6 ms·

>Reported record annual profits after oil and gas prices surged last year following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I'm surprised by how short termed is the stra

>Reported record annual profits after oil and gas prices surged last year following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I'm surprised by how short termed is the strategy to actually keep up with 'market' prices. (which they don't have to do, as their workforce and costs are basically staying the same, hence a hike in price increases profits) They make higher profit now. But how much demand destruction will happen in the long term ? I myself just got an ebike to commute, which comes with a nearly 100% reduction in energy use. And I'm not alone. There isn't any traffic jam anymore to commute to where I work, because remote working is becoming widespread (first because of covid, and now gas prices), so much fewer drivers are using their cars. The local government has eventually passed laws to require landlords to properly thermally insulate homes (within a decade) Trains were scheduled again, and became popular. I no longer hear about someone driving across the country. They would just get a train (which also comes with huge energy savings) I'm surprised because the current hike isn't even fueling demand for EVs (as recharging your EV is now as expensive as getting a full tank in public spots) Ppl are just shifting away from cars and some energy intensive usages, this time.

Maakuth 4y ago
> I'm surprised by how short termed is the strategy to actually keep up with 'market' prices. It's supply and demand in action. Each oil company has limited capacity of production and not much flexibility to increase it in short term. As part of the supply is no longer available, there is less oil available in the market. The market mechanism drives the price up to a level where supply and demand are in balance. So the migration of oil consumers to alternatives is exactly what's supposed to happen in this case. Moreover, a single company does not have a real choice to sell for cheap. First everyone would choose this vendor for their oil needs. But as their stock and production is limited, they would soon run out of oil to sell. Even a cartel or government decision to lower the price does not cut it, because it kills the demand side incentive to find alternatives. Then you'd be in a situation where oil is cheap, but not available.
- makomk 4y ago
  Yeah, it's just that people are unlikely to realise this because the British press has spent the last year or so lying about this for both partisan reasons (most of them hate the party currently in power) and environmentalist ones (there's been a huge campaign to block new fossil fuel production in order to fight global warming which relies on convincing people that the only reason governments haven't done so is because it'd hurt fossil fuel company profits - admitting that it'd actually increase their profits and make ordinary people worse off would get in the way of that).
  - ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
    That's curious as most of the British press fawn over the Tories and come up with excuses for their various failures. Even just recently, the Telegraph published Liz Truss' explanation of why her ideas weren't the problem with her failed premiership - she blames the left-wing economic establishment. Also, it doesn't explain why the plan to help with elevated fuel prices involved borrowing money to pay the companies rather than trying to windfall tax them so that their profits aren't so excessive.
    - makomk 4y ago
      Actually, in a way it does. The idea that the reason the government's plan required borrowing so much money was because they'd refused to impose a proper windfall tax was a lie by the opposition Labour party (that was repeated unchallenged by most of the media, including the BBC): https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-labour-keeps-repeating-misleading-claim-on-energy-windfall-tax https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-labour-kee... There's just not enough money there. The actual reason that Labour's plan could be mostly funded from windfall taxes was much more cynical: it ended in April back when energy prices were expected to be even higher then, whilst the government plan extended for two years and cost substantially more as a result. It couldn't just be extended for longer either because a huge chunk of the money came from backdating windfall taxes as far as possible. This worked for Labour because the media was willing to ignore what this would actually mean for consumers - something they didn't do when the Government inevitably caved and did the same thing themselves. Of course, now that April is coming Rachel Reeves and other Labour politicians are claiming that the reason energy prices are going up is because the Tories refused to impose proper windfall taxes and of course Labour would keep the cap past then, and the BBC and others are repeating that claim unchallenged too.
- hinata08 4y ago
