Oil and gas production accounts for approximately 87% of global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. (1) Yet oil and gas companies present themselves as key players in the transition to net zero. The claims they make to justify the continued extraction and production of oil and gas are questionable. These are issues I am going to explore over the next few days.
One claim is that some sources of oil and gas are more climate friendly than others because they have a smaller – or sometimes it is phrased as cleaner – footprint. This may also be referred to as the (upstream) carbon intensity of the fossil fuel. The reduction being referenced is the reduction in scope 1 and 2 emissions – ie those carbon emissions arising from production, transport and processing of the oil and gas. It does not include the emissions released through the subsequent use of the oil and gas – the scope 3 emissions.
Fossil fuel companies can reduce scope 1 and 2 emissions by: “tackling methane emissions, eliminating all non-emergency flaring, electrifying upstream facilities with low-emissions electricity, equipping oil and gas processes with carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS), and expanding the use of low-emissions electrolysis hydrogen in refineries.” (2) Of these cutting methane emissions and flaring can achieve the biggest reductions in emissions.
The Oil and Gas Climate (OGCI) launched its upstream carbon intensity target in 2020. Its aim is to reduce member companies’ aggregate upstream carbon intensity from 23 kg of greenhouse gases per barrel of oil or gas in 2017 to 17 kg by 2025. (3) For comparison scope 3 emissions per barrel are typically 402kg. (4)
By reducing the carbon intensity of their oil and gas production, companies may argue that their’s is a better source of fuel. This claim is then used to justify expanding their production of fossil fuels. However they do not along side this make a similar or even greater reduction in production from other sites.
Globally we know we have to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 – at the latest – if we are to curb the inexorable rise in temperatures, the associated increase in extreme weather events and any of the various tipping ecological points that would accelerate this process.
Here in the UK our government has set a target of reducing emissions by 68% (compared with 1990 values) by 2030 and by 81% by 2035 and ultimately by 100% by 2050.
To achieve these targets we need to reduce sharply our use of fossil fuels to heat our buildings (including cooling in the summer), to run our transport systems (vehicles, trains, airplanes etc), to generate electricity, and in various industrial processes such as making steel.
Such changes will impact is all. For householders it will include having to add more insulation to their homes and replacing gas boilers with electrically based heating. And for tenants, hopefully such alterations will be carried out by their landlords. For commercial and institutional buildings there will equally be the need to replace gas with electric heating and cooling systems, as well as upgrading thermal insulation. Such buildings may well have the scope to install solar panels and batteries so that they can generate their own electricity. The managers of such buildings may also want to reflect on how staff, users and customers travel to and from their premises to enable these to become more sustainable in their use of energy.
For car drivers it will be switching to electric cars or, even better, switching to public transport and active travel. For delivery drivers it will be switching to cycles for small, local loads and electric vehicles for larger ones. For the railway it will be investing in further electrification of the rail network and potentially developing battery units for short, smaller capacity branch lines. For airlines it must mean reducing the number of flights as there really is no green alternative to aviation fuel, although for short flights serving outlying islands battery planes may be a developmental opportunity.
For the energy sector, it will include continuing to develop and expand renewable energy sources (solar, wind and tidal) to provide all the extra green electricity that will be needed by other sectors, and to provide the necessary infrastructure to support that and to enable individual households, businesses and communities to develop their own generation capacity.
For industrial processes it will be switching to new methods of production such as using electric arc furnaces for steel making and for cement production developing new chemical formulations that avoid releasing large amounts of CO2.
These changes will also have impacts on jobs with some people needing to retrain for new careers – for example oil rig workers retraining to build and maintain offshore wind turbines, car workers might switch to building public transport rolling stock, airline staff might switch to working in the rail industry, blast furnace workers might retrain as installers of heat pumps and thermal insulation, or switch to manufacturing double glazing units, solar panels, and wind turbines etc.
These changes will need considerable financial investment, which must mean shifting money currently invested in supporting carbon intensive industries and projects, to these low carbon sustainable alternatives. And this will mean a shift in thinking by those who work in the financial markets – bankers, financiers, investment managers, pensions and insurance fund managers, etc.
