Wealthy Western Countries Lead in Global Oil and Gas Expansion (theguardian.com) 99
A surge in new oil and gas production in 2024 threatens to unleash nearly 12 billion tonnes of planet-heating emissions, with the world's wealthiest countries -- such as the US and the UK -- leading a stampede of fossil fuel expansion in spite of their climate commitments, new data reveals. From a report: The new oil and gas field licences forecast to be awarded across the world this year are on track to generate the highest level of emissions since those issued in 2018, as heatwaves, wildfires, drought and floods cause death and destruction globally, according to analysis of industry data by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). The 11.9bn tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions -- which is roughly the same as China's annual carbon pollution -- resulting over their lifetime from all current and upcoming oil and gas fields forecast to be licensed by the end of 2024 would be greater than the past four years combined. The projection includes licences awarded as of June 2024, as well as the oil and gas blocks open for bidding, under evaluation or planned.
Meanwhile, fossil fuel firms are ploughing more money into developing new oil and gas sites than at any time since the 2015 Paris climate deal, when the world's governments agreed to take steps to cut emissions and curb global heating. The world's wealthiest countries are economically best placed -- and obliged under the Paris accords -- to lead the transition away from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources. But these high-capacity countries with a low economic dependence on fossil fuels are spearheading the latest drilling frenzy despite dwindling easy-to-reach reserves, handing out 825 new licences in 2023, the largest number since records began.
Meanwhile, fossil fuel firms are ploughing more money into developing new oil and gas sites than at any time since the 2015 Paris climate deal, when the world's governments agreed to take steps to cut emissions and curb global heating. The world's wealthiest countries are economically best placed -- and obliged under the Paris accords -- to lead the transition away from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources. But these high-capacity countries with a low economic dependence on fossil fuels are spearheading the latest drilling frenzy despite dwindling easy-to-reach reserves, handing out 825 new licences in 2023, the largest number since records began.
China is kicking our asses (Score:1, Flamebait)
It's estimated that climate change is going to cost the average American half a million dollars. Do you make enough money off oil and gas industries invested in your 401k to make up for hal
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Most of us have learned to stop responding to rsilvergun. He has no interest in actually debating issues, he's just here to troll.
$500,000 per American would be 6-7X the GDP of the United States. If he had any interest in truth, he wouldn't spew such nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
"$500,000 per American would be 6-7X the GDP of the United States"
-1, innumerate comparison of a rate to a value
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
"$500,000 per American would be 6-7X the GDP of the United States"
-1, innumerate comparison of a rate to a value
Say what? GDP isn't a rate. Oh, you mean the "$500,000 per American"? See you just multiply that by the number of Americans and the rate magically turns into a value. Most people would have figured that out for themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
"GDP isn't a rate."
GDP is per year, i.e. a rate. The cost estimate is an amount that is notionally fixed regardless of whether you spend it in one year or two or whatever. Saying the fixed amount is 6-7x the GDP of the US just means that if spent all the GDP on it it would take 6-7 years; if you spend 10% of the GDP it would take 60--70 years.
If the outstanding balance on someone's new mortgage(an amount) is 15x the sum of mortgage payments they make in a year(a rate), that doesn't mean they have an unsusta
Re: (Score:1)
No, GDP is not a rate; it's a dollar amount for a specified year. The units are dollars, not dollars per year.
Re: China is kicking our asses (Score:2)
How much do you think it will cost?
How would you clean up coal plant emissions? They spread radioactive isotopes across the land, how will you collect and inter them?
It's over your lifetime dumbass (Score:1)
This forum is just chock-full of boomers and wannabe boomers who want to pretend nothing ever is going to change and who are probably going to be dead before the consequences of their actions bite them in the ass. Some of us though care about future generations, go figure.