  >a single company does not have a real choice to sell for cheap. First everyone would choose this vendor for their oil needs. But as their stock and production is limited, they would soon run out of oil to sell. that's exactly a publicity stunt that made Total, in France, for a few weeks after their huge profits hit the news. It turned out to be beneficial for them : It improved their image among citizens. And they avoided that tax on extra profits, that BP will have to pay in the UK. They even had news credit for this. After that stunt, they could go to the media and show everything they were 'doing' for industries, consumers, and investments against climate change. Now the gas is back to expensive levels. But voters got gradually used to it, demand didn't break, and Total still dodged the tax and escaped more regulation. BP used high oil prices to do stock buyback, Total used it to build their image as a 'socially responsible' and stable company. (Btw, the shortage of fuel happened during strikes and other defiance on the government. So Total got away with being dry some of the time. The government somehow ended up being blamed for that.) Now choose where you want to invest. It's fully up to your strategy.
alias_neo 4y ago
Totally agree. Unfortunately, it's not as clean cut everywhere. Despite high fuel prices, it's still cheaper for me to drive from northern England to London (where my office is) than to get a train, even allowing for a nominal "maintenance" allowance for my car. I don't do it because it is at best double the travel time, and at worst I've had the drive take 6x or more. When I need to travel there with my wife and children I'll drive every time, because the train prices are just ridiculous. I suppose it's a similar greed with our train operators with poor service and high prices, but it has almost always been this way in the UK since privatisation. I use e-scooter rentals to get to and from the station now though; rentals because for some reason we're not allowed to own and ride them, we have to rent them; some catching up of our regulations to be had there. Working from home though, I don't need to use any transport at all 5 days of the week, just need to deal with an energy bill more costly to keep warm than it would cost to travel to the office by train every day...
- komali2 4y ago
  It wouldn't be cheaper to drive if your government properly taxed the petrol and road usage to help pay for and offset the environmental damage your transportation choice caused, would it?
  - sirsinsalot 4y ago
    They do tax those things. 45% of the price of petrol is tax. I pay £1,000 per year in road tax and plenty of council tax too. The issue is inefficiency. That money ends up lining the pockets of private firms with crazy margins on government and council contracts. Our train privatisation scheme is basically a money funnelling exercise to fund middle managers not trains. It's daylight corruption.
    - eptcyka 4y ago
      It's daylight robbery, corruption would imply there's something shady going on here. This is how government services operate anywhere and everywhere in the world.
  - 4y ago
Idiot_in_Vain 4y ago
They'll invest the huge profits into EV battery factories, EV charging stations, renewable energy startups, etc. BT, Shell, etc. have already given up on oil and gas. They don't invest in new refineries, pipelines, drilling rigs.
- blitzar 4y ago
  Just checking the wires ... BP unveils fourth share buyback of 2022 ... nahh that was last year ... ahh there it is ... BP profits surge to record $27bn, unveils extra $2.75bn share buyback and a 10% increase in the dividend. I guess if your shareholders are buying a Tesla that is, indirectly, investing in EV battery factories, EV charging stations.
  - defrost 4y ago
    They are investing low billions in renewables and moving out of fossil fuels, but it's planned over decades. The losses are not slowing Looney's spending on renewable energy. He aims to boost annual investment to $5 billion by 2030, a 10-fold increase over 2019. The current proportions are illustrated in a graphic here: https://www.reuters.com/graphics/BP-SPENDING/myvmnmjobpr/index.html https://www.reuters.com/graphics/BP-SPENDING/myvmnmjobpr/ind... Special Report: BP gambles big on fast transition from oil to renewables (late 2021) ( overstated headline (IMHO)) https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/bp-gambles-big-fast-transition-oil-renewables-2021-09-20/ https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/bp-gam...
    - blitzar 4y ago
      > investing in renewables and moving out of fossil fuels I would say diversifying into renewables, I see little sign that BP (or Shell or Saudi Arabia) are looking to not be in the fossil fuel industries. Looking at these results, I am somewhat surprised that BP didn't get involved with buying out BritishVolt (although there was more than a hit of fraud / scamming there).
      - 4y ago
frankfrankfrank 4y ago
It’s because the ruling class’ actual objective was arresting mobility and social interaction and potential for organizing. It bothers me sometimes that people seem to simply ignore, tolerate, and make excuses for the abuses like some kind of abused wife. While many people not only bend over backwards to curtail their life in a belief of salvation, the same ruling class that has psychologically abused a certain segment of the population into their new form of religion, jet around in private planes between several of their mansions and from one energy intensive event to another to discuss how the peasants should not be able to use energy As they pile the wealth of the working people who produce the value. I wish more people had an understanding that we are sliding back into an aristocratic type system by way of a typical trap pattern. Being reliant on electricity and public transportation means you are totally dependent on and can be totally controlled by the ruling class. Have you exalted the virtues of your rulers sufficiently today, peasant? Maybe you do not get to charger your bike and definitely do not get to ride the public transportation system. People are not shifting away from anything, they’re being herded into a trap and into a system of dependence, immobility, and control.
