suxs wrote:Planty-
In order for a carbon tax to become reality, it would require Republican participation.......
Pops wrote:World’s recoverable oil now seen 9% slimmer; commercial volumes can keep global warming below 1.8˚C
July 13, 2021
Every year and following the publication of the BP Statistical Review, Rystad Energy releases its own assessment to provide an independent, solid and clear comparison of how the world’s energy landscape changed last year. Our 2021 review deals a major blow for the size of the world’s remaining recoverable oil resources – but it also shows that oil production and consumption can align with climate goals.
Rystad Energy now estimates total recoverable oil resources at 1,725 billion barrels, a significant reduction of last year’s estimate of 1,903 billion barrels. Out of this total, which shows our estimate of how much oil is technically recoverable in the future, about 1,300 billion barrels are sufficiently profitable to be produced before the year 2100 at a Brent real oil price of $50 per barrel.
“In this scenario, global production of oil and natural gas liquids will fall below 50 million barrels per day by 2050. Exploring, developing, processing and consuming this amount of commercially extractable oil will lead to gross greenhouse gas emissions of less than 450 gigatonnes of CO2 from now until 2100. This is compliant with IPCC’s carbon budget for global warming limited to 1.8˚C by 2100,” says Rystad Energy’s Head of Analysis, Per Magnus Nysveen.
[table at link]
US and China take the largest hit by the revision:
This year’s review of global recoverable oil resources is based on resources modelled at well level rather than field level. This more detailed approach has removed 178 billion barrels from the expected accounts as the confidence level for decline rates has increased with the amount of new information gathered.
Our updated report also includes revisions for proved reserves. Here Rystad Energy applies a consistent set of conservative probabilities, as opposed to official reporting by authorities which is deemed less consistent. Among other findings, we see significant differences among OPEC members on the longevity of proved reserves, ranging from well below 10 years for some members to almost 20 years for Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
In terms of absolute volumes removed from non-OPEC producers, remaining recoverable resources in the US are now reduced to 214 billion barrels, losing 30 billion barrels from last year’s estimate. China suffers the second-largest loss with its remaining recoverable resources now limited to 50 billion barrels, a downwards revision of 26 billion barrels. Mexico’s recoverable resources are third on the loss list, downgraded by 12 billion barrels to 26 billion barrels. Most of this year’s revisions are driven by lower upside potential from shale oil drilling due to complex geology and the need for extensive exploration campaigns and improved fracking technologies.
The remaining recoverable resources of OPEC countries are reduced by 53 billion barrels to 741 billion barrels. Iran and Saudi Arabia have the largest revisions, losing 11 billion barrels each, with Saudi recoverable oil volumes now calculated at 288 billion barrels and Iranian volumes at 101 billion barrels. Iraq follows in third place, seeing its recoverable resources shrink by 8 billion barrels to 110 billion barrels.
Who sits on the largest resources?
In this revision, Saudi Arabia keeps the throne as the producer with the largest volumes of recoverable oil resources (288 billion barrels). The US follows second (214 billion barrels), Russia third (149 billion barrels) and Canada fourth (138 billion barrels).
In Central and South America, Brazil remains first in recoverable resources, sitting on 83 billion barrels (down 2 billion barrels from last year’s update). In Europe, with 19 billion barrels (down by 1 billion barrels in this update), Norway remains ahead of the UK, whose volumes have shrunk by 2 billion barrels to 10 billion. In Africa, resource leader Nigeria lost 6 billion barrels and its recoverable resources are now estimated at 20 billion barrels.
Unlike most countries in our analysis, Australia’s estimated recoverable oil resources are now seen higher by 2 billion barrels at 23 billion barrels.
The time stamp of Rystad Energy’s newest resource assessment is 1 January 2021. In other words, our analysis illustrates where the remaining recoverable resources of each country stood at the beginning of this year.
1.3 was about Laharrere's guess I think.
If C+C falls below 50mbd by 2050 the price won't stay at $50, unless ICEs are outlawed altogether. I don't see the explanation, perhaps lower demand and a resulting relatively low resulting price are the limiting factor.
mustang19 wrote:Pops wrote:1.3 was about Laharrere's guess I think.
If C+C falls below 50mbd by 2050 the price won't stay at $50, unless ICEs are outlawed altogether. I don't see the explanation, perhaps lower demand and a resulting relatively low resulting price are the limiting factor.
The earth has 30kg co2 per square meter. Houses are 500.
Global warming requires co2 be a ten times better insulator than is used in real life.
