BP weighs ending its 70-year-old Statistical Review of World Energy
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ben Vorlich
It would be more than a pity if this happens:
LONDON, Nov 28 (Reuters) – BP (BP.L) is considering ending the publication of its Statistical Review of World Energy, over 70 years after it first published the benchmark report, as the energy major focuses on its shift to renewables, the company told Reuters.
The Statistical Review has been a go-to resource for the wider energy sector since it was first published in April 1952, providing detailed data on global oil, gas and coal production and consumption.
Led by BP’s Chief Economist Spencer Dale in recent years, the report was expanded to include data on renewable energy and even minerals used for batteries.
However the report has been seen by some BP executives as detrimental to the company’s new direction, sources told Reuters.
A BP spokesperson confirmed the company has launched an internal review of the report.
"We’re looking at options for publishing the annual Statistical Review of World Energy, but as yet we’ve taken no decision," the company said.
"The world of energy is changing fast and becoming ever more complex, and our energy and economics team are focused on understanding different elements of the energy transition and their implications for BP."
The company added that "the Review is a valuable source of objective and comprehensive data, and ensuring this continues is an important consideration."
Chief Executive Officer Bernard Looney has radically shifted BP’s focus since taking office in 2020, aiming to sharply reduce oil and gas production while rapidly building a renewables business in order to slash greenhouse gas emissions.
The BP Review is essential for seeing what is happening to fossil fuel trends worldwide. By providing the actual data, it has continually shown the claims made by the renewable lobby to be falsehoods.
It is of course very damaging to the climate agenda put forward in the West that the rest of the world has carried on increasing fossil fuel consumption and emissions. Without the BP Review we would have little other than untrustworthy data provided by official sources such as the IEA.
My suspicion is that BP has been leant on.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Well, from Edmund John Phillip Browne, Baron Browne of Madingley, all the way to the Eponymous Looney (Of Rosneft fame).
Another Great British institution hollowed out by lefty termites.
So. Are we downhearted?
Or just Browned off?
And now we have to consider the possibility of the diagenic production of methane.
Massive abiotic methane production in eclogite during cold subduction
Heh, methane’s a GHG innit? I wonder how much is escaping into the atmosphere?
Looney by name loony by nature. When the big green farrago of nonsense has run its course BP will be back to their core business of hydrocarbons or it will die let us hope that the statistical reviews will continue
BP is minting it with oil and gas. Why would they back away from that?
Investors will decide what energy BP exploits, not the aptly named Looney.
That should ‘corporate investors’ will decide. The likes of Black Roack, Vanguard and others signed up the WEF Fascist movement.
The BP tables are à powerful weapon for us sceptics. “UK 1%. China 31%. So what’s Net Zero for? I ask at cocktail parties. Oh!
Hi Paul,
A rare slip 😉
“The BP Review is essential for seeing what is happening to
fossil fuelENERGY trends worldwide.”SRoWE will be missed if it does get the chop. Imaging having to rely on biased NGO sources for our global energy info. ;-(
Fellow Notalotas, clearly the Annual Review is costly to research and publish. And it has evolved brilliantly to cover the evolution of Global Energy.
Let’s please do all we can to keep this invaluable data base going by encouraging BP’s management to keep us all well informed.
Very worryingly, the 2022 Annual Review informs us all that Gæobal oil production last year was equal to Global oil produced in 2021 after the sharp falls in global energy demand caused by that dratted pandemic!
Oil is, after all, a finite reserve. Every kg burned is a kg less in our reserves! Cheap energy has fueled spectacular Global economic growth since the start of the industrial revolution. The same Review informs us that fossil fuels delivered 82.2% of all Global primary demand last year. Yet our Global population continues to grow and unsurprisingly all long for all the energy-intensive goodies that we have become used to!
Prof Simon Michaux, at Finland’s Geological Survey, supported by its Managing Director and Chief Scientists, makes it transparently obvious that the “net zero” energy policies designed by and recommended by the IEA, no less, require the metals on a scale far beyond the ability of our World to deliver them, let alone “ESG-compliantly”. We Europeans, including we Brits, are led by idle, ignorant dreamers! Our children and grandchildren deserve better!
So ply BP’s management with praise and encouragement please! They are certainly going to need to keep that data base going for their own internal purposes!
Is the IEA mentioned here the Institute for Economic Affairs or am I missing something? Why would it be considered untrustworthy?
Yes, I’ve realised it’s the International Energy Agency, wrong thread there. My question still stands though, why is it considered untrustworthy?
Hello Daniel!
Thank you
The International Energy Agency used to be (IMO) an impecceable data source for Global Energy. Today, it is intrinsically tied to the UNFCC’s design of the Global plan for “net zero”. You can download its May 2021 “The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions” which claims on page 123 that “there is no shortage of resources”.
Because it is the IEA, this absolutely untrue statement is widely believed to be true.
Simon Michaux’s analysis, published and fully supported by Finland’s Geological Survey’s Managing Director and Chief Scientists, is being sounded out by national geological surveys around the World, claims the IEA’s statement is wrong by literally thousands of times.
Sign up for IEA’s almost daily newsletters and Google “Simon Michaux”!
Hello Paul
I see Mauna Loa – billed as the world’s biggest volcano – is erupting. I
wonder how this will affect their records of CO2 and other components of
the atmosphere?
Many thenks for your tireless efforts with NALOPKT
Ian Travers
From Google Maps: https://gml.noaa.gov/obop/mlo/
As of the morning of November 29, lava from the eruption of the Mauna
Loa volcano on Hawaii’s Big Island has been confirmed to have crossed
the access road to NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory and taken out power
lines to the site. These circumstances have resulted in a pause in data
being collected at the observatory.
All NOAA staff from the Mauna Loa Observatory are safe.
At this point the facility is not accessible.
NOAA will continue to provide updates as the situation develops.
Media can contact: Alison Gillespie 202-713-6644
(alison.gillespie@noaa.gov) or Karin Vergoth 303-632-6413
(karin.vergoth@noaa.gov)
Mauna Loa Baseline Observatory
Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO) is located on the north flank of Mauna Loa
Volcano, on the Big Island of Hawaii, at an elevation of 3397 meters, or
11,135 feet above sea level. The observatory is a premier atmospheric
research facility that has been continuously monitoring and collecting
data related to atmospheric change since the 1950’s.
The observatory protrudes through the strong marine temperature
inversion layer present in the region, which separates the more polluted
lower portions of the atmosphere from the much cleaner free troposphere.
The undisturbed air, remote location, and minimal influences of
vegetation and human activity at MLO are ideal for monitoring
constituents in the atmosphere that can cause climate change.
MLO has supported hundreds of cooperative research programs with
national and international universities and government organizations. A
staff of 8 operates and maintains the observatory, with offices in Hilo,
Hawaii.
An accurate, 3 minute summary by video at https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1172852053278410&ref=sharing
BP could of course ask for contributions to the cost of producing the statistics, though depending on funding sources that might undermine their integrity more than it already necessarily is because of forced reliance on unreliable government data.
It’s done by a small team (I’ve communicated with them in the past), though they do have access to in house experts from operating companies around the world and those who specialise in particular aspects, who in turn are well placed to latch onto data from various sources. I note that this year they failed to update their estimates of oil and gas reserves, which is probably one area which does rely on that in house expertise more than others.
If you look at the UK’s Energy Trends or DUKES you soon discover that they seem to employ quite an army to collate the numbers in the various energy sectors. You have to ask how inefficient they are compared with the private sector, especially since so much is automated these days and available at the click of a mouse.