- komali2 4y ago
  The cool thing about train tracks is that they're still there even after the cake has been eaten. Your analysis is interesting but the material condition improvement of building public transit supersedes it, and furthermore, the existence of public transit doesn't prevent any form of revolution. Unless we all have jeeps and dirtbikes, the government can still stop movement by dropping bollards onto highways. Done. So I don't think building public transit furthers the enslavement of the working class, rather the opposite, it's an example of us wrestling something we need from a bourgeois that really couldn't care less, cause as you say they'll just take a helicopter.
- hinata08 4y ago
  >Maybe you do not get to charger your bike Well, that's a bike. It has pedals. I ran out of battery more than once when testing the calibration of the battery gauge. And I could literally cycle back home. I don't even used the electrical assistance on most of my trips. It's there, but you use it when you want. It's better than a car, which dependent on fuel. Petrol has to be provided by what you call "the ruling class". (unless you dig yourself in the desert) Also, politicians who wanted to get more powerful (like Thacher) used to just get rid of the public transportation and services. Because of strikes. As people are heavily reliant on the public transportation in here, strikes are a powerful political tool against the "aristocratic type system". Lastly, I still have a car. I use it when I feel like using it, or to go on trips to burn a part of the money I saved after using a bike. You describe persons who are dependent on cars. But maybe this petrol-availability crisis can teach us to no longer be dependent on petrol. Cheap and easily available oil is over.
abigail95 4y ago
> which they don't have to do Do you want your power turned off? No gas for your car? The buyers are the ones that bid up the price of oil, not BP.
jiriknesl 4y ago
Oil is used everywhere. Everything today is made from plastic, or is wrapped in plastic. Also, as prosperity grows, so does tourism. Tourism = flights. EV trucks are far from ideal. So do EV pick-ups. Even when there'll a huge shift toward EVs, the world is going to need lots of oil in upcoming decades. And honestly, I would be happier if BP shareholders get richer than Middle East sheiks, and Putin's friends.
- defrost 4y ago
  > I would be happier if BP shareholders get richer than .. Because things went so well with the British East India Company and the United Dutch East India Company? Rich companies screw over poorer countries to extract resources via dubious deals and shady military actions regardless of their origins - they're just less visible when when they're from your neck of the woods and nice to your circle of people. Still, those nasty Saudi's in Yemen right? Killing innocents with, wait, where'd they get those weapons from?
listenallyall 4y ago
> their workforce and costs are basically staying the same You sure about that? they use massive amounts of energy themselves, all of which is much more expensive. Labor costs are way up among nearly all wage-based occupations (and if BP doesn't keep up, their employees will jump ship to competitors). Transporting gasoline to every street corner on multiple continents, more expensive. Taxes -- as the article indicated, huge new levies have been recently introduced. New regulations all over the globe add enormous amounts of red tape, or make certain operations impossible to build or operate, all of which pushes capital costs higher. Rising interest rates makes their borrowing costs higher.
newaccount2021 4y ago
[dead]
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Each company is motivated to take the profits now while they can, even though a cartel approach would be better in the long term. It's like a positive example of a tragedy of the commons and short term corporate thinking.
Neil44 4y ago
Can you imagine if they didn't follow market pricing and kept their pricing way below everyone else's? They would sell out of oil in a heartbeat including future contracts and chaos would ensue, it would be the end of that company then everyone would go back to paying market rates to everyone else 10 minutes later (buying BP's carcass shortly after that). It would need global co-operation to fix oil pricing which currently doesn't exist.
StefanWestfal 4y ago
I would not call it short termed but rather within the realm of possibility for BP. Oil&Gas are inelastic and with small fluctuations in supply or demand the price varies strongly. In 2020, we even saw negative prices in Ohio and last year prices >100$USD/bbl. OPEC has some room when it comes to increasing it's output, but I think BP, Shell, Equinor, etc. are already at max production. Adding more production takes a lot of time and heavy investment and has hugh payback time.
xg15 4y ago
Maybe they are assuming the demand destruction is coming anyway? CO2-saving measures measures and the work from home trend would reduce long-term demand for fuel anyway. So they might have seen the chance to grab some profit while they still can.
credit_guy 4y ago
> They make higher profit now. But how much demand destruction will happen in the long term ? That's not something they can control. The only thing they can do to future-proof themselves is to invest in renewables and hydrogen, and they appear to be doing that [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/15/bp-buys-40point5percent-stake-in-massive-renewables-and-green-hydrogen-project.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/15/bp-buys-40point5percent-stak...

