Thread by @murraygw

NEW: We found that all of the $4.9 trillion the oil and gas industry is set to spend on production from new fields is incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C - the ambition of the Paris agreement.

Here's a 📈thread ⬇️

We mapped how forecast oil production from existing and new fields compares to the 1.5C pathways, using the @IPCC_CH 1.5C scenarios and data from @RystadEnergy.

As you can see, oil production from existing fields exceeds the 1.5°C pathway - so new oil ≠ compatible. 1/7

And it's the same story for gas - production from existing fields exceeds the 1.5°C pathway until 2032.

So new gas isn't compatible with 1.5°C, at least for the next decade.

Which is a blow for the oil industry's claims that gas is the answer to climate change. 2/7

But the industry is set to spend a whopping $4.9 trillion on new oil and gas over the next decade, rising to $785 bn/yr in ten years’ time.

Imagine what that could do if spent on a transition to renewables…. 3/7

And surprise surprise, it's the oil majors that are leading the charge - @exxonmobil and @Shell are set to spend a combined $300 billion on new oil and gas in the next decade.
4/7

The eagle eyed scenario wonks amongst you may now be grumbling that the #IPCC scenarios vary widely, so how have we worked this out? 5/7

We've looked at the scenarios that don't rely excessively on carbon capture and storage or removal - because the IPCC says they're a massive risk, they don't exist at scale, and there's no sign they're going to be deployed at scale any time soon. 6/7

If you've made it this far you'll love the report: globalwitness.org/overexposed

We’ve also published our methodology (including its limitations) if the problems of regional gas market dynamics or quantifying future non-energy uses of oil and gas is your kind of thing. 7/7