Gas in A Net Zero Energy System Bob Dudley 2019
Gas in A Net Zero Energy System Bob Dudley 2019
Gas in A Net Zero Energy System Bob Dudley 2019
Bob Dudley
Group chief executive
9 October 2019
Introduction
Some folks are saying that a role for gas conflicts with the world’s climate ambitions.
And not just in the transition, but in the destination – the net-zero economy we must achieve in the
decades ahead.
But only – only – if we take the right steps now: methane leaks and flaring can and must be tackled,
and gas itself can and must be increasingly decarbonised.
Our industry is under intense scrutiny here in London, and in many places around the world.
It’s our opportunity not only to say we agree the world is on an unsustainable path, and that we need
to move to a low-carbon energy system, but to show how much we’re already doing, and that we are
going to do even more in future.
That’s a challenge I believe we can rise to - because our industry understands, more deeply than
many, what the energy transition entails.
It serves billions of people with coal, oil, gas, nuclear power, solar, wind, geothermal, and more.
Yet even with the full array of energy sources we deploy today, we still fall short of the world’s needs.
For every six families who turn on an electric light after dark, there’s one family that still can’t.
It’s also: how do you get to net-zero while meeting the needs of every family?
How we decarbonise heat in London requires a different answer than it does in Beijing or Boston.
Those differing answers will emerge as different economies, sectors, companies and customers all
look for the cheapest, most effective solutions - and each relative to the resources available to them.
To exclude gas – when so much is at stake – is to take a huge and unnecessary risk.
Not all countries are blessed like Iceland with abundant geothermal energy.
It’s affordable.
Gas is an efficient store of energy, in a way that batteries can’t replicate now, and quite possibly never
will.
But of course – and this is critical, as I said at the outset - to feature in a net-zero system, gas will
need to be decarbonised.
The energy industry is already producing carbon-neutral biogas, which when burnt releases only the
carbon absorbed by the plants from which it’s made.
But gas more broadly will play its role through carbon capture, and hydrogen, and these no longer are
niche products.
We are investing in carbon capture to decarbonise gas at source – and we have a plan through the
Oil and Gas Climate Initiative to accelerate its development.
In fact, the biggest obstacle to decarbonised gas is not technical. It’s political.
In this country, gas heating for new houses is set to be banned by 2025.
In the US, at least 12 big cities have banned or plan to ban gas in new buildings.
And on the back of a successful and important campaign against coal, Michael Bloomberg is leading
a $500 million campaign that would halt the building of gas-fired power plants.
These efforts may be well-intentioned. But they are misguided. They rest on a false equivalence
between gas and coal, and an assumption that an all-electric economy will emerge just as soon as we
close the alternatives.
It’s by switching from coal to gas that the world has cut more than 500 million tons of CO2 this decade
alone.
That’s a gain made precisely because gas emits half the carbon of coal when burned for power.
That’s why gas is so important to the energy transition.
Yet gas – in a decarbonised form – is also crucial for the energy destination.
New gas infrastructure doesn’t “lock-in” hydrocarbons – as some critics say. Instead, it paves the way
for decarbonisation.
A few weeks ago, I was on a panel with Ernie Moniz, President Obama’s energy secretary.
As he put it:
But that:
“It doesn’t help any of us to make claims that challenge the laws of physics.”
That’s why you need hydrogen – the most scalable form of decarbonised gas.
To remove gas from buildings or other infrastructure risks pushing the world down a single path, only
for us to find too late that the path falls short of the destination.
It’s an attempt to achieve the energy transition with one hand tied behind our back.
We might get there. We might not. Even if we do, that destination energy system will be inferior to the
one we might have achieved if only we had used all the tools at our disposal.
One estimate says the cost of decarbonising the European energy system would be around a trillion
dollars more if decarbonised gas were excluded from the mix.
Not a detailed plan, but an outline of where we must focus our efforts.
It’s up to us to demonstrate that decarbonised gas is not only viable in a net-zero system, but
essential.
We have to advocate, and be willing to develop the arguments for decarbonised gas I have put
forward this morning.
We need to produce the gas in our existing energy system in a much cleaner way.
And it means cutting down on methane leaks and flaring – today the Achilles’ heel of gas.
We have a target to keep leaks below 0.2% intensity - as a percentage of the gas that goes to market.
We’ll now continuously measure methane emissions in all our new major oil and gas sites.
We’re using drones, cameras, and lasers to detect leaks that would previously have been invisible.
If we are to produce gas cleaner and better now, and that’s increasingly decarbonised in future, we
need regulation.
That includes direct regulation of methane emissions across the value chain.
The more gas we keep in our pipes, the more we can provide to the market.
It’s the most effective, powerful tool there is for decarbonising energy.
Another one for governments. We need to get the infrastructure ready for decarbonised gas.
New natural gas projects must be future-proofed for a low carbon world.
Gas distribution systems must be made fully hydrogen ready – just as they increasingly are in this
country.
We need flexible industrial processes that can work equally well with methane and hydrogen.
It’s not expensive. And it’s far cheaper than starting from scratch.
And yes, we need growing investment in CCUS, just like we’re doing through the OGCI, to make it
commercially viable.
Conclusion
It requires a recognition that there isn’t one road to net-zero, but many paths – and we need to pursue
them all.
It demands an ambition to reach a net-zero world whose precise shape is still to be determined.