3 ms·

For all of the shellacking the fossil fuel industry gets (rightfully so), they have signalled several times that they are willing to transition to lower product

For all of the shellacking the fossil fuel industry gets (rightfully so), they have signalled several times that they are willing to transition to lower productions and higher prices and even into green energy. In 2016 oil companies spent the least amount on oil discovery in over 70 years! It was only after extreme political pressure that oil companies were basically forced into re-expanding capacity again. The market is willing - the demand is weak.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
If we're not at peak oil, we're close to it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- legitster 4y ago
  I mean, even if we were at peak oil that would still give us a still a ton of carbon left to extract. I would honestly give up on the concept of peak oil thought. If for no other reason than the fracking revolution may have alone doubled the available fossil fuels.
- runarberg 4y ago
  This has been true for the past 30 years. I’m beginning to suspect peak oil was never an actual prediction, and more of a statement—or rather a lie—that we would naturally wean of fossil fuels in a couple of years as production would slow. I’m beginning to think peak oil was always a ruse so that the fossil fuel industry could delay climate actions for another couple of decades (and doom us all in a climate disaster while they were at it).
  - wkat4242 4y ago
    Well, fossil fuels are obviously finite so there will always be a peak. The concept itself is sound. The question is when and where it will occur. On one side more difficult extractions become viable, on the other side green energy makes the oil economy less viable (though notably most plastics are still fossil based)
  - philipkglass 4y ago
    The "peak oil" concept originates in a 1956 paper by Marion King Hubbert titled "Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels." You can read it here: https://web.archive.org/web/20080527233843/http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20080527233843/http://www.hubber... Here's the central thesis: "When we consider that it has taken 500 million years of geological history to accumulate the present supplies of fossil fuels, it should be clear that, although the same geological processes are still operative, the amount of new fossil fuels that is likely to be produced during the next few thousands of years will be inconsequential. Therefore, as an essential part of our analysis, we can assume with complete assurance that the industrial exploitation of the fossil fuels will consist in the progressive exhaustion of an initially fixed supply to which there will be no significant additions during the period of our interest." The paper outlines the historical growth of fossil fuel exploitation and posits how it will reach a peak and then decline. The last third of it notes that nuclear fuels, having an energy content several orders of magnitude greater than that of fossil fuels, can supply abundant energy for at least 5000 years into the future. The age of fossil fuels is a short lived transitional phase in the development of industrial civilization. "Peak oil" later accumulated a vast penumbra of connotations beyond Hubbert's rather technical and dry outlook. The peak oil movement, if it can be called such, has in recent decades predicted the imminent collapse of industrial civilization due to oil shortages. Neither Hubbert's original prediction nor the more recent peak oil collapse predictions have been driven by climate change denial. At best (worst?) I remember peak oilers who believed that we needed to increase coal exploitation because otherwise we'd be facing gigadeaths from energy shortages in a decade or two.
NickC25 4y ago
They might have signaled one thing via press releases, PR campaigns, token donations to activists or whatever.......but let's be completely clear - their lobbying dollars and large campaign donations haven't gone to politicians promoting green energy nor to politicians who want to transition away from oil. On a longer time scale, let's see where the bulk of their lobbying budgets go (to a particular party or sect within a given party), or the initiatives their lobbyist friends have been tasked with passing or defeating. My guess is that when push comes to shove, the oil companies are not friendly to green energy.
- legitster 4y ago
  I mean, let's not overrate the lobbying of the Oil and Gas industry. They don't even crack the top 5 sources of lobbying dollars in the US. They are there right alongside lobbyists for solar and wind and nuclear and etc. (And let's also not set aside that most of the oil extracted in the world is not done by private companies but by government ventures). And again, their lobbying is a drop in the bucket as to their actual discovery expenditures. I don't think it's a helpful narrative that oil companies are hell bent on forcing oil down our throats unwillingly. Sure, they will do whatever to make a buck, but they would gladly switch to green energy if they thought it was more profitable. We have even seen this when Exxon (briefly) was the number one spender on solar R&D in the world. I think people see the lobbying and underrate the extent that it's a two-way street. Politicians NEED low oil prices. Voters WANT low oil prices. And to a certain extent, oil companies have all the cards because of the demand.
  - rektide 4y ago
    Open secrets lists oil & gas at $123 million/year of lobbying, #8th highest spender #3 highest spender is insurance, at $158m, #2 electronics at $221m, pharma at #1 $373m. I too think we have to try to be reasonable, & there's a lot of factors, and it's hard. They are a gigantic lobbying force, quite close to top 3 though.
    - NickC25 4y ago
      Right - my point exactly. $123m a year is serious coin. A few puff-piece PR releases saying "we're going green! yay us!" are pennies in comparison.
Tiktaalik 4y ago
What political pressure are you alluding to? For decades now in Canada companies have been endlessly lobbying the government to allow for more expansion of pipelines to enable more production and more growth. There is nothing new that has changed their approach.
- vel0city 4y ago
  Look at the political strain that develops when gasoline prices increase in the US and Canada. Loads of people start demanding cheaper gas and expect the government to step in and ensure low-ish gas prices. The gas tax hasn't budged since 1993 despite really needing it, largely because of the backlash politicians would get for making gasoline more expensive.
  - red-iron-pine 4y ago
    nationally, no, there hasn't been much change but many states have high ones; PA comes to mind.
- legitster 4y ago
  Uh, there was literally a White House speech in 2022 on the subject. "You should be using these record-breaking profits to increase production and refining" - words from the president himself. This ended up kicking off a months long negotiation to convince oil and gas companies to increase domestic production. For the Canadian industry I think you are underrating how much of a hand the government of Alberta themselves are playing in this. This has been an economic development project for them and things like the Keystone pipeline have been spearheaded by the government to get access to the global market as a way of attracting investment from the oil and gas industry.
  - Tiktaalik 4y ago
    So sounds like we're agreeing. The oil and gas industry has very been enthusiastic about growth and more production. I don't think this is new. O&G was pushing just as hard for pipelines in the last government too. Not just Alberta but of course the Feds themselves bought a pipeline in order to get it built and push back against accusations from the opposition that they were against the O&G industry.
specialist 4y ago
The difference is due to US transitioning to shale oil. Current known deposits are effectively infinite. Look at planned capital investments for fossil fuel energy. Especially power generation. It needs to be zero, yet the industry (and finance) is still full steam ahead.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

