The world is using more oil, coal and gas than ever before and will use more. Net Zero is dead
By Paul Homewood
h/t Philip Bratby
.
A recent flurry of forecasts offers us a range of different views on what’s happening to the global demand for, and use of, crude oil. One thing seems to be clear, however: the chances of net zero carbon emissions in the near term – ie, by 2050 – are basically zero.
The year so far has been a bit of a rollercoaster ride in this realm of uncertainty, with projections and forecasts more volatile than the market itself. Crude prices have remained relatively strong despite various occurrences across Europe and the Middle East that would have resulted in major upsets in decades past.
One major point of consensus related to global oil demand growth is the expectation that it will continue to be robust, driven by a combination of factors including economic recovery, increased travel, and surging industrial activity in non-OECD nations.
The only major body not seeing continued, massive growth is the International Energy Agency (IEA), which revised its numbers this week to predict that crude demand will rise by just 1 million barrels per day (bpd) next year and will (at last!) peak “towards the end of this decade” at 106 million bpd, up from 102 million at the moment. The IEA expects this growth to be led by non-OECD countries, particularly China and India. The IEA and others have highlighted the importance of these regions in driving global oil demand.
The IEA, which is funded by 31 industrialized nations through a dues structure, says that it believes growth in demand from India, China and elsewhere will be gradually outweighed by the expected rollout of electric vehicles and other green technologies. However, one should note that the agency has been shifting for a long time from being an analytical organisation to being essentially a green campaigning one, and its forecasts nowadays are as much attempts to influence markets as to genuinely predict them.
In contrast to the IEA, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) raised its 2024 global oil demand growth forecast to 1.1 million barrels per day, up from its previous estimate of 900,000 bpd. This revision is based on expectations for travel and tourism in the second half of the year. EIA projects even stronger demand growth for 2025 of 1.5 mbpd, again clashing with the IEA which sees just 1 mbpd that year, with non-OECD countries accounting for most of the growth. The US federal agency also raised its projection for crude prices to rise to an average of $87/barrel in Q4 2024 based on the rising demand.
Goldman Sachs has an even more optimistic view of the market, expecting global oil demand to grow by 1.25 million bpd in 2024. The bank cites robust growth in jet fuel, petrochemical-driven LPG and naphtha, and gasoline and diesel demand as key drivers of this growth. Goldman analysts expect strong demand for transportation fuels will lead oil prices to average a robust $86 across the second half of the year.
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) held firm to the most optimistic demand growth outlook, again refusing to amend its initial forecast for 2.25 mbpd of growth for 2024. OPEC also expects strong global oil demand growth in 2025, with a projected increase of 1.85 mbpd. The organization has noted that the OECD is expected to grow by 0.1 mbpd, while demand in the non-OECD is forecast to increase by 1.7 mbpd.
“Globally, the services sector maintains a stable momentum,” OPEC said. “It is projected to be the main contributor to the economic growth dynamic in the second half of 2024, particularly supported by travel and tourism, with a consequent positive impact on oil demand.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/14/oil-coal-gas-demand-forecasts-net-zero-dead/
Blackmon’s comments about the IEA are spot on. They never really were an independent authority, but now all they are interested in is propaganda.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I agree about the IEA. Like all such organisations, they do as they are told by the UN and WEF, and thus all they produce is green propaganda.
They are actually part of the OECD which is equally woke these days. The OECD approve their output.
OECD are playing the game behind the façade they know which side their bread is buttered.
Time for the government to stop wasting our money funding them. If they want money left the leftie fascist foundations and billionaires fund them.
That’s not what the greenfoolery billionaires are in it for, it’s nothing to do with climate, or environmentalism, it’s all about more and more free money from hard pressed taxpayers
Exactly, the payer gets what he wants, no matter how absurd
Get rid of the fascination with CO2 and perhaps some of the wasted money and talent can be directed toward real problems.
The world might to using more coal, gas and oil ….but not in the UK
Unfortunately, the gravy train is à sellout, up to speed and will take some stopping.
Reality will stop it
indeed. And here is food for thought for you all:
If one wanted to extend North American use of oil per capita to 8 billion people, the world oil production would have to increase by ~600%. To the EU level, by ~300%. This is the actual problem. The world driven exclusively by fossil fuels is the world of perpetual inequality and worsening wars over resources.
