Category: Nieuws

When President Joe Biden ordered the release of 50 million barrels of oil from America’s strategic reserve to help reduce energy costs, he was taking aim at a growing burden for millions of Americans.</h4>

The step announced Tuesday, done in a rare coordination with several other nations, is among the few things a presidential administration can do to try to lessen the squeeze — and the political threat — of rising inflation. The likelihood of providing meaningful relief in the near future, however, is probably low. Still, any help in easing fuel prices, even modestly, would be welcomed by many Americans.

Here is a look at what’s involved:

What is the oil reserve?

America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve holds about 605 million barrels of oil in underground salt caverns in Texas and Louisiana. It was created following the 1970s Arab oil embargo to store oil that could be tapped in an emergency. But the dynamics of the global oil industry changed dramatically in recent years: Now the U.S exports more oil than it imports.

There’s a limit to how much can be released at once. In the past the government has released about 1 million barrels per day. At that rate, the promised influx of 50 million barrels of crude could last about two months.

Why tap the reserve?

The idea is that by putting more oil on the market, prices will fall. That hasn’t happened yet. But depending on what happens in the rest of the world, there’s still a chance it could work.

Oil prices rose slightly after the announcement. Traders were anticipating the news, and may have been underwhelmed by the details, said Claudio Galimberti, senior vice president for oil markets at Rystad Energy.

“The immediate price reaction is not the final judgment on the effectiveness of this effort,” said Jim Burkhard, vice president at IHS Markit. “It will really be in the months ahead.”

Whether the move is effective depends on several factors.

What about OPEC?

The OPEC oil cartel and its allies will be meeting in about a week to decide whether to increase production or to hold back, a strategy the group often employs to boost prices. Earlier this month, Biden had hoped OPEC nations, led by Saudi Arabia, would agree to significantly boost production. But they only made modest increases.

If OPEC decides next week that it wants higher prices, its members could take oil off the market. “Just overnight, they could just offset it,” Burkhard said. “So that’s a big question mark, is how they react to this.”

The coalition Biden assembled — bringing together India, China, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. to tap their strategic oil reserves — is unprecedented, Galimberti said. Altogether, the group could be adding 70 million to 80 million barrels of oil onto the market, he estimates.

“It’s kind of a coalition of oil importers,” he added. “But can they really supplant, or can they really represent a rival to OPEC-plus? The answer is absolutely not.” That’s because the group of importers are using their strategic petroleum reserves, which are limited. On the other hand, OPEC and its allies have oil reserves that can last for decades. “So there is no comparison between the two,” Galimberti said.

Cheaper gas?

What many consumers want to know is what’s going to happen to gasoline prices at the pump. Many factors go into the price of gasoline. Refineries buy crude oil in advance, so they’re still working with more expensive oil, and states have differing tax rates that impact the price. Nevertheless, if OPEC doesn’t respond by curtailing production, the influx of oil could lead to a gasoline price decrease of 10 cents to 15 cents per gallon, said Kevin Book, managing director at Clearview Energy Partners. Even if the price drop doesn’t happen, Biden can make the case that he tried.

“Really, what we’re talking about are the most price-sensitive consumers in the economy,” Book said. “They may not show up in GDP numbers or recessions, but they show up in vote counts as marginal voters, who may or may not respond in the next election cycle, and I think if we get down to it that’s really what this is about.”

Why does oil matter?

The future of oil and gas in the U.S. is a political flashpoint and source of tension, especially as companies and government agencies grapple with climate change and the transition to cleaner sources of energy.

On the one hand, the U.S. oil and gas industry has been praised by some political leaders for creating energy independence. Where the U.S. once relied heavily on imports, other nations now rely on the U.S. for oil. It’s also a job supplier: The oil and gas industry employs more than 10 million people in the U.S. and contributes about 8% of the nation’s gross domestic product, according to the American Petroleum Institute. Any impact resulting from Biden’s release of oil from the strategic reserves “is likely to be short-lived unless it is paired with policy measures that encourage the production of American energy resources,” the API said in a statement.

Companies that supply oil benefit from higher prices. But consumers don’t like it when those higher prices trickle down to the pump.

“The broader drama is this new variable in the oil market: It’s the tension between aspirations to decarbonize and the practical concern to have low gasoline prices,” Burkhard said. “And there there’s a conflict between those two forces. And that’s why we’re going to continue to see dislocations between demand and supply.”