If we're not at peak oil, we're close to it.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
legitster 4y ago
I mean, even if we were at peak oil that would still give us a still a ton of carbon left to extract. I would honestly give up on the concept of peak oil thought. If for no other reason than the fracking revolution may have alone doubled the available fossil fuels.
runarberg 4y ago
This has been true for the past 30 years. I’m beginning to suspect peak oil was never an actual prediction, and more of a statement—or rather a lie—that we would naturally wean of fossil fuels in a couple of years as production would slow. I’m beginning to think peak oil was always a ruse so that the fossil fuel industry could delay climate actions for another couple of decades (and doom us all in a climate disaster while they were at it).
- wkat4242 4y ago
  Well, fossil fuels are obviously finite so there will always be a peak. The concept itself is sound. The question is when and where it will occur. On one side more difficult extractions become viable, on the other side green energy makes the oil economy less viable (though notably most plastics are still fossil based)
- philipkglass 4y ago
  The "peak oil" concept originates in a 1956 paper by Marion King Hubbert titled "Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels." You can read it here: https://web.archive.org/web/20080527233843/http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20080527233843/http://www.hubber... Here's the central thesis: "When we consider that it has taken 500 million years of geological history to accumulate the present supplies of fossil fuels, it should be clear that, although the same geological processes are still operative, the amount of new fossil fuels that is likely to be produced during the next few thousands of years will be inconsequential. Therefore, as an essential part of our analysis, we can assume with complete assurance that the industrial exploitation of the fossil fuels will consist in the progressive exhaustion of an initially fixed supply to which there will be no significant additions during the period of our interest." The paper outlines the historical growth of fossil fuel exploitation and posits how it will reach a peak and then decline. The last third of it notes that nuclear fuels, having an energy content several orders of magnitude greater than that of fossil fuels, can supply abundant energy for at least 5000 years into the future. The age of fossil fuels is a short lived transitional phase in the development of industrial civilization. "Peak oil" later accumulated a vast penumbra of connotations beyond Hubbert's rather technical and dry outlook. The peak oil movement, if it can be called such, has in recent decades predicted the imminent collapse of industrial civilization due to oil shortages. Neither Hubbert's original prediction nor the more recent peak oil collapse predictions have been driven by climate change denial. At best (worst?) I remember peak oilers who believed that we needed to increase coal exploitation because otherwise we'd be facing gigadeaths from energy shortages in a decade or two.

