Why we need "Net zero"

[Beelbeebub]

3 hours ago, Mattg4321 said:

 

I don't agree with that analysis. I'm not an expert, but I do have some experience in the oil and gas sector. UK oil and gas production and to an even greater extent, exploration, has pretty much been taxed and regulated out of existence in the past 15-20 years (maybe more than that, but before my time). You can't book more reserves if you don't drill the wells. And it just hasn't been happening for a long long time now.

 

I still keep in touch with people in the industry and they tell me (perhaps overoptimistically?) that it's out there, there's just the wrong environment in place to go looking for it/extract it.

 

We were all told when we were at school that oil would run out in 20 years, or we're now at or very close to peak oil production. Both predictions have proven to be way way wide of the mark.

 

 

 

World oil production gas never been higher.

 

But uk oil (and gas) peaked around 2000 at about 4x today's rate

 

Note the other big Nsea producer Norway, is also declining albeit slower 

 

This is from the industry body last year. 

 

UK authorities are significantly underestimating the country's still-recoverable oil and gas reserves due to policies on tax and the environment that mitigate against maximizing resource recovery, industry group Offshore Energies UK said June 23.

 

The group based the assertion on an independent report from consultancy Westwood Global Energy Group, which found remaining recoverable oil and gas reserves could be up to 7.5 billion barrels of oil equivalent, compared with a government estimate of 3.75 billion boe published in February 2025.

 

Note they are pushing the maximum remaining ('recoverable') as 7.5billion boe. Other sources put the maximum at 6bn. This includes stuff we know about and stuff we think we might find. 

 

As previously noted the UK uses around 1.4million barrels a day. 

 

So 7.5bn divided by 1.4 million is near enough 15 years *absolute maximum*

 

There are cars being bought today that would burn the last drop of British oil in that scenario. And, again, that is the absolute maximum. 

 

To quote from the same report

 

There is no escaping the fact that the UK North Sea is a mature basin which is in production decline. While the decline ultimately cannot be prevented, there is still a substantial prize available to companies and the government, if the investment environment allows it. 

 

 

Here's an accompanying illustration. 

 

Note the "7.5bn" figure is 'no constraints' and half of that is made up of discoveries and prospects - basically "maybe we come up with a way to get even more oil than we thought" and "maybe we find some more oil" 

 

If we take the high case, which still has a lot of finger crossing, it's just over 4bn which is less than 10years.

 

So,whilst there may be more oil and gas about, there isn't going to be much we can get ourselves. We'll have to get it from the big oil producers who are.... 

 

1. USA

2. Saudi Arabia

3. Russia 

4. Canada

5. Iran

 

How many countries in that list can we call friendly? 

 

Again, the idea that the UK can be energy independent by extracting more oil whilst carrying on as we are (oil based road transport, gas based heating and electricity generation) is a fantasy. We need to reduce our demand and increace our home grown energy - nuclear and renewables. 

 

https://www.westwoodenergy.com/news/westwood-insight/westwood-insight-ukcs-geological-potential-remains-but-sentiment-shift-is-needed

Edited 18 hours ago by Beelbeebub

[SteamyTea]

4 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

How many countries in that list can we call friendly

“One day, Canada will take over the world. Then you’ll all be sorry.”

[Mattg4321]

7 hours ago, Crofter said:

So why isn't the industry making this case? The figures were seen in this thread area from the industry, and are likely on the optimistic side.

It’s old data, but backs up my point that oil has always been ‘running out’.  
 

 

[Beelbeebub]

2 hours ago, Mattg4321 said:

It’s old data, but backs up my point that oil has always been ‘running out’.  
 

 

What that graph doesn't capture is the price of the oil extracted and the rate of extraction.

 

The amount of oil you can extract *economically* changes with the price of oil. As oil prices rise, less attractive sources become viable. 

 

Canada has one of the world's largest reserves, but as tar sands which are very costly to extract. The clst per barrel is somewhere north of $60 a barrel, whilst Saudi Arabia is below $10.

 

So if the world price is $100 Canada has huge reserves

 

If it's below $50 it has very little. 

 

The UK has already picked the low hanging fruit. The remaining reserves are in more costly places to extract.

 

I have looked and I cannot find a single reputable source who says that the UK can achive energy security through fossil fuels. Can anyone find one?

 

(politicians don't count) 

[saveasteading]

There is a brief and clear explanation of Venezuelan 'oil' reserves and value on 'More or Less' BBC Radio 4 .

 

If I recall :

 

there is lots.

it is tar not liquid.

Has to be mined not drilled and is expensive to extract and to process.

reserves means viable commercially, so that varies with the price of oil.

 

[SteamyTea]

2 hours ago, saveasteading said:

and to process

I lived on an island that processed Venezuelian crude.

It was a smelly place.

[Mattg4321]

4 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

What that graph doesn't capture is the price of the oil extracted and the rate of extraction.

