The Middle East Doubles Down on Oil and Gas As the UN Warns of “Climate Emergency”

Reposted from Forbes

By Tilak Doshi

At the virtual “Climate Ambition Summit” co-hosted by the UN and UK and attended by over 70 world leaders on December 12th, Secretary-General António Guterres issued a stark warning: the world is facing a catastrophe ahead as it is on track to warm by more than 30 C by the end of the century “unless all countries declare climate emergency”. He expressed disappointment at the summit that the G-20 countries are “spending 50% more in their stimulus and rescue packages on sectors linked to fossil fuel production and consumption than on low carbon energy…This is unacceptable”.

The Secretary-General asked earnestly “Can anybody still deny we are facing a dramatic emergency”? The question poses the vast gulf between the policy positions of key Western governments and the oil and gas producers in the Middle East. For the Middle East hydrocarbon producers hit by the ‘double whammy’ of sharply reduced oil and gas price – the mainstay of government revenues — and the impact of Covid-19 lockdowns on domestic economic activity, the strategy for national survival is clear and could not be more opposed to the UN Secretary-General’s: sharply increasing the pace of monetizing the oil and gas reserves that their countries are blessed with. 

Middle East To Supply More Oil And Gas

Within two weeks of the UN summit, Saudi Arabia’s energy minister announced on December 27th  the discovery of four new oil and gas fields, including unconventional resources. The discoveries will boost the country’s plans to increase its maximum sustained crude production capacity from the current 12 million b/d to 13 million b/d as well as developing its gas resources to free up more oil for export instead of burning it for power generation.

CEO Sultan Al Jaber of the ADNOC, one of the leading national oil companies in the Gulf region, said that the Abu Dhabi company is “leaving no stone unturned in unblocking value from our abundant hydrocarbon resources”. In late 2019, Abu Dhabi’s government approved $122 billion investment schedule for the next 5 years to raise its oil and gas production capacity. With massive newly discovered reserves and the go-ahead to award major oil and gas exploration blocks, the country looks forward to increasing its oil production capacity to 5 million barrels/day (b/d) from its current 4 million b/d.

While The West Seeks To Do Without

In contrast, the climate summit was an occasion for Prime Minister Boris Johnson to show leadership on climate policy in a warm-up act for next year’s global climate conference to be held in Glasgow and hosted by the UK. Calling for a radical end to dependence on fossil fuels, the UK has previously announced a ban on new diesel and petrol cars by 2035 and a cut in carbon emissions by a steep 68% of 1990 levels by 2030. At the climate summit, Prime Minister Johnson pledged to end the financing of oil and gas projects overseas “as soon as possible”. He also repeated his call for the UK to become “the Saudi Arabia of the wind power generation”, putting the nation’s “foot to the accelerator in a carbon friendly way”.

Policy makers of a number of Western countries that have announced ambitious zero-emission reduction goals by 2050 have focused on converting the coronavirus pandemic crisis into an “opportunity” for a Green Industrial Revolution (Boris Johnson) and the Great Reset of global business (Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic forum). And we are promised that a Biden presidency around the corner will sign on to the ‘net-zero by 2050’ pledge from day one of its taking office.

While policy elites in the West warn about the “impending” cataclysmic outcome of not reducing emissions, those of the rest of the world have been beset by the need to make tough choices in restoring growth and employment for their citizens hit by recessions amid a global pandemic. Hydrocarbons constitute almost 85% of global energy consumption, while renewable energy technologies such as wind, solar, modern biofuels and batteries are barely able to provide 5%. Can these renewable energy technologies provide the world with the energy that it needs in the foreseeable future?

But That Oil and Gas Is Needed

Despite the unprecedented demand collapse caused by the coronavirus pandemic since March and despite the endless stream of stories about robust growth of renewable energy, the world faces a long term supply gap for oil and gas. According to energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, only about half the supply needed to 2040 is available from producing fields, “the rest requires new capital investment”.

Given the recent collapse in upstream oil and gas investments, the International Energy Forum in a recent report pointed out that if upstream investments in oil and gas exploration and production do not increase by 25% annually over the next 3 years, we face a supply shock of “historic proportions”.  According to IEF’s Secretary-General, “Slashing investment in new production locks in lower total supply…it won’t be long before this lower supply collides with resurgent demand. The result will be higher and more volatile oil prices and headwinds for the post-pandemic global economic recovery.”

