Limiting fossil fuel extraction to meet 1.5°C

[Mark]

This UCL Study estimates how much coal, oil must be left in the ground to curb climate change:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/sep/lim ... eet-15degc

Nearly 60% of both oil and fossil methane gas and almost 90% of coal must remain in the ground by 2050 in order to keep global warming below 1.5°C, finds a study by UCL researchers.

[kenneal - lagger]

I saw those figures refered to in an article so thanks for providing the OP.

[Mark]

Oil and gas majors face 50% production drop by 2030s:
https://transform.iema.net/article/oil- ... drop-2030s

Adapt to Survive: Why oil companies must plan for net zero and avoid stranded assets:
https://carbontracker.org/reports/adapt-to-survive/

Half of the world's 40 largest listed oil and gas companies will have to slash their production by at least 50% by the 2030s to align with the goals of the Paris Agreement. Financial think tank Carbon Tracker warns that oil and gas firms risk wasting more than $1trn (£0.7trn) on uncompetitive projects if they continue with business-as-usual investment. ConocoPhillips is the oil major most exposed to the low-carbon transition, facing a drop in production of 69% by the 2030s, followed by Chevron, Eni, Shell and BP, on 52%, 49%, 44% and 33%, respectively. Saudi Aramco is the only one of the world’s largest listed oil and gas companies that could see increased production due its large spare capacity from existing fields.

Despite this, the report reveals that companies are still approving billions of dollars of investment in major projects that are inconsistent with the 1.5°C Paris climate target, and even those with net-zero commitments are continuing to explore for new oil and gas. Mike Coffin, one of the report's co-authors, said that oil and gas companies are “betting against the success of global efforts to tackle climate change”. “If the world is to avert climate catastrophe, demand for fossil fuels must fall sharply,” he continued. “Companies and investors must prepare for a world of lower long-term fossil fuel prices and a smaller oil and gas industry, and recognise now the risk of stranded assets that this creates.”

The report warns investors that companies have not woken up to the “seismic implications” of the International Energy Agency’s finding that no investment in new oil and gas production is needed if the world aims to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Although leading companies have adopted net-zero targets, only BP, Eni, TotalEnergies and Shell have acknowledged that their oil production will fall over the coming years. Only BP commits to falls in gas production, which Shell and Eni plan to grow.

The report explains how national climate policies and rapid growth of clean technologies will reduce demand, drive down prices and lead to significantly lower revenues. This could leave more than $1trn of business-as-usual investment at risk, including $490bn in shale and tight oil projects, and $200bn in deep water projects.

“No new projects and a rapid decline in production could deliver a serious shock to company valuations,” said Axel Dalman, another of the report's co-authors. “Lower equity valuations would in turn increase the cost of capital and insolvency risk. It is crucial for companies to have a strong transition plan, winding down oil and gas activities in an orderly manner and either diversifying into low-carbon businesses or returning capital to shareholders.”

[kenneal - lagger]

Are any of them investing in CCS projects to supposedly make their output of oil net zero?

[Mark]

Are any of them investing in CCS projects to supposedly make their output of oil net zero?

I'm sure there will be some money for that - after all, their next big thing is 'Blue' hydrogen....
'Green' unleaded petrol has worked for them quite well....

[clv101]

Oil and gas majors face 50% production drop by 2030s:

I'm left thinking the rapid decarbonisation discussed with reference to the Paris agreement etc is starting to look a lot like the peak oil / depletion scenarios of ~15 years ago. Back then a lot of folk interpreted those energy (carbon) decline curves as catastrophic or at best something we needed a 30 year head start to address. Today, we have scores of ostensibly sensible scientists talking of ~7% annual decline in carbon (energy), proactively, with no head start.... as if this is now plausible where once it was catastrophic.

[BritDownUnder]

I am surprised that more fossil fuel companies have not gone into renewable energy yet with any degree of consistency. I recall there was BP Solar at one time. I can only conclude that the boards of these companies think there could be a 'soft landing' and the companies can just fade away while staying profitable until the lights are turned out for the last time. Either that or the board members are just thinking about the next few years and don't care about 2030 as the current board incumbents will probably be retired on a massive pension by then and will probably have cashed in the options too.

[Mark]

The latter.
You need a certain personality type to be a CEO / Board Member for an Oil Major.