Exxon Mobil and GM

Passport1

Passport1

Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
3,570
Location
A Barrier Island
I think the author of this article is very misguided. He asserts Exxon is on the wrong path but GM, so poorly run that it went bankrupt 12 years ago is now a global energy oracle.

More likely GM and VW are going to get electrocuted while the rest of the world serenely motors on by. 🔮

 
Depends on the exact prediction of that world in second life ;-) Some butterfly effect, prayers and BITOG could help making it drift off...
 
Let me get this straight:
Tesla, maker of electric vehicles and solar panels, fifth most valuable company in the S&P 500, and worth more than the next six largest automakers combined, is misguided.
VW, for making a shift to electrification, is misguided.
GM, for filing for bankruptcy over a decade ago and shifting to electrification, is misguided (and poorly run).
BP, Shell, and Total, for taking a different stance than XOM, are all misguided.

A group of corporations with a combined market cap of $1.3 trillion don't know what they're doing and are misguided, according to your, an internet rando's, crystal ball?

tenor.gif
 
tombalas said:
My college physics professor often commented that petroleum was such a magically useful substance that it was an outright shame to just burn it for fuel. Maybe he was on to something.
Click to expand...
I used to think the same thing. Petroleum is a very useful commodity and thankfully there is a lot of it for all sorts of uses.
 
LazyDog said:
The problem with petroleum is that it only prices the extraction, process, and forgets about the environment damage which is not capture
on the price.
Click to expand...
In this world today if I thought that way I wouldn't use it....
That said it is in about everything.
It is taxed enough to help with that issue but on here we can't discuss that.
 
Passport1 said:
I think the author of this article is very misguided. He asserts Exxon is on the wrong path but GM, so poorly run that it went bankrupt 12 years ago is now a global energy oracle.

More likely GM and VW are going to get electrocuted while the rest of the world serenely motors on by. 🔮

Click to expand...
I think the author is half wrong in the sense that that renewables & battery storage alone will not be able to offset the potential increase in charging demand so NatGas and Oil will have a bigger role in power generation. Of course the question is by how much as in how much oil which would normally be refined into gasoline will now be used to generate power in an oil fired powerplant? If Exxon can reliably implement carbon capture technology it would remove a big hurdle for burning oil/gas.
 
Zee09 said:
In this world today if I thought that way I wouldn't use it....
That said it is in about everything.
It is taxed enough to help with that issue but on here we can't discuss that.
Click to expand...

It is just an observation, my water bill has additional sewer charge to process the waste water.
 
Passport1 said:
I had a nice ribeye last night. Lots of petroleum needed to raise and market cattle 🐄 which produce methane gas (flatulence). I guess I was engaged in a shameful bit of gastronomic negative externality. 😏
Click to expand...
More like this

"A negative externality is a cost that is suffered by a third party as a consequence of an economic transaction. In a transaction, the producer and consumer are the first and second parties, and third parties include any individual, organisation, property owner, or resource that is indirectly affected."

So in your example a negative externality could be the additional water pollution generated by the animal waste and overuse of fertilizer used to grow the feed for the cow. That water pollution went down the Cape Fear River into the Atlantic where it created an algae bloom which sickened some beachgoers.
 
Exactly right. That's why the Atlantic Ocean at my beach is polluted (it's not). It starts from a false dilemma then combines with a slippery slope and eventually makes people sick and maybe fat also.

I get it. Lots of people don't like the questionable tradeoffs that come with reliance on petroleum. There is no realistic substitute now or just around the corner. Unless we (collectively) are willing to abandon the energy sources extant and begin living like medievals, this is not going to change.

In this instance Exxon is correct and the rest are Don Quixote, this time mistaking oil rigs and shale fields for their giants.

1612543334867.png
 
Last edited:
Passport1 said:
Exactly right. That's why the Atlantic Ocean at my beach is polluted (it's not). It starts from a false dilemma then combines with a slippery slope and eventually makes people sick and maybe fat also.

I get it. Lots of people don't like the questionable tradeoffs that come with reliance on petroleum. There is no realistic substitute now or just around the corner. Unless we (collectively) are willing to abandon the energy sources extant and begin living like medievals, this is not going to change.

In this instance Exxon is correct and the rest are Don Quixote, this time mistaking oil rigs and shale fields for their giants.

View attachment 44216
Click to expand...

Naw, it's a very well crafted plot to provide green social license for existing oil giants by allowing them to invest in "green" technology that cannot exist without fossil fuels. Wind and solar lock in gas and require massive amounts of fossil fuels to produce, so the plan here is investment in their future by carefully crafting a narrative that buys them immunity from criticism going forward.