Access to fossil fuels, available at scale, is the only known route to economic development. Since the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries, no country on earth has developed without the use of readily accessible hydrocarbons. The UK may well become the “Saudi Arabia of wind energy” (though there are plenty of doubters), but what the developing world, accounting for over three quarters of the world’s population, needs is for the real Saudi Arabia, along with other oil and gas producers, to be willing and able to supply fossil fuels as needed for human flourishing.

5 27 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John F Hultquist
December 30, 2020 10:08 pm

I wonder if those countries have sent their best students to the western universities for science and engineering degrees, rather than gender studies degrees?

Andy Espersen
December 30, 2020 10:09 pm

What evidence does Antonius Guterres supply for the correctness of his warning?

Reply to  Andy Espersen
December 30, 2020 10:31 pm

I could show you, but this is a family website.

Reply to  Andy Espersen
December 30, 2020 11:22 pm

He, Guterres, not only talks the global warming talk but supposedly he walks the true walk if the rumor is true that he reads all reports submitted in light powered by a potato battery.

Reply to  Andy Espersen
December 31, 2020 1:05 am

The guy is a turd. Humanity is better off without him.

Matthew Sykes
December 30, 2020 10:54 pm

” the world is facing a catastrophe ahead as it is on track to warm by more than 3 C by the end of the century” “Can anybody still deny we are facing a dramatic emergency”?”

And yet we have always known of the Holocene Climactic Optimum. Then there was the recent discussion about habitable planets, that stated an ideal temperature would be 5 C warmer than our currently.

And then we have the historic temperature for the earth which has been 5 to 7 C warmer than today.

3 C warmer will mean change, adaptation, but the net result has always been thought to be beneficial. We should embrace it. A new ice age would be disastrous. Truly.

dan no longer in CA
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
December 31, 2020 12:57 pm

Plus, the global average CO2 concentration was far higher then than now.

Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 31, 2020 7:09 am

I would term the claims made as based on pure ignorance of current EV technology. There are already many EVs that have a driving range greater than my Buick sedan and can be recharged to 80% in minutes. Batteries last a long time – none will need to be disposed of for decades and long before that will come solid state batteries. And the cost of an EV will be comparable to a gas powered car shortly – when car batteries cost less than $100 per KwHr, which GM says will occur in the next year. All automakers are developing scores of EVs – some no longer produce conventional gas powered cars at all anymore.
I guarantee that no automaker will be producing gas powered cars after 2025-2027 time period. And power will likely mostly be producing by SMR molten salt nuclear reactors, which are superior in cost, safety and capability to every other power generation technology. The need for gas and oil will collapse of developments which are based mostly on economics, not climate concerns.

Reply to  ColMosby
December 31, 2020 8:46 am

So how will all of these EVs be manufactured without fossil fuels that are currently used for the required energy and materials? Think that one through for a while.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  ColMosby
December 31, 2020 8:50 am

Judging by the votes, your assertions without citations are not very convincing.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 31, 2020 1:34 pm

It has been shown every time he’s made these claims, that there is not a single car maker who has made the statement that they are going full electric. The Col believes what he wants to believe.

I’m convinced that he’s heavily invested in MSR and has to push them to protect his investment.

Reply to  ColMosby
December 31, 2020 8:55 am

Tell that to the owners of Nissan Leaf vehicles. They are finding they cannot buy new batteries for less than what they would have spent on ICE and maintenance. Dealers are telling the owners to buy a newer Leaf because it was built with a better battery.

