A 'supply ourselves' consumption frame is the wrong one for a declining oil/gas resource. Instead, we should be asking what we pay to extend UK oil/gas production, and whether it's worth it. A short thread:
https://twitter.com/NathalieThomas3/status/1432979903511678976
OGCS's latest publication makes it look like new oil/gas extraction magically fits into carbon budgets (left image). This is misleading. Around half of gas use requires CCS by 2035 (right image), even though total use declines by close to half over this period. 
Who pays for this CCS? The polluter should pay - but UK oil/gas extraction is getting tax rebates, never mind paying for the cost of pollution. The taxpayer is also on the hook for £24bn of decommissioning cost already. news.sky.com/story/revealed…
Industry could invest now to build and run CCS facilities to store all the carbon released from the 18 new projects. But the OGCS' document sees the industry only providing 'supporting talent': someone else gets to pay to make these new oil/gas investments net zero compatible.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
