“If we were in charge, we’d get rid of this whole thing,” said Paul Singer, an energy analyst at Morningstar.
“They’re all basically just big fat fat charts with no context.
It’s just a waste of time.
In the past few years, the industry has been on a collision course with climate change. “
If I were in this room right now, I’d be asking myself why we’re doing this, why we are spending so much money on this stuff.”
In the past few years, the industry has been on a collision course with climate change.
Over the last two decades, the price of natural gas has shot up from $4 a million British thermal units to $50.
Last year, oil prices jumped to $110 a barrel, up nearly 70% from a year earlier.
“I think we’re at the point now where people are starting to realize that it’s a real threat,” Singer said.
“So we’re going to have to take action now.”
The question is how quickly.
Energy companies have been struggling to keep pace with demand growth, with companies like Chevron and BP struggling to meet growing demand even with higher prices.
But the price for natural gas is also growing, with prices rising by 10% this year to $6.83 a million Btu.
Gas production is expected to increase even more as a result of the carbon capture and storage boom that has been taking place in the U.S. and elsewhere.
In 2016, the U and U.K. announced a deal that would see U.N. climate negotiators work out a global emissions reduction target that would double the global amount of energy produced to 2050.
But even as the U, U.A.E., and other countries agree to a carbon-neutral carbon reduction target, the fossil fuel industry is trying to shift the focus from carbon to energy.
“It’s hard to see how we can be a significant contributor to climate action if we don’t invest in the energy sector,” Singer told Recode.
“We need to get back to the basics of energy.”
The best way to do that, he added, is to have energy companies focus on building a strong, sustainable energy future.
“There’s no other way to get there,” he said.
A few months ago, BP was looking to build a $1 trillion carbon-free energy plant in Brazil.
The company had been working on plans to build this plant since the mid-2000s, and it was expected to create more than 3,000 direct and indirect jobs.
But BP’s president of energy and climate, Greg Dykes, told Recio in February that the company had decided to delay the project.
BP is the biggest fossil fuel producer in the world and Dykes told Recidoc that the plant would have produced about 3.5 gigawatts of electricity in 2022, down from 5.5GW in 2020.
Dykes said the decision to delay construction was driven by cost.
“BP and the Brazilian government made the decision based on the cost of the project and the need to manage the cost,” Dykes wrote.
“The project is expected not to be complete until 2024.”
In a statement, BP said the delay “allows us to focus on the long-term strategic vision of the business to achieve a future with zero CO2 emissions, zero reliance on coal, zero dependence on oil, zero carbon footprints and zero dependence in our supply chain.”
But Dykes’ comments are misleading, and BP isn’t the only company making the same mistake.
According to a 2016 report from the Environmental Defense Fund, the world’s largest environmental group, BP has spent $1.1 trillion over the last five years to build facilities to produce carbon-intensive power plants.
BP spent $900 million to build an oil refinery in the Philippines in 2015, according to the report.
And it spent more than $300 million to buy a refinery in China in 2016.
“In the coming years, we’ll be looking to invest even more in the development of the oil and gas sector,” Dyke said.
But he acknowledged that there’s a lot more work to do.
“Billion-dollar projects are costly and difficult,” he wrote in a letter to the board.
“This is an important opportunity to build on BP’s progress in reducing CO2, and the energy revolution we are in.”