Maakuth 4y ago

> I'm surprised by how short termed is the strategy to actually keep up with 'market' prices. It's supply and demand in action. Each oil company has limited capacity of production and not much flexibility to increase it in short term. As part of the supply is no longer available, there is less oil available in the market. The market mechanism drives the price up to a level where supply and demand are in balance. So the migration of oil consumers to alternatives is exactly what's supposed to happen in this case. Moreover, a single company does not have a real choice to sell for cheap. First everyone would choose this vendor for their oil needs. But as their stock and production is limited, they would soon run out of oil to sell. Even a cartel or government decision to lower the price does not cut it, because it kills the demand side incentive to find alternatives. Then you'd be in a situation where oil is cheap, but not available.

makomk 4y ago
Yeah, it's just that people are unlikely to realise this because the British press has spent the last year or so lying about this for both partisan reasons (most of them hate the party currently in power) and environmentalist ones (there's been a huge campaign to block new fossil fuel production in order to fight global warming which relies on convincing people that the only reason governments haven't done so is because it'd hurt fossil fuel company profits - admitting that it'd actually increase their profits and make ordinary people worse off would get in the way of that).
- ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
  That's curious as most of the British press fawn over the Tories and come up with excuses for their various failures. Even just recently, the Telegraph published Liz Truss' explanation of why her ideas weren't the problem with her failed premiership - she blames the left-wing economic establishment. Also, it doesn't explain why the plan to help with elevated fuel prices involved borrowing money to pay the companies rather than trying to windfall tax them so that their profits aren't so excessive.
  - makomk 4y ago
    Actually, in a way it does. The idea that the reason the government's plan required borrowing so much money was because they'd refused to impose a proper windfall tax was a lie by the opposition Labour party (that was repeated unchallenged by most of the media, including the BBC): https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-labour-keeps-repeating-misleading-claim-on-energy-windfall-tax https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-labour-kee... There's just not enough money there. The actual reason that Labour's plan could be mostly funded from windfall taxes was much more cynical: it ended in April back when energy prices were expected to be even higher then, whilst the government plan extended for two years and cost substantially more as a result. It couldn't just be extended for longer either because a huge chunk of the money came from backdating windfall taxes as far as possible. This worked for Labour because the media was willing to ignore what this would actually mean for consumers - something they didn't do when the Government inevitably caved and did the same thing themselves. Of course, now that April is coming Rachel Reeves and other Labour politicians are claiming that the reason energy prices are going up is because the Tories refused to impose proper windfall taxes and of course Labour would keep the cap past then, and the BBC and others are repeating that claim unchallenged too.
hinata08 4y ago
>a single company does not have a real choice to sell for cheap. First everyone would choose this vendor for their oil needs. But as their stock and production is limited, they would soon run out of oil to sell. that's exactly a publicity stunt that made Total, in France, for a few weeks after their huge profits hit the news. It turned out to be beneficial for them : It improved their image among citizens. And they avoided that tax on extra profits, that BP will have to pay in the UK. They even had news credit for this. After that stunt, they could go to the media and show everything they were 'doing' for industries, consumers, and investments against climate change. Now the gas is back to expensive levels. But voters got gradually used to it, demand didn't break, and Total still dodged the tax and escaped more regulation. BP used high oil prices to do stock buyback, Total used it to build their image as a 'socially responsible' and stable company. (Btw, the shortage of fuel happened during strikes and other defiance on the government. So Total got away with being dry some of the time. The government somehow ended up being blamed for that.) Now choose where you want to invest. It's fully up to your strategy.

