Thank you Dan, and good morning Ladies and Gentlemen.
It is always exciting to be in Houston for CERAWeek. But the buzz is special this year. We can all feel the winds of history in our industry’s sails again.
And today I would like to explain why.
For over a decade, and along with others from our industry, I have felt a growing responsibility to highlight the inherent flaws in the current energy transition plan. This stems from a deep commitment to our consumers around the world. And to an energy future that includes genuine reductions in GHG emissions and a strong focus on sustainability.
However, like many of you in this room, I am an engineer to my core. I evaluate plans through the lens of inputs and outputs, or “bang for the buck” as you say in America. With almost 10 trillion dollars of transition-related spending worldwide, and two decades of effort, the inputs are clear.
And the promised outputs were promoted with unwavering confidence. There would be a full inventory of essential and genuinely competitive transition technologies. A new world of cheaper, more secure, and more sustainable alternative energy would be imminent by swiftly consigning conventional energy to the history books.
And with wide-ranging global co-operation, universal access would guarantee fairness for everyone. Many of us knew these promises were impossible to keep, but our industry no longer had a seat at the table. It has taken a decade in the transition debate wilderness to expose the fallacies, and the real-world impact of group-think.
For example, the cost. Besides the 10 trillion dollars already spent, it is estimated that global climate action will need a staggering 6 to 8 trillion dollars more, every year. Still, if alternatives were ready, those who pushed hardest and fastest to cut conventional energy should be the envy of the world.
Instead, it has been a painful awakening for those who thought energy affordability and security could be taken for granted. Europe is paying roughly double for electricity compared with five years ago, and 3 to 4 times that of the U.S. and China.
And some countries are losing their industrial base and jobs as companies consider relocating to stay competitive, or shut down. Another reality is that the wealthiest 1 billion people in the world consume 40 percent of global energy.
But it is the poorest 7 billion that will account for most of the growth in energy demand as they climb the prosperity ladder. Yet they have received just 15 percent of energy transition investments, while technology transfer and capacity building levels are far too low.
Then there was the fiction that critical transition technologies are genuinely competitive and being rapidly deployed. Take green hydrogen. Many were aiming for 1 dollar per kilogram by 2030.
Yet production costs alone currently range wildly from almost 4 dollars per kilogram to 12 dollars. That is 200 to 600 dollars per barrel of oil equivalent!
Or look at very long-term energy storage, where most technology is still early and costly, and the payback period ranges from 15 to 40 years. So, relying too much on intermittent renewables, without sufficient back-up and grid scale long-term storage, makes 24/7 reliability a tough challenge.
And bear in mind that global electricity consumption is expected to double by 2050, with air conditioning and electrification, along with AI and data centers, consuming a large share of that growth.
In heavy transport and heavy industries, which together consume up to 60 percent of global oil supplies, alternatives have barely made a dent. Even with EVs, we see growing push-back from consumers who value choice and affordability over mandates.
This is forcing automakers to re-focus their efforts on cost-effective hybrids and more efficient internal combustion engines. So, if the total penetration of EVs is still only 4 percent, and if wind & solar combined is also less than 4 percent of global energy supplies, then we are barely 4 miles into a 100 mile journey!
Indeed, the greatest transition fiction was that conventional energy could be almost entirely replaced, virtually overnight. The last time this actually happened was when whale oil demand collapsed around 150 years ago!
Hydrocarbons still provide over 80 percent of primary energy here in the US, almost 90 percent in China, and even in the EU it is more than 70 percent. And, in absolute terms, the world consumes vastly more hydrocarbons than it did three decades ago – about 100 million barrels per day of oil equivalent.
Even wood and traditional biomass have not fallen much in 200 years when people thought coal, then oil and gas, would take their place. So I pay little attention to forecasts claiming that next year will be peak this, or peak that. This is simply history repeating itself.
New sources add to the energy mix and complement existing sources. They do not replace them. That is why the current strategy of prematurely switching to immature alternatives has been so self-destructive.
New sources cannot even meet the growth in demand, while the proven sources needed to fill the gap are demonized and discarded. It is a fast-track to dystopia, not utopia. In short, the net result of 10 trillion dollars over 2 decades is to basically stand still and consume record quantities of coal.
Not exactly mission accomplished! In fact, there is more chance of Elvis speaking next than the current plan working! And a wave of public dissatisfaction with transition reality is crashing over countries, companies, and consumers alike.
So, a new model of future energy is urgently needed that reflects the reality of growing demand and energy addition. And I believe it should be based on three core principles.
First, all sources must play a growing role in meeting rising energy demand in a balanced, integrated manner. Certainly, that includes new and alternative energy sources. But they will complement conventional energy, not replace it in any meaningful way. So we need investments in all sources.
At Aramco, we are playing our part, investing more than 50 billion dollars last year in both conventional energy and several renewable energy projects. For example, we have a target to invest in up to 12 gigawatts of solar and wind energy by 2030. And to further free up such investments globally we need extensive de-regulation, and greater incentives for financial institutions to provide unbiased financing.
Second, the model must genuinely serve the needs of developed and developing nations alike, as originally promised, especially when it comes to technology.
Third, and crucially, this has to be about delivering real results.
Let me be absolutely clear: this does not mean stepping back from our global climate ambitions. Reducing GHG emissions must still get the highest possible priority. That means prioritizing technologies that drive efficiency, lower energy use, and further reduce GHG emissions from conventional energy. And AI will clearly be a game-changing enabler.
But the future of energy is not only about sustainability. Security and affordability must share the stage. With all energy sources working in harmony as one team, delivering real results.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the world was promised many things in the current transition plan. It was like promising an energy El Dorado. And this quest was equally doomed to fail.
I take no pleasure in this. But it is time to stop reinforcing failure. Indeed, as the fictions of the promised transition finally wash away, there is an historic opportunity to change course.
So let’s shape an energy future the world actually wants, can actually afford, and can actually reach, including climate goals. And with the winds of history in our sails again, let’s use our industry’s vast experience and practical expertise to usher in a truly golden new era of abundant, affordable, and sustainable energy for all.
Thank you.
Media contact information
All media enquiries are handled by Aramco's Media & Executive Communications Department, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
For media inquiries, please email us at media.inquiries@aramco.com