More ”Peak of the Oil Age” and The Guardian; Peak oil: the summit that dominates the horizon

The debate on “Peak Oil” continues today with full force in The Guardian. Today’s article is, once again, written by the newspaper’s energy editor Terry Macalister and is titled, Peak oil: Peak oil: the summit that dominates the horizon .

Among other things, Mr Macalister discusses the difficulties that the international oil companies have with replacing their annual production with new finds. This problem was discussed in 2007 in Fredrik Robelius’ thesis, Giant Oil Fields – The Highway to Oil: Giant Oil Fields and their Importance for Future Oil Production (page 115):

“Since 1997 the four companies (BP, Chevron, Exxon-Mobil and Royal Dutch/Shell) have together produced about 8.6Mbpd each year. This is despite an increase in the oil price from the low in 1998 of less than 13 dollar per barrel to over 50 dollar per barrel in 2005. From 1997, with the exemption of 1999, and up to 2002, the reserve additions were larger than the produced volumes of oil (figure 7.16). But when the price started to increase in 2003, the reserve additions dropped below the produced volumes. Thus, reserve replacement is negative and the companies produces from old discoveries, just as the world as a whole (chapter 5). To summarize, the four largest private oil companies have not succeeded in increasing neither production nor reserves despite an increase of the oil price and increased investments in exploration and production.”

At the end of the article, those activities that are now underway to open the eyes of the British government are discussed.

(Swedish)

Debatten on ”Peak Oil” fortsätter idag med full kraft i The Guardian. Dagens artikel är på nytt skriven av Terry Macalister, som är tidningens energiredaktör, och har titeln: Peak oil: the summit that dominates the horizon .

Han diskuterar bland annat de svårigheter som de internationella oljebolagen har att ersätta årets produktion med nya fyndigheter. Problemet diskuterades redan 2007 i Fredrik Robelius avhandling: Giant Oil Fields – The Highway to Oil: Giant Oil Fields and their Importance for Future Oil Production (page 115):

“Since 1997 the four companies (BP, Chevron, Exxon-Mobil and Royal Dutch/Shell) have together produced about 8.6Mbpd each year. This is despite an increase in the oil price from the low in 1998 of less than 13 dollar per barrel to over 50 dollar per barrel in 2005. From 1997, with the exemption of 1999, and up to 2002, the reserve additions were larger than the produced volumes of oil (figure 7.16). But when the price started to increase in 2003, the reserve additions dropped below the produced volumes. Thus, reserve replacement is negative and the companies produces from old discoveries, just as the world as a whole (chapter 5). To summarize, the four largest private oil companies have not succeeded in increasing neither production nor reserves despite an increase of the oil price and increased investments in exploration and production.”

Avslutningsvis diskuteras de aktiviteter som nu pågår för att öppna ögonen på den brittiska regeringen.

Future carbon dioxide emissions in China / Kinas framtida koldioxidutsläpp

The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen will be at the top of the agenda when a delegation from the EU, led by Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt meets with Premier of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China Wen Jiaboa in Nanjing on Monday. The Global Energy Systems group at Uppsala University in Sweden has a unique collaboration with China and so is in a position to give an indication of China’s future emissions of carbon dioxide.

Two years ago a delegation from The China University of Petroleum led by Vice-Chancellor Professor Xiongqi Pang visited Uppsala University with an invitation to future collaboration. On a return visit to Beijing one month later we agreed on a collaborative research project. The written agreement was later signed by the leadership of both universities. The collaboration gives us a unique opportunity to calculate China’s future production of oil, natural gas and coal. With Copenhagen in mind, we can now calculate China’s future carbon dioxide emissions.

Our first project was a study of China’s past and future oil production. We can note that, of the entire world’s oil that was formed millions of years ago, only 3% is found within China’s borders, a nation with 23% of the world’s population. As in the rest of the world, most of the oil is to be found within a few giant oil fields. The total number of these giant fields is nine with Daqing in northeastern China being the most significant. We have just completed a joint study such that we can state that production of oil from China’s giant oilfields will decline in future. At the moment they are managing to maintain a constant level of production by developing a number of smaller fields, but soon total Chinese domestic oil production will decline and the carbon dioxide emissions from this oil will decline too.

Professor Pang showed us two years ago that China has no plans for any decrease in oil consumption. Instead, there would be a continued rapid increase. The Global Energy Systems group at Uppsala University has recently presented an analysis that shows that global oil production cannot increase. (That study has been discussed in both the Swedish and international press.) This means that increased consumption of oil in China will be compensated for by a corresponding decrease somewhere else in the world. Where this decrease occurs will be determined by market forces.

Natural gas production is only a small proportion of China’s energy mix but consumption is increasing. One of the reasons for this is that Professor Pang himself has contributed to the discovery of a number of new, large gasfields in western China. Natural gas pipelines are currently being built from the west of China to the east and this also opens up the possibility of importation of natural gas from nations in central Asia and Russia. It is unthinkable that these investments that are so central to China’s future will be discontinued as a result of any negotiations in Copenhagen.

We have also begun a project studying coal mining in China. We must first note that China has 14% of the world’s coal reserves but over 40% of the world’s coal production. It is possible for this rate of mining to increase over the next 10 years after which it will level off and decline. China’s current increase in emissions of carbon dioxide from domestically mined coal will then decline but the need for imports is increasing very fast.

On the whole we see currently that continued Chinese economic expansion aided by domestic fossil energy is trending towards a maximum. Economic expansion in the future will require increased importation of fossil fuel but the need is greater than what is available. It is in the light of this that we can understand the current massive investment in alternative energy solutions in China. It is not the climate problem that is the primary motivation but rather China’s future economic expansion.

Statements such as “developing nations must take responsibility for the future’s climate” are rather pathetic. They mean that developing nations must invest so that we in the wealthy nations can lay claim to the fossil energy for our own economies. There is no alternative other than to invest in alternative energy solutions.

The investments in alternative energy that we now see in China are absolutely necessary for China’s future. Similar investments are also absolutely necessary for the rest of the world. If we refrain from making significant investments in energy outside of China then the alternative energy technologies of the future will become a huge new export industry for China.

(Swedish)

Klimatmötet i Köpenhamn finns högst upp dagordningen då en delegation från EU, med statsminister Fredrik Reinfeldt i spetsen, och kinas premiärminister Wen Jiaboa skall träffas i Nanjing nu på måndag. Vad det gäller Kinas framtida utsläpp av koldioxid kan Globala energisystem vid Uppsala universitet ge en fingervisning då vi har ett unikt samarbete med Kina.