I'm never going to be all that popular around here though because nobody likes it when
Re:China is kicking our asses (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a reference to the article at Consumer Reports. [consumerreports.org]
Assuming that climate change will on average cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The article follows up with the reasoning:
If humanity does not act swiftly to limit it, climate change will cost a typical child born in 2024 at least around $500,000 over the course of their lifetime—and possibly as much as $1 million—through a combination of cost-of-living increases and reduced earnings.
So no. It's not made up nonsense. It's a logical argument taken from a premise. We can certainly attack that premise ($100B+/year cost to the US economy). But there is some number that is right, and it is probably not zero. So there is some semblance to reality in the statement, even if you disagree with the details.
From the article - Oil prices need to rise far (Score:1)
From the article: “The logical first step in a ‘transition away’ from oil and gas is to stop opening new fields,” said co-author Olivier Bois von Kursk, who is a policy adviser at the IISD."
Translation: The logical first step is to prevent oil from being produced, let existing wells dry up and go away; so that oil prices can rise exponentially until the third-world countries cannot afford any fossil fuels, grow enough food, etc, etc. and then so the first-world countries get the same
IISD 47 million Canadian budget - their payment? (Score:2)
These think tanks are great for producing policy papers, sound bites for television, quotes for news articles.
Which part of the $47 million Canadian budget did the IISD use in 2023 to buy solar panels, build a wind farm, or take direct action by constructing a renewable energy station?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
This :"What money have you spent to build the solution?" should be the first question we ask because parasitic organizations left, right, center, moderate, whatever orientation are not building
Re: (Score:3)
Renewable + storage is a cheaper option than fossil + CCS, and on par with the most idealistic estimates of nuclear power.
If you are promoting building a nuclear plant, you can fund renewable + storage to the point of baseload sustainability.
Re: (Score:2)
As shown by the exactly 0 countries having managed to do that
Thankyou sir. Now please let's stop this stupid small modular reactors talk.
No actually I'm not against SMR. It's retarded to discard new and unused technology. I support continued R&D even if you don't. But the thing is... they aren't all the same. Storage is a thing we know how to do. There's no R&D to be done, just engineering. The costing is fixed - we know how to build it and what to build. The only difference is we haven't built it ... yet (projects are currently in progress).
If that was the case, Germany wouldn't be 30 years and 500 billion euros into its energy "transition"
The 500 billion w
lazy replies are boring in their own way (Score:3)
Solar towers are one of the most expensive sources, more than coal in terms of cost. And usually, but not always, more expensive than gas. (which fluctuates a lot in price)
Solar panels have turned into a super cheap source of electricity, on part with wind power. And slightly below geothermal in total cost.
Nuclear is currently more expensive than coal. but there are other benefits beyond cost that makes nuclear a viable option.
So yes. Renewables are incredibly cheap. I guess you need to update on what's ava
Re: (Score:3)
All that free energy here in California has me paying over $0.60 / kWh, at least 2nd highest in the US.
Re: China is kicking our asses (Score:1)
Renewables are cheap in a fossil-fuel economy. You can't make renewables with only renewable energy as a base. Otherwise, why did it take the discovery of fossil fuels to launch the Industrial Age and the subsequent 20th century? Do you think the crowning tech demo of the 20th century, the Apollo missions, would be possible with only renewable energy?
Big Oil trolls successfull... (Score:3, Informative)
Big Oil trolls are very successfull online in spreading manipulation.
Young people learning from TikTok are completely convinced there is no point in limiting fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm running on less than 50% fossil fuel energy as of this year. There's a steep downward trend on fossil fuels right now. We're making progress despite the sneering from statists.
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing is stopping you from moving to a country with less oil energy.
https://miro.medium.com/v2/res... [medium.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's electricity consumption, not oil. My utility gets something like 99% of its electricity from renewables.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Lost in the debate and rhetoric these days is that China's emissions are now larger than the rest of the top 5 countries combined. CO2 emissions in the United States have been falling, but they're still growing in China, albeit the pace is slowing. This discussion used to be about getting the United States and Europe to do something, which maybe still matters, but it becomes less and less important to the overall picture as China is now the world's chief polluter by a large margin.