These changes will also need government support, both in terms of legislation that will deliberately shift markets in the right direction, and in terms of subsidies, switching these away from carbon intensive industries and towards the green alternatives. And this will be a key role in achieving the carbon emission targets. Our capitalistic economic system is not well equipped to create the change we need. It is not well equipped to reflect the risks and damage caused by carbon intensive industries and products. Nor is it well equipped to ensure that those responsible for the damage already caused should pay for all necessary remedial and restorative action.
Earlier this week – 5th December – Shell and Equinor announced a plan to combine their operations in the North Sea to more effectively extract the remaining oil and gas reserves for ‘decades’ to come! This would ensure their continuing profit levels and in particular share dividends. How can it be economic to extract more carbon emitting oil and gas over those very same decades when we as a nation – and globally – are struggling to reduce our carbon emissions to net zero?
And how can it be that our government will provide subsidies to these oil companies to enable them to develop these projects? It is calculated that with tax breaks and subsidies, the UK could pay upward of 90p in the pound for the cost of developing the Rosebank oil field.
And how can it be that these oil companies can talk about – and use this in their advertising – that they are maintaining the UK’s energy security, and that they are keeping homes warm – and neglecting to point out that the cost of what they provide is at an increasing to customers and the environment – as if only gas and oil could achieve energy security?
What we need for a just transition is:
proactive action taken by the government to create and safeguard a transition via legislation that is fair to the working population, that is fair to householders, and that ensures a level and consistent playing field for businesses
Proactive action taken by the government to redirect subsidies so that they support and enhance the transition to renewables and ensure that the price to the consumer is affordable in the short term. (In the long term re-newables will be cheaper)
Proactive action by the financial world to shift finances from the old carbon intensive industries to the growing low carbon, sustainable ones
Proactive action by companies and organisations to ensure their operations are shifting at pace to achieve net zero.
A key part in this transition can be found in the Climate and Nature Bill – the CAN Bill – which is a private member’s bill that is currently making its way through Parliament. We can show our support for this via the Zero Hours web page and by asking our individuals MPs to back the bill when it comes for its second reading on 24th January – https://www.zerohour.uk/climate-and-nature-bill/
“The formation of oil takes a significant amount of time with oil beginning to form millions of years ago. 70% of oil deposits existing today were formed in the Mesozoic age (252 to 66 million years ago), 20% were formed in the Cenozoic age (65 million years ago), and only 10% were formed in the Paleozoic age (541 to 252 million years ago). This is likely because the Mesozoic age was marked by a tropical climate, with large amounts of plankton in the ocean.
“The formation of oil begins in warm, shallow oceans that were present on the Earth millions of years ago. In these oceans, extremely small dead organic matter – classified as plankton – falls to the floor of the ocean. This plankton consists of animals, called zooplankton, or plants, called phytoplankton. This material then lands on the ocean floor and mixes with inorganic material that enters the ocean by rivers. It is this sediment on the ocean floor that then forms oil over many years”.
The dead plankton, plus algae and bacteria form an organic rich mud.
If the mud remains in an anoxic environment – lacking in oxygen such as stagnant water – it does not decompose and so retains its carbon content.
This anoxic environment becomes embedded by subsequent layers of mud, compressing the carbon rich layer into an organic shale.
Overtime the shale sinks as more layers are added. At a depth of 2 to 4km the temperatures from the earth’s core plus the increased pressure converts the organic shale to oil shale.
If the temperatures at this depth are between 90 and 160C this oil shale is transformed into oil and natural gas. This will either seep upwards being lighter than water, or maybe sealed in by subsequent layers of impervious rock.
Again it is mind blowing to reflect that these oil and gas deposits that took millions of years in the making, are now being burnt at an annual rate of 6.6 billion tonnes, such that we have 47 years of reserves remaining – should we be foolish enough to want to burn them.(https://www.worldometers.info/oil/)
We should keep in mind that the IEA warns that a cannot risk developing and burning new oil and gas reserves without exceeding the 1.5C global warming limit.
The Green Tau 