give much credence to anything he says. He seems to have morphed from being an impartial government advisor to a mouthpiece of the Prime Ministers office. One of Tony's Cronies.

Some of the stuff he's put out on various subjects, especially global warming, has just been alarmist nonsense. IMHO. I pay as much attention to what he says as to what used to come out of Alastair Campbells mouth.

I get the impression he enjoys being in the limelight, which is EXACTLY where he shouldn't be. He should be in the background whispering the straight poop into TB's ear, not acting as one of his propagandists.

Oh dear. Some sentences are word-for-word the same as the letter I got from Malcolm Wicks: http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... php?t=1034

Sir David King wrote: On the demand side, the Government is working with developing countries to encourage more effective management of energy demand, through energy efficiency improvements and the development of renewable sources of energy.

Translated into English:

"We're doing f**k all about getting serious with demand in the UK as that would be politically unpopular, so I'll just give you a bit of standard blather about 'developing countries'"

'developing countries' arent the real problem, Dave, the developed countries are. Who consumes the lions share of the worlds oil?

Sir David King wrote:Domestically, Government is working with industry to maximise the economic potential of North Sea supplies.

Translation:
We're doing everything we can to encourage maximum rate pumping. Never mind that this will inevitably reduce the ultimate ammount of oil produced. Gordon B has got a huge hole in his finances looming and needs every tax penny he can squeeze out of the North Sea right now. In ten years he'll be retired so he's not worried about that...

Joe wrote:Oh dear. Some sentences are word-for-word the same as the letter I got from Malcolm Wicks: http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... php?t=1034

So he's just regurgitating the party line...

Hmm... well I think that supports my view that hes just a New Labour Appartchnik , who takes his marching orders from the Prime Ministers Office, not what he should be, a free thinking advisor to the Government, with the balls and independence to put out uncomfortable truths.

File under forget. No point in wasting time on this guy if he's just sending out boilerplate rather than actually thinking about what he writes. I bet everything he writes or says gets cleared through 10 Downing Street for 'errors'...

cynical? Moi... well actually yes i am with anything to do with this Government. Thank god Gordon Brown will never be Prime Minister...

He is part of the government. That requires that he comes out with the government position.

To me what is key is the scenario planning. There is no absolute certainty as to exactly when oil production will peak. The range of scenarios that one plans for indicates when one thinks that it may happen.

What I have been trying to get is at least an informed debate about the issue. To some extent his willingness to do scenario planning gives that informed debate.

The key written parliamentary question, of course, is what scenarios are being considered.

The intellectual challenge is to compare USGS, IEA and ASPO and identify the areas of disagreement. Then when those have been identified it becomes possible to test each one.

Although politics can be seen as groups of people saying "listen to me" and the larger groups having the most impact - actually logical argument does form part of the process as well.

johnhemming wrote:He is part of the government. That requires that he comes out with the government position.

Part of? Not what it says at the top of this page.

"Sir David King
Chief Scientific Adviser to HM Government "

That "to" would seem to imply an impartial source of authoritative scientific advice from outside the Government, not part of it.

I thought he was an unelected civil servant. If spouting the government line is part of his job, then his job description needs to be changed.

Explaining the government position should be left to elected government ministers.

He's only of any use to anybody if he can come out with his own position. Ideally he should shut up in public if that's a problem.

Good point and well said.