There's maybe some thing
Re:Big Oil trolls successfull... (Score:4, Informative)
Lost in the debate and rhetoric these days is that China's emissions are now larger than the rest of the top 5 countries combined.
It deserves to be lost in debate because it is pointless rhetoric. China's population if 1.4billion people meaning it's emissions per capita are lower than the next 4 countries with the exception of India, and Indian emissions per capita is low because the country is facing massive energy insecurity where a significant portion of the population doesn't have basic utilities.
Maybe one day when Europe and the USA grow up and stop with the pointless rhetoric you're spewing we can strive to have emissions per capita as low as China (which you admit are slowing, so kudos to you, do you realise this means that China will have on a per capita basis become a 1st world country while doing only a fraction of the environmental damage that the USA / Europe has done? I bet that is lost in your debate).
The biggest foreseeable problem isn't China. It's India. China's pathway is not only on a good trajectory, unlike the USA and Europe's goals and ambitions, China has not only met theirs but actually exceeded them. In the mean time India (whose emissions per capita are also a fraction of the USA's and Europe's) doesn't currently have pathway towards greening in their energy expansion.
There's maybe some things you can do, such as avoiding buying products made in China
That would be a good start, but you can do so much more domestically first. But that will be lost on those people driving their V8 Dodge RAMs running their A/C at home while no-one is there just to make sure the place is cool when they get there. Yes I jest, but the reality is Europe and the USA is pointlessly wasteful with energy. That's where a large portion of our CO2 emissions come from.
But anyway forget I said anything, look over there those Asians are the problem! How dare they think they should be allowed to be as wasteful as us!
Re: (Score:1)
Your rhetoric is just as pointless, expecting a country with a GDP as high as the US to somehow have the same emissions as borderline second/third world nations. These countries wouldn't even have the tech to achieve their emissions goals had US innovation and industry not invented the damn things. At the end of the day, the whole world benefitted from the US industrial revolution (and continues to benefit from US innovation), so this insane
Re: (Score:2)
Your rhetoric is just as pointless
No it doesn't. The world doesn't care where you arbitrarily draw lines. My point is people deserve to be treated equally. Your point is that you get someone Asian to build something for you, then tell them that the thing you bought sits on their carbon budget, oh and they are evil for emitting despite you personally being *far* worse.
As I said the world doesn't care where we draw our boarders. The only point I'm making is that you're a self-entitled arsehole who thinks you're better than others and are blam
Re: (Score:2)
"Equally" by rules you chose. You seem to have zeroed in on per capita (and historic) emissions and punted on all other factors, because that's fair to you. The US could replace every single coal plant they have and the emissions would still by higher than most countries simply because they have more industry. But by your definition of "equal", that doesn't matter. Similarly, the US could invent a better solar panel that increases efficiency dramatically
Re: (Score:2)
Indian emissions per capita is low because the country is facing massive energy insecurity where a significant portion of the population doesn't have basic utilities.
Really? [www.ceew.in] This is the first time I've seen 2.4% cited as a significant portion of anything.
Re: Big Oil trolls successfull... (Score:1)
Yes. Big Oil trolls. And not, say, basic reality.
Fossil fuels are also a chemical feedstock. Please describe your plan to supply worldwide fertlizer needs to feed 10 billion people.
I'll wait.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are confusing TikTok and Facebook there. It's mostly the older people that the oil companies target, because young people don't vote.
Besides, one of the reasons why there is so much hostility towards TikTok is that it's overall a very left leaning platform, and that includes strong environmentalism.
Stop the demonizing! (Score:2, Insightful)
This kind of writing pushes the idea that the evil energy companies are just sitting around dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. They are not! (fugitive emissions aside). It's us, the consumers, who want it. No one is to blame but ourselves. If they couldn't sell it, they wouldn't produce it.
Stop attacking the supply side. It just drives up production costs, which is effectively a tax on the end user, and the "greedy" parties still get rich.
