Why we need "Net zero"

[SteamyTea]

50 minutes ago, jack said:

Gas is going to be burned for decades. North Sea gas displaces gas from elsewhere, so is (relatively) carbon neutral.

That assumes no one else is reducing FF burning.

It is quite possibly that we have reached global peak CO2e.

[Beelbeebub]

1 hour ago, jack said:

Either there's still oil/gas to be economically extracted, or there isn't.

The key bit being economically extracted.

 

The current high prices mean there is more gas/oil that can be extracted profitably at this higher price.

 

What that oil and gas doesn't do is reduce our prices or increace the security of supply (both arguments that have recently been advanced) 

[ProDave]

The current oil situation should be a wake up call for the government re energy security.  But they can't see it.

 

We have done a good job so far on renewable generation and that will continue.  But we still need oil and gas and will do for some time.  So let's drill our own.  Most people seem to think if we drill our own it means we have abandoned the plan to go green.  No it does not.  It means we just want to get as much of the oil and gas that we need from a secure source closer to home, which has to be better than transporting it half way around the world from insecure sources via insecure shipping routes.

 

Oh and the government would get more income from the extraction of our own resources not to mention the employment it would provide.

[Beelbeebub]

1 hour ago, LnP said:

Respectfully, no it isn't. Fully agree we do need to decarbonise. The point here is that HMG are driving decarbonisation by trying to manage the supply side of the energy chain - not issuing licences in the North Sea. Better would be to drive it by demand side measures, e.g. a carbon tax. Then we can leave it to the oil companies to figure out how much is there and whether they can get the stuff out economically. There needs to be a cost of carbon which reflects the environmental damage it does. Dieter Helm's suggestion is that the carbon price should move inversely to the price of oil, which seems like a good idea.

The idea of shifting the carbon tax up and down as the O&G moves effectively gives a fixed price for O&G

 

So the uptake of renewables is driven at a constant rate as the fixed o&g price would always be higher than the "floating" price, assuming that the tax rate will never go negative. Which is great but that is just as much tinkering with the supply side as just not granting any licences. 

[Beelbeebub]

1 minute ago, ProDave said:

The current oil situation should be a wake up call for the government re energy security.  But they can't see it.

 

We have done a good job so far on renewable generation and that will continue.  But we still need oil and gas and will do for some time.  So let's drill our own.  Most people seem to think if we drill our own it means we have abandoned the plan to go green.  No it does not.  It means we just want to get as much of the oil and gas that we need from a secure source closer to home, which has to be better than transporting it half way around the world from insecure sources via insecure shipping routes.

 

Oh and the government would get more income from the extraction of our own resources not to mention the employment it would provide.

Again, the whole point of the thread is that drilling for more O&G in UK territory doesn't actually add meaningfully to our supply. There simply isn't much left. 

 

The argument that it would replace the imported gas is partly true.  

 

There is a graph showing that Aby 2040 (or something) we could be importing over half our consumption via LNG(*) but of we drilled for more we could replace that with UK gas (the rest being Norwegian) 

 

What that leaves out though is

 

A) that scenario is the most wildly optimistic oil and gas industry projection. It is likely we still would need imported LNG, just a tiny bit less. 

 

B) that demand in 2040 {or whenever) assumes we have massively reduced demand by implementing the current net zero policies (energy efficency plus electrification of transport and heating). So we could replace that imported LNG by drilling or by pushing net zero a bit harder to reduce demand for gas even more. 

 

The last bit (pushing net zero harder) also generates even more jobs in those industries. 

 

*the LNG import picture is a little nuanced. Yes we import a lot but if you look at our national consumption, the LNG is basically extra. That is to say the UK imports about as much LNG as it exports gas via pipeline. Effectively the UK is acting as Europe's LNG terminal (at the start of the Ukraine war, thr UK had the lions share of European LNG terminal capacity so lots of the extra LNG Europe imported to replwce Russian gas via pipeline cam via UK LNG imports that were gasified and exported via pipeline)

[saveasteading]

23 minutes ago, ProDave said:

wake up call for the government re energy security.  But they can't see it.

I have the strong impression that they see it clearly, hence the promotion of wind and solar.

 

Does anyone here know how long it takes to plan and then extract oil and gas? I don't, but suspect several years.

And what will the global price be then? 

If it drops then our own stuff won't be viable.

It's not something I would invest in?

[jack]

44 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

The key bit being economically extracted.

 

The current high prices mean there is more gas/oil that can be extracted profitably at this higher price.

 

If that's true, then no-one will drill if you give them a licence, in which case your wasting your energy arguing. 

 

Your other arguments may be true, but they're irrelevant. Local drilling will generate less CO2 overall, and may at least bring some tax into the coffers. The rest of it is a commercial decision that ought to be made by commercial entities.

 

29 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

Again, the whole point of the thread is that drilling for more O&G in UK territory doesn't actually add meaningfully to our supply. There simply isn't much left. 

 

If it make such little difference, why are you arguing against private companies siphoning out what remains? Let them get on with it in parallel with doing what we can on renewables and (more importantly) grid capacity and storage.

[jack]

10 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

I have the strong impression that they see it clearly, hence the promotion of wind and solar.

 

Does anyone here know how long it takes to plan and then extract oil and gas? I don't, but suspect several years.

And what will the global price be then? 

If it drops then our own stuff won't be viable.

It's not something I would invest in?

 

For existing fields with well-understood geology, I believe new wells can be planned and drilled in a matter of several months. I don't know whether there are additional delays associated with manufacturing the rigs themselves. 

[ProDave]

There is no shortage of drilling rigs, if we have not yet sent them all to the scrap yard.  There are still a few in the Cromarty Firth, though not as many as there used to be.

[SteamyTea]

13 minutes ago, jack said:

Local drilling will generate less CO2 overall

Rather minor reduction though. The shipping of petrolchemicals is very efficient.

Probably the biggest problem would be processing, it is not a case of drilling a hole and piping it directly into the gas grid. 

Having grown up on oil refineries, I can tell you that they are not nice places, and very smelly.