Reply to  ColMosby
December 31, 2020 9:08 am

A lot of speculation, intentionally misleading comments, and even some falsehoods there, Col. By recharging to 80% in minutes, you , in truth, mean 30 minutes or longer, still 6 to 10 times longer than it takes to refuel an ICE car – a ridiculously long time. Some EV batteries have ALREADY been disposed (many Nissan Leaf batteries, for example). Tesloop, a Tesla company, has a Model S that’s already on its third battery and it’s only 8 years old. Virtually EVERY EV battery will have to be disposed in a two decades. Your claim is a flat lie. At $100 per kW-hr, an EV still has a $5,000 to $10,000 price disadvantage and with current battery chemistry relying on rare and expensive materials, there’s no reason to believe EVs will reach price parity with ICE cars. MSR reactors show promise but there are still material corrosion problems and public acceptance problems to overcome. There is no chance that MSRs will produce any significant amount of power before 2040 and I’m a PhD nuclear engineer. Even some estimates optimistic fo EV adoption have ICE cars maintaining an ~80% market share in 2030 so your 2025 – 2027 prediction for no more ICE cars is pure garbage. Besides, there won’t be enough mining, material processing, and battery manufacturing, capacity to completely replace ICE cars by 2027, not even close.

Reply to  Meab
December 31, 2020 1:35 pm

Fast charge over heats and damages the battery. It can be done, but you pay for it in reduced battery life.

Reply to  ColMosby
December 31, 2020 1:33 pm

You keep repeating this lie about automakers, regardless of how many times you are corrected.
GM has said that there will be an electric version of every model in their line up. They never said anything about shutting down the ICE production lines.

As to your claims about Molten Salt, the engineers can’t build one, but you are still pushing them as if they were already in full production.

Your claims regarding batteries have as much credibility as do your other lies.

Reply to  ColMosby
January 2, 2021 7:03 am

ColMosby- when the minutes saved by your Buick save your life- fleeing, say, from a forest fire, you’ll appreciate it more.

Yes, batteries last a long time. Once they have reached 10% of original capacity they will sit there for another 20 years because there are no economic ways to recycle them. Recycling will HAVE to occur because at some point the poor people mining cobalt in the Congo will have found better jobs. Machinery to replace them wil cost a lot more, and require a lot of highly skill labor that isn’t going to be there in even 5-10 years.

2025-2027 The end of gas powered cars? Hardly likely. First off, the electric grids, in various parts of the country, cannot be upgraded that fast. The costs are simply too high, negating any cost decreases in electric cars. Second, too many people, driven by high housing costs or a desire for some natural forest nearby, have moved outside the suburbs and like it. Office workers can telecommute, but steel workers cannot.

I agree, you have gotten it right on small, molten salt reactors. Once one company gets one running. People may start to appreciate that distributed power generation is much more economical and blackout resistant than a few multi megawatt large reactors. Concentrated power sources and large power grids are much harder to handle.

Given the ongoing hysteria much new nuclear power still seems on the far horizon. The leftwing self-styled environmentalists are still off their rockers on this one.

Joel O’Bryan
December 30, 2020 11:25 pm

The only way Great Britain can become the Saudi Arabia of wind is to export its wind power to the world. Is BoJo really that big a blowhard?

In 1995 Peak oil was predicted to happen as conventional fields tapped regardless of how much investment capital was applied.

Now some idiots are predicted peak oil again but this time not because of reserves but because of upstream investment? These are the same idiots who thought that US shale frackers could be run out of business in 2013-2014 via a price war.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 30, 2020 11:48 pm

I don’t think the UK has much wind to spare at present, it is early morning, the temperature is below freezing and wind is only producing 3.28 GW out of a demand of 29GW, and the UK looks to be on a roll to need 46 GW when it wakes up and goes to work.
And watch out when all the EVs get plugged in and electric heating systems start up!
We have listened to the scientists and look where it has got us. A bankrupt world and disintegrating society.
Maybe we should try and get a better set of scientists.

Iain Reid
Reply to  StephenP
December 31, 2020 1:21 am


as far as listening to scientists, regarding renewables we should be paying heed to engineers who have shown time and time again the very real technical defficiencies of renewable generation and it’s disruptive effect to a stable grid. It really is a blind alley.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Iain Reid
December 31, 2020 6:38 am

I think it was on WUWT that someone posted “Rocket science is easy, rocket engineering is hard”.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  StephenP
December 31, 2020 10:37 am

Stephen you mean engineers! Scientists have no place in choosing tech and are particularly lousy at this. Think scary geoengineering ideas. Their involvement and partnering with politics (instead of economics) is why the Westernworld is screwing up economies m, wasting resources and risking lives. Scientists in recent decades have taken on a “how-hard-can-it-be” attitude. They completely lack the important ability to weigh economic and practicality factors.

