Started By
Message

IEA Says World Must Spend $540B a Year Looking for Oil, Gas

Posted on 9/16/25 at 11:57 am
Posted by ragincajun03
Member since Nov 2007
27112 posts
Posted on 9/16/25 at 11:57 am
quote:

The world needs to spend some $540 billion a year looking for oil and gas to maintain current output by 2050 as the pace of declines in existing fields increases, according to the International Energy Agency.

Faster decline rates, in part because of an increased global dependency on US shale, mean that the global oil and gas industry “has to run much faster just to stand still,” the agency’s executive director Fatih Birol said.

The outlook also means that companies will need to tap reserves that haven’t yet been discovered, unless demand shifts away from fossil fuels, for production to remain where it is today in 25 years. It also marks a significant shift in tone for the IEA which, in recent years, has called on major producers to spend more on clean energy.



quote:

Without investment, global supply would fall by the combined production of Norway and Brazil — more than 5 million barrels a day — every year. That amount is around 40% higher than it was in 2010, partly because of more reliance on shale production, particularly from the US, which typically depletes faster than conventional reserves.

While global spending is likely to hit $570 billion this year — enough to keep production at current levels if sustained — the amount would be down slightly from 2024, Christophe McGlade, head of the IEA’s energy supply unit, said on a webinar.


LINK

Well, well, well…quite a change in rhetoric from the IEA and their Executive Director when just two years ago they were saying:

quote:

“The shift to a clean energy economy is picking up pace, with a peak in global oil demand in sight before the end of this decade as electric vehicles, energy efficiency and other technologies advance,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. “Oil producers need to pay careful attention to the gathering pace of change and calibrate their investment decisions to ensure an orderly transition.”


LINK
Posted by jmarto1
Houma, LA/ Las Vegas, NV
Member since Mar 2008
37721 posts
Posted on 9/16/25 at 11:59 am to
I read that as IKEA
This post was edited on 9/16/25 at 11:59 am
Posted by bapple
Capital City
Member since Oct 2010
12181 posts
Posted on 9/16/25 at 12:01 pm to
Even more entertaining has been the about-face from Big Tech that pushed for wind and solar for decades. All of a sudden they need REAL power for their big facilities and are falling over themselves for gas turbines.

Reality has a way of dealing with stupid. Sometimes it just takes time.
Posted by AaronDeTiger
baton rouge
Member since Jun 2014
2148 posts
Posted on 9/16/25 at 12:02 pm to
nuclear will fill the gap.
Posted by SaintsTiger
1,000,000 Posts
Member since Oct 2014
1883 posts
Posted on 9/16/25 at 12:05 pm to
Chickens are coming home to roost

How many (actual) dirt poor people in the 3rd world countries have died, contracted diseases, gone hungry, lived in squalor, etc due to liberal’s green energy push?

By the way solar panels placed in farm fields actually get rid of natural plants and food sources and leach chemicals into the ground, while not producing much electricity

Retards
Posted by Crow Pie
Neuro ICU - Tulane Med Center
Member since Feb 2010
27088 posts
Posted on 9/16/25 at 12:05 pm to
Are they saying that "renewable and green energy" can't fill a gap in energy resources, in which we give them a 25-year head start?

Sounds like they really do know what we all know:

Green = Scam to launder via the politician's brother-in-law
Posted by ActusHumanus
St. George, Louisiana
Member since Sep 2025
512 posts
Posted on 9/16/25 at 12:08 pm to
quote:

Green = Scam to launder via the politician's brother-in-law


No one that lives in a shithole like Cancer Alley in Louisiana could possible agree with this. We need cleaner energy. We just can't do it at the expense of human lives.

The real issue is that those on the Left are so neck deep in making money off of "Green" that they refuse to recognize that safe nuclear is the answer.
Posted by LSUBoo
Knoxville, TN
Member since Mar 2006
103397 posts
Posted on 9/16/25 at 12:10 pm to
Green is fine on a micro level, but on a macro level it's just not enough juice for an industrialized world. If someone wants to put solar panels on their roof, have at it.
Posted by Bigdawgb
Member since Oct 2023
3202 posts
Posted on 9/16/25 at 12:19 pm to
quote:

Even more entertaining has been the about-face from Big Tech that pushed for wind and solar for decades. All of a sudden they need REAL power for their big facilities and are falling over themselves for gas turbines.


Came here to say this but you beat me to it

Think about all the energy you've saved in your life by paying higher prices, dealing with regulations etc. Being inconvenienced.

