Norway's oil industry on defensive after IEA report as polls loom

One report can change the debate & potentially tip the scales in an election year!

A good summary of why the @IEA's Net Zero 2050 report could be transformational, by @olehelgesen7.

"It is not obvious that the cheapest resources with the lowest carbon footprint lie in the resources already discovered... To stop exploration at this time would cause a major threat to the world's energy security", are the arguments from the Norwegian Oil & Gas lobby

"Recent polls have shown that 60% to 70% of voters continue to support future Norwegian oil & gas production"

[Perhaps the political niche is threading the needle between investment for old & new fields, taking the IEA's lead]

We are already seeing companies (even in the last days Shell, ExxonMobil, etc) getting put under new pressure, & these processes predate the IEA's new report.

To me, it is obvious "Any investment decision will now have additional question marks & more uncertainty"

The "the world needs energy, we have the cleanest oil, etc" arguments are probably too late now?

The interesting thing is whether an OG company should try & keep ahead of the frontier, or be pushed. The risk of being pushed (eg Shell) is that the outcome could be worse...

Do you shape your own destiny or do you let others shape your destiny?

Strikes me that the OG industry is letting others shape their destiny. Should they lobby for the status quo, should they accept changes are needed, or should they hold on until they are pushed?

"For the first time since I joined the industry 30 years ago, we are not succeeding in recruiting the best candidates from the universities" said an industry veteran.

Anecdotally, I have been hearing this for a few years. Happens if you drag your feet!

"Although Norway's oil and gas industry still appears confident of its future role, the IEA has challenged its communication strategy"

This is a great point. People see through communication strategies now, so unless there is material change, I suspect a downward spiral...


• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Glen Peters

Glen Peters Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Peters_Glen

25 May
THREAD: Bioenergy use in the @IEA Net Zero 2050 scenario

I have seen a few comments that the IEA uses loads of bioenergy. Let's have a look...

First up, overall, bioenergy use is lower than in equivalent scenarios assessed by the IPCC, particularly in 2050.

2. An important detail is that the IEA assumes traditional biomass is gone by 2030. Traditional bioenergy "is unsustainable, inefficient & polluting, & was linked to 2.5 million premature deaths in 2020"

The IPCC only has a slow drop, so the IEA must build up modern bioenergy.
3. In terms of modern bioenergy, the IEA has similar levels as the IPCC up until 2050.
* Rapid growth to 2030 is to compensate traditional bioenergy
* Slowdown to 2050 is to limit to 100EJ per year, view by many as sustainable.
Read 11 tweets
19 May
The IEA Net Zero 2050 scenario uses quite a lot less Bioenergy with Carbon Capture & Storage (BECCS) than scenarios assessed by the IPCC.

Consequently, all else equal, the IEA NZE2050 uses less fossil fuel in 2050 than most IPCC SR15 scenarios.

The IEA, in contrast, has a decent (not huge) amount of Direct Air Capture (DACCS) of 0.6GtCO₂/yr.

Not many scenarios assessed by the IPCC SR15 use DACCS (4 out of 53 have non-zero data, the other 2 marked have zero DACCS)

The scenario with high DACCS is from MERGE-ETL.

Since IEA NZE2050 reaches net-zero CO₂ emissions in 2050, the removals (tweets 1 & 2) must balance with (residual) emissions in 2050.

The NZE2050 clearly has far less fossil fuel use in 2050 than most IPCC SR15 assessed 1.5°C scenarios.

Read 7 tweets
18 May
The new @IEA Net Zero by 2050 report is crystal clear on what is needed.

"All the technologies needed to achieve the necessary deep cuts in global emissions by 2030 already exist, & the policies that can drive their deployment are already proven."…

"Clean energy innovation must accelerate rapidly, with governments putting R&D, demonstration and deployment at the core of energy and climate policy."

In 2030 only existing technologies needed, by 2050 new technologies also come to market.

Net Zero 2050 is a jobs bonanza.


"The transition to net zero brings substantial new opportunities for employment, with 14 million jobs created by 2030 in our pathway thanks to new activities and investment in clean energy"

More jobs than losses...

Read 10 tweets
10 May
What explains the generally poor performance of solar in energy-system models (versus reality)?

* Type of organisation
* Type of model

* Cost
* Technology & policy assumptions

"IPCC scenarios consistently project lower PV adoption pathways & higher capital costs than non-IPCC scenarios"

Academics & researchers are behind the curve... (or are they just exploring the uncertainties?)

If you think the track record on PV costs are bad, then you have missed the elephant in the room

Model, model setup, model assumptions, etc, are more important. This is such a misunderstood issue.

Read 8 tweets
10 May
Norwegian electricity production is dominated by hydropower, & overall Norway is a net exporter of electricity (though, this varies throughout the year).

Hydropower production varies due to weather (green), but consumption is relatively constant (black line).

Total energy consumption is dominated by hydropower (figure shows generation, not consumption).

Nearly all the oil is used in transport, and nearly all the gas is used in oil & gas extraction.

Norway is already quite electrified...

The energy flow is dominated by electricity (hydropower, split between dispatchable & non-dispatchable).

As time passes, this figure will become even more dominated by electricity. Current policy is to electrify transport & oil & gas production...…

Read 4 tweets
7 May
There is a lot of confusion about net-zero GHG & CO₂ emissions, they are different.

The EU & US have a target of net-zero GHG emissions in 2050, which is ~20 years ahead of the global average (coincidentally, global net-zero CO₂ emissions is ~2050).

For developing countries to have a later net-zero GHG year, say 2090 (~20 years after the global average), it requires that developed countries are net negative to compensate developing countries & maintain net-zero GHG globally. (a point often made by @Oliver_Geden).

I think we all agree & accept developing countries will find their own path to net-zero, & one that is later than developed countries.

But, I also think many confuse the net-zero years for CO₂ & GHG emissions.

Many obsess on 2050, when there is actually a broad range!

Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!