Why do they do this? Science has become a performance art like classical music. Great composers are a thing of the past, largely rounded out by the several dozens of geniuses born before the 20th century. Today, we have hundreds of millions of pianists working over the same repertoire. This great foreclosure led to jazz and rock. Scientists are in their rock and roll phase.

With the space age, scientists began crowding into engineering’s scintillating lime-lit territory. The oxymoron “rocket scientist” (er that would be engineer) is it’s most obvious fantasy. From there, it deteriorated into climate science where existence depended on politico-sociological enablers and opportunists and now all of science itself is being co-opted by Dark Agers mumbling “We’re following the science”.

Ian W
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 1, 2021 2:57 am

The real problem is the academia – ‘publish or perish’ drive. This leads to shallow research that must lead to several papers a year. Then the shallow research feeds off other shallow research just using citations and never replication often to support politically motivated funding. Then the politicians can say they are ‘following the science’.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 31, 2020 2:13 am

Its all rubbish, Over a reasonable run an undersea interconnector costs more than a nuclear power station
This is a snapshot of current UK grid

Oops. something not right there…ignore image

Reply to  Leo Smith
December 31, 2020 2:32 am

this is beter

John Garrett
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 31, 2020 3:38 am

Joel O’Bryan: …Is BoJo really that big a blowhard?…

The answer to your question is: “Yes.”

Climate believer
Reply to  John Garrett
December 31, 2020 5:57 am

I see his supportive father now trying to claim French citizenship… you couldn’t make it up.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 31, 2020 11:28 am

Previously I have suggested that BoJo needs to kick out Carrie, because of her Green influence on a non-technical politician. Now I am inclined to think that he needs to “persuade” her to undertake some engineering studies – that might introduce some realism into her Green nonsense!

Phil Rae
December 31, 2020 12:23 am

Great article, as always, Tilak! You cut through all the nonsense and deliver a dose of much needed common sense. I wish Boris would employ you as an energy policy advisor!

Happy New Year!

Reply to  Phil Rae
December 31, 2020 6:21 am

Phil – best wishes for the new year. But here in Asia things are as screwed up as they are as elsewhere with carbon colonialism.

December 31, 2020 12:29 am

Now we begin to see the endgame of this crazy dash for net zero. Western disinvestment in new oil and gas projects is leading to a supply squeeze which will drive up
prices dramatically. China will no doubt hoover up oil investments at rock bottom prices in the meantime and will end up with a stranglehold on the west through its consequent control of energy prices.

December 31, 2020 12:55 am

the world is facing a catastrophe ahead as it is on track to warm by more than 30 C by the end of the century “

This cannot happen. Physical impossibility on Earth. The attached chart explains why.

If the sea surface temperature ever got to 34C it would be in perpetual shade. The Level of Free Convection (LFC) is the same as the level of ice forming. So cloudburst would still occur but there would never be clear sky. That cannot happen because outgoing longwave radiation still finds its way to space with a radiating temperature high in the atmosphere around 230K; corresponding to 160W/sq.m. So with no direct sunlight reaching the surface, the surface would lose around 100W/sq.m.

The first chart shows the water column before and after cloudburst under limiting conditions above an ocean surface with SST of 27C. That is where cloudburst is observed to really make a difference to the energy rejection. It goes from clear sky just before cloudburst to reflective cloud above the ice level of 3200m just after cloudburst. That cloud will persist for almost an entire day as solidification and then condensation occurs to start the cycle again. There is only a few hours of clear sky before the convective instability redevelops.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  RickWill
December 31, 2020 8:54 am

The degree symbol got converted to a zero in the title.

Peta of Newark
December 31, 2020 1:11 am

“”the world is facing a catastrophe ahead as it is on track to warm by more than 30 C by the end of the century“”

Absolutely could well be – warmer and a catastrophe.

But not how he and his scientist advisers think it will be catastrophic
(Methinks he and or his speech writers watch a bit too many movies and too much trash TV. Is he wearing a blue cape and got his underwear outside of his pants?)

Their own theory, that of the Green House Gases, created by a complete misunderstanding of the 1st Law and (wilful?) disregard for what their authority (Jozef Stefan) actually said.

Simply, the high temps they predict will cause increased energy heat loss from Earth.
Their own theory says that.