Longview News-Journal, November 25, 2021

In the Port of Rotterdam, the first companies are busily preparing for the storage, processing and transit of hydrogen: a promising energy carrier that will allow companies to make the transition to climate neutrality.

Tank terminals at Europoort

This is one of the findings of a study conducted by the Port Authority into the development of hydrogen import terminals in Rotterdam. The Port Authority held consultations with a large number of Rotterdam-based companies and asked several research agencies to carry out sub-studies into the necessary preconditions in the fields of navigation, safety, the environment and space.

Good starting position

The Port of Rotterdam is in an excellent position to embark on the import, transit and transhipment of this new energy carrier:

• By 2050, demand for this relatively clean energy carrier is expected to increase to 20 Mtonnes, around 18 Mtonnes of which will be imported.
• Rotterdam is already familiar with hydrogen in industry and the transhipment of hydrogen carriers such as ammonia. In addition, the port has experience in the transhipment of cold energy carriers such as LNG and chemicals such as methanol. This experience can be applied to the new forms of hydrogen that are anticipated: liquid hydrogen, ammonia and LOHCs. Rotterdam’s extensive, existing tank storage and infrastructure for hydrogen and hydrogen carriers add to the port’s appeal as an import location. Companies will be able to develop existing fossil energy assets for hydrogen and hydrogen carriers.
• All port areas – from Pernis to Maasvlakte 2 – have the potential to import hydrogen. Depending on the volumes, the import of hydrogen is possible in all of these port areas, both in terms of space and safety, and from an environmental and navigational point of view. Four companies working in refining, energy and tank storage are actively preparing to import hydrogen. It looks like they will have both the physical space and the licences to import, process and export hydrogen in various forms by 2025. In addition, several companies are preparing to free up physical and/or environmental space by restructuring their existing product portfolio.
• The unique navigational access means there are no restrictions to the safe shipment of hydrogen in Rotterdam.

By HellenicShippingNews, November 23, 2021

A release of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve would likely have only a short-lived impact on oil markets, the acting head of the U.S. Energy Information Administration said on Tuesday.

The Biden administration has considered tapping the reserve to cool rising oil prices that are helping to fuel inflation. But Stephen Nalley, the acting EIA chief, told a Senate hearing: “Ultimately the amount of impact would be relatively short-lived, and would depend on how much was released.”

Nalley said the impact on oil markets could last only a few months and that other dynamics in the market would overtake any decrease in prices.

An EIA analysis showed that a release of 15 million to 48 million barrels from the reserve could bring prices down about $2 a barrel and push gasoline prices at the pump down about 5 cents to 10 cents per gallon for a short period of time, Nalley said.

U.S. oil prices hit a seven-year high in late October of nearly $85.50 a barrel. They were trading at about $80.60 a barrel on Tuesday as forecasts for an increase in global production in coming months put pressure on the market.

Reuters by Timothy Gardner, November 22, 2021

Time for US to use its reserves

THIS was the simple reply sent to the US administration in response to a letter sent to the White House by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in which the major US oil companies were accused of fixing or manipulating the oil prices, particularly the gasoline prices. Today the gasoline price is around $3.42 per gallon, which is an increase of up to 60 percent compared to last year.

This is the main reason for the US oil companies being hit hard. The US administration is fully aware that they themselves are the cause for the high gasoline prices. They are the culprit as they have been threatening and pushing the oil industry, and keeping them on the fast track to move away from fossil oil and focus more on clean energy, wind and solar power.

This had caused havoc in the industry with pressure coming from the shareholders to switch, without giving any chance to the people in charge of the oil companies.

The US administration is eyeing next year’s elections, and is concerned about losing the majority vote in the house and some senator seats. It feels the need to show its final consumers that it is doing something to soften the oil prices. The administration is not coming out to clearly state that the US oil production is down by one million barrels from last year, to reach 11.5 million barrels per day.

In addition, it did not indicate that the Ida hurricane, which is on the US coast, has curtailed the supply and production process. It instead attacked OPECPlus, and demanded it to increase oil production and not to keep the extra oil in store.

It called on Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to increase production, and ignore the fully committed OPEC-Plus accord that was agreed on. The US must start from home and persuade its ExxonMobil and Chevron companies to invest more in oil and gas, instead of buying its own stocks from the huge cash that they are making so far.

