Guest hyperbole by David Middleton
Definition of HyperboleLiterary Devices
IPCC demands Peak Oil now = hyperbole… Or does it?
Article / April 23, 2019
The IPCC’s report on 1.5°C and the risks of overinvestment in oil and gas
Overinvestment in oil and gas creates risks for investors, regardless of whether the world is effective in tackling climate change. Either investors face assets being stranded as demand for fossil fuels falls in a transition to a low carbon economy, or the overinvestment contributes to excess emissions from fossil fuels, the failure to transition and the financial costs of a dramatically changed climate.
Read the blog, Big oil is set to spend $5 trillion on fossil fuels we can’t afford to burn.
Capital investment in new fields is incompatible with 1.5°C
Our analysis compared average oil and gas demand in the IPCC scenarios that are not reliant on high levels of future carbon capture or removal with industry production forecasts. It found that over the next decade:
*Any production from new oil and gas fields, beyond those already in production or development, is incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C;
*All of the $4.9 trillion forecast capex in new oil and gas fields is incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C; and,
*9% of oil and 6% of gas production forecast from existing fields is incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C.
1. Oil and gas companies should align their capex planning with scenarios that limit warming to 1.5°C without reliance on unrealistic levels of future carbon capture and removal.
2. Investors should require oil and gas companies to explain how each new material capex investment is aligned with the Paris goals. This assessment should be made in the context of the company’s whole portfolio, include alignment with 1.5°C and full disclosure of the assumptions on the scale of carbon capture or removal used in their assessment.
Gorebal Witless Global Witness, oil and gas companies are oil and gas companies… The only way they could “align their capex planning with scenarios” compatible with IPCC scenarios would be to become something other than oil and gas companies or go out of business.
Investors who invested in oil and gas companies, expecting them to become something other than oil and gas companies or go out of business are mentally ill.
Apparently, IPCC SR 1.5 demands Peak Oil and Peak Gas, right fracking now…
So, I guess the only way to appease the gods of Gorebal Warming is to actually push civilization off a Seneca Cliff into Olduvai Gorge. I guess that’s why the IPCC demanded a $240/gal tax on gasoline to fund a $122 trillion global war on the weather.
Could it possibly get any stupider than this? And who in the Hell is
Gorebal Witless Global Witness?
At Global Witness, we protect human rights and the environment by fearlessly confronting corruption and challenging the systems that enable it.
We want a better world – where corruption is challenged and accountability prevails, all can thrive within the planet’s boundaries, and governments act in the public interest.
When founded in 1993, we were pioneers in seeing the link between natural resources, conflict and corruption. Since our very first campaign to shut down the Khmer Rouge’s illegal logging industry we’ve uncovered the truth about blood diamonds and helped bring trillions of oil, gas and mining revenues into the open.
We’ve shone a spotlight on the brutal killings of those defending their land from forced seizure by corporations and governments alike, campaigned for an end to the use of anonymous companies, and much more.Global Witness
I guess it could get stupider, so stupid that…
The folks at
Gorebal Witless Global Witness derived this monument to stupidity by merging IPCC SR 1.5 with a series of reports by Rystad Energy on future capital expenditures by major oil companies. It really shouldn’t have been that complicated.
Commentary: Crunching the numbers: are we heading for an oil supply shock?
By Tim Gould, Head of Division for Energy Supply Outlooks and Investment, and Christophe McGlade, WEO Energy Analyst.
16 November 2018
In the detailed energy model that underpins WEO 2018, new sources of oil supply steadily come online at the right time to meet changes in oil demand and keep the system in equilibrium. This smooth matching of supply and demand minimises oil price volatility, which is why our price trajectories in each scenario are smooth, and would likely be a desirable outcome for many of the world’s oil consumers (it could also be better in the long run for many of the world’s producers).
But commodity markets don’t work this way in practice. The oil price drop in 2014 led to multiple widespread impacts on markets, not least of which was that the number of new upstream projects approved for developments plummeted. With the rapid levels of oil demand growth seen in recent years, there are fears that supply could struggle to keep up, bringing with it the risk of damaging price spikes and increased volatility.
On the flip side, with shale production in the United States continuing to grow at record levels and increasing attention on executing upstream projects that can quickly bring oil to market, there are also arguments why a future oil supply “crunch” be safely ruled out. What does the WEO 2018 have to say on this matter?
Why invest in new supply?
[…]International Energy Agency
Oil fields are not like kitchen faucets. You can’t just turn a handle to increase or decrease production. You have to continuously invest capital to maintain and/or increase production. If you stop spending money, oil fields do this…
Gas fields do the same thing, just faster. Most fields produce both oil and gas and require a steady stream of investment.
So long as the demand for oil & gas remains stable and/or grows, oil & gas companies will continue to invest capital into oil & gas fields because… drum roll, please… THEY ARE OIL & GAS COMPANIES!!!… It’s a fossil fueled world and will remain so for many decades to come.