Demand for fossil fuels in transportation and power generation is going
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You are probably never going to be able to recharge in under an hour at your house. The math doesn't work with 200A (or even 400A) residential service. However, most newer EVs now can recharge to 80% in 30 minutes or less at a level 3 public charger (requires industrial grade power service to the charging site). In practice, most people are going to mostly charge overnight at home and only use quick charging on road trips.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No battery tech can make your house deliver more than 200A if you only have 200A residential service. You need a certain amount of power to charge a battery of a given size and it can't be delivered more quickly than the source is able to feed it.
What improved battery tech could do is enable public chargers with industrial power feeds to charge more quickly. Current tech maximizes charging at ~15 minutes. A solid state battery (or other advanced battery tech) could theoretically allow sub 10 minute charging
Re:Stop the demonizing! (Score:4, Interesting)
I have a Tesla. Cost less than your $75,000 target. More than 300 miles range.
Charges in less than an hour on the road (usually 30 min).
Charges while I'm sleeping at home.
Paid cash. Own it outright.
Much less expensive to run than a fossil car. Literally zero maintenance. "Fuel" costs about 25% of gas.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are several options for EV pickup, we are just missing the "small" part. The Rivian R1T is probably the closest thing right now. It's bigger than a 2005 Tacoma by a decent margin, but it's smaller than a modern 1/2 ton pickup. Rivian is working on an R2 which would be more than size, but may only be an SUV. There have also been rumors of a Ranger EV.
But to be honest, you are going to have trouble finding any pickup as small as a 2005 Tacoma. Small trucks like that scarcely exist at all. Only thing tha
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you'll buy a conversion kit for your current vehicle and just swap everything out. Not saying that's cheap, but cheaper then a new EV and it otherwise meets yours specifications, though you'd likely need better tires and shocks because of the added battery weight.
Re: (Score:2)
There's probably never going to be easy "conversion kits" for gas cars. A proper EV needs to be completely redesigned from a chassis built for an EV. Yes, it's possible to just throw some batteries in the trunk or under the hood and make an electric car out of a gas car, but the result will be a far inferior vehicle. Only classic cars like vintage Porsches where people are willing to invest large sums of money are likely to ever see EV conversions. Your daily driven pickup truck will not any more than you w
Re: (Score:2)
This is all true and more. 100% agree. I just mention it as an option as a technicality. As you mention, for classic cars, etc, where you got the money and don't care about the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and also I want a small pickup, I have no use for a passenger car, and don't say 'cybertruck', it's a joke and not even a real pickup.
I just want a car that doesn't make me look like a complete and total wanker. There's a reason you can buy an Audi now, because all of the twats who used to drive an Audi sold their A4's and bought a Model 3.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that doesn't require being able to charge quickly at home. Unless you live in a relatively remote area, most current EVs could do your hypothetical 300 mile same day trip with a 20 minute charge stop either at your destination or on the way home. A few could do it with no charging at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want a full charge before heading home you go to a level 3 charger and get one in 20 minutes. If you need to go further you go to the next level 3 charger. Current EVs basically add an hour or two to a day of driving (perhaps more if you are one of those folks who pee in a bottle and only stop for gas, perhaps less if you are the type that likes to have sit down meals on the road). The main downside is that chargers may not be in exactly the spot you want to stop. I wouldn't recommend an EV to someon
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need a car, you need a dick enlargement.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The demand side of the issue is part of the equation, but your position is so disproportionate that you're basically victim-blaming. Climate change first entered the political discussion fifty years ago. Al Gore raised the issue from the Senate, and Pr
Re: (Score:2)
> Shouldn't we rush to use as much local oil as possible, while it has value, rather than just let it become worthless
That's almost like "we should eat as much lead paint as possible before they ban it!"
And local oil is more expensive than average OPEC oil because US labor costs are higher.
Re: Stop the demonizing! (Score:2)
That is an absolutely wrong analogy. The demand for oil is going to be satisfied one way or another. There is plenty of capacity and reserves. The point being, if we oil is going to be used, why not have it be domestic oil that supports good jobs and doesn't fund foreign states that support terrorism.