The same message should go to shale oil producers, instead of just rewarding their shareholders with cash, ignoring the fact that US gas consumers are in need of more oil today than before and in the future. Therefore, it should continue investing, and not rip off and benefit from OPECPlus’ disciplined and committed quota system, which is benefiting the shale oil producers more.

Perhaps, it is time for the US to try to use its strategic reserve of 700 million barrels to test the market, even though it is not advisable as it may backfire soon. Oil prices are subject to global supply and demand, as per FTC’s reply to the White House. Maybe the coming months will witness the easing of the oil prices.

arabtimesonline by Kamel Al-Harami, November 22, 2021

The times; they are changing…especially in the energy arena.

Two of the largest, international oil companies announced major changes this week, and OPEC+ tells the President of United States of America thanks, but no thanks, for his suggestion to increase oil production.

ExxonMobil said it will sell all of its petroleum production in the Barnett Shale in North Texas, and Royal Dutch Shell announced it will change its name (dropping Royal Dutch) to just Shell.

The shale revolution began in the geological formation called the Barnett Shale in the 1990s, which includes about 20 counties surrounding Fort Worth. ExxonMobil got a late start, but became a big player when it acquired independent XTO.

ExxonMobil has 2,700 wells across some 182,000 acres, and the properties are valued around $400 million. The company also is selling assets in Europe, Africa and Asia. It lost $22.4 billion in 2020.

Exxon has been the target of radical environmental groups as they have filed numerous lawsuits alleging it is responsible for global warming. Two enviromentalists won seats on Exxon’s Board of Directors recently.

Shell also has been targeted by extremists losing a court case in May, which it is appealing, regarding emissions, and battling an activist investor who wants to split Shell into two companies because of environmental concerns.

In addition to changing its name, Shell decided it is time to leave the Netherlands and move its headquarters to London. The Dutch Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Policy said, “We are unpleasantly surprised by this news. The government deeply regrets that Shell wants to move its head office to the United Kingdom.”

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden and his administration pleaded with the members of OPEC+ to increase oil production over current levels in an effort to bring down oil prices and eventually gasoline prices.

Officials from Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates indicated this week they will support keeping the previously scheduled  increase to 400,000 barrels per day in place when they meet on Dec. 2.

“That should be enough,” UAE Energy Minister Suhail Al Mazrouei told Bloomberg. “All what we know and what all the experts in the world are saying is that we will have a surplus (in 2022). So we need not panic. We need to be calm.”

However, as gasoline prices rise in the U.S., the Biden administration becomes very nervous about the impact rising energy prices will have on the economy, inflation and opinions of voters.

Biden’s request is a big change from the previous administration, which encouraged U.S. production of petroleum to replace foreign oil imports.

For ExxonMobil and Shell, changes became critical as time marched on.

Times Record News by Alex Mills, November 22, 2021

About $160 billion should be spent on projects in Iran’s oil and gas sectors, the country’s Oil Minister Javad Owji said, Trend reports, citing Shana News Agency.

He made the remark in a meeting with the chairman of the Plan and Budget Organization of Iran, Masoud Mirkazemi, in the framework of consultations on Tehran’s budget for March 21, 2022, through to March 20, 2023.

The minister noted that the necessary funds have not been spent in the oil and gas sector in recent years. If the investments are not made, Iran will become an importer of oil and gas products in the coming years.

During the meeting, Mirkazemi said that some Iranian ministries should make plans that are effective in economic development. After funds are allocated for the plans, they will be monitored to ensure that the facilities are put into operation and have a positive impact on economic development.

There are currently 74 oil and 22 gas fields in Iran. Thirty-seven of these are operating in the territory of the National Iranian South Oil Company (NISOC),.

Iran’s total hydrocarbon reserves are estimated at 836 billion barrels. With the available technology and equipment, Iran has the potential to extract 239 billion barrels. Thus, 29 percent of the country’s hydrocarbon reserves are recoverable, while 71 percent remain underground.

Yenisafak by Nurshaan Ural, November 19, 2021

The entry into force of the Global Sulphur Cap on January 1st catalysed a monumental shift in the types of fuel bunkered by the international shipping fleet. Since the start of this year, an industry that was once heavily reliant on one type of fuel and one type of cylinder oil lubricant, had to adjust to burning new types of fuel with squeezed sulphur content and selecting the right lubricant became more vital than ever before.

Although a small percentage of ships have continued to bunker heavy fuel oil (HSFO), by using a scrubber, in the first few months of this year the vast majority of ships bunkered low sulphur fuel oil (LSFO) blends and distillates such as marine gas oil (MGO).

