Rapid cuts to methane leaks at oil and gas sites needed to meet climate targets – IEA

Cutting methane emissions from oil and gas sites is vital to limiting global warming to 1.5C, the International Energy Agency said today.

In its annual World Energy Outlook, the IEA said this measure could close 15% of the gap between what was needed to limit temperature rise and today’s pledges by world governments.

The flagship report – designed as a guidebook for world leaders at next month’s climate talks in Glasgow – said there would need to be cuts in 2030 of almost 90 million tonnes of methane emissions from fossil fuel operations to keep the world on track for net zero by 2050.

“Rapid reductions in methane emissions are a key tool to limit near-term global warming, and the most cost-effective abatement opportunities are in the energy sector, particularly in oil and gas operations.

“Methane abatement is not addressed quickly or effectively enough by simply reducing fossil fuel use; concerted efforts from governments and industry are vital to secure the emissions cuts that close nearly 15% of the gap to the NZE [Net Zero Emissions by 2050 scenario].”

Today’s report also said the use of oil would have to fall sharply to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

For the first time in a World Energy Outlook, the IEA predicted an eventual decline in oil demand. If all today’s announced climate pledges were met, the world would still be consuming 75 million oil barrels per day by 2050 – down from around 100 million today. But to meet net zero emissions by 2050, the use of oil would need to plummet to 25 million.

The IEA said there had been “a large rebound” in oil and coal use in 2021. Largely for this reason, 2021 was also seeing the second-largest annual increase in carbon dioxide emissions in history.

The IEA’s executive director, Fatih Birol, said:

“The world’s hugely encouraging clean energy momentum is running up against the stubborn incumbency of fossil fuels in our energy systems.

“Governments need to resolve this at Cop26 [climate talks] by giving a clear and unmistakable signal that they are committed to rapidly scaling up the clean and resilient technologies of the future.

“The social and economic benefits of accelerating clean energy transitions are huge, and the costs of inaction are immense.”

In May 2021, the IAE said no new oil and gas fields were required beyond those already approved for development to achieve net zero emissions.

Last week, it reported that fossil fuel operations globally emitted nearly 120m tonnes of methane in 2020, nearly one-third of all methane emissions from human activity. Much of these emissions was leakage along production and supply chains that operators failed to capture or avert, the IEA said.

The organisation has estimated that more than 70% of current emissions from oil and gas operations are technically feasible to prevent and around 45% could be avoided at no net cost because the value of the captured gas is higher than the cost of the abatement measure. This share would be much higher at the moment, given the record highs in natural gas prices, it said.

The energy sector was responsible for almost three-quarters of emissions that have already pushed global average temperatures 1.1C higher than the pre-industrial age, the IEA said:

“The energy sector has to be at the heart of the solution to climate change.”

“Stark difference” between plans and net zero

The IEA described as “stark” the difference between government climate pledges and the changes needed to reach net zero.

It said a new energy economy was emerging around the world as low-carbon technologies flourished. But it said:

“this clean energy progress is still far too slow to put global emissions into sustained decline towards net zero, highlighting the need for an unmistakeable signal of ambition and action from governments in Glasgow.

“Clear signals and direction from policy makers are essential. If the road ahead is paved only with good intentions, then it will be a bumpy ride indeed.”

The report said annual investment in clean energy projects and technology needed to surge to nearly US$4tn (£2.94tn) by 2030. 70% of this would be needed in emerging markets and developing economies.

As well as methane cuts, the IEA called for:

  • “Relentless” focus on energy efficiency, with measures to reduce energy demand
  • “Big boost” for clean energy innovation
  • “Massive additional push” for clean electrification

It said many of these actions would be cost-effective, and the costs of the remainder were insignificant compared with the immense risks of inaction.

Energy transitions would cushion consumers from the shock of commodity price rises, as currently seen in oil and gas, the IEA said. Households would be less reliant on oil and gas, because of improvements in efficiency, a switch to electric cars and a move away from oil or gas boilers. Without investment to boost clean energy, global markets would face a “turbulent and volatile period ahead”.

It described as “huge”, the potential prize for those who “make the leap to the new energy economy”. The annual market opportunity was more than $1 trillion by 2050, comparable with the current global oil market, it said.

Ruth Hayhurst will be reporting for DrillOrDrop from the Cop26 climate talks

13 replies »

  1. So from the consumption side, is everyone prepared to give up their low cost airline, jet set holidays in the name of climate change?