Using modern prospecting and extraction techniques there are hundreds – perhaps thousands of years’ worth of available petroleum resources left as yet untouched.
Then, using the steerable drilling techniques used for shale extraction and in situ gasification which produces synthesis gas, feedstock for the Fischer-Tropsch coal to oil process, there are trillions of tons of coal accessible in the UK alone.
And then there is the vast amount of methane available as hydrate on the ocean bed and in the arctic permafrost which is even now being investigated with a view to commercial exploitation, see here:
“At the same time, new technologies are being developed in Germany that may be useful for exploring and extracting the hydrates. The basic idea is very simple: the methane (CH4) is harvested from the hydrates by replacing it with CO2. Laboratory studies show that this is possible in theory because liquid carbon dioxide reacts spontaneously with methane hydrate. If this concept could become economically viable, it would be a win-win situation, because the gas exchange in the hydrates would be attractive both from a financial and a climate perspective.”
http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/energy/methane-hydrates/2/
saying so, “perhaps thousands of years”, does not make it true. What matters is what can be realistically produced.
The rest is hopium. And even if this hopium was potentially true, I think it is a whole lot better to have alternatives.
It gives you added safety. In addition, new oil and gas deposits are generally found in increasingly difficult to access places.
Deep water, Arctic. Just like with your income, what matters is not how much you make, but what is left over after you pay non-negotiable
expenses. Expensive oil or gas means that less of each barrel is left for purposes other than extraction itself. US estimates that shell oil
is economical (~15% return) above $54USD/barrel. Could be less if you were refining in situ, but this requires further investment. Coal extraction
gets progressively more expensive over time as mines get deeper. I am personally not convinced that we have “hundreds of years of supply”.
In my home country, Poland, coal extraction is becoming increasingly untenable as mines age and become deeper. The difference between current supply
and potential demand is quite staggering.
Diversification of energy sources, applying the technology that best fits the locale, is beneficial. Why would it not be? We used to
believe in progress? Moved from wood and horses to coal to oil and gas? Why can’t we add solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear and EV?
To take just one of your misconceptions:
<i>”Coal extraction gets progressively more expensive over time as mines get deeper.”</i>
As I pointed out, using in situ gasification which produces synthesis gas AKA syngas, feedstock for the Fischer-Tropsch coal to oil process – there are literally trillions of tons available in the UK alone, without a single mine needing to be dug.
Then there’s the methane hydrate, obtained from the sea bed by direct exchange with carbon dioxide so entirely carbon neutral, the technology for which is under development in a number of countries right now, Germany and Japan for a start.
Try understanding posts before commenting and demonstrating your ignorance.
All true but adds cost to the current extraction process. Many abandoned oilfields could be revisited if oil price is high enough as techniques like water injection become affordable with smaller remaining reserves. The idea to gasify coal will be a huge business in 100 yrs or so. However, the basic premise that these resources are finite and that real alternatives will be required is hard to argue against. It’s just the timing of when we need to be 100% nuclear on the grid that’s more difficult to predict. Imo.
MF
we can’t use wind and solar, they are third and fourth rate technologies, why go backwards? Geothermal depends on the geology being suitable which it isn’t in very many areas and EV, exactly what does that do? (Assuming you mean Electric Vehicle)
It’s just the timing of when we need to be 100% nuclear on the grid
As far as I am aware, the current and historical operating costs of Sizewell B are not in the public domain. There is this Nov 2021 report from the US about US nuclear costs pdf https://nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/resources/reports-and-briefs/Nuclear-Costs-in-Context-2021.pdf?__cf_chl_tk=z8Xj6twmZHy7YRODBgzwZ6enHAzEU_XjqkYHWLRkiIA-1718451741-0.0.1.1-4650
Includes: In 2020, the average total generating cost for nuclear energy was $29.37 per megawatt-hour (MWh)
With minimal evidence of operating costs, my view is that the UK should have continued building c20+ Sizewell B PWRs with a continuous construction programme for the last 30 years.
Timing is everything, ask any comedian. The 100yrs is meant to address necessity and the time required to replace the ruinable and gas and wood components of the current grid. Specially if you take 2 or 3% growth to account for illegals and AI plus Bitcoin.
