6 ms·

> If your view is that all fossil fuel assets are headed towards zero over the next 3-4 decades, then you want to extract every last penny from the existing ass

> If your view is that all fossil fuel assets are headed towards zero over the next 3-4 decades, then you want to extract every last penny from the existing assets and move them into the pockets of shareholders. I can not locate the long piece article now but I read a piece from someone that effectively got invited into a Shell (UK) think tank and heard exactly that from some vp/executive at a dinner table. That they aimed to diversify (think corn/algae based fuels, hydrogen infrastructure, charging networks), but that they ultimately still believed that the public opinion would still make it palatable to continue hydrocarbon fuels extraction for another 2 to 3 decades.

wonderwonder 3y ago
"they ultimately still believed that the public opinion would still make it palatable to continue hydrocarbon fuels extraction for another 2 to 3 decades" And they are right. There are viable alternatives to gasoline cars now and people still buy gas powered vehicles. Most of Teslas success I think has not been so much due to the hunger for an electric vehicle but because of Tesla's cool factor, performance and design. The rest of the major vehicle manufacturers have essentially failed on the electric vehicle front.
- MaxHoppersGhost 3y ago
  Gas for vehicles is a very small part of the total demand of oil.
  - _ea1k 3y ago
    I think it is at least 50% for crude oil.
- _ea1k 3y ago
  Yes, I've found that to be the case. There are certainly people who buy Teslas and other EVs to save the planet. But I don't think it is the majority. Most enjoy the cars for other reasons (lack of vibration, high torque, reduced gas station visits, lower operating cost and burden, cabin overheat protection, dog mode, preconditioning, etc). Even among the environmental types, that often ends up being more of a fringe benefit.
TinyRick 3y ago
> public opinion would still make it palatable to continue hydrocarbon fuels extraction for another 2 to 3 decades I don't think it's public opinion so much as it is necessity to maintain current standards of living for the next few decades. Renewable energy is still a relatively small fraction of overall energy use, and net global oil consumption has been steadily increasing the past few years (likely to surpass pre-covid levels this year). Our society is still very much addicted to hydrocarbons.
- aaomidi 3y ago
  Meanwhile companies with “climate pledges” forcing RTO. Even when society wants to shift, the ones in charge say no. We should have had a governmental mandate requiring companies over a certain size to allow WFH and justify why they can’t do it if they really can’t.
  - ImHereToVote 3y ago
    I think the bottom up approach to combat climate change is doomed to fail. We need to start top down. The most powerful institutions and people need to lower their living standards and resource extraction. Start with eliminating private jets for instance.
  - huthuthike 3y ago
    I fully agree with you but governments aren't exactly the ally on this one. Local and state governments in particular are losing out on tax revenue due to WFH. Lower attendance in offices (often in city centers) means less spending in those areas, so lower sales tax revenue. (I think New York City is projecting around $4500 less spending per worker annually.) Depreciating corporate property values means lower property tax revenue. On the plus side we have the greatest effect on politics at the local level, if we get involved.
    - aaomidi 3y ago
      Oh definitely I know they’re not the allies. I’m just hoping and dreaming.
weichbild 3y ago
Possibly this article? https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/shell-climate-change.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/shell-climate-change... My first thought as well.
- DoingIsLearning 3y ago
  Indeed it is.
matthewdgreen 3y ago
I guess my question is at what point does the decline in fossil extraction become self-reinforcing. If extraction is going down, firms won’t invest in developing new resources. This means constraints on supply leading to higher prices. That in turn will drive less consumption (particularly as non-fossil alternatives become mainstream.) There is a potential feedback loop here that drives things towards zero much more rapidly than you might imagine. Anyway, one can hope.
- _ea1k 3y ago
  There are also little oddities, such as the impact on gas stations along common commuter routes. There are a lot of marginal stations on those routes now. In some places, you'd only have to lose a couple of stations for commuting to be an annoyance. And commuter traffic is an obvious easy target for EV automakers, once they move out of more premium segments.
- dangus 3y ago
  That’s exactly what I think is happening. Make no mistake, oil will always be needed for many purposes, but some of the big consumption drivers are starting to have price competitive alternatives. It’s notable that half of all global oil consumption is used on roads. You can’t turn back the clock on the fact that many of these alternatives now cost less.