För två år sedan besökte en delegation från Kinas petroleumuniversitet, under ledning av vicerektor professor Xiongqi Pang, Uppsala universitet för att erbjuda framtida samarbete. Vid ett återbesök i Beijing en månad senare enades vi om gemensamma forskningsprojekt, och detta avtal undertecknades senare av universitetsledningarna för de båda universiteten. Sommarbetet ger oss en unik möjlighet att beräkna Kinas framtida produktion av olja, naturgas och kol. Med Köpenhamn i blicken kan vi nu beräkna Kinas framtida koldioxidutsläpp.

Vårt första projekt blev att studera historisk och framtida oljeproduktion i Kina. Vi kan först notera att av all den olja som bildades för miljoner år sedan var det bara 3 procent som hamnade i Kina, ett land med 23 procent av världens befolkning. Likt övriga världen finns merparten av oljan i ett fåtal gigantisk oljefält. I antal är det 9 med Daqing i nordöstra Kina som det betydelsefullaste. Vi har just avslutat en gemensam studie där vi konstaterar att produktion av olja från de Kinesiska gigantfälten kommer att minska i framtiden. Just nu lyckas man upprätthålla en konstant produktion genom att utveckla ett antal mindre fält, men snart minskar den totala produktionen och koldioxidutsläpp från olja som produceras i Kina kommer att minska.

Vad det gäller konsumtion visade professor Pang redan för två år sedan att det inte fanns några planer på en minskning utan en fortsatt snabb ökning. Globala energisystem vid Uppsala universitet har nyligen presenterat en analys som visar att vi inte kan öka den globala oljeproduktionen (arbetet har diskuterats i svensk och internationell press). Det betyder att en ökad konsumtion av olja i Kina kommer att kompenseras av motsvarande minskning någon annan stans i världen och var denna minskning blir kommer att bestämmas av marknadens krafter.

Vad det gäller naturgas är det en liten del av Kinas energimix, men konsumtionen ökar. En av anledningarna är att just professor Pang varit med och hittat nya stora naturgasfälten i västra Kina. Nu byggs naturgasledningar från väst till öst och detta öppnar också upp möjligheter till import av naturgas från länder i Centralasien och Ryssland. Att dessa satsningar som är centrala för Kinas framtid skall avbrytas genom förhandlingar i Köpenhamn är otänkbart.

Vi har påbörjat projekt där vi studerar kolbrytning i Kina. Låt oss först notera att Kina har 14 procent av världens kolreserver men bryter över 40 procent av världens kol. Denna brytning kan öka något under de närmaste 10 åren för att sedan plana ut och minska. Kinas ökning av utsläpp av koldioxid från inhemskt kol kommer att minska, men importbehovet ökar i rask takt.

Sammantaget ser vi nu att en fortsatt ekonomisk expansion med hjälp av inhemsk fossil energi är på väg mot ett maximum. Framtidens ekonomiska expansion kräver ökad import av fossila bränslen med behovet är större an vad som finns tillgängligt. Det är i ljuset av detta som vi skall förstå den massiva satsningen på alternativa energilösningar i Kina. Det är inte klimatproblematiken som är den främsta drivkraften, det är Kinas framtida ekonomiska expansion.

Formuleringar som att ”utvecklingsländerna måste ta sitt ansvar för framtidens klimat” är ganska patetiska. Man måste göra den satsningen för att vi i de rika länderna lägger beslag på den fossila energin för vår ekonomi. Man har inget annat alternativ än att satsa på alternativa energilösningar.

Den satsning som vi nu ser i Kina på alternativ energi är nödvändig för Kinas framtid och motsvarande satsning är också nödvändig för övriga världen. Om vi avstår från markanta energisatsningar utanför Kina kommer framtidens teknologi för alternativ energi bli en ny stor exportindustri för Kina.

Energy Forum in Budapest

(Below in English my opening speech to the session: “On the Way to European Energy Security: What to Expect from the European Union?” and the text in Swedish)

The Energy Forum in Budapest was organized by the Foundation Institute for Eastern Studies in Warsaw, Poland and the Constellation Energy Institute in Budapest, Hungary. The fact that it was held in Hungary meant that the significance of central Europe was emphasized. The “gas war” of last winter between Russia and Ukraine was central to most panel discussions. One can state that the EU’s energy security was the central issue for the entire forum.

For the opening on Sunday evening Hans Larsen presented the report ”The intelligent energy system infrastructure for the future” that was put together by the Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy at The Technical University of Denmark. The take home message was that introduction of renewable forms of energy requires that a combination of many forms are used so that the system can be in balance.

The opening panel discussion addressed ”Energy as a Factor of Prosperity and Sovereignty”. Political heavyweights from west to east discussed the importance of energy for society. Richard L. Morningstar from the USA Department of State was there. He is the Secretary of State’s “Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy”. The fact that the USA Department of State has an envoy for Eurasian energy, and Morningstar’s statement that Russia will always be important for European energy security, highlights the importance of this issue. Last autumn Russia passed Saudi Arabia as the world’s biggest oil producer and it has long been the world’s largest producer of natural gas. If one adds to this that Russia is one of the world’s largest producers of coal, that they have large deposits of uranium and if we realize that it is energy that controls the world then everyone should understand the extent to which Russia will be a world power in the future.

Today, the EU imports over 40% of its natural gas from Russia. In future they estimate that this percentage will increase. To break Russia’s dominance a new gas pipeline, Nabucco, is planned that will run through Turkey and further through Bulgaria, Rumania and Hungary to then join with the EU’s large network of gas pipelines. From Morningstar’s comments one can see that Nabucco is also a political play to reduce Russia’s dominance.

Russia was represented by Vice-Chairperson for Duman, Alexander Babakov. In my notes I have written down the quote, “We are absolutely right”. Before this Hungary’s and Czechia’s former prime ministers discussed last winter’s gas crisis when Russia closed the taps. From the Russian side, all blame was laid on Ukraine.

Mirek Topolánek drew the connection between national sovereignty and energy. He cited Andrei Sakharov who apparently said that Europe’s freedom must be built on the freedom that nuclear energy gives, i.e. nuclear power makes a nation in western Europe independent of Russia. Note that this statement was made during the Soviet period. Sweden is one of the few nations within the EU that is not dependent on natural gas from Russia and, of course, this is because of our investment in nuclear power.