Your right, and I know you are right because people who’ve said the exact same thing on ten occasions in the past have been right…
perpetual inequality
The East Germans and Soviets solved it.
Actually my friend, Americans figured it really out, lasting roughly from 1950 until 1973, the first oil shock, beginning to end definitively with the election of Ronald Reagan. The solution was called the Middle Class. The Middle Class was the envy of the world and what the people of East Germany and the Soviet Block were yearning and hoping for. US lost it’s middle class for a combination of two main reasons: internal politics, starting with Reagan and Thatcher, and growing resource scarcity.
And will do for decades to come – the new emerging world power, BRICS+ will dominate global resources and markets in the next 5-10 years, built on fossil fuels & nuclear
Ask the markets – the collective view of thousands incentivised to get it right. Share prices and oil prices both say demand isn’t going to fall.
Except in nice mature Western Democracies which are committing economic and cultural suicide so will disappear off a cliff as they “Thave the Pwannet”. Meanwhile, The rest of the world gets on with business, admittedly with a lot of steps back because they will be without the great minds and institutions of the West which is too busy destroying it’s self to contribute to the further development of human civilization.
Well said! The West used to be so dynamic, so full of confidence, so optimistic, and a beacon to the rest of the world. The current Malthusian and anti-human zealots drop a continual downpour of resource scarcity porn, eternal stasis in technology, and meaningless projections. Why care one wit if the zealots think some current resources are “finite” resources? I couldn’t care one wit, and I will never care one wit! Remember, oil wasn’t even a resource until columnar distillation was invented…and that “saved” the “renewable” resource of the whales from extinction. Who knows what resources to serve mankind are yet to be invented by the infinite possibilities of the human mind? Why would we dare let the Malthusians limit growth or consumption now because of their fear of the future.
It is the same idiocy with “Climate Change”…is anyone, anywhere, supposed to limit their growth and their prosperity and the betterment of their lives now because of someone else’s fear of what the average global temperature might be someday for the average global citizen? Averages are fictitious numbers…for example, the average human has half a penis, one testicle, half a vagina, and one ovary. The earth has some 31 climates…no human has ever lived in, nor will any human ever live in, or experience, the average global temperature. We have absolutely no idea what the various societies around the world in 80 years time will then consider their most pressing problems…but there will be vast differences among humans what those problems are. The best ways to ensure they have the very best chance of dealing with whatever their issues are at that time is to increase liberty and freedom so that individuals make the choices in their lives, not some “system”, and, secondly, produce wealth. It is just obvious that increased wealth gives anyone greater ability to handle whatever is thrown at them for problems. Release human flourishing by increasing growth. There are billions of people in the world who still do not have electricity.
Source and utilize massively more hydrocarbons!
Well said! The West used to be so dynamic, so full of confidence, so optimistic, and a beacon to the rest of the world. The current Malthusian and anti-human zealots drop a continual downpour of resource scarcity porn, eternal stasis in technology, and meaningless projections. Why care one wit if the zealots think some current resources are “finite” resources? I couldn’t care one wit, and I will never care one wit! Remember, oil wasn’t even a resource until columnar distillation was invented…and that “saved” the “renewable” resource of the whales from extinction. Who knows what resources to serve mankind are yet to be invented by the infinite possibilities of the human mind? Why would we dare let the Malthusians limit growth or consumption now because of their fear of the future.
It is the same idiocy with “Climate Change”…is anyone, anywhere, supposed to limit their growth and their prosperity and the betterment of their lives now because of someone else’s fear of what the average global temperature might be someday for the average global citizen? Averages are fictitious numbers…for example, the average human has half a penis, one testicle, half a vagina, and one ovary. The earth has some 31 climates…no human has ever lived in, nor will any human ever live in, or experience, the average global temperature. We have absolutely no idea what the various societies around the world in 80 years time will then consider their most pressing problems…but there will be vast differences among humans what those problems are. The best ways to ensure they have the very best chance of dealing with whatever their issues are at that time is to increase liberty and freedom so that individuals make the choices in their lives, not some “system”, and, secondly, produce wealth. It is just obvious that increased wealth gives anyone greater ability to handle whatever is thrown at them for problems. Release human flourishing by increasing growth. There are billions of people in the world who still do not have electricity.
Source and utilize massively more hydrocarbons!