3 ms·

I wonder, is it really "crushing" them or is it saving them from themselves? It could be either. It depends on the balance between writing off old investments

I wonder, is it really "crushing" them or is it saving them from themselves? It could be either. It depends on the balance between writing off old investments before their time (purely economically speaking) and avoiding new investments that would never deliver positive returns anyway as the age of fossil fuel comes to an end. In fact, this is a question that doesn't just affect the oil majors. The cost of our entire entire energy transition very much depends on timing. I think what makes this politically difficult is that these costs are directly caused by political decisions whereas the cost of global warming is less easily distingushable from a natural disaster.

helsinkiandrew 5y ago
Exxon spent over $35M dollars fighting the board changes - it is at least a crushing defeat for the current management/board. https://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-vs-activists-battle-over-future-of-oil-and-gas-reaches-showdown-11621950967 https://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-vs-activists-battle-over-...
pydry 5y ago
These companies will forever be a shadow of their former selves. They'll still probably be around but they'll never reinvent themselves as green mega-giants. Any more than Xerox would become the next apple or Kodak became the next Nikon. Carbon extraction is fundamentally part of their DNA. There's a struggle within these companies between those that want to keep the glory days going as long as possible and those that are trying to metaphorically steer the supertanker towards a greener future. Despite the immense amount of capital at their disposal, this struggle will ensure that it is not deployed efficiently. Realistically I think stifling these companies financially will do more for the planet than encouraging them and hoping that they will reinvent themselves. A dollar invested by a greentech company will be more effectively put to use than a dollar invested by an oil supermajor.
- fauigerzigerk 5y ago
  >Realistically I think stifling these companies financially will do more for the planet than encouraging them and hoping that they will reinvent themselves. I don't think it matters for our planet what these companies do or whether they can reinvent themselves. The climate change problem can only be tackled from the demand side. As long as there is demand for hydrocarbons someone will meet that demand and someone will invest in new production. Not letting it happen under western brand names may soothe some people's conscience but it won't reduce carbon emissions.
  - g8oz 5y ago
    Only the Western majors have the skills to extract oil from the tough spots in a cost-effective manner.
    - fauigerzigerk 5y ago
      Intellectual property and (to a degree) skills can be transferred to different companies. And I think there are plenty of reserves in not so tough spots like Iraq, Saudi Arabia or Russia.
    - pydry 5y ago
      It's not really much help to anyone having the skills to extract oil from tar sands in Canada at a cost of $85 per barrel when you can only sell it for $65. Especially so if oil usage keeps declining and demand continues to be sated from oil fields where you barely have to knock a hole in the ground like Saudi.
  - pydry 5y ago
    There is demand for energy, not hydrocarbons specifically. Demand is also not an implacable force. It can be weakened, strengthened and modified with policy and investment. As can supply.
    - fauigerzigerk 5y ago
      >There is demand for energy, not hydrocarbons specifically. Unfortunately, large parts of our existing infrastructure depend very specifically on hydrocarbons. That's what we have to change.

helsinkiandrew 5y ago

Exxon spent over $35M dollars fighting the board changes - it is at least a crushing defeat for the current management/board. https://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-vs-activists-battle-over-future-of-oil-and-gas-reaches-showdown-11621950967 https://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-vs-activists-battle-over-...

pydry 5y ago

These companies will forever be a shadow of their former selves. They'll still probably be around but they'll never reinvent themselves as green mega-giants. Any more than Xerox would become the next apple or Kodak became the next Nikon. Carbon extraction is fundamentally part of their DNA. There's a struggle within these companies between those that want to keep the glory days going as long as possible and those that are trying to metaphorically steer the supertanker towards a greener future. Despite the immense amount of capital at their disposal, this struggle will ensure that it is not deployed efficiently. Realistically I think stifling these companies financially will do more for the planet than encouraging them and hoping that they will reinvent themselves. A dollar invested by a greentech company will be more effectively put to use than a dollar invested by an oil supermajor.

fauigerzigerk 5y ago
>Realistically I think stifling these companies financially will do more for the planet than encouraging them and hoping that they will reinvent themselves. I don't think it matters for our planet what these companies do or whether they can reinvent themselves. The climate change problem can only be tackled from the demand side. As long as there is demand for hydrocarbons someone will meet that demand and someone will invest in new production. Not letting it happen under western brand names may soothe some people's conscience but it won't reduce carbon emissions.
- g8oz 5y ago
  Only the Western majors have the skills to extract oil from the tough spots in a cost-effective manner.
  - fauigerzigerk 5y ago
    Intellectual property and (to a degree) skills can be transferred to different companies. And I think there are plenty of reserves in not so tough spots like Iraq, Saudi Arabia or Russia.
  - pydry 5y ago
    It's not really much help to anyone having the skills to extract oil from tar sands in Canada at a cost of $85 per barrel when you can only sell it for $65. Especially so if oil usage keeps declining and demand continues to be sated from oil fields where you barely have to knock a hole in the ground like Saudi.
- pydry 5y ago
  There is demand for energy, not hydrocarbons specifically. Demand is also not an implacable force. It can be weakened, strengthened and modified with policy and investment. As can supply.
  - fauigerzigerk 5y ago
    >There is demand for energy, not hydrocarbons specifically. Unfortunately, large parts of our existing infrastructure depend very specifically on hydrocarbons. That's what we have to change.