The sessions that I followed dealt with various aspects of the EU’s energy security and mainly future secure imports of natural gas. Today, around 80% of Russian exports pass through Ukraine. The new gas pipelines that are now planned have been influenced by the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. There is “North Stream” that will pass through the Baltic Sea, “South Stream” that will pass through the Black Sea and both these pipelines are controlled by Russian interests while, as mentioned earlier, Nabucco that passes through Turkey is controlled by the EU.

My Ph.D. student Bengt Söderbergh is currently working on the conclusion to his thesis that, among other things, discusses natural gas security in Europe. I can only state that his thesis could not come at a more appropriate time. I showed some images that are included in the publications upon which the thesis is based and there was great interest from east to west. An energy consultant from Moscow asserted that what we had shown was completely correct. The list of people wanting a copy of the thesis is growing quickly. If you are interested in attending the thesis defense then mark February 19 in Uppsala in your diaries.

Finally we are approaching the heart of the matter, the Russian state-controlled energy company Gazprom. They asserted that, according to international law, the existence of state-controlled monopoly companies was completely legal. Gazprom has a right to exist. The pipelines that they are now planning are also completely legal, but the fact that Gazprom controls the pipelines gives them great power. Gasprom’s representatives promised that there would be no problems this winter as, for the moment, there were no problems with Ukraine. Some from Ukraine complained that, in their opinion, Gazprom was trying to influence the impending election while others asserted that the EU was doing the same thing through its actions. If all the new pipelines are built so that the Russian gas does not pass through Ukraine then Ukraine will lose a large amount of income. How this will influence the future remains to be seen.

Personally, I think that we must pose ourselves the question of whether Russia is a part of Europe or not. The choice of borders will be decisive for Europe’s future. If Russia is kept outside of the EU then the EU will do everything possible to become less dependent on Russian energy exports and Russia will turn towards China. At the same time we can state that, for the next 40 years, the EU will be dependent upon imports from Russia.

The other alternative is for Russia to be welcomed into the European family. From that relationship a unified democratic base can be created. Both solutions require a great deal of work.

The fact that the Swedish government has decided to create an Institute of Russian Studies at Uppsala University may be a step in the right direction. My written speech to the Energy Forum is shown below.

Opening speech to the session: On the Way to European Energy Security: What to Expect from the European Union?

Ladies and gentlemen and dear guests. It is an honour for me, and very stimulating, to be invited to the 4th Energy Forum here in Budapest and to have the possibility of presenting my personal viewpoints on Europe’s future energy security under the theme, ”On the Way to European Energy Security: What to Expect from the European Union?” I would like to point out that I base my viewpoints on the research that we conduct into global energy systems at Uppsala University in Sweden.

The first question we must ask ourselves is, ”What is Europe?” Before my journey to Budapest I dug out my old history atlas from my high school days. Within it is clearly shown that the Ural Mountains were Europe’s eastern border. Furthermore it showed that, historically, Budapest was a political centre in Europe.

Having been born in Sweden in the spring of 1945 I realise that, just at that moment, a new border was created in Europe, an iron curtain that marked the boundary between western and eastern Europe. It was an ideological border between the peoples of the east and west where the west was democratic while the east was controlled by dictators. The border ran straight through Berlin. We have just recently celebrated that this artificial boundary was torn down 20 years ago.

20 years ago the European Union had grown sufficiently strong that membership in the EU was regarded as synonymous with membership in ”Europe”. Sweden applied for membership and when, for the first time, it held the EU presidency the question of the EU’s eastern border became a leading issue for the Swedish government. One of the nations that were welcomed into the community was Hungary. From my school days I remember when we received new classmates that had then been forced to leave Hungary. I am proud of the fact that Sweden offered them a home and that Sweden has fought for Hungarian membership of the EU.

We shall now discuss European energy security and what the European Union should do in the future. I need only to open my old history atlas from high school to realise what should be done. In it Europe’s eastern border is marked as the Ural Mountains. Russia is part of Europe and the EU should now actively work to re-establish the Urals as Europe’s eastern boundary. At the moment this question is much more important for Europe than to attempt to negotiate a climate treaty in Copenhagen in December.

Today, energy security has a number of components. They are, most importantly, coal, oil, natural gas and uranium but there are also renewable forms of energy such as hydroelectricity, windpower, waverpower, and solar energy. Europe’s energy security is a combination of all these. Carbon security is a security that is determined by political decisions – how much carbon dioxide we shall release from coal-fired power stations in future.

When it comes to oil the West Europe has three nations among the 40 largest oil producing nations on Earth. They are Norway, the UK and Denmark. Every time I mention Denmark everyone is surprised but the fact is that Sweden imports 30% of its oil from Denmark and 100% of its natural gas, although this presents a problem in future.

The analyses that my research group has performed show that, by 2030, these three nations will only be able to produce oil for their own use. There is no energy security for the European Union with its current borders.

According to the EU’s future scenarios, natural gas is the future form that our energy supply should take. By 2030 our consumption of natural gas should increase by 50%. The main reason for the increase is that the EU needs natural gas as a component in regulation of its electricity production. To examine natural gas production in the EU we must turn to Denmark, Holland and the UK. If we examine the volume that these nations currently produce it covers a limited amount of what is needed and that volume will fall in future. The fact is that Norway is not part of the EU and that the EU’s natural gas security is completely dependent on Algeria, Norway and Russia.

Uranium today is an internationally traded commodity that flows freely over national borders but there is a problem. Nations with known deposits of uranium ore need to have a positive attitude to its future exploitation. Currently the EU’s nuclear reactors consume fissionable material that was originally set aside for nuclear weapons. The number of nuclear weapons is declining and we will soon have used up the reserve of available weapons of mass destruction. I hope that we can continue and consume the reminder of the weapons of mass destruction that still exist, but the fact is that, internationally, we are facing an increased need for uranium mining.

Europe’s most pressing energy security issue has, in recent years, crystallised into a matter of our stance on whether or not Russia is to be welcomed into the European family. This is a question that is decisive for the EU but also a question that is important for Sweden. Today Sweden imports 90% of its oil from three nations, Denmark, Norway and Russia – about 30% from each source. However, in 2030 only Russia will be able to export oil.

