Transition to clean growth: the role of subsurface

Answers from Tony Doré and Richard Davies

Mark Ireland: Question for Tony. Could Tony comment on whether he thinks ALL the traditional big integrated energy companies (e.g. Shell, BP, Total) will survive the transition, and what might they look like on the other side? Will they shift towards being utility companies?

Tony: Based solely on the “too big to fail” premise, I think they will mostly survive in some form.  Many big companies have vowed to make the transition to being energy companies, not just O&G.  This isn’t just about “good business” – it’s also because many people within those companies are truly concerned and want change.  Rather than just dismiss this as “greenwashing” I think we should take them at their word and hold them to it.  If by utility you mean electricity, yes, I believe that is what we will see. 

Sara Walker: How can we better predict the future, if history is a poor basis?

Tony: Yes, I realise my comment on the “driving using only the rear-view mirror” might have sounded a bit glib.  But the fact is, we can’t predict the future.  Who anticipated the 2020 lockdown?  A few lone voices maybe, but in general we just did not see it coming.  I am pretty confident we are going to see major step changes – not just on the negative side (war, pandemic) but on the positive side (major breakthroughs in alternative energy, harnessing and storage).  If I knew what they were, I could probably become a billionaire.

Gavin Elliott: How do you think the Energy Transition will impact on developing countries where many people want the cheap energy but aren't too worried about where it comes from?

Tony: That’s the major worry.  You can’t blame developing countries for wanting a share of what we have enjoyed for so long.  So, we have to hope for – and work towards – those step changes we talked about.  We need to give the developing countries an attractive and cheap alternative to coal and perpetually polluted skies.  Then maybe they will make the right choice.  In any case, things are not that simple.  China and India are currently 1^st and 4^th in the world respectively in terms of amount of wind power produced.  So, it’s not as if they are ignoring renewables.

Conor O'Sullivan: Great talk Tony, many thanks. Do you think university geoscience degrees are adapting fast enough to equip young geoscientists for the new energy sector, and how can they do it better? Cheers!

Tony: As you know I’m not fully immersed in the academic world, so I may not be the right person to judge.  But I would think the time is right to structure geoscience courses around the energy transition.  They would be pretty popular I think, and counterbalance the decline we see in petroleum geoscience interest. There is plenty of material!

Olivia Woolley: Do you see a role for carbon capture and storage?

Tony: Yes definitely, and of course geoscientists can play a major role.  I didn’t have time to talk about that today, unfortunately. My main concern is that our available methods may never be enough to make a difference.  But I’d like to be proven wrong.
I am aware of several great initiatives on CCS here in the UK – for example on the use of depleted gas fields in the southern North Sea for CO₂ storage.  But despite initial good intentions, the UK government has really blotted its copybook on CCS, by withdrawing funding from some important test projects in the North Sea – the Goldeneye and Endurance projects for example.

Kevin Parmassar: Given that the Energy Gap is focussed on developing countries and they may need to get access to cheaper and reasonably priced energy, regardless of the methods, shouldn't the priority be on producing these conventional resources in a cleaner manner - forcing CCS / sulphur and CO2 recovery etc on a global scale.

Tony:  I agree and I am interested in finding out more about that.  The question, though, is what will be the most cost-effective – harnessing renewable energy (of which, as I pointed out, there is a vast potential supply) – or cleaning up after non-renewables.

Alexander Peace: Thanks for the talk Tony! It is clear that geoscience and geoscientists are required to make the transition, yet student enrolment in geology is down at many institutions. Why do you think this is and how can we attract students to geology? Does geology have a public image/perception issue?

Tony: Maybe it’s because of the endless mocking of geology as the lowliest of the sciences on “The Big Bang Theory” (I find it really funny, actually).
Seriously, yes of course there is a public image problem.  Students used to see geology as a major career pathway, with petroleum geology at the top of the earnings pinnacle.  Now they face public rebuke for even thinking that way.  So, we need to show prospective students – and their friends and relatives - that there are plenty more exciting options in the field, and that they can play a vital part in the energy transition.  Edith Wilson (Rock Whisperer), who helped me with this talk, is making it her mission to educate students to the new reality, to promote retraining and to show them where the opportunities are.  She gives brilliant online seminars to universities, website.

Elisa Lopez-Capel: While exploration and extraction improves, can we expect storage (transport) will? limited by technology or cost or environmental concerns?

Tony: If you’re talking about critical minerals, yes that is surely the case.  Everything comes at a price – both economically and environmentally.  We can’t pretend that extraction and processing of critical minerals won’t create its own problems.  I think we’d all much rather find a solution to energy storage that doesn’t involve strip-mining.  Here’s one innovative idea.  Not economic yet, but the kind of idea we need. 
Electricity in general, even from exclusively renewable sources, is not without its problems either.  Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) is a gas widely used in electrical insulation.  But, unfortunately, it can leak into the atmosphere, where it is 24,000 times more potent than CO₂ as a greenhouse gas.  Check out  Nothing is easy.

