PowerSwitch

It is a move in the right direction. It may be too little, too late, but this is the right kind of step. We can want, but we cannot seriously expect, the UK government to suddenly accept peak oil without conducting its own study. It will probably come to similar conclusions as the IEA, because that is the most business friendly answer, but it opens the debate further. The government is now officially engaged in the peak oil debate and that is a massive milestone.

UK: Government to launch new study on oil depletion
03/11/2005
The UK government is planning an inquiry into the longevity of global oil supplies as campaigners warn of an approaching crisis, the head of the Department of Trade and Industry's energy markets unit said yesterday. "We can expect that an investigation will be announced within the next few weeks" aimed at allowing a more open discussion on the arrival of "peak oil," the point at which worldwide oil production begins to decline, suggested the DTI's Claire Durkin.

In a speech to an industry gathering at London's Energy Institute, Durkin said that although the peak is widely acknowledged as inevitable it isn't an immediate prospect. "There is no imminent danger of global oil production peaking," she said, as new technologies and growing supplies outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting countries will meet market requirements.

Nonetheless, even if conventional oil can be relied on for the next 30-60 years, more attention needs to be paid to energy conservation and renewable fuels.

The speech comes as a diffuse coalition of geologists, economists and activists have been warning that global production could decline as early as 2007 as major oilfields mature. The government's acknowledgement of the problem was seen as an encouraging sea change by Chris Skrebowski, editor of the Energy Institute's Petroleum Review and proponent of the peak oil argument. "The Americans are waking up to peak oil, so now the UK is following their lead, but the government doesn't want to talk about it in case they scare people," Skreboswki said.

Skrebowski criticised Durkin's point that the DTI's role was to provide a stable environment for exploration investment rather than push oil majors to spend. He suggested the government had simply committed itself to letting oil companies solve the government's problem for them.

Another researcher into the peak oil argument was even more critical: "It was a depressing speech because the government is still disowning responsbility for the problem and assuming the market will take care of it, it's a dereliction of duty. The only effective solution is a substantial decrease in fuel consumption."
Source: Dow Jones

Funny, we have heard the same thing here in Sweden since a couple of weeks. Now it has escalated to the level where the prime minister has appointed a commission whith the mission: "Make Sweden oil-independent in 2020". The guy who is heading the commission -Stefan Edman- is a Lysenko-type scientist though, delivering science in line with ideology.

A semi-crappy english text is here:

http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/3212/a/51058

This is my resultant press release.

Energy Campaigner John Hemming MP has written to Malcolm Wicks MP to ask him to reveal more details of the planned "peak oil" study that was flagged up by the head of the Department of Trade and Industry's energy markets, Claire Durkin

Ms Durkin said on Wednesday "We can expect that an investigation will be announced within the next few weeks aimed at allowing a more open discussion on the arrival of "peak oil," the point at which worldwide oil production begins to decline,"

She was speaking to an industry gathering at London's Energy Institute. Durkin said that although the peak is widely acknowledged as inevitable it isn't an immediate prospect. "There is no imminent danger of global oil production peaking," she said, as new technologies and growing supplies outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting countries will meet market requirements. "

The speech comes as a diffuse coalition of geologists, economists and activists have been warning that global production could decline as early as 2007 as major oilfields mature. The government's acknowledgement of the problem was seen as an encouraging sea change by Chris Skrebowski, editor of the Energy Institute's Petroleum Review and proponent of the peak oil argument. "The Americans are waking up to peak oil, so now the UK is following their lead, but the government doesn't want to talk about it in case they scare people," Skreboswki said.

Skrebowski criticised Durkin's point that the DTI's role was to provide a stable environment for exploration investment rather than push oil majors to spend. He suggested the government had simply committed itself to letting oil companies solve the government's problem for them.

John Hemming MP said, "it is good that both the DTI and the Chief Scientific Advisor have recognised the need to give serious attention to this issue. I do think the DTI are being over optimistic and I have asked questions about the range of scenarios being considered by Sir David King. At least, however, the government has stopped turning a blind eye to the situation."