At the end of February, Argus Media reported that LSFO sales rose sharply in Rotterdam in the quarter leading up January 1. 0.5% sulphur content marine fuel oil became the fuel of choice at that port, making up 62% of total marine fuel sales in December, and 48% of all sales in the fourth quarter. Sales of a 0.1% sulphur content marine fuel oil, launched as an alternative to distillate fuels, made up 13% of total marine fuel sales in the fourth quarter.

Sales of other IMO-compliant distillate fuels, such as MGO and Marine Diesel Oil (MDO) also increased. As the biggest LNG bunkering port in Europe, Argus media revealed that Port of Rotterdam LNG bunker sales more than tripled from 9,500t to 32,000t and biofuel bunker sales made up 2% of combined residual fuel oil and distillate sales.

This sudden shift from ships burning fuel with a sulphur content of 3.5%m/m to burning fuel with a sulphur content of 0.5% m/m or less, or opting for an alternative fuel, has big implications for engine lubricant use. As the lifeblood of an engine, lubricants help ensure smooth running and engine cleanliness.

One of their dominant roles is to protect cylinders from acidic corrosion that occurs when sulphur-containing fuels produce oxides of sulphur (SOx) during combustion. In the presence of water, SOx forms sulphuric acid which causes an acidic corrosive environment in the engine, known as cold corrosion.

Since sulphur is the central component of sulphuric acid formed in the engine, a fuel that is higher in sulphur content requires a lubricant with greater alkalinity and therefore, higher neutralising power. This neutralising power is denoted by the lubricant’s Base Number (BN). The higher the sulphur content, the higher the BN required.

Too low alkalinity in the cylinder oil for the fuel sulphur content and cold corrosion will occur, too high alkalinity in the cylinder oil for the fuel sulphur level and abrasive ash deposits can be formed on the piston crown top lands, ultimately leading to increased liner wear and scuffing.

The range of engine oils from Chevron Marine come with BN’s compatible with virtually every 2020 compliant fuel, including alternatives, and those using scrubbers which could potentially be burning fuel with a sulphur content higher than 3.5% m/m. Whatever the fuel choice, it is advisable to review the lubricant product selection and consumption when switching fuel, and seek advice from a technical specialist.

For those ship operators exploring the use of ultra-low sulphur and alternative fuel types such as methanol, liquified natural gas (LNG), liquified petroleum gas (LPG), and ethane, lubricants suppliers should be consulted to ensure engine performance is not compromised due to the wrong lubricant being applied for the fuel type.

Chevron Marine have published a series of white papers focused on future fuels, most recently ‘Lubricating dual fuel engines: a practical approach’ which address the operating conditions faced by ship owners lubricating LNG powered engines.

As Chevron Marine Field Technical Specialist Rik Truijens notes, “The challenge for some operators is that they may not know what fuel their vessels will use on a long term basis”.

“They could shift from operation on gas to using marine diesel oil, right up to full operation on heavy fuel oil. This means operators also face uncertainty about which lubricant they should be using with which fuel”.

An increasingly diverse marine fuels market adds complexity for ship operation, and owners are looking for simplified solutions to optimise engine performance.

In 2019, Chevron Marine helped customers prepare for the new legislation with the launch of the Taro® Ultra range, cylinder oil lubricants that cover virtually all fuel options and combinations, comprising products from 25BN to 140BN. By applying years of experience gathered developing high-performance lubricating oils, Chevron Marine has created Taro® Ultra Cylinder oil products with a formulation that is fully compatible with most fuels available and suitable for multi-fuel use.

Visit Chevron Marine to find out more about Taro Ultra and the range of products and services that are helping customers achieve a smooth transition to future fuels.

By Motorship.com, November 19, 2021

Even as more countries and companies pledge to get to net-zero carbon emissions, the world will continue to require fossil fuels for years to come, analysts say, because oil and natural gas are so intertwined with modern life.

But for all the talk about getting to a low-carbon future, there’s been little granular analysis on which fossil fuels produced from which oil fields emit the least amount of harmful greenhouse gases. Sure, there’s a general industry consensus that coal is dirtier than natural gas and that offshore oil is cleaner than shale — but by how much?

That’s the question global energy research firm S&P Global Platts set out to answer with its recently revealed carbon intensity report, a monthly metric that calculates how much carbon is emitted from 14 major crude fields around the world.