About 20 years ago the Ontario provincial parties all agreed that we would phase-out coal from power generation. This was supposed to happen, according to the government of the day, on the backs of wind and solar technologies as Germany had pledged to do via Energiewende. Pickering was going to get closed down but luckily the Bruce plant had been isolated from potential stupidity by a previous administration. We signed contract over contract at insane rates for wind and solar, neither of which did much of anything other than drive up consumer rates. The return to service of existing nuclear units ultimately provided >90% of the power necessary with gas doing the rest and Ontario ratepayers are on the hook for what appears to be about $70 billion dollars over the 20 year lifespans of contracts for generation we never needed and whose output gets sold to the US for an average price of ~$0.015/kWh. Pickering is still operating, having received multiple license extensions at this point because we've needed the power. It produces ~23TWh/year, so its output is not insignificant. The government must now decide to go hard on gas and drive up emissions or spend the money and refurbish Pickering, despite the previous idiotic decision by the VRE pluggers not to, after the operator had an EA approved and the project was ready to go.

What a lot of people THINK will happen is not what actually WILL happen and the oil companies know that. Supporting technologies that are no real threat to your bottom line by virtue signalling is just smart business.
 
OVERKILL said:
Naw, it's a very well crafted plot to provide green social license for existing oil giants by allowing them to invest in "green" technology that cannot exist without fossil fuels. Wind and solar lock in gas and require massive amounts of fossil fuels to produce, so the plan here is investment in their future by carefully crafting a narrative that buys them immunity from criticism going forward.

About 20 years ago the Ontario provincial parties all agreed that we would phase-out coal from power generation. This was supposed to happen, according to the government of the day, on the backs of wind and solar technologies as Germany had pledged to do via Energiewende. Pickering was going to get closed down but luckily the Bruce plant had been isolated from potential stupidity by a previous administration. We signed contract over contract at insane rates for wind and solar, neither of which did much of anything other than drive up consumer rates. The return to service of existing nuclear units ultimately provided >90% of the power necessary with gas doing the rest and Ontario ratepayers are on the hook for what appears to be about $70 billion dollars over the 20 year lifespans of contracts for generation we never needed and whose output gets sold to the US for an average price of ~$0.015/kWh. Pickering is still operating, having received multiple license extensions at this point because we've needed the power. It produces ~23TWh/year, so its output is not insignificant. The government must now decide to go hard on gas and drive up emissions or spend the money and refurbish Pickering, despite the previous idiotic decision by the VRE pluggers not to, after the operator had an EA approved and the project was ready to go.

What a lot of people THINK will happen is not what actually WILL happen and the oil companies know that. Supporting technologies that are no real threat to your bottom line by virtue signalling is just smart business.
Click to expand...
Wow! --->gobsmacked by your analysis. We here sur de la fronterra can profit from your risky experiments. (y)
 

Report: Under Activist Pressure, ExxonMobil Mulling Changes to Its Board, Further Push Into Renewables

ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) is feeling the squeeze of not one but a pair of activist investors, and apparently planning to respond accordingly. An art...
markets.businessinsider.com markets.businessinsider.com

From the article:

ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) is feeling the squeeze of not one but a pair of activist investors, and apparently planning to respond accordingly. An article published Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, citing "people familiar with the matter," stated that the company is discussing changes to its board of directors and considering a ramp-up of investments in sustainable energy solutions.The two activists pushing for changes in the company are D.E. Shaw Group and Engine No. 1. Also on Wednesday, the latter company formally nominated four candidates for ExxonMobil's board. In response, ExxonMobil issued a press release stating that its board affairs committee "will evaluate Engine No. 1's notice of nomination and nominees in line with the corporation's by-laws." Image source: Getty Images.Continue reading
Read more on "MotleyFool"
-----------------------------------------------------


Who's Engine No.1...

www.reuters.com

Exxon faces proxy fight launched by new activist firm Engine No. 1

A new investment firm is taking aim at one of corporate America's most iconic brands, pressing energy giant Exxon Mobil Corp to overhaul itself by focusing more on clean energy to improve its financial performance.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com


Their own website (marketing)

A new way of seeing value | Engine No. 1

Engine No. 1 is an investment firm purpose-built to create long-term value and bring common sense back to capitalism.
engine1.com engine1.com
 
Last edited:
I made it as far as the storm … investor activism has brought black outs to other countries by getting too far ahead in what was changing already … stand by. …

Of course when the debates are all electricity … many ignore how powerful direct heat from natural gas is …
 
Last edited:
LazyDog said:
The problem with petroleum is that it only prices the extraction, process, and forgets about the environment damage which is not capture
on the price.
Click to expand...
Pretty broad statement … If you want to produce in my state - you need a lease with a land owner. In that agreement- they can negotiate for crop loss on space the wells use, get all the roads, gates etc re done etc. And require that the well location is returned back to normal at some point. We had gas wells on our family farm but continued to grow cotton. The checks were very nice in the beginning … made a difference for standard of living and education … After a few years the wells depleted and got plugged. Cotton grows over them again. (We sold it). Come and find the damage … I’ll show you the farm.

BTW, farming changes too … we now have 3 crop duster services … and modern farm chemicals kill more creatures here than O&G ever would … but perceived differently
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top