Quite perfectly feasible because they are not counting energy.
e.g. The sun has its Chromosphere at (say) 1 million Celsius. The blind application of Stefan’s Law says it should thus be radiating over 50,000 million million Watts per square metre. (5 times 10 to the power sixteen)
Is it?
You tell me but if not, tell me why.
Silence or personal insult directed at me will condemn you.
And your science

You know where I’m going, I’ll not repeat.
Deserts are ‘Cold Places’
As is Hell

wrap up warm

Climate believer
December 31, 2020 2:36 am

This is unacceptable”

Who do these unelected dictators think they are?

Tom in Florida
December 31, 2020 4:51 am

Time to spread the word. T-shirts, hats, billboards, social media ads, etc.

‘Fight Climate Fear. Warmer is Better.’

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 31, 2020 8:56 am

I was thinking of a T-shirt that says, “He’s not MY president!” That is, of course, assuming a worst case scenario.

very old white guy
December 31, 2020 5:17 am

The words “the UN says” are meaningless.

Reply to  very old white guy
December 31, 2020 10:34 pm

No it’s a precursor to a joke like knock knock

December 31, 2020 5:53 am

Cheap power is everything. Solar and wind are fine if you want to accept a less developed and energy intensive society. But how do you pay to replace the Solar and wind generators in 20 years time? Guess you would have to look around and see what of value you had to sell.

Solar, wind and Hydrogen will ALWAYS be second rate sources of power because of poor energy density/intensiveness. And the promised battery storage is moving from a pipe dream to a mirage. Creating a solar panel is a complex energy intensive business.

Hydro and Geothermal is for the lucky few in the right place but up there with Solar, wind and Hydrogen for most of us. Yes, it can be done, but is technically difficult and expensive, resulting in power generation that is not cheap and efficient.

This leaves Hydrocarbons and Nuclear, both with a high energy density. I am sure future generations will not understand the pause in nuclear research and development, and not understand the obsession and money spent on Solar and Wind energy. It will be up there with the canals on Mars. Alternatively, future generations could look back on us as the Golden Age, as they grub around to make ends meet and wonder what went wrong.

dan no longer in CA
Reply to  John MCCUTCHEON
December 31, 2020 1:08 pm

Meanwhile, the first large nuke power plant in the United Arab Emirates has reached full power (1400 MWe) and is scheduled to go online in the next few weeks.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
January 1, 2021 8:43 am


Nick Schroeder
December 31, 2020 6:57 am

Attached is a slide of Modest Experiment 5.0 where I once again demonstrate that radiative heat flow DOES NOT function separately from the non-radiative heat transfer processes of conduction, convection, advection and latent. They work together and in concert. Increasing non-radiative processes reduces the system’s temperature thereby reducing the amount of radiation. They are chained together like escaped convicts.

The energy leaving the naked free standing heating panel is 68% radiation, 32% non-radiation.
The energy leaving the fanned panel is 23% radiation and 67% non-radiation.
The energy leaving the wetted panel with latent evaporation is 34% radiation and 66% non-radiation.
The energy leaving the covered panel where convection is effectively stifled is 79% radiation and 21% non-radiation.

All science backed up by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.

RGHE theory as depicted in the K-T diagram and numerous clones assumes/requires the surface of the earth to radiate “extra” energy independently and as a near black body. Trenberth also specifically states this assumption in TFK_bams09.

As I have demonstrated five times now by classical experiment because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules – this assumed BB upwelling of “extra” energy for the GHGs to “trap” and “back” radiate – is – not – possible.

RGHE does not exist!!

I also have a demonstration showing how IR thermometers can be spoofed into displaying energy that does not exist as is required to measure non-existent up/down welling LWIR.

Experiment 5.0 Pictures.jpg
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 31, 2020 8:20 am

So you are going to have to define what you think RGHE is. Since “back radiation” as minus Tcold^4 in the SB equation is absolutely irrefutable.

Juan Slayton
December 31, 2020 7:04 am

MOD: The previous page quotes Guterrez as predicting a 30 degree increase. (It’s still 2020 and Murphy hasn’t retired yet.) : > )

Insufficiently Sensitive
December 31, 2020 8:09 am

Secretary-General António Guterres issued a stark warning: the world is facing a catastrophe ahead as it is on track to warm by more than 30 C

Let’s have this cocksure dude support his hysterical prediction. His Title is insufficient.