    Ahem I thought not…..

      • I believe you conveniently ignored the “everyone” Jon!

        Looking at the trails from the aircraft in the sky above me today, Jon, it may be convenient for you to do that, but the evidence is up there-even without seeing how many are booking for trips into space.

        There is an interesting contradiction to this report. On one side they want no new oil/gas wells, yet that would mean the old ones that pollute away would be maintained but not in a maintained format! Nuts. Those lovely leaking wells in places like Nigeria, Russia and Venezuela, but no new ones in countries with much higher standards. Sorry, Jon, there will be a lot less than everyone with that sort of disjointed thinking.

          • Thanks for making the point for me Jack! (Although, there were no links, so just your opinion!)

            Where that may be the case, then all the more importance to transfer the production to an area where that will get more control.

            I mean, why would anyone be running an old German diesel belching out toxic fumes when they could have a nice modern vehicle (fossil fueled) that did not?

            Meanwhile, that oil rig count is rising week on week in USA, which indicates they are drilling for more oil as the price rises. Perhaps, if UK took some of the heavy lifting where possible, the world would actually see a decline in the total methane leaked? (Exporting our carbon footprint to a place where it may be a size 12 instead of a size 6!)

            Especially important with Mr. Musk, and others, blasting people into space with all those emissions! Equally, with all the strain upon supply chains, let alone transport emissions, local is best.

            • MARTIN ,

              There you go again , bitter to the core. You just can’t stomach ” Mr Musks ” electric car industry. Always trying to have a chip at him .

              If you are trying to promote UK Fracking , it would be easier to FOLD STEAM . That industry will never be profitable in the UK even with current oil prices . OK I will concede , it will make a few CEO’s and Directors rich and maybe a few of the long term ” skid row ,” investors will be able to finally jump the stricken ship , but that’s it .

              The downsides of Fracking, far outweigh the upsides .

            • So, you make the point again, Jack!

              Much better to produce in UK where standards are higher. Keep on supporting that, Jack, and you may lose your anti badge-but, you will enjoy the exhilaration of entering the sphere of common sense.

              Don’t believe I made any comment regarding Mr. Musk’s EV enterprise, Jack. Perhaps you should re-read what I posted-it is still there. Don’t believe I made any comment about fracking either. And, Jack, there is a moratorium upon fracking in the UK and when there was not, it was not about oil!

              Maybe if you wish to react to what I post then perhaps focus upon what I have posted, rather than meander off into some parallel universe?

              However, looking at needing to meet climate targets, then it will be interesting to examine the impact upon that of around 30k delegates travelling to Glasgow with two cruise ships (so far) planned to chug along to help accommodate those delegates! 30K!! My crystal ball suggests that will be part of the problem, and hinder a solution.


    “Norway’s incoming centre-left government has said it will seek to grow the country’s lucrative oil and gas industry while striving to cut carbon emissions.

    The Labour Party-led coalition unveiled its energy policy before taking office after last month’s general election.

    The government said it wanted to slash net emissions by 55% by 2030.

    But it said the move to green energy would be gradual in Norway, western Europe’s largest oil and gas producer.”

    “The oil and gas sector will be developed, not dismantled,” the coalition said in a policy document released on Wednesday.

    “While Norway’s reliance on oil and gas drew scrutiny during the election campaign, the new government said it had to balance social and economic considerations with climate change targets.

    “Climate policy must not be moralising and must be fair,” the coalition’s policy paper said.

    The government affirmed its commitment to continued oil and gas exploration just weeks before the key international climate summit in Scotland known as COP26.”

    Meanwhile we have bunch of idiots blocking roads and stopping people getting to work……….claiming that insulating pre war houses will save the planet no matter what it costs. Bonkers.

  3. Yes, I saw that E-G.

    The world is a strange place these days.

    I also saw a picture posted by Sky News about the “end of cheap chicken” with a chicken in a cage. Only problem is that the chicken a family would eat would not be an adult chicken from a cage, but a totally different type of chicken around 6 weeks of age, and never having been anywhere near a cage! Someone will be asked to find a picture to represent the Derby next, and there will be a donkey. Just goes to show that those who are attempting to “educate” us haven’t got a clue what they are on about.

Leave a Reply to Paul Tresto Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s