And the price of oil is global, so it doesn't matter if Saudi production costs are lower. Oil isn't completely fungible. Saudi oil is shit compared to west Texas; it's low API and high sulfur, and many refineri
Re: (Score:1)
> And the price of oil is global, so it doesn't matter if Saudi production costs are lower.
When US produces more, OPEC likes to flood the market by dropping member quotas, making US oil uncompetitive on the market, and bankrupting US oil ventures to rid them, "cleaning house". The only reason they are not doing that now is because Russia is tied up in a war.
Re: (Score:2)
When US produces more, OPEC likes to flood the market by dropping member quotas, making US oil uncompetitive on the
Nope, those boom and bust cycles typically happen because the companies themselves overproduce and crash the market, not Saudis. Check your facts. OPEC has not pulled a move like that in decades. However now that many are funded by "corporate" interests, those funders are forcing them to not over-build and trying to break the cycle.
The Saudis might be able to afford a price drop, but most OPEC nations produce beyond their assigned quotas because they are too broke to do otherwise. Over-producing to "kill co
Its almost like nobody is really serious (Score:1)
Its almost like nobody is really serious about this 'commitments'
Clearly the producers don't see the product demand falling off or they would not be plowing billions into exploration rather than pivoting.
If this isnt all the proof you need to realize that all the EV mandates, and most other climate legislation is about dis-empowering you and not about actually reducing emissions, you're truly hopeless.
Re: (Score:3)
These purchases aren't expressions of confidence: The oligarchs of the industry simply have nothing to lose. There are only two outcomes for them:
1. Stop clean energy by force, by overthrowing Western gover
Re: (Score:2)
It's a semi-free market. The command economy is the portion of the oil market run by OPEC. However, to the extent OPEC controls the market, it is really only Saudi Arabia and the UAE that have real ability to turn supply on and off at will. Russia is desperate to keep Ukraine from blowing up its facilities right now and is just a general basket case. The rest of OPEC are struggling to keep production up at all and don't have the ability to just turn on a spigot.
The U.S. and European companies are mostly beh
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, if it didn't have the ability to control prices, we wouldn't see radical swings: That's a pattern of gouging, subsidization, and smuggling to evade governments. That's how the industry's political power works. Areas, conditions, and leaders they find favorable are rewarded with abundant energy, while the opposite are squeezed, whic
Re: (Score:2)
The industry does not want wild swings. Companies went bankrupt when prices went below zero. Nor do the public companies have the ability to "gouge." Aramco can swing global production enough, but none of the other companies can. Exxon could cut its production by half and it wouldn't be enough to move world markets. It has to accept whatever the market price is for its products.
You are giving the public fossil fuel companies far more power than they actually have (especially in 2024).
Re: (Score:2)
These people engage in constant fuckery against both governments and public corporations. They no more respect t
One main recent reason is Russia (Score:5, Insightful)
In the case of the UK and Norway, some of their recent expansion is to supply Europe with Russia facing sanctions. Norway itself has dramatically reduced their dependence on fossil fuels with renewable energy to the point they export the vast majority of their oil and gas to Europe. Also coal usage has slowly declined as it has been replaced with renewable where possible with gas being used when renewable energy is not available.
Expansions in themselves are not good; however, not assessing why there is expansion leads to binary conclusions of everything is bad or good. For US and UK, they are both phasing out coal as well as reducing imports. Or course, both countries could use more renewables.
Increased production, price drop, will stop Putin (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Expansions in themselves are not good; however, not assessing why there is expansion leads to binary conclusions of everything is bad or good.
Saying that these expansions are because they're not buying oil from Russia leaves out something important. Much of the oil they're not buying from Russia is now being sold in India and China (much more so by India). Would India and China still be significantly ramping up oil usage otherwise? I have my doubts.