Today, the EU’s imports of natural gas by pipeline come mainly from Algeria, Norway and Russia. In 2030 Norwegian exports will be less than today. The same applies to Algeria whose exports derives from one giant gas field and will have declined markedly by 2030. Russia and Kazakhstan remain but a question exists about whether or not Kazakhstan has sold its gas three times over – to Russia, to China and to the EU via Nabucco. To be accurate we should note that there is currently no contract with the EU, but the EU acts as though one existed.

Today, the EU imports 40% of its natural gas from Russia. Future Russian gas production and exports require enormous investments in order to commence production from the fields on the Yamal Peninsula and from Stockman in the Barents Sea. To secure this production is essential for the EU’s energy security. Russia needs long-term contracts with the EU and one can only state that the EU’s politicians do not realise this.

If we gaze into the future to see what the EU should do for Europe’s energy security there is a decision to make and it is to say, ”Russia, welcome to the European community!” This will also strengthen democracy in Europe.

(Swedish)

Energy Forum i Budapest organiserades av ”Foundation Institute for Eastern Studies” i Warszawa, Polen, och ”Energy Constellation Institute” i Budapest, Ungern, och det faktum att vi var i Ungen medförde att Centraleuropas betydelse lyftes fram. Vinterns ”gaskriget” mellan Ryssland och Ukraina var i centrum för de flesta paneldiskussionerna och man kan påstå att EU:s energisäkerhet stod i centrum för hela forumet.

Inledningen på söndag kväll var en presentation där Hans Larsen presenterade rapporten ”The intelligent energy system infrastructure for the future” som arbetats fram av ”the System Analysis Division” vid den tekniska högskolan i Risö, Danmark. Slutklämmen var att introduktion av förnybara energislag medför att det behövs en blandning av allt för att få ett system i balans.

Inledningspanelen diskuterade ”Energy as a Factor of Prosperity and Sovereignty” och här diskuterade politiska tungviktare från väst till öst energins betydelse för samhället. Från utrikesdepartementet i USA kom Richard L. Morningstar, ambassadör och ”Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy”. Det faktum att amerikanska utrikesdepartementet har ett sändebud för Europa-Asisk energi och Morningstars uttalande att Ryssland kommer alltid att vara betydelsefull för Europeisk energisäkerhet markerar frågans betydelse. I höst har Ryssland passerat Saudiarabien som världens störta oljeproducent och sedan länge är man världens största producent av naturgas. Om man till detta lägger att Ryssland är en av världens största kolproducenter och att man har stora fyndigheter av uran och vet att det är energi som styr världen borde alla förstå vilken maktfaktor Ryssland kommer att bli i framtiden.

I dag importerar EU över 40 procent av sin naturgas från Ryssland och i framtiden räknar man med att det kommer att bli en ännu större faktor. För att bryta Rysslands dominans planeras en ny gasledning, Nabucco, som skall gå genom Turkiet och vidare genom Bulgarien, Rumänien och Ungern för att sedan kopplar ihop med EU:s stora nätverk av gasledningar. Från Morningstars kommentarer är Nabocco också ett politiskt spel för att minska Rysslands dominans.

Ryssland ställde upp med vice ordförande för Duman, Alexander Babakov. I mina anteckningar har jag citatet ”We are absolutly right”. Innan dess hade Ungens och Tjeckiens tidigare premiärministrar diskuterat vinterns gaskris då Ryssland stängde kranarna. Från Rysk sida läggs hela skulden på Ukraina.

Mirek Topolánek kopplade ihop nationellt oberoende och tillgång till energi. Han citerade Andrei Sakharov som lär ha sagt att Västeuropas frihet måste bygga på den frihet som kärnkraften ger, dvs kärnkraft gör ett land i Västeuropa oberoende av Ryssland. Notera att detta uttalande gjorde under Sovjetunionen tid. Sverige är ett av de få länderna inom EU som inte är beroende av naturgas från Ryssland och självfallet beror det på vår satsning på kärnkraft.

De sessionerna som jag följde behandlade olika aspekter på EU:s energisäkerhet och då framförallt säker import av naturgas i framtiden. I dag passerar ca 80 procent av den ryska exporten Ukraina och de nya gasledningar som nu planeras har påverkats av konflikterna mellan Ryssland och Ukraina. Vi har ”North Stream” som skall gå genom östersjön, vi har ”South Stream” som skall gå gen om Svarta havet och båda dessa ledningar kontrolleras av ryska intressen medan som tidigare nämnts Nabucco genom Turkiet kontrolleras av EU.

Min doktorand Bengt Söderbergh jobbar nu med slutklämmen på sin avhandling som bland annat behandlar naturgassäkerheten i Europa och det är bara att konstatera att den kan inte komma mer lämpligare än just nu. Jag visade några bilder som finns med i de publikationer som är basen för avhandlingen och intresset var stort från öst till väst. En energikonsult från Moskva hävdade att vad vi visade var helt riktigt. Listan på de som ville ha en kopia av avhandlingen växte snabbt. Är ni intresserade av försvaret av avhandlingen skall ni boka in den 19 februari i Uppsala.

Till slut närmar vi oss pudelns kärna, det ryska statskontrollerade energibolaget Gazprom. Man konstaterade att det enligt internationell lag var helt lagligt att det finns statliga monopolbolag. Gazprom har rätt att existera. De ledningar som man planerar är också helt lagliga, men det faktum att Gazprom kontrollerar ledningarna ger dem stor makt. Representanter för Gazprom lovade att det inte skulle bli några problem i vinter då det för tillfället inte fanns några problem med Ukraina. Några från Ukraina klagade på att Gazprom enligt deras åsikt la sig i det stundande valet medan andra menade att EU gjorde det samma genom sitt agerande. Om alla nya gasledningar byggs så att den ryska gasen inte passerar Ukraina kommer Ukraina att förlora stora inkomster och hur detta kommer att påverka framtiden återstår att se.

Personligen anser jag att vi måste ställa oss frågan om Ryssland tillhör Europa eller inte. Val av gräns kommer att bli avgörande för Europas framtid. Om Ryssland ställs utanför kommer EU att göra allt för att bli mindre beroende av rysk energiexport och Ryssland kommer att vända sig mot Kina. Samtidigt kan vi konstatera att vi de närmast 40 åren kommer EU att vara beroende av import från Ryssland.

Det andra alternativet är att välkomna Ryssland till den Europeiska familjen och utifrån den relationen skapa en gemensam demokratisk bas. Båda lösningarna kräver ett enormt ar bete.