Platts analysts said they saw growing demand for low-carbon crude from investors, consumers and producers looking to reduce their carbon footprint. They realized that calculating the carbon intensity of different fuels can help determine which oil and gas fields to focus production on while the world transitions toward cleaner fuels.

“Oil and gas will remain part of the energy mix for decades to come,” said Deb Ryan, Platts’ head of low-carbon market analytics. “In order for the world to meet ambitious emissions reduction targets, a premium value needs to be associated with the lowest carbon intensity oil and gas assets as these fossil fuels continue to play a role in the overall energy mix. By launching carbon intensity values and price premiums, Platts is bringing much needed transparency into the market.”

Platts looked at the carbon emissions from the production of various crude and natural gas fields. Not surprisingly, Platts found that the oil sands from the Cold Lake field in Canada had the highest carbon intensity among the 14 oil fields analyzed, because it takes more energy to extract oil from sand than it does from shale or conventional wells.

The analysis also found that a barrel of offshore oil from the Mars oil field in the Gulf of Mexico has about half the carbon emissions of a barrel of shale oil from the Permian Basin in West Texas.

Even within similar oil fields, there are small differences in carbon intensities.

For example, Platts found that crude from the Permian’s Midland oil patch has slightly lower carbon intensity than crude from the Permian’s Delaware basin. It also found that crude from the Permian had lower carbon intensity than that from the Eagle Ford and Bakken.

Offshore, crude from the Johan-Sverdrup oil field off Norway, which uses electricity to power production, had lower carbon intensity than crude from the Mars oil field in the Gulf of Mexico, Platts said. Crude from Girassol in Angola, Cantarel in Mexico and Tengiz in Kazakhstan had generally lower carbon intensity than crude from Tupi in Brazil and Kirkuk in Iraq.

Platts found there’s no clear correlation between carbon emissions from heavy sulfurous crude or light sweet crude, because the way that crude is extracted, processed and transported can increase or decrease the carbon intensity.

Ultimately, Platts’ carbon intensity metrics could be used to put carbon taxes on various crude and natural gas sources, said Paula VanLaningham, Platts’ global head of carbon. The higher the carbon intensity of a barrel of crude, the higher the carbon taxes. cost of a carbon offset would be.

“What this (metric) does is puts it into perspective about what it would cost to truly mitigate your emissions from one type of barrel of crude over a different one, and that’s pretty critical” VanLaningham said. “When you’re actually looking at the cost of managing your emissions footprint from the beginning , just managing the venting and flaring makes an enormous difference in terms of what the overall environmental impact of running one barrel of oil over a different barrel of oil would mean.”

HoustonChronicle by paul takahashi, November 18, 2021

Saudi Arabia says it wants to join the global fight against climate change — by drilling for more oil.

Rather than cut back on the production of fossil fuels that contribute the most to global warming, the Gulf kingdom wants to tap more of them to bring down emissions.

The idea is to help Saudi Arabia raise money for emission reduction technologies such as carbon capture, which would allow the oil-dependent country to keep running its rigs. Key to this strategy is Saudi Arabia’s continued export of oil around the world — a proven moneymaker that wouldn’t affect Saudi Arabia’s recent pledge to reduce its own emissions to net zero by 2060.

For under international standards, these oil exports would count as emissions for the importing country — and not Saudi Arabia.

The plan has been greeted with skepticism by international activists and analysts, who say the world needs to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels as fast as possible in order to avoid the increasingly severe storms, floods and heat that global warming brings.

“It’s a strange dichotomy,” said Jim Krane, an energy studies fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. “Its success in reaching this goal hinges on the rest of the world continuing to use oil.”

But Saudi Arabia is limited in its options.

Oil revenues pulled in by national oil company Saudi Arabian Oil Co. (Aramco) contribute to around 60 percent of the government budget.

And so Saudi Arabia is put in a tough spot when international officials gather to talk about global warming, as they’re doing now in Glasgow, Scotland, for the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference. Much of the discussion has centered on creating a pathway toward the end of fossil fuels.

“I think they realize they can’t rely on oil forever. At some point it will run out,” said Ellen Wald, a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center and author of “Saudi, Inc.” “But they definitely have the long view.”

Saudi Arabia’s new position on climate change represents a shift — at least rhetorically — from its past position on the issue.

Saudi Arabia has long lobbied to change or delete language that would go against its national interests. And it has sought to delay decisions at past U.N. climate conferences in its favor (Climatewire, Oct. 23, 2018).