Plantagenet wrote:Dr. James Hansen and his co-workers published an analysis showing much the same thing over a decade ago, i.e. lower oil production due to peak oil would theoretically limit the amount of warming.
But its probably too late for reductions in oil production to save us.
The amount of CO2 coming from coal-fired power plants continues to rise thanks to China, and the amount of CH4 going into the atmosphere also is steadily increasing. And other greenhouse gases like hydrofluorocarbons and SP6 are also steadily increasing in the atmosphere.
AND we're already at the point where the planet has warmed so much that natural sources of CO2 and CH4 are increasing enough to make the planet warmer and warmer no matter what happens to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
For instance, we saw a big drop in travel and oil use and human CO2 emissions last year during the pandemic , but atmospheric CO2 just kept on rising anyway thanks to increasing contributions from thawing permafrost etc.
Cheers!
Newfie wrote:Mustang,
I don’t have a clue of what you are talking about.
I don’t see where your statements, wherever they come from, are tied to this discussion.
What is 30kg of CO2 per sq meter supposed to mean and who made that claim? What is the context?
mustang19 wrote:The earth has 30kg co2 per square meter. Houses are 500.
Global warming requires co2 be a ten times better insulator than is used in real life.
mustang19 wrote:Newfie wrote:Mustang,
I don’t have a clue of what you are talking about.
I don’t see where your statements, wherever they come from, are tied to this discussion.
What is 30kg of CO2 per sq meter supposed to mean and who made that claim? What is the context?
It's obvious. Compare the amount of co2 to the insulation in a home.
Newfie wrote:What on Earth does popularity have to do with it?
Newfie wrote:What on Earth does popularity have to do with it?
mustang19 wrote:https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US-CA-807&q=%2Fm%2F0d063v
I just want to add, global warming is declining in popularity. Keep clinging to your dying idea that peaked a few years ago and then people realized it requires co2 to be a ten times better insulator than fiberglass.
Pops wrote:mustang19 wrote:I just want to add, global warming is declining in popularity. Keep clinging to your dying idea that peaked a few years ago and then people realized it requires co2 to be a ten times better insulator than fiberglass.
Fiberglass and co2 are not the same in any sense. It's like comparing a greenhouse to the side of a refrigerator. It is a null argument
Fiberglass insulation blocks heat movement, regardless of direction. It traps air in spaces too small to allow convection. If the atmosphere were fiberglass we would never have existed.
CO2 instead acts as a gate, it is transparent to visible and UV light so sunlight passes by heating the earth's surface. The earth then reradiates some of that heat in infrared wavelengths. CO2 is opaque to IR so absorbs that energy. It then reradiates some back to earth. Most gases like oxygen and nitrogen aren't selective in this way. Fiberglass isn't at all.
In just the right concentration CO2 keeps the earth warm enough for liquid water, without it we wouldn't be. But with too much we are dogs left in the car to cook under the sun.
Regardless, this isn't a thread about whether GW is popular or even valid so take that bs elsewhere.
.
mustang19 wrote:Newfie wrote:What on Earth does popularity have to do with it?
Because the only reason you could possibly pretend co2 is a 100x greater insulator than it is in real life is libs. So you're clinging to this dying belief that you still for whatever reason think is popular.
Newfie wrote:mustang19 wrote:Newfie wrote:What on Earth does popularity have to do with it?
Because the only reason you could possibly pretend co2 is a 100x greater insulator than it is in real life is libs. So you're clinging to this dying belief that you still for whatever reason think is popular.
Exceptional claims require exceptional proof.
So far you have nothing that commands attention.
Pops wrote:mustang19 wrote:I just want to add, global warming is declining in popularity. Keep clinging to your dying idea that peaked a few years ago and then people realized it requires co2 to be a ten times better insulator than fiberglass.
Fiberglass and co2 are not the same in any sense. It's like comparing a greenhouse to the side of a refrigerator. It is a null argument
Fiberglass insulation blocks heat movement, regardless of direction. It traps air in spaces too small to allow convection. If the atmosphere were fiberglass we would never have existed.
CO2 instead acts as a gate, it is transparent to visible and UV light so sunlight passes by heating the earth's surface. The earth then reradiates some of that heat in infrared wavelengths. CO2 is opaque to IR so absorbs that energy. It then reradiates some back to earth. Most gases like oxygen and nitrogen aren't selective in this way. Fiberglass isn't at all.
In just the right concentration CO2 keeps the earth warm enough for liquid water, without it we wouldn't be. But with too much we are dogs left in the car to cook under the sun.
Regardless, this isn't a thread about whether GW is popular or even valid so take that bs elsewhere.
.
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 211 guests