Det faktum att regeringen bestämt sig för att skapa ett Rysslands institut vid Uppsala universitet kan vara ett steg i rätt riktning. Mitt skrivna anförande finns här nedan.

The Struggle Against Climate Change May Cause Starvation

(A Swedish version of this article is published in the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, November 15, 2009. The translation to English was made by Michael Lardelli)

At about the same time as the climate meeting is being held in Copenhagen, the world’s population will pass 6.8 billion. We are now immensely more numerous than we were in 1950 when the world’s population passed 2.5 billion. The world’s new citizens since 1950 have experienced an era of development without equal and the fuel for this development has been the coal discoveries of the 19th century, gigantic discoveries of oil in the 1960s and, as icing on this cake, immense natural gas discoveries during the 1970s. We have been drenched in fossil energy and today’s globalised economy is completely dependent on this torrent. Today when you sit down at the dinner table and enjoy your food you should realize that it is soaked in crude oil and natural gas. The fact is that we, the world’s 6.8 billion inhabitants, would never survive without enormous quantities of fossil energy.

If we study our well-being in detail we can discern four important components. They are food, climate, the economy and peace on Earth. Each component is immensely important and is discussed continuously in various meetings around the world. However, the fact is that these components are coupled and dependent upon one another. “Humanity’s Well Being” (HWB) can be summarized in an equation that shows this and when we study the interdependence of these factors we see that they are all dependent upon energy (E):

HWB(E) = Food(E) + Climate(E) + Economy(E) + Peace(E)

The climate will be discussed in Copenhagen but it is obvious that the negotiators will fail, primarily because they have forgotten the importance of energy to food and the economy.

To move, think and work, and to maintain our body temperatures at 37 °C both rich and poor need the energy in food. Children and adults have different energy needs but, on average, we require 2500 kilocalories per day (kcal/day). This means that the world’s 6.8 billion inhabitants need large amounts of energy from food. Expressed in TWh it is 7100 TWh/y. Compared with the energy content of oil it is equivalent to 12 million barrels of oil per day.

Data on the world’s total agricultural production is collected by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN. In total, the FAO lists 129 different crops. At the Global Energy Systems research group at Uppsala University in Sweden we have calculated the total energy content of these crops. If one considers the seed grain that must be set aside for next year’s harvest, storage and quality losses, processing refinement (e.g. when wheat is milled to produce flour) products supporting animal production and if you add fish from the oceans then we see that the energy that can be used to feed the world’s population is 7200 terrawatt hours per year (TWh/y) – or 9300 TWh/y if we also include edible products that are used for other purposes. The global production of food is thus sufficient to feed us all but it is distributed unequally [1].

The central issue for the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen is that our climate is affected by our use of fossil fuels and the consequent emission of carbon dioxide. The EU has as its new goal the reduction of emissions by 30% by 2020. The most decisive factor for the world’s future climate is the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the concentration target for 2050 varies between 350 to 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide.

The 50-90% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 that is currently discussed is clear evidence that our climate is affected by energy use. What is not mentioned is that this reduction will affect our food production and our economy.

When the world economy crashed gigantic stimulus packages were introduced and now it is said that “the economic wheels have begun to turn”. According to the USA’s energy authorities every form of economic growth requires increased energy use. We have never had global economic growth without a simultaneous increase in energy use. Economic growth projections of 30-50% by 2030 are commonly cited.

If one studies how much energy it takes to get food onto our plates this varies from nation to nation but, in general, it is fossil energy that is used. If one considers the energy used on the farm, in transport, processing, storage, purchase and preparation by the consumer then, in the USA, seven times as much energy is used to get the food to the table than is contained in the food itself. The energy used in the EU and the rest of the world is less but, on the whole, the world’s population uses mainly fossil fuel to provide this energy and then mainly oil and natural gas. At a global average of five times as much energy to put food on the plate as is contained in the food, the energy required is 36,000 TWh/year or approximately 30% of the world’s total fossil fuel use. With current farming and processing techniques, an increasing world population will require increased use of fossil energy while decreased fossil fuel use is needed for the sake of our future climate.

How will our well-being be affected by the expected growth in population? How will this affect our food supply, our climate, our economy and our hopes for peace? In Copenhagen the hungry will prioritise more food on the table before an unaltered climate. The poor nations want economic growth and we all know that this requires more fossil energy use. To see this we only need to study the development of China or India, or even Sweden from 1945 to 1970. In Copenhagen, this will mean that they will not want to sacrifice economic growth on climate’s altar. Ultimately, it comes down to we, the wealthy nations, not wanting to wear the cost of all the carbon dioxide waste we have dumped into the atmosphere without the poor and hungry also paying out.

In Copenhagen global emissions of carbon dioxide will be discussed and, for the sake of our future climate, it would be a good thing if emissions were reduced. However, according to the human well-being equation, it is not carbon dioxide but, rather, energy that is needed to produce food and to turn the wheels of the economy. By clever marketing of unrealistic future scenarios the IPCC has blinded the world’s politicians – particularly those in the EU – to these facts. Light was shone onto this issue when President Obama noted the importance of energy in a speech some days after his inauguration. He said, “No single issue is as fundamental to our future as energy” and I with many others began to hope for a brighter future when the Nobel prizewinning physicist Steven Chu was appointed as the USA’s Secretary of Energy.

The USA is now making large investments in energy research to find positive solutions to the human well-being equation. The leaders of the conference in Copenhagen want to make the world respond to a “carbon dioxide stick” but we all know that it is easier to make progress with the aid of a carrot. President Obama has made it clear he does not intend to respond to the EU’s stick so it is time for Prime Minister Reinfeldt, leader of the EU-delegation, to put away the penalties and offer some inducements.

Kjell Aleklett
Professor of Physics
Globala Energy Systems at Uppsala University

[1] Detaljerade calculations will be published in Ambio, the journal of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

Sweden’s representative at the IEA confirms problems with the IEA outlook / Sveriges representant i IEA bekräftar problem med IEA prognoser

In today’s Uppsala Nya Tidning [the main newspaper for the area around Uppsala in Sweden, ML] there is an article with the headline “International Support for Aleklett’s Oil Prognoses”. The article refers to the events of recent days and Johan Heimer has also followed up on this by interviewing Urban Bäckström from the Energy Authority. To quote the article,

“Urban Bäckström at the Swedish Energy Authority who is Sweden’s representative at the IEA, says that the IEA’s prognoses for oil resources are probably correct. But it will be difficult to increaese production as much as the IEA forsees.”