"I would like to know from the DTI, however, what the terms of reference of this study will be and how it will be made open to public scrutiny."

My feeling on campaigning is that we are now getting serious movement from government. What we want as a first step is a proper open and evidenced debate about oil and gas supplies.

Nice press release John.

Claire Durkin's announcement is helpful, it would be really good to see the terms of reference and time scales involved. At the very least it should provide a UK government point of view rather than continuing to quote the IEA assessment. Where are they going to source information from? Surely they won't be able to conclude a global peak more than 20 years away and even a conclusion that far out demands action now.

Peak in 20 years time (assuming a very conservative 1% annual increase) would require an additional 675 bn barrels extracted before peak (suggesting a URR of over 3 trillion barrels) and an extraction rate of just over 100 million per day. A 5% decline in today?s 84 mbpd would leave us with just 31 million barrels of today's extraction still available in 20 years time so we'd need 70 mbpd of new production.

I think the DTI will have a tough time trying to provide evidence suggesting a peak more than 20 years away.

This study should be an opportunity for us to at least get government to evaluate the arguments of ASPO, Skrebowski, Simmons and even Chevron etc. How can we push this material into the study?

The way to push that material into the study in essence is through me. I will challenge it on an intellectual level with your assistance.

This is the concept of you provide the bullets and targets and I fire them.

I would like to congratulate you on your achievements to date John. I am sure all of us would like to thank you for your efforts to make Government start to see this issue for what it is.

Getting ready for the challenges.....

Yes , well done, this is fantastic.

With the numbers Chris can provide there is no way the government can ignore this issue. 70mpd of new production required to hold out peak for 20 years? Wow that means we have to replace 83.3% of current production!!

Lets hope their response is not to invade another oil rich country (again)

johnhemming wrote:The way to push that material into the study in essence is through me. I will challenge it on an intellectual level with your assistance.

This is the concept of you provide the bullets and targets and I fire them.

I envy you on the island dearly! If we could have just one MP like that here...

johnhemming wrote:The way to push that material into the study in essence is through me. I will challenge it on an intellectual level with your assistance.

This is the concept of you provide the bullets and targets and I fire them.

So how do you actually get to contribute to such studies then John?

Do you just send references/data in writing? Or do you speak to the "committee" directly?

What's your openning contribution likely to be like??

Generally the best area to work in is within the bureaucracy with intermittent resorts to "on the record" questions.

With a bit of luck I should end up better informed than the ministers.
(not difficult really although some of the ministers are quite sharp).

Well what I saw of Claire Durkin on Wednesday was deeply unimpressive - she presented herself as the official voice of the government, and then proceeded to completely miss the point about peak rate of production - she wasn't saying the peak will not be for 30-40 years, but that the oil supply is good for 30-40 years (presumably at at least today's production rates).
She did say that she found this worrying and that something needed to be done.
On the domestic front she sees the future as being biofuels, and on the international stage she praised the good unacknowledged work the govt had achieved on global energy policy at the G8 conf.

She arrived just in time for her spot, and left immediately afterwards, missing the opportunity to stay and learn anything.
Her 'announcement' about a govt PO study was couched as a tease - "I'm not supposed to say anything but there might be an announcement which might interest you all in a few weeks...we want to get all the experts together from across the field and find the answer" (to what question ???)

A fuller summary of the day will be posted hereabouts imminently

I think it shows the attitudes in the DTI. It is important to remember that very few people do original research particularly in government and if the conventional wisdom is that something is the case then people tend to follow the herd.

RogerCO wrote:Well what I saw of Claire Durkin ....
She arrived just in time for her spot, and left immediately afterwards, missing the opportunity to stay and learn anything.

I seem to recall Brian Wilson doing this at the Edinburgh conference in April. It's almost as if they can't face sitting through the other talks as it would stretch their "doublethink" abilities to breaking point