I approve of the EU cutting off oil purchases from Russia while they invade Ukraine but lets not pretend everything is fine by them not buying Russian oil and using their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Oil is a resource. Resources will be used one way or another. China wasn't going to not use oil simply because it came from Russia.
The underlying fact is we have not yet reached peak consumption as a species, though some estimates say this will occur in the coming few years.
Re: (Score:2)
I should also expand on this: Peak consumption != peak production. The idea that we're going to peak consumption in the next few years comes from oil majors, those same majors are currently investing in new production. The reason being after peak consumption hits, the biggest profits will be made by those who can get the oil out most cheaply, that means *new* wells. Older end of life wells have very poor economics. Many of the companies involved have well reserves that would probably see them through well b
Wealthy western countries ... (Score:1)
Re: Wealthy western countries ... (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s only fair that China can use as much energy per capita as the rich western countries.
How much of the rich western countryâ(TM)s reduction in CO2 has been because of outsourcing manufacturing to China? The CO2 emissions related to imports should also be factored in, but it isnâ(TM)t.
Re: (Score:1)
Itâ(TM)s only fair that China can use as much energy per capita as the rich western countries.
Then we must not really have an existential crisis if a rich and powerful asian country need not abandon coal, actually increase its usage.
How much of the rich western countryâ(TM)s reduction in CO2 has been because of outsourcing manufacturing to China?
You mean how much of China's massive contributions to global warming are due to its refusal to run its factories with the same emissions standards of the west.
The CO2 emissions related to imports should also be factored in, but it isnâ(TM)t.
Sure, let's boycott China until they comply with US and EU emissions standards. If we can do it, so can they.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason non-wealthy countries ...
China IS wealthy, and the top polluter.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't mean they have the expertise for complex oil and gas exploration. You don't magic an industry into high tech existence. China's oil and gas is not only primitive compare to the west's it's actively reliant on it - there's a reason why most of their industry is in the form of JVs with western companies or simple purchase investment agreements.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't mean they have the expertise for complex oil and gas exploration.
Even if true, which is questionable, this does not have anything to do with things like overhauling industrial production to reduce pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
Until China and other nations are held to the same standards
China and other nations have lower emissions per capita than several western countries. If you are American and you want to hold China to *your* standards then our species is fucked. You want to be on equal terms, then China will need to double its emissions to meat the USA
Re: (Score:2)
Until China and other nations are held to the same standards
China and other nations have lower emissions per capita than several western countries.
This does not change the fact that China is the largest polluter. If the largest polluter is immune from environmental initiatives then these initiatives are just political theater, not a serious attempt to reduce pollution. Serious attempts include the largest polluter.
Plus China is no longer a developing nation. They are an industrial leader, they are wealthy.
If you are American and you want to hold China to *your* standards then our species is fucked. You want to be on equal terms, then China will need to double its emissions to meat the USA
Straw man. China has greater energy requirements. That is something different emissions, pollution.
All about the demand (Score:2)
The world burns twice the amount of fossil fuels now as we did when we signed the Kyoto protocol. Start actually cutting that back, and producers will stop increasing production (much of which is just replacement production for existing sources drying up anyway).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If supply doesn't keep up with demands, price skyrockets. Then everyone screams that gas is too expensive and cries about oil company profits.
So yeah, the solution (if there is one, given that 82% of global energy usage is from fossil fuels) is on the demand side, whether that's private choice or government mandate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The world burns twice the amount of fossil fuels now as we did when we signed the Kyoto protocol. Start actually cutting that back, and producers will stop increasing production (much of which is just replacement production for existing sources drying up anyway).
Do you have a citation where I can read up on this?
Re: (Score:2)
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix is probably the best summary.
Well, uh, yeah - the UK are indeed 'expanding'.... (Score:1)
...but from what I've read, they merely re-opened the last oil fields in the North Sea that were previously abandonded because there was so little left. Hardly a 'stampede'
Throwing gas on a burning building, (Score:2)
it's so human.
FF are not going anywhere (Score:1)