By this statement Urban has supported our conclusions. Namely, we have used the reserve figures that the IEA uses. However, the article makes the following comment,

“Even though our projection is much lower than that of the IEA, we must still regard our outlook as optimistic. The yet-to-be-developed reserves of 257 Gb in WEO 2008 are located in 1874 fields that should come into production during the next 20 years. That is something like 8 fields per month coming on stream during that period, with a significant proportion of these fields being developed at a pace equal to that of the North Sea. Even if the oil exists, it is questionable whether the necessary investment needed to produce such a rapid pace of development can be achieved in timely fashion.”

(Swedish)
I dagens Uppsala Nya tidning finns det en artikel med rubriken ”Internationellt stöd för Alekletts oljeprognoser”. Artikeln referera det som hänt de senaste dagarna, men Johan Heimer har också gjort en uppföljning genom att intervjua Urban Bäckström från energimyndighetern:
“Urban Bäckström på den svenska energimyndigheten, som är Sveriges representant i IEA, säger att IEA:s prognoser om oljetillgångarna är förmodligen stämmer. Men att det kommer att vara svårt att öka produktionen så mycket som IEA förutspår.”

Genom sitt uttalande stödjer Urban våra slutsatser. Vi har nämligen använt de reserver som IEA använder. Artikeln gör vi dock följande kommentar:
“Even though our projection is much lower than that of the IEA, we must still regard our outlook as optimistic. The yet-to-be-developed reserves of 257 Gb in WEO 2008 are located in 1874 fields that should come into production during the next 20 years. That is something like 8 fields per month coming on stream during that period, with a significant proportion of these fields being developed at a pace equal to that of the North Sea. Even if the oil exists, it is questionable whether the necessary investment needed to produce such a rapid pace of development can be achieved in timely fashion. “

“Peak of the Oil Age” and media

Our research at Global Energy Systems has two aspects. The primary one is to conduct research that is then published in scientific articles (publications). This work, that is mostly done by Ph.D. students and undergraduate students, also results in the production of theses (examples of master theses). The second aspect is that we hope that our research will influence society outside of the academic world – part of the university’s so called “third task”. This can occur through publication of opinion pieces or when journalists write about our work. When our scientific article, “The Peak of the Oil Age” was recently accepted for publication in the journal Energy Policy our conclusion – that the International Energy Agency (IEA) has overestimated the production of oil in 2030 by 25% – quickly became news. One reason for this is that, one day after our scientific publication became public, the IEA released the latest edition of its annual World Energy Outlook report. This made our research acutely relevant. On the same day The Guardian newspaper published an article in which a confidential inside source accused the IEA of intentionally overestimating future oil production. Our research was also particularly relevant in this case since the specific examples of incorrect estimates that are named in the Guardian article are the same that we describe in our scientific article. During the week a number of journalists from Sweden and other nations have spoken to us. Some of the articles they have subsequently written are listed below. Rapport [a Swedish TV news program] has also visited us and will present their first item on us in tomorrow morning’s economic news report. We will see if there is any additional reportage this evening.
International articles:

The Globe and Mail, Canada. Is the world awash in oil?, Eric Reguly

The Guardian, UK,
Oil: future world shortages are being drastically underplayed, say experts, Terry Macalister

Swedish newspapers:

Svenska Dagbladet,”IEA:s prognoser felaktiga [the IEA’s erroneous prognoses]”, Björn Lindahl

Dagens Nyheter, Varning för energikris [Warning of an energy crisis], Sofia Ohlsson Djerf

Sydsvenskan, Manipulerade oljeprognoser [Manipulated oil prognoses], Petter Birgersson

(Swedish)
Vår forskning vid Globala energisystem har två sidor. Det primära är att bedriva forskning som sedan publicerar i vetenskapliga artiklar (publikationer) och detta arbete, som till större delen görs av doktorander och studenter, skall också leda till olika akademiska examina (exempel på examensarbeten). Sedan hoppas vi att vår forskning skall påverka samhället utanför den akademiska världen och där har vi universitetets så kallade tredje uppgift. Det kan ske genom debattartiklar (DN-debatt) eller att journalister skriver om vår verksamhet. Vår vetenskapliga artikel ”The Peak of the Oil Age” godkändes i måndags av Energy Policy och vår slutsats att International Energy Agency (IEA) överskattar produktionen av olja år 2030 med ca 25 procent blev mycket snabbt en nyhet. En anledning till detta är att IEA dagen efter presenterade årets upplaga av World Energy Outlook och att detta aktualiserade vår forskning. Att The Guardian samma dag publicerade en artikel där en hemlig källa påstod att IEA medvetet överdrev framtida produktion gjorde vår forskning extra intressant då de specifika exempel som nämns är de samma som vi framför i vår artikel. Under veckan har ett antal journalister i Sverige och från utlandet haft samtal med oss och här är några av artiklarna finns här nedan. Rapport har också vart på besök och ett första inslag fanns med på morgonens ekonominyheter. Vi får se om man återkommer i kväll:

(Länkar till tidningar här ovan)

Pressinformation från Uppsala universitet: Seminarium om oljan, framtiden och klimatet

Seminarium om oljan, framtiden och klimatet
(pressinformation)
[Publicerad 2009-11-11]

De senaste dagarna har klimatfrågan uppmärksammats sedan IEA:s prognoser för framtida produktion av olja, naturgas och kol ifrågasatts i brittisk media. Professor Kjell Aleklett leder en forskargrupp i globala energisystem vid Uppsala universitet och har studier som bekräftar uppgifterna. Imorgon, torsdag, håller han ett seminarium som är öppet för allmänhet och media.

International Energy Agency (IEA), som är ett organ under OECD, presenterade den 10 november i London sina prognoser om framtida produktion av olja, naturgas och kol. Samma dag publicerade The Guardian en artikel där en anonym tjänsteman hävdar att IEA medvetet varit för optimistiska i sina prognoser under påtryckning av USA. Han nämner särskilt produktion från de oljefält som är i produktion idag och förväntad produktion från fält som man fortfarande inte har hittat.

Forskargruppen i globala energisystem vid Uppsala universitet har under året publicerat ett antal artiklar där villkor för produktion av olja, naturgas och kol beskrivits. Baserat på dessa artiklar har man gjort en vetenskaplig analys av de prognoser som IEA presenterar i sin skrift World Energy Outlook. Artikeln blev i måndags godkänd för publicering i tidskriften Energy Policy. Resultaten av undersökningarna bekräftar The Guardians uppgifter, att IEA:s beräknade produktion är för optimistisk.

- Slutsatsen är att det bara går att verifiera 75 procent av den produktion som IEA hävdar och detta medför att världen nu nått maximal oljeproduktion, säger professor Kjell Aleklett vid Uppsala universitet.

I förlängningen medför detta att de utsläppsscenarier som IPCC använder för beräkning av klimatförändringar är överdrivna, menar Kjell Aleklett. Forskargruppen har också i en tidigare artikel som gäller kolproduktionen i USA visat att de scenarier som skall ge de högsta temperaturökningarna i framtiden enligt IPCC inte kan bli verklighet i framtiden.

- För det framtida globala klimatet är dessa forskningsresultat mycket positiva eftersom det betyder att möjligheterna att stabilisera ökningen av den globala temperaturen till 2 grader ökar markant.

- Men våra beräkningar visar att det inte finns en framtid med ständigt ökad användning av fossila bränslen, vare sig olja, gas eller olja. Vi får en helt ny spelplan för energiförsörjningen, världen behöver nya globala energisystem. Det innebär att resurser för energiforskning måste ökas dramatiskt, säger Kjell Aleklett.

Tid och plats för seminarium: Siegbahnsalen, Ångströmlaboratoriet, torsdagen den 12 november 2009, kl. 15.15.

Kontaktperson: Professor Kjell Aleklett, 070 425 06 04, kjell.aleklett@fysast.uu.se

Anneli Waara

Comments on “Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower”, The Guardian

I am not surprised that some within the IEA have leaked this news. Rather, it is astonishing that this has not become known earlier. (See the article in the Guardian: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower.)

The article ”The Peak and Decline of World Oil and Gas Production” was published as long ago as 2003 in the scientific journal Minerals and Energy – Raw Materials Report by Kjell Aleklett and Colin C. Campbell (Volume 18, Number 1, 2003 , pp. 5-20[16].) It was the first “peer reviewed” article to discuss Peak Oil.

That article was read in 2007 by representatives of the “Global Transport Forum” of the OECD and they gave me the task of writing the report, ”Peak Oil and the Evolving Strategies of Oil Importing and Exporting Countries”. This report was one of those discussed at a round table meeting that was held in the IEA’s conference room in Paris. At that opportunity, in November 2007, I had a number of private conversations with officers of the IEA. The revelations now reported in the Guardian were revealed to me then under the promise that I not name the source. I had earlier heard the same thing from another officer from Norway who, at the time he spoke of the pressure being applied by the USA, was working for the IEA. Since these anecdotes were not scientific evidence I never made use of the information other than as inspiration to continue our own research.

Earlier, following a suggestion by Colin Campbell, I had communicated to Sweden’s delegate at the IEA that Sweden should leave the IEA since it was deceiving the world and this would have serious consequences globally. I also asked how they could approve of something like the World Energy Outlook that was so in error. I had previously posted an analysis of World Outlook 2004 on ASPO’s homepage. In the discussion that followed it was revealed that the USA was applying pressure. The pressure was that the IEA should consider the prognoses that USA’s Energy Information Agency releases half a year earlier as guidelines for the IEA report. In connection with this I can mention that, in 2003, we received financial support from [Sweden’s] Energy Authority to begin the research that has now resulted in our publication “Peak of the Oil Age” and that Sweden’s Energy Authority also financed the first Peak Oil conference (ASPO) that we held in Uppsala in 2002.

After meeting with the Swedish delegate I have, at various times, communicated my view that Guy Caruso (who was then responsible for the EIA and its prognoses) was one of the world’s most dangerous people. Today a great deal of the responsibility for this situation rests with him. I have also asserted that I did not think that the level of competence within the IEA could be so low that all of its officers believed in what they have been presenting. What these faulty analyses will cost the world in the future is difficult to estimate but all the crisis packages that are currently in place are presumably a smaller part of that cost. In our publication ”How reasonable are oil production scenarios from public agencies?” we have shown that the IEA’s future prognoses are erroneous.

One consequence of that which has now been revealed is that the emissions scenarios that the IPCC has advanced for calculating future carbon dioxide production from oil can never reflect reality. Before the round table conference in Paris I was also given the task by the OECD of writing another report, ”Reserve driven forecasts for oil, gas and coal and limits in carbon dioxide emissions”. In connection with the Global Transport Forum in Leipzig in 2008 I met the chairperson for the IPCC, Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, and gave him a copy of this report. The subsequent interest from the IPCC’s side can be described as absolutely zero.

I would also like to highlight the fact that, in 2005, I was invited to the House of Representatives to give testimony about Peak Oil. (The testimony)

It is time for President Obama to establish a commission to undertake a detailed investigation of the EIA’s activities and establish the truth. It is extremely important that the members of this commission have no associations with the oil industry.

(Swedish)

Jag är inte förvånad att någon inom IEA läcker denna nyhet. Det är snarare förvånande att den inte kommit tidigare. Läs artikel i The Guardian: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower.

Redan 2003 publicerades artikeln ”The Peak and Decline of World Oil and Gas Production” i den vetenskapliga tidskriften, Minerals and Energy – Raw Materials Report, Kjell Aleklett and Colin C. Campbell , Volume 18, Number 1, 2003 , pp. 5-20(16). Det är den första ”peer” reviderade artikel som diskuterar Peak Oil.

Denna artikel lästes 2007 av representanter för ”Global Transport Forum”, OECD, och man gav mig i uppdrag att skriva rapporten ”Peak Oil and the Evolving Strategies of Oil Importing and Exporting Countries” . Rapporten var en av de rapporter som diskuterades vid ett rundabordsmöte vid EIA:s huvudkontor i Paris. Vid det tillfället, november 2007, hade jag personliga diskussioner med tjänstemän vid IEA och det som nu rapporterades i The Guardian rapporterades då till mig, under löfte att inte nämna källan. Jag hade tidigare hört samma sak från en annan tjänsteman från Norge, som vid det tillfälle då han berättade om USA:s påtryckningar, arbetade med analyser för IEA. Eftersom detta inte är forskning har jag inte använt mig av denna information, men informationen har naturligtvis varit inspiration för att arbeta vidare med vår forskning.