Now think how quickly that gets canceled out by Google's new data center using 5 million gallons of water a day & a whole big arse powerplant to itself. All pushed through no problem in a bunch of handshake deals. Who are these guys looking out for??
This post was edited on 9/16/25 at 12:20 pm
Posted by Obtuse1
Westside Bodymore Yo
Member since Sep 2016
29905 posts
Posted on 9/16/25 at 12:22 pm to
quote:

Even more entertaining has been the about-face from Big Tech that pushed for wind and solar for decades. All of a sudden they need REAL power for their big facilities and are falling over themselves for gas turbines.


Not accurate. The AI data centers are using almost every form of power production, wind, solar, gas, and nuclear. Their thirst for power is looking in every corner. Hell, some of them are using gen-sets.
Posted by ragincajun03
Member since Nov 2007
27112 posts
Posted on 9/16/25 at 12:36 pm to
quote:

Now think how quickly that gets canceled out by Google's new data center using 5 million gallons of water a day


Yep.

The opposite of environmental and conservation friendly.
Posted by Crow Pie
Neuro ICU - Tulane Med Center
Member since Feb 2010
27088 posts
Posted on 9/16/25 at 12:46 pm to
quote:

No one that lives in a shithole like Cancer Alley in Louisiana could possible agree with this. We need cleaner energy. We just can't do it at the expense of human lives.
Wrong. "They" have been pushing no fossil fuels for 30 years and now they say that even with a 25-year head start they can't replace Big Oil.

Renewable energy as a secondary supplement option is fine, but trying to kill oil isn't going to happen unless they go nuclear.

My point is they have been BS all along, and if you don't think in the Cancer Alley known as Louisiana that politicians are not grifting on the green energy, then I don't know what to tell you.
Posted by bapple
Capital City
Member since Oct 2010
12181 posts
Posted on 9/16/25 at 12:51 pm to
quote:

The AI data centers are using almost every form of power production, wind, solar, gas, and nuclear.


Which of these forms of energy are controllable by human input? Which are weather-driven and not dependent on human input?

Most data centers run on a 5-nines level of reliability (99.999%). Which form of power can provide 24/7/365 with brief periods of downtime for maintenance?

You may be hearing they are using all forms of energy but if you actually look at their actions, they are going for gas turbines first. With a vast pipeline network and near unlimited gas, it makes the most sense.

Until a hospital erects a wind farm or solar farm to backup systems that directly support human life, I will continue to see and believe that baseload, dispatchable power sources (gas, coal, nuclear) are more reliable and preferred. If not for the massive subsidies, “green” energy would not exist in the free market.
Posted by billjamin
Houston
Member since Jun 2019
16282 posts
Posted on 9/16/25 at 12:52 pm to
quote:

"They" have been pushing no fossil fuels for 30 years and now they say that even with a 25-year head start they can't replace Big Oil.

I'll soften up my previous response.

This isn't accurate and ignores to many factors to be even close to true.
This post was edited on 9/16/25 at 1:15 pm
Posted by The Torch
DFW The Dub
Member since Aug 2014
27068 posts
Posted on 9/16/25 at 12:53 pm to
Truck Nuts ON
Posted by Mr Happy
Member since May 2019
2296 posts
Posted on 9/16/25 at 1:47 pm to
There are a bunch of areas I'm the world where they know oil is, but it's expensive to drill for it. Apparently Venezuela and several other post-Soviet republics have a lot of know oil but haven't spent the money on oil infrastructure.
Posted by billjamin
Houston
Member since Jun 2019
16282 posts
Posted on 9/16/25 at 2:00 pm to
quote:

The real issue is that those on the Left are so neck deep in making money off of "Green" that they refuse to recognize that safe nuclear is the answer.

You do realize nuclear had the same subsidization structure as wind and solar right?
Posted by chinhoyang
Member since Jun 2011
25476 posts
Posted on 9/16/25 at 3:07 pm to
400 b of which will be third world payoffs of some type
Posted by RanchoLaPuerto
Jena
Member since Aug 2023
1734 posts
Posted on 9/16/25 at 3:11 pm to
quote:

I read that as IKEA


Well. The IEA did have a . . . cabinet . . . meeting to discuss it.
Posted by aTmTexas Dillo
East Texas Lake
Member since Sep 2018
22112 posts
Posted on 9/16/25 at 3:12 pm to
What is it Tommy said in Landman? Something like we will run out of it before we ever find its replacement. We are not of that mindset yet so we keep looking. As far as the US, maybe we can find more in offshore Alaska??
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram