Admitting oil and gas was here to stay would be ‘far easier than dealing with energy insecurity, rampant inflation and social unrest as the prices become intolerably high and seeing net zero commitments by countries start to unravel, he told delegates.” M and J: “Saudi Aramco’s boss Amin Nasser, meanwhile, was the talk of the conference after warning that the world was ‘facing an ever more chaotic energy transition, centered on highly unrealistic scenarios and assumptions about the future of energy’. The answer lies in the middle – a glide path of lowering oil and gas production, and hence GHG emissions, while wind, solar and battery sources that are now cheaper than new-build conventional power plants, take their place in decarbonizing the world. The result would be a world heading toward a date around 2100 when the earth’s temperature and CO2 concentration will be higher than they have been in a million years – a twilight zone. If he means don’t stop any production of oil and gas, which seems to be the position of US companies relying on escape hatches like CCS, this solution is impractical. If Woods means suddenly stopping production of all oil and gas, that would be a disaster and we would all starve.
IP: The words ‘Narrowly focusing on taking action on one aspect of the challenge’ are unclear.
‘Narrowly focusing on taking action on one aspect of the challenge could potentially lead to significant unintended consequences,’ he said.” M and J: “Exxon’s Woods, for instance, warned that jettisoning fossil fuels too soon could send the energy transition into a ditch. Although hydrogen is expensive now and prices will come down over time, it seems a case of too little too late for other than niche applications. Rystad predicted that liquid hydrogen and derivatives will be only 7% of energy in 2050-in the form of aviation and shipping fuel, and manufacture of metals and chemicals (fertilizers and plastics).
#Bcm94322mc high sierra full#
IP: Carbon capture and storage will not save the oil and gas industry if it continues running at full production, although it may serve to remove a portion of GHG leftovers by 2050. Rather, the oil executives put the emphasis on the importance of technologies such as carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and biofuels-which many in the industry are placing their bets on, but that have yet to prove themselves as meaningful tools to combat climate change.” M and J: “Wind, solar and electric vehicles were rarely mentioned as part of the transition. But if, more likely, big oil in the US means to continue full oil and gas production while greening their operations and then burying, via CCS, the leftover GHGs from burning their products, then this won’t work – see previous IP comment. offshore wind), then yes the statement stands. If they mean by this oil and gas companies who, like bp, reduce emissions by divesting in oil and gas and investing in renewables (e.g. IP: This is a hopeful assertion but needs a deeper look. Chevron’sĬVX boss Mike Wirth claimed that ‘no industry is better positioned’ to tackle climate change than the oil industry.” M and J: “Woods said that the world ‘needs our industry’s expertise and experience to successfully reduce emissions while preserving economic prosperity’. But an analysis shows that such a scale up of CCS looks massive, expensive and impractical to manage. The result would have to be an enormous growth of a carbon capture and storage (CCS) industry needed to bury the GHG generated by continual burning of oil and gas products. But US companies are planning to keep up their oil and gas production, and instead find alternate ways to reduce GHG by reducing gas flaring and methane leaks and by using renewable energy to pump their fracs.
European-based companies like bp, Shell, and TotalEnergies are doing this. An argument to divest is that oil and gas contributes 57% of the world’s energy but also 50% of GHG emissions.
IP: The chief issue is whether to divest from oil and gas production and instead develop renewable energies. The bosses at WPC see the oil companies themselves-not the Teslas or renewables powerhouses such as the Orsteds of the world-continuing to play the starring role. M and J: “Yet the oil industry’s vision for the energy transition is at odds with what is being advocated by climate scientists and activists.