Tidigare har hade jag på förslag av Colin Campbell framfört till Sveriges delegat vid IEA att Sverige borde lämna IEA eftersom man förde världen bakom ljuset och att detta skulle få alvarliga konsekvenser för världen. Jag frågade också hur han kunde godkänna något som så uppenbart var felaktigt. Jag hade tidigare analyserat World Energy Outlook 2004 på ASPOS hemsida. Av den diskussion som följde framkom det att USA utövade påtryckningar. Varje år på våren publicerar Energy Information Administrtion sin prognos och då vet man också vilken påtryckning det finns från USA. Kan i detta sammanhang nämna att vi 2003 fick medel från Energimyndigheten för att påbörja den forskning som nu lett fram till publikationen ”Peak of the Oil Age”, och att Sveriges energimyndighet var med och finansierade den första Peak Oil konferensen (ASPO) som vi hade i Uppsala år 2002.

Efter mötet med den Svenske delegaten har jag vid olika tillfällen framfört åsikten att Guy Caruso, då ansvarig för EIA och deras prognoser, var en av världens farligaste personer. Idag vilar ett stort ansvar på hans axlar. Jag har också hävdat att jag inte tror att kompetensen inom IEA skulle vara så dålig så att alla verkligen trodde på vad man presenterade. Vad dessa felaktiga analyser i framtiden kommer att kosta världen är svårt att uppskatta, men alla de krispaket som nu existerar är förmodligen den mindre prislappen. I vår publikation ” How reasonable are oil production scenarios from public agencies?”, visar vi att man vid IEA gör felaktig prognoser om framtiden.

Konsekvensen av det som nu framkommit medför att de utsläppsscenarier som IPCC rekommenderar för beräkningar av framtidens koldioxid från olja aldrig kan bli verklighet. Inför rundabordskonferensen i Paris fick jag också i uppdrag av OECD att skriva en annan rapport, ”Reserve driven forecasts for oil, gas and coal and limits in carbon dioxide emissions”. I samband med Global Transport Forum i Leipzig 2008 träffade jag ordförande för IPCC, Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, och överlämnade ett exemplar. Intresset från IPCC:sss sida har varit absolut noll.

Det är dags för President Obama att tillsätta en kommission som gör en detaljerad undersökning av EIA:s verksamhet och vad som är verklighet. Det är enormt viktigt att medlemmar i kommissionen inte har något samröre med oljeindustrin.

The Peak of the Oil Age – The Uppsala World Energy Outlook

I have sent the following message to our Energy Minister via the [Swedish] Parliament’s registrar:

Dear Energy Minister Maud Olofsson,

For the past 6 years the Global Energy Systems research group at Uppsala University, www.fysast.uu.se/ges, has conducted research on fossil fuel reserves and future production from these. In a number of scientific publications we have defined the parameters that are significant for production. Today, 9 November 2009, the international scientific journal Energy Policy has accepted for publication our article titled, “The Peak of the Oil Age – analyzing the world oil production Reference Scenario in World Energy Outlook 2008”.
.
Our analysis shows that the International Energy Agency (IEA) uses parameters in its calculations that cannot be supported on scientific grounds. For the year 2030, our scientifically-based calculations show that production of oil will be 25 million barrels per day lower than stated by the IEA.

This means that we have now reached the maximum rate of global oil production, Peak Oil. This will affect future economic development and carbon dioxide emissions. The article can be accessed at http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/PeakOilAge.pdf

The same message has also been sent to the general director of the Energy Authority, Tomas Kåberger.

(Swedish)

Via regeringens registrator har jag skickat följande meddelande till vår energiminister:

Bästa energiminister Maud Olofsson!

Under en period av 6 år har Globala Energisystem vid Uppsala universitet, www.fysast.uu.se/ges, bedrivit forskning om fossila reserver och framtida produktion av fossila bränslen. I ett antal vetenskapliga publikationer har vi definierat parametrar av betydelse för produktionen. I dag den 9 november 2009 har den internationella vetenskapliga tidskriften Energy Policy accepterat vår artikel ”The Peak of the Oil Age – analyzing the world oil production Reference Scenario in World Energy Outlook 2008”.

Vår analys visar att International Energy Agency (IEA) i sina beräkningar använder parametrar som inte kan styrkas på vetenskapliga grunder. För år 2030 visar våra beräkningar, baserade på vetenskapliga grunder, att produktionen av olja kommer att vara 25 miljoner fat om dagen lägre än vad IEA anger.

Det betyder att vi nu har nått maximal global oljeproduktion, Peak Oil. Detta kommer att påverka framtida ekonomisk utveckling och utsläpp av koldioxid. Artikeln finns tillgänglig på adressen: http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/PeakOilAge.pdf

Samma meddelande har också skickats till Energimyndighetens generaldirektör Tomas Kåberger

The visit to Sweden’s Parliament / Besöket i Sveriges riksdag

The invitation to the symposium in parliament on 4 November had been extended to members of parliament and others working in the parliament building. The symposium was an initiative of the Moderates [a “conservative” political party in Sweden that would, nevertheless, be regarded as left-of-centre relative to politics in most English-speaking nations, ML]. The meeting room that was booked had capacity for 36 people and most of the seats were occupied when we began our presentation. Only members of parliament from the Moderates and the Christian Democrats were present and it amazes me that the organizer’s political affiliation is thought to limit who can attend.

Those that attended engaged in a very interesting discussion about our research and we hope that this interest will spread to others as ripples spread on water. On Friday, our presentations will be posted on our research group’s website (www.fysast.uu.se/ges) so that the participants and others can see what we discussed. The most common comment from the participants was that our research is very interesting.

(Swedish)

Inbjudan till seminariet i riksdagen den 4 november hade gått ut till riksdagsmän och andra som arbetade i riksdagshuset och det var Moderaterna som var initiativtagare. Sammanträdesrummet som var bokat kunde ta 36 personer och de flesta av stolarna runt bordet var upptagna då vi började vår presentation. Vad det gäller riksdagsmän var det bara Moderaterna och Kristdemokraterna som var representerade och det förvånar mig att arrangörernas politiska färg tycks begränsa vilka som kommer.

De som var där hade en mycket intressant diskussion runt vår forskning och vi hoppas att detta intresse kommer att sprida sig till andra som ringar på vattnet. Våra presentationer kommer under fredagen att läggas ut på vår grupps hemsida (www.fysast.uu.se/ges) så att deltagare och andra kan ta del av det vi diskuterade. Den vanligaste kommentaren från deltagarna var att vår forskning är mycket intressant.