BHARBEENA TALUKDAR: It is really a nice webinar and very informative. What about the upcoming career opportunities in this regard ? Can we hope for a positive response in terms of career?

Tony: I hope and believe so.  Please see my answer to Alex Peace above.

Nathaniel Forbes Inskip: What makes you think that we won't go back to business as usual after this pandemic is over. It is great that our carbon footprint is reduced from being forced to move to online meetings etc. but many people/companies are struggling under these conditions and I can imagine that they will be keen to revert back. e.g. hard and heavy industries, aviation.....

Tony: They might be keen to revert back, but will the public at large be so keen?  Will we go back to feeling everyone is entitled to a round-the-world tour courtesy of cheap aviation?  Will we automatically travel to every business meeting, no matter how trivial the topic, when we know a Zoom will do the job perfectly well?  Most of all, will people want to commute for 90 minutes through crowds and pollution to a centralized office, when they have shown that, by and large, they can work perfectly well from home?
Perhaps you’re right and it will be back to business as usual.  But even then, if (heaven forbid) Covid-19 is not the last but the first of a series of pandemics – then that will be a definite step-change in our way of life, and hence in our energy consumption.

Onos: As the exploration for metals and REE’s increases to meet the demand for batteries in the future, will this not equally be very damaging to the environment giving that we are now even thinking of deep-sea mining.

Tony:  I can’t say whether it will be equal, but yes there will be an environmental cost.  There always is. See my answer to a similar question from Elisa Lopez-Cadel above.

Mohamed Rouainia: Many thanks for the great talk. Can storage of hydrogen in geological formations be one of the solutions? Thanks

Richard: Yes, Hydrogen storage could be important, perhaps we can store it underground when plentiful wind energy means electrolysis is cheap and then use it in cars.  Newcastle University is partnering on an important project in this area.

Rachel: Do you think the public’s perception around the use of the subsurface will influence future energy scenarios? Taking ‘shale fail’ as an example.

Tony: I think public perception is incredibly important, whether justified or ill-informed.  What matters is what people believe.  Our job as scientists is to keep repeating the facts and the truth whether people want to hear them or not.  Then we have done our best to change perceptions and beliefs through objectivity.   
Public perception of subsurface issues is already affecting energy scenarios, as evidenced for example by the banning of fracking in many places.  But “shale fail” is not in my opinion to do with that.  It’s mainly due to economics.  The US shale industry is teetering as I write this, not because of public perception, but because the product prices have dropped well below their breakeven cost.  But be aware – the unconventional/shale story is not over.  The thing about these plays is that they can be easily shut down but just as easily started up again.  They have nothing like the long turnaround time we see for conventional hydrocarbons.  And the resources will still be there waiting…

George Hudman: Do you think we can help speed up the energy transition by charging a so called carbon tax to encourage companies to reduce their carbon footprint.

Tony: I won’t make myself very popular with my former industry, but yes, I think so.  That’s what the Nobel Economics Prize winner I was quoting, William Nordhaus, was advocating.  But the carbon tax should be spread through the value chain – producers, distributors, suppliers, users.  People who use fossil fuels are just as much involved as those who produce them.

Claire McGhee: Thanks for the great talk! What role do you think nuclear has for the future and are green movements underplaying their importance?

Tony:  Ah, how much time have you got?  Despite my various positions in the petroleum industry, I have been an advocate of nuclear as long as I can remember – especially back when it seemed renewables would never be efficient or cost-effective enough.The problem with nuclear is that it is not amenable to logic.  People have a visceral fear of nuclear energy, especially people from my generation who grew up during the Cold War.  Nuclear is bad, full stop.  It’s very like flying versus travel by car.  People know logically that cars are far less safe, but by and large they don’t have a phobia about them.  There have been some horrible nuclear accidents, but the number of deaths and injuries is almost certainly a tiny fraction of those caused by fossil fuel emissions.
Research into nuclear energy, its implementation, and the safe disposal of its waste products, has been constantly torpedoed because of this prejudice – not just by the NGOs, but by governments too.  A major accident happens in Japan due to an earthquake/tsunami, so aseismic Germany promptly calls a halt to nuclear power.  Go figure!
I am encouraged though by the growth of interest in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) for local and specific use.  I’m guessing you know all about this work, but just in case, Wikipedia is very good on this: 

Foster: Do you think the major oil companies have a major role to play in energy transition in the new emerging producer counties in Africa?

Tony: I presume by this you mean the mainly west African countries where new resources have been found (Angola, Gabon, Ghana, etc.)  Just my opinion, but I think the oil companies themselves will find it difficult to be effective there.  Those countries will see the oil companies as a means to exploit their oil wealth and turn it into value for the country, and will probably not turn to them for advice on the Energy Transition.  But outside of the petroleum company umbrella, Africa is in a position to be one of the main beneficiaries of cheaper and more efficient solar energy.  Test projects for off-grid supply are already in progress as you may know.  Like this one: 

Tony:  Thanks for the nice comments, and perceptive lines of questioning - and thank you all for attending!