 

The amount of oil you can extract *economically* changes with the price of oil. As oil prices rise, less attractive sources become viable. 

 

Canada has one of the world's largest reserves, but as tar sands which are very costly to extract. The clst per barrel is somewhere north of $60 a barrel, whilst Saudi Arabia is below $10.

 

So if the world price is $100 Canada has huge reserves

 

If it's below $50 it has very little. 

 

The UK has already picked the low hanging fruit. The remaining reserves are in more costly places to extract.

 

I have looked and I cannot find a single reputable source who says that the UK can achive energy security through fossil fuels. Can anyone find one?

 

(politicians don't count) 

 

You make a good point re the price of oil. I stand by my view that there is more there than the booked reserves though. We're kind of arguing over nothing though, as I think we're agreed that we shouldn't leave it in there whilst we import from abroad. Nor should we rely on it long term (decades ahead).

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Mattg4321

[Beelbeebub]

1 hour ago, Mattg4321 said:

 

You make a good point re the price of oil. I stand by my view that there is more there than the booked reserves though. We're kind of arguing over nothing though, as I think we're agreed that we shouldn't leave it in there whilst we import from abroad. Nor should we rely on it long term (decades ahead).

 

From a carbon point of view leaving it in the ground is good - obviously that cuts no ice with the "climate change is a myth" lobby, but it is a consideration for some. 

 

More importantly, leaving it in the ground means it is availible for use later for important stuff (like pharmaceuticals, chemicals etc). 

 

And I would say we need to stop relying on oil/gas ASAP as it doesn't start to run out "decades ahead", it's running out now.

 

Our production is set to fall by 50% by 2035 *under extremely optimistic oil industry projections* (all the colours)

 

Under more sober projections we drop by 50% in about 5 years and will be at about 25% by 2035.

 

 

This is the bit in the old movies where the pilot taps the fuel gauge and it drops suddenly to empty. 

 

[SteamyTea]

55 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

use later for important stuff (like pharmaceuticals, chemicals

I am not sure how much 'oil' that actually uses. Very little I suspect.

About half can be turned into a liquid fuel, a fifth into low sulfur bunker fuel, a bit it bitumen and other polymers, some comes out as gasses, which are feed stock for other polymers. Eventually you get nothing but tar, which is used in ashfelt, but that tar is easier to get from Trinidadian pitch fields (lived there as well).

Many polymers can be made from vegetation feed stocks, cellulose was made that way, as are some polyurethanes. Oil is just crushed and heated plant matter after all.

[Beelbeebub]

4 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

I am not sure how much 'oil' that actually uses. Very little I suspect.

About half can be turned into a liquid fuel, a fifth into low sulfur bunker fuel, a bit it bitumen and other polymers, some comes out as gasses, which are feed stock for other polymers. Eventually you get nothing but tar, which is used in ashfelt, but that tar is easier to get from Trinidadian pitch fields (lived there as well).

Many polymers can be made from vegetation feed stocks, cellulose was made that way, as are some polyurethanes. Oil is just crushed and heated plant matter after all.

If we can get the various feed stocks without having to extract oil, so much the better.

 

I suspect there are a few sectors that cannot substitute oil/gas. 

 

Aviation is one that comes to mind, at least until we have enough cheap electricity to make competitive synthetic fuel. But I'm happy to burn some oil for vital things - it's just burning it for things we don't need to that should be stopped ASAP. 

 

I seem to remember doing a calculation a while ago that we could save more carbon/fossil fuel by insulating all homes to 2010 standard than stopping all flights.

 

I vote for warm, cheap to run homes *and* flights to nice places rather than cold, expensive homes and expensive flights. 

[SteamyTea]

30 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

seem to remember doing a calculation a while ago that we could save more carbon/fossil fuel by insulating all homes to 2010 standard than stopping all flights

This is often a problem. My manager obsesses over a price difference of a penny per butter portion, missing the big savings of 40p on a sausage.

Had the financial director down the other day (I work for a multinational) and she is pretty shrewd (as a financial director should be). She pointed out that if we replaced the gas hob with an induction one, we would reduce energy usage and overheating in the kitchen. I got 'looks' from my work mates as I had been saying this for years. Not one of them had used an induction hob ever, and still think they are infrared hobs because they have ceramic tops.

I have been saying for a long time, to most people that ask me about reducing energy/CO2 changing car will probably be the biggest change.

Edited 28 minutes ago by SteamyTea

[Roger440]

30 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

 

 

I vote for warm, cheap to run homes *and* flights to nice places rather than cold, expensive homes and expensive flights. 

 

Who do i vote for?

 

Id like a warm cheap to run home. Problem is, to get that i have to spend out big. Bigger than makes any sense. 

 

I aquired a bigger oil tank instead so i can be more choosy when i buy my oil. And the old tank gets recyled as a tractor food tank.