NickC25 4y ago

They might have signaled one thing via press releases, PR campaigns, token donations to activists or whatever.......but let's be completely clear - their lobbying dollars and large campaign donations haven't gone to politicians promoting green energy nor to politicians who want to transition away from oil. On a longer time scale, let's see where the bulk of their lobbying budgets go (to a particular party or sect within a given party), or the initiatives their lobbyist friends have been tasked with passing or defeating. My guess is that when push comes to shove, the oil companies are not friendly to green energy.

legitster 4y ago
I mean, let's not overrate the lobbying of the Oil and Gas industry. They don't even crack the top 5 sources of lobbying dollars in the US. They are there right alongside lobbyists for solar and wind and nuclear and etc. (And let's also not set aside that most of the oil extracted in the world is not done by private companies but by government ventures). And again, their lobbying is a drop in the bucket as to their actual discovery expenditures. I don't think it's a helpful narrative that oil companies are hell bent on forcing oil down our throats unwillingly. Sure, they will do whatever to make a buck, but they would gladly switch to green energy if they thought it was more profitable. We have even seen this when Exxon (briefly) was the number one spender on solar R&D in the world. I think people see the lobbying and underrate the extent that it's a two-way street. Politicians NEED low oil prices. Voters WANT low oil prices. And to a certain extent, oil companies have all the cards because of the demand.
- rektide 4y ago
  Open secrets lists oil & gas at $123 million/year of lobbying, #8th highest spender #3 highest spender is insurance, at $158m, #2 electronics at $221m, pharma at #1 $373m. I too think we have to try to be reasonable, & there's a lot of factors, and it's hard. They are a gigantic lobbying force, quite close to top 3 though.
  - NickC25 4y ago
    Right - my point exactly. $123m a year is serious coin. A few puff-piece PR releases saying "we're going green! yay us!" are pennies in comparison.

Tiktaalik 4y ago

What political pressure are you alluding to? For decades now in Canada companies have been endlessly lobbying the government to allow for more expansion of pipelines to enable more production and more growth. There is nothing new that has changed their approach.

vel0city 4y ago
Look at the political strain that develops when gasoline prices increase in the US and Canada. Loads of people start demanding cheaper gas and expect the government to step in and ensure low-ish gas prices. The gas tax hasn't budged since 1993 despite really needing it, largely because of the backlash politicians would get for making gasoline more expensive.
- red-iron-pine 4y ago
  nationally, no, there hasn't been much change but many states have high ones; PA comes to mind.
legitster 4y ago
Uh, there was literally a White House speech in 2022 on the subject. "You should be using these record-breaking profits to increase production and refining" - words from the president himself. This ended up kicking off a months long negotiation to convince oil and gas companies to increase domestic production. For the Canadian industry I think you are underrating how much of a hand the government of Alberta themselves are playing in this. This has been an economic development project for them and things like the Keystone pipeline have been spearheaded by the government to get access to the global market as a way of attracting investment from the oil and gas industry.
- Tiktaalik 4y ago
  So sounds like we're agreeing. The oil and gas industry has very been enthusiastic about growth and more production. I don't think this is new. O&G was pushing just as hard for pipelines in the last government too. Not just Alberta but of course the Feds themselves bought a pipeline in order to get it built and push back against accusations from the opposition that they were against the O&G industry.

specialist 4y ago

The difference is due to US transitioning to shale oil. Current known deposits are effectively infinite. Look at planned capital investments for fossil fuel energy. Especially power generation. It needs to be zero, yet the industry (and finance) is still full steam ahead.