alias_neo 4y ago

Totally agree. Unfortunately, it's not as clean cut everywhere. Despite high fuel prices, it's still cheaper for me to drive from northern England to London (where my office is) than to get a train, even allowing for a nominal "maintenance" allowance for my car. I don't do it because it is at best double the travel time, and at worst I've had the drive take 6x or more. When I need to travel there with my wife and children I'll drive every time, because the train prices are just ridiculous. I suppose it's a similar greed with our train operators with poor service and high prices, but it has almost always been this way in the UK since privatisation. I use e-scooter rentals to get to and from the station now though; rentals because for some reason we're not allowed to own and ride them, we have to rent them; some catching up of our regulations to be had there. Working from home though, I don't need to use any transport at all 5 days of the week, just need to deal with an energy bill more costly to keep warm than it would cost to travel to the office by train every day...

komali2 4y ago
It wouldn't be cheaper to drive if your government properly taxed the petrol and road usage to help pay for and offset the environmental damage your transportation choice caused, would it?
- sirsinsalot 4y ago
  They do tax those things. 45% of the price of petrol is tax. I pay £1,000 per year in road tax and plenty of council tax too. The issue is inefficiency. That money ends up lining the pockets of private firms with crazy margins on government and council contracts. Our train privatisation scheme is basically a money funnelling exercise to fund middle managers not trains. It's daylight corruption.
  - eptcyka 4y ago
    It's daylight robbery, corruption would imply there's something shady going on here. This is how government services operate anywhere and everywhere in the world.
- 4y ago

Idiot_in_Vain 4y ago

They'll invest the huge profits into EV battery factories, EV charging stations, renewable energy startups, etc. BT, Shell, etc. have already given up on oil and gas. They don't invest in new refineries, pipelines, drilling rigs.

blitzar 4y ago
Just checking the wires ... BP unveils fourth share buyback of 2022 ... nahh that was last year ... ahh there it is ... BP profits surge to record $27bn, unveils extra $2.75bn share buyback and a 10% increase in the dividend. I guess if your shareholders are buying a Tesla that is, indirectly, investing in EV battery factories, EV charging stations.
- defrost 4y ago
  They are investing low billions in renewables and moving out of fossil fuels, but it's planned over decades. The losses are not slowing Looney's spending on renewable energy. He aims to boost annual investment to $5 billion by 2030, a 10-fold increase over 2019. The current proportions are illustrated in a graphic here: https://www.reuters.com/graphics/BP-SPENDING/myvmnmjobpr/index.html https://www.reuters.com/graphics/BP-SPENDING/myvmnmjobpr/ind... Special Report: BP gambles big on fast transition from oil to renewables (late 2021) ( overstated headline (IMHO)) https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/bp-gambles-big-fast-transition-oil-renewables-2021-09-20/ https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/bp-gam...
  - blitzar 4y ago
    > investing in renewables and moving out of fossil fuels I would say diversifying into renewables, I see little sign that BP (or Shell or Saudi Arabia) are looking to not be in the fossil fuel industries. Looking at these results, I am somewhat surprised that BP didn't get involved with buying out BritishVolt (although there was more than a hit of fraud / scamming there).
    - 4y ago

frankfrankfrank 4y ago

It’s because the ruling class’ actual objective was arresting mobility and social interaction and potential for organizing. It bothers me sometimes that people seem to simply ignore, tolerate, and make excuses for the abuses like some kind of abused wife. While many people not only bend over backwards to curtail their life in a belief of salvation, the same ruling class that has psychologically abused a certain segment of the population into their new form of religion, jet around in private planes between several of their mansions and from one energy intensive event to another to discuss how the peasants should not be able to use energy As they pile the wealth of the working people who produce the value. I wish more people had an understanding that we are sliding back into an aristocratic type system by way of a typical trap pattern. Being reliant on electricity and public transportation means you are totally dependent on and can be totally controlled by the ruling class. Have you exalted the virtues of your rulers sufficiently today, peasant? Maybe you do not get to charger your bike and definitely do not get to ride the public transportation system. People are not shifting away from anything, they’re being herded into a trap and into a system of dependence, immobility, and control.