Gary Pearse
December 31, 2020 9:08 am

“Calling for a radical end to dependence on fossil fuels, the UK has previously announced a ban on new diesel and petrol cars by 2035 and a cut in carbon emissions by a steep 68% of 1990 levels by 2030.”

A Canadian economist of Russian birth I talked to said Russia is predicting and preparing for major immigration from Western Europe, particularly from UK and Germany, and from US starting in 2021 with expatriates and followed by those of non-Russian origin who are disaffected and demoralized by destruction of their culture, livelyhood and factors associated with Eurocentric global governance. The prospect of a Joe Biden and lefty puppet masters giveaway of American dominance and pride gives credence to such a scenario.

With néomarxiste dogma seemingly succeeding to engulf the West. The main argument against such a migration is being removed.


Chris Hanley
Reply to  Gary Pearse
December 31, 2020 1:04 pm

Climate change policy refugees.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 1, 2021 8:50 am

Joe Biden being elected president would not cause me to move to Russia. That would just be moving from one dictatorship to another.

You say Joe is not a dictator? Give him time. He has already demonstrated the criminal behavior it takes, during the Obama administration, when he conspired with others in the Obama administration to use the power of the federal government to try to rig elections.

Joe (his handlers, really, like Obama) will get better at it. They made a few mistakes the last time and Trump managed to slip into office. Practice makes perfect.

They will try to rig it so no Repubican will ever be elected president again. That’s what I would call a one-party dictatorship.

December 31, 2020 1:07 pm

Junk science rules at the UN, EU and the US progressive mind

Dougald Blue. Iv
January 1, 2021 1:37 am

It is time to start the oil stop

Dougald Blue. Iv
January 1, 2021 1:40 am

A more realistic time frame for less carbon spew is 2150-2200 we cannot cut off our collective nose to spite our face

January 1, 2021 4:57 am

He expressed disappointment at the summit that the G-20 countries are “spending 50% more in their stimulus and rescue packages

So we are now entering the thirteenth consecutive year of “emergency” central bank and government fiscal stimulus. It seems to me that the destruction and collapse of the global fiat currency system is a much more likely outcome of this unsustainable socialist policy than some catastrophe caused by climate change. I certainly know which one will cause more human suffering and death.

William R. Casey
January 1, 2021 6:50 am

An article in the January-February 2020 issue of Smithsonian shows that the great glaciers that covered a large part of the northern hemisphere began melting 20 to 25,000 years ago. That is a long time before the first lump of coal was mined or the first gallon of gasoline produced.

Tom Abbott
January 1, 2021 8:32 am

From the article: “The Secretary-General asked earnestly “Can anybody still deny we are facing a dramatic emergency”?”

(Raise hand) I can, I can!

What emergency? Where? I don’t see an emergency coming.

What evidence does the Secretary-General have that we have a coming emergency? That Hockey Stick? Don’t make me laugh.

What other evidence does the Secretary-General have? Answer: None. He’s crying wolf when there is no wolf.

The United Nations credibilty gets lower with every alarming claim. They have been 100 percent wrong in every climate prediction, and now they are making more predictions, and they will be shown to be wrong again.

Crying Wolf! is the focus of Alarmism.

James Charles
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 2, 2021 12:25 am

‘We’ have ten years?

“ . . . our best estimate is that the net energy
33:33 per barrel available for the global
33:36 economy was about eight percent
33:38 and that in over the next few years it
33:42 will go down to zero percent
33:44 uh best estimate at the moment is that
33:46 actually the
33:47 per average barrel of sweet crude
33:51 uh we had the zero percent around 2022
33:56 but there are ways and means of
33:58 extending that so to be on the safe side
34:00 here on our diagram
34:02 we say that zero percent is definitely
34:05 around 2030 . . .
34:43 need net energy from oil and [if] it goes
34:46 down to zero
34:48 uh well we have collapsed not just
34:50 collapse of the oil industry
34:52 we have collapsed globally of the global
34:54 industrial civilization this is what we
34:56 are looking at at the moment . . . “

Verified by MonsterInsights