PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Response from Alan Johnson through my MP Tessa Jowell

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Campaign ideas & experience
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
newmac
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 431
Location: Kennington, London

PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:15 pm    Post subject: Response from Alan Johnson through my MP Tessa Jowell Reply with quote

Response from Rt. Hon Alan Johnson MP at Dept of Trade and Industry

Thank you for your letter of 3 March, enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr Christopher Newman of XXXX London SE22 XXX, about the issue of peak oil production.

Malcolm Wicks? letter of July 31 2005 noted that the Government?s current view is that global oil production is not in imminent danger of peaking, provided the necessary investments are made across the global oil industry. Notwithstanding this, the Government is putting in place a broad range of policies that will help move the UK economy away from power supplied primarily through fossil fuel supply. In addition to the areas covered in my previous letter, you might like to draw your constituent?s attention to the following points.

Firstly, I would like to reassure Mr Newman that the Government remains actively engaged in the debate on the issue of global oil reserves and continues to pursue a number of areas of work in the area. For example, throughout the UK?s Presidency of the G7, Finance Ministers endorsed the need for the development of a global common standard for reporting oil reserves in order to improve transparency. DTI officials are already working through the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) with other governments and relevant international bodies to take this area forward. Officials are in contact with the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), which has been asked by Congress to examine issue related to the potential peaking of world oil production. In addition, one of my officials, Claire Durkin (Head Energy Markets Unit) participated in an Energy Institute debate on ?Oil Depletion ? Facing the Challenges? in November 2005 and her presentation, along with those made by other speakers, can be found at the following web address: http://www.energyinst.org.uk/index.cfm?PageID=1037.

Mr Newman may also like to be aware that the International Energy Agency (IEA) is currently developing detailed medium-term (to 2010) projections for global oil production (and demand) based on a field-by-field analysis of active development projects and existing decline rates. Full results will be published in the second quarter of this year but provisional findings were presented in the IEA?s December 2005 Monthly Oil Market report (available at http://omrpublic.iea.org/). Rather than showing any decline in production , these findings showed global oil production capacity rising steadily to 2010 (by around 2 million barrels per day each year).

Finally, as your constituent may be aware, the Government is currently conducting a wide ranging review of UK Energy Policy, announced by the Prime Minister on 29 November 2005. The Review has a broad scope and will consider aspects of both energy supply and demand focusing on policy measures for the medium and long term. A wide-ranging consultation phase was launched in January, details of which can be found at http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/review/index.shtml. The Review will report in early summer.

Yours
Alan Johnson




My comments:
1) They seemed to have dropped references to the 2003 white paper.
2) The response reads like a cross between being told off for asking silly questions and trying to cover up very little action with minor things. The first makes me think I am right, the second convinces me.
3) They are mentioning Peak Oil instead of avoiding it.

Please let me have specific thoughts that I can go back with.
_________________
"You can't be stationary on a moving train" - Howard Zinn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MacG



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2863
Location: Scandinavia

PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 1:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Response from Alan Johnson through my MP Tessa Jowell Reply with quote

newmac wrote:
Please let me have specific thoughts that I can go back with.


They always toss this one:

Quote:
...provided the necessary investments are made across the global oil industry...


It's always possible to blame reduced extraction rates on "lack of investment".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
grinu



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 612

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The way I tossed that back at my MP was to ask which investments he was aware of that could create oil reserves. If it's not there then no amount of investment will get it out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7859

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Last month the UK Government Foreign and Commonwealth Office published a document titled: Active Diplomacy for a Changing World, The UK's International Priorities Link (pdf). Amongst the rosy forecasts for the next 20 years we have come to expect from such publications (no doubt based on assumptions which don't include peak oil) there is this titbit:
Quote:
Existing conventional oil reserves are projected to meet global demand until 2030, but investment of around ?10 trillion (US$17 trillion) will be needed to turn resources in the ground into supplies for consumers.

This is interesting for two reasons, firstly it is the first time I've seen government put an actual cost to the common statement of "there's enough oil given suitable investment" so often used when government talks about this subject. Secondly it is very different from the "more than $3 trillion (?1.72 trillion)" that the IEA claim. I guess it is 'more' but that has to be where any agreement breaks down.

Why the uncertainly? Can the world afford $17 trillion over the next 24 years ($700bn a year)? How much did the oil industry spend per year over the last few years? Is an admission that it will take $17 trillion to bring sufficient oil to market out to 2030 really an admission that we won't bring sufficient oil to market? What happens after 2030 - where presumably this situation breaks down and no investment will be able to bring oil to market.

Originally posted here: The Oil Drum
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
johnhemming



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 255

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the official position is gradually shifting vide IEA.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Campaign ideas & experience All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group