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]

2 hours 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 you're 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.

 

1 hour 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 makes 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.

[ProDave]

Yes sadly we have been closing our refineries because they cause too much pollution.  Instead we export crude oil and import refined fuel shifting the pollution to another country so we look good.

 

But lousy for energy security, loss of employment, and of course globally it makes no difference to pollution.  We just kid ourselves closing our heavy industry saves the planet.

[jack]

53 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

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. 

 

Irrelevant. Even if there were zero reduction in CO₂ emissions, my position is unchanged.  

 

Even if arguments that drilling won't be practical or profitable are correct, then either:

• Oil companies won't drill even if granted licences, in which case the argument is moot.
• Or they'll drill, lose money, and presumably stop drilling when it becomes clear they made a mistake. 

In both cases, the end result is drilling doesn't continue.

 

I don't actually have strong beliefs either way, but I do believe that non-experts (including governments) shouldn't be involved in decisions about whether something is practical or profitable for a company. There are, or course, plenty of other factors that governments should weigh in on, such as safety regs, environment, tax, etc.  

[Beelbeebub]

4 hours ago, jack said:

 

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

 

 

If it makes 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.

I'm not actually arguing against drilling new wells. The title of the thread was about why we needed net zero policies - because we were running out of gas and oil regardless of how much we drilled. 

 

I would say that, given how vital gas and oil are to the petrochemical industry eg plastics, maybe we shouldn't extract it just to be burned in a vain attempt to keep the old model going. 

 

Maybe we should either wait or extract it, but use it for industries that aren't burning it. This would require a different model from the current "here's your licence, do what you want with the oil" approach. It would require a much more integrated approach, which I doubt will be viable at the moment, but might be in decades to come. 

 

Overall, our best bet is to go even quicker on the switch away from burning oil and gas to move and heat things. That will reduce CO2 (again, not actually he original point of the thread) even faster than burning locally sourced oil. 

 

[Beelbeebub]

3 hours ago, jack said:

 

I don't actually have strong beliefs either way, but I do believe that non-experts (including governments) shouldn't be involved in decisions about whether something is practical or profitable for a company. There are, or course, plenty of other factors that governments should weigh in on, such as safety regs, environment, tax, etc.  

Why do you suppose that governments are not experts, or don't have access to experts? 

 

Governments should absolutely be able to say "no you can't do this even if it would make you money"

 

Advertising cigarettes 

Selling personal data

Crash safety and emissions for vehicles 

Minimum building standards

Sugar in drinks

 

All of these are profitable things companies have decided are practical and profitable and the government has stopped. 

 

The argument that allowing more drilling would lower bills and increace energy security is BS. 

 

The argument it may reduce CO2 vs burning imported gas is a red herring. 

 

We are left with "it will allow investors to make a cracking return" - which isn't super strong. They could invest the same money into renewables.