wonderwonder 3y ago

"they ultimately still believed that the public opinion would still make it palatable to continue hydrocarbon fuels extraction for another 2 to 3 decades" And they are right. There are viable alternatives to gasoline cars now and people still buy gas powered vehicles. Most of Teslas success I think has not been so much due to the hunger for an electric vehicle but because of Tesla's cool factor, performance and design. The rest of the major vehicle manufacturers have essentially failed on the electric vehicle front.

MaxHoppersGhost 3y ago
Gas for vehicles is a very small part of the total demand of oil.
- _ea1k 3y ago
  I think it is at least 50% for crude oil.
_ea1k 3y ago
Yes, I've found that to be the case. There are certainly people who buy Teslas and other EVs to save the planet. But I don't think it is the majority. Most enjoy the cars for other reasons (lack of vibration, high torque, reduced gas station visits, lower operating cost and burden, cabin overheat protection, dog mode, preconditioning, etc). Even among the environmental types, that often ends up being more of a fringe benefit.

TinyRick 3y ago

> public opinion would still make it palatable to continue hydrocarbon fuels extraction for another 2 to 3 decades I don't think it's public opinion so much as it is necessity to maintain current standards of living for the next few decades. Renewable energy is still a relatively small fraction of overall energy use, and net global oil consumption has been steadily increasing the past few years (likely to surpass pre-covid levels this year). Our society is still very much addicted to hydrocarbons.

aaomidi 3y ago
Meanwhile companies with “climate pledges” forcing RTO. Even when society wants to shift, the ones in charge say no. We should have had a governmental mandate requiring companies over a certain size to allow WFH and justify why they can’t do it if they really can’t.
- ImHereToVote 3y ago
  I think the bottom up approach to combat climate change is doomed to fail. We need to start top down. The most powerful institutions and people need to lower their living standards and resource extraction. Start with eliminating private jets for instance.
- huthuthike 3y ago
  I fully agree with you but governments aren't exactly the ally on this one. Local and state governments in particular are losing out on tax revenue due to WFH. Lower attendance in offices (often in city centers) means less spending in those areas, so lower sales tax revenue. (I think New York City is projecting around $4500 less spending per worker annually.) Depreciating corporate property values means lower property tax revenue. On the plus side we have the greatest effect on politics at the local level, if we get involved.
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    Oh definitely I know they’re not the allies. I’m just hoping and dreaming.

weichbild 3y ago

Possibly this article? https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/shell-climate-change.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/shell-climate-change... My first thought as well.

DoingIsLearning 3y ago
Indeed it is.

matthewdgreen 3y ago

I guess my question is at what point does the decline in fossil extraction become self-reinforcing. If extraction is going down, firms won’t invest in developing new resources. This means constraints on supply leading to higher prices. That in turn will drive less consumption (particularly as non-fossil alternatives become mainstream.) There is a potential feedback loop here that drives things towards zero much more rapidly than you might imagine. Anyway, one can hope.

_ea1k 3y ago
There are also little oddities, such as the impact on gas stations along common commuter routes. There are a lot of marginal stations on those routes now. In some places, you'd only have to lose a couple of stations for commuting to be an annoyance. And commuter traffic is an obvious easy target for EV automakers, once they move out of more premium segments.
dangus 3y ago
That’s exactly what I think is happening. Make no mistake, oil will always be needed for many purposes, but some of the big consumption drivers are starting to have price competitive alternatives. It’s notable that half of all global oil consumption is used on roads. You can’t turn back the clock on the fact that many of these alternatives now cost less.