komali2 4y ago
The cool thing about train tracks is that they're still there even after the cake has been eaten. Your analysis is interesting but the material condition improvement of building public transit supersedes it, and furthermore, the existence of public transit doesn't prevent any form of revolution. Unless we all have jeeps and dirtbikes, the government can still stop movement by dropping bollards onto highways. Done. So I don't think building public transit furthers the enslavement of the working class, rather the opposite, it's an example of us wrestling something we need from a bourgeois that really couldn't care less, cause as you say they'll just take a helicopter.
hinata08 4y ago
>Maybe you do not get to charger your bike Well, that's a bike. It has pedals. I ran out of battery more than once when testing the calibration of the battery gauge. And I could literally cycle back home. I don't even used the electrical assistance on most of my trips. It's there, but you use it when you want. It's better than a car, which dependent on fuel. Petrol has to be provided by what you call "the ruling class". (unless you dig yourself in the desert) Also, politicians who wanted to get more powerful (like Thacher) used to just get rid of the public transportation and services. Because of strikes. As people are heavily reliant on the public transportation in here, strikes are a powerful political tool against the "aristocratic type system". Lastly, I still have a car. I use it when I feel like using it, or to go on trips to burn a part of the money I saved after using a bike. You describe persons who are dependent on cars. But maybe this petrol-availability crisis can teach us to no longer be dependent on petrol. Cheap and easily available oil is over.

abigail95 4y ago

> which they don't have to do Do you want your power turned off? No gas for your car? The buyers are the ones that bid up the price of oil, not BP.

jiriknesl 4y ago

Oil is used everywhere. Everything today is made from plastic, or is wrapped in plastic. Also, as prosperity grows, so does tourism. Tourism = flights. EV trucks are far from ideal. So do EV pick-ups. Even when there'll a huge shift toward EVs, the world is going to need lots of oil in upcoming decades. And honestly, I would be happier if BP shareholders get richer than Middle East sheiks, and Putin's friends.

defrost 4y ago
> I would be happier if BP shareholders get richer than .. Because things went so well with the British East India Company and the United Dutch East India Company? Rich companies screw over poorer countries to extract resources via dubious deals and shady military actions regardless of their origins - they're just less visible when when they're from your neck of the woods and nice to your circle of people. Still, those nasty Saudi's in Yemen right? Killing innocents with, wait, where'd they get those weapons from?

listenallyall 4y ago

> their workforce and costs are basically staying the same You sure about that? they use massive amounts of energy themselves, all of which is much more expensive. Labor costs are way up among nearly all wage-based occupations (and if BP doesn't keep up, their employees will jump ship to competitors). Transporting gasoline to every street corner on multiple continents, more expensive. Taxes -- as the article indicated, huge new levies have been recently introduced. New regulations all over the globe add enormous amounts of red tape, or make certain operations impossible to build or operate, all of which pushes capital costs higher. Rising interest rates makes their borrowing costs higher.

newaccount2021 4y ago

[dead]

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Each company is motivated to take the profits now while they can, even though a cartel approach would be better in the long term. It's like a positive example of a tragedy of the commons and short term corporate thinking.

Neil44 4y ago

Can you imagine if they didn't follow market pricing and kept their pricing way below everyone else's? They would sell out of oil in a heartbeat including future contracts and chaos would ensue, it would be the end of that company then everyone would go back to paying market rates to everyone else 10 minutes later (buying BP's carcass shortly after that). It would need global co-operation to fix oil pricing which currently doesn't exist.

StefanWestfal 4y ago

I would not call it short termed but rather within the realm of possibility for BP. Oil&Gas are inelastic and with small fluctuations in supply or demand the price varies strongly. In 2020, we even saw negative prices in Ohio and last year prices >100$USD/bbl. OPEC has some room when it comes to increasing it's output, but I think BP, Shell, Equinor, etc. are already at max production. Adding more production takes a lot of time and heavy investment and has hugh payback time.

xg15 4y ago

Maybe they are assuming the demand destruction is coming anyway? CO2-saving measures measures and the work from home trend would reduce long-term demand for fuel anyway. So they might have seen the chance to grab some profit while they still can.

credit_guy 4y ago

> They make higher profit now. But how much demand destruction will happen in the long term ? That's not something they can control. The only thing they can do to future-proof themselves is to invest in renewables and hydrogen, and they appear to be doing that [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/15/bp-buys-40point5percent-stake-in-massive-renewables-and-green-hydrogen-project.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/15/bp-buys-40point5percent-stak...