• The roughly 430 billion tonnes [pdf] of additional carbon dioxide emissions that a trillion new barrels oil would represent;
• Some 4½ years of scenario development by the International Energy Agency and others that shows demand for all three fossil fuels peaking this decade before going into permanent decline;
• The cost per barrel of the additional oil the existing fields would produce amid projections that global markets are headed for several years of low prices, making it difficult for fossil companies or their investors to make money on new ventures;
• The plummeting cost and rapid buildout of competing renewable energy and energy efficiency options;
• IEA analysis that shows fossil companies already “running faster to stand still”, on the hook for $500 billion per year just to replace depleted wells and maintain their current production;
• The practicalities of transferring tips and techniques from “mature” oilfields to other parts of the world;
• The capital spending and resources that would be needed to maintain existing oilfield infrastructure to a high operating standard;
• The human resources companies would need to operate the fields, at a time when relatively few graduates are choosing fossil industry jobs;
• The specific steps host countries would have to take to make their fossil resources “attractive” to investors; or
• The race to the bottom that would imply.
A WoodMac spokesperson acknowledged some of the complexities behind the company’s pitch in an email to The Energy Mix. “The potential for additional recoverable resources depends on a variety of factors, some of which are unlikely to be realized in a way that will deliver material additions to current reserves,” they said.
“Although these reserves are technically accessible, much of the potential additional resources are sub-commercial in current conditions,” the spokesperson added. To realize this upside, several factors would have to align: technical partnerships between producers and service companies would need to be expanded, host governments would need to provide the fiscal and regulatory support to spur increased investment, and global demand under the energy transition would need to be maintained. It is likely that the national interests of some producing countries and the economic incentives for producers could make pursuing these reserves increases unattractive at current or future market conditions.”
430 Gigatonnes of CO2
Author and analyst Ketan Joshi scorched the WoodMac analysis in a post on LinkedIn.
“What are the emissions in a trillion barrels of oil?” he asked. “Assuming 0.43 tonnes of CO2 per barrel, that’s about 430 gigatonnes. To give you an idea of how nutty this is,” 430 Gt would equal:
• All the world’s CO2 emissions between 2012 and 2023, which in turn were one-quarter of all the CO2 ever emitted;
• Roughly as much carbon dioxide pollution as the United States has ever produced, and more than double China’s historical emissions;
• All global emissions from oil combustion since 1982, and about 70% of combustion emissions ever.
Climate change “isn’t mentioned anywhere in their report, and the only thing worse than them not believing it exists would be if they do believe it exists, but want to see this volume of fossil extraction enabled anyway,” Joshi wrote. “Of course, their software isn’t capable of actually unlocking a trillion barrels of oil. But the real goal is to scramble to stem the bleeding decline of the oil industry, and put the fossil fuel industry on life support for a few more years, increasing extraction wherever and however they can.”
Game-Changing in the Wrong Direction
Energy transition pioneer Amory Lovins, co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, agreed that AI could increase hydrocarbon reserves and yields while reducing production costs by as much as 20%, or 30% for new shale wells. Unlike WoodMac, he doesn’t frame that as a good thing.
“AI’s potential but mostly speculative and noncomparable energy benefits, such as greater energy efficiency and cheaper renewable power, must also be compared with the indirect impacts of rising demand for energy-intensive AI services, faster hardware turnover (with more embodied energy), and especially accelerating polluting activities like finding and extracting fossil hydrocarbons—one of AI’s biggest uses,” he wrote [pdf] in a May 2025 paper, “Artificial Intelligence Meets Natural Stupidity: Managing the Risks”.
“Extra emissions—‘enabled impacts’—from burning otherwise unavailable or uncompetitive fossil fuels could then far exceed emissions avoided by more efficient data centres, making the AI ‘game-changing’ in the wrong direction.”
In global markets, “oil has already become uncompetitive even at low prices before it becomes unavailable even at high prices,” Lovins told The Mix in an email. But “history might suggest higher confidence in realizing AI applications in the hypercompetitive fossil fuel industries than in emission reductions spread across all other sectors. That imbalance may tip realized results toward net harm. That needs urgent clarification.”
Caroline Dennett, a former senior consultant to colossal fossil Shell who became a whistleblower against the company’s health and safety practices in 2022, said Wood Mackenzie’s projection “may appear technologically bold, but it overlooks the operational and human realities that determine whether such recovery is even feasible or safe, let alone environmentally responsible.”
Much of the decades-old oil and gas infrastructure now in use “was never designed for prolonged use,” she saidin an email. “Deferred maintenance, corrosion, and integrity degradation already challenge safety performance within expected operational lifetimes,” and “each additional year of operation pushes equipment and people further beyond design intent.”
Dennett added that “extracting a trillion more barrels might sound attractive to those still wedded to fossil fuel economics and dividends.” But “without deep analysis of safety, integrity, and human capability, the true yield will be measured not in barrels, but in incidents, liabilities, and litigation.”