A recent leak of documents obtained by Unearthed, a division of Greenpeace, showed that Saudi Arabia and other climate-polluting countries sought to water down language in an upcoming U.N. climate report that calls for a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels.

But the danger of global warming is becoming increasingly hard to refute — even for a petrostate such as Saudi Arabia.

More than a third of Saudi Arabia’s land area is desert, and rising temperatures will threaten water supplies, will turn heat waves deadly, and could make large parts of the country and the Gulf region uninhabitable.

A new carbon cycle

Saudi Arabia’s oil dependence runs deep.

Not only does oil revenue fund more than half the government’s budget, but Saudi Arabia argues that it needs that money to fund its energy transition and support research and development of new climate-friendly technologies.

In addition to exporting oil, it continues to burn it to generate power.

The country’s latest climate plan aims at “reducing, avoiding and removing” 278 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually by 2030 — more than twice its previous target. To help get there, it plans to increase renewable energy to 50 percent of the electricity mix by 2030, up from less than 1 percent currently.

Much of its plan also hinges on a proposed circular carbon economy, where hydrocarbons would be either recycled, removed or reused. Achieving that goal would require a major scaling-up of carbon capture capacity.

The total amount of carbon dioxide that has been removed from the air by current carbon capture projects is in the order of tens of thousands of tons, compared with the hundreds of millions of tons produced by these petrostates, said Zeke Hausfather, director of climate and energy at the Breakthrough Institute.

And capturing that carbon and removing it is very, very expensive — around $600 a ton.

“You could have a state still producing oil and offsetting that by carbon removal in a net-zero world, but calling that state a petrostate would be a stretch, simply because there’s probably not going to be enough demand for oil globally in 2050 — or certainly in 2070 — to make it the centerpiece of a country’s economy,” Hausfather said.

Saudi Arabia is not the only country pinning its climate targets on such technology. The White House’s long-term climate strategy also leans heavily on carbon removal (Climatewire, Nov. 2).

Officials in Saudi Arabia are working to diversify some of its economy, such as building up tourism and financial services. It also could capitalize on growing demand for carbon offsets if it can scale up its carbon capture capacity quickly. But it’s still not giving up on oil.

“In fact, its implementation of its climate pledges are conditional on its ability to continue selling fossil fuels to finance its transformation,” Karim Elgendy, a fellow at Chatham House, wrote in an email.

It’s a pledge he thinks should be taken seriously.

“Saudi Arabia and Aramco’s view is that even if everyone switches over to EVs — which they don’t think is likely — the world will still need oil and oil products because all of these things that you need to, say, make a really light airplane that’s going to fly using a battery, need plastics. And plastics come from petrochemicals,” said Wald, the Atlantic Council fellow.

Even if oil demand in the developed world may be tapering off, Wald added, Aramco sees huge markets for its products in China, in India and across Africa.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman did not attend the leaders’ summit at the start of last week’s talks in Glasgow. But he did host a green forum the week prior in Riyadh that U.S. climate envoy John Kerry attended.

It was there that he announced the 2060 net-zero goal and committed $186 billion in public investment toward achieving that target.

Aramco has set an even more ambitious net-zero target of 2050, but that goal doesn’t include indirect emissions, such as the burning of the fuel it sells.

Rising demand and undersupply have sent oil prices surging this year. Aramco is planning to increase oil production from 12 million to 13 million barrels a day in the coming years to take advantage of a widening gap in the market as other major oil companies plan to ease production.

Yet Climate Action Tracker ranks Saudi Arabia’s latest targets as highly insufficient, saying its current diversification plans “do not adequately address scenarios in which global oil consumption significantly declines in the coming decades.”

While governments will rely on some level of carbon removal to achieve net zero, it needs to be as limited as possible, said Claire Fyson, co-head of climate policy at Climate Analytics, which helps produce the tracker.

At the opening of climate talks last week, Mia Mottley, prime minister of Barbados, said that relying on undeveloped technology was reckless.

But Khalid Abuleif, head of the Saudi negotiating team and a former oil executive, said the kingdom’s net-zero target had been well received.

“It balances many things and it’s much more realistic on the timeline,” he said, according to a report by Arab News. “It takes fully into account that Saudi Arabia is going through an accelerated economic diversification program that needs to be completed.”

EENEWS by Sara Schonhard, November 17, 2021