Jump to content

Hey Oil Barons.......


936horn

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

You never said shit about Trump's moves.

But it don't matter, I was just fucking with you anyway.

Pretty sure I did. However I took a lot of time off. Pretty sure that if you look back to ‘19 when he did it I was pretty critical. Feel free to search. I’m not going to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's ok, I know you didn't because about a year after it happened you pulled the plug on your account and had everything deleted.  Way back then I went back through all the quoted replies after your new account (that you claimed wasn't you) said you criticized it and yep... nada.  The way this board works, if you criticized the call it would have been in a quoted reply at some point whether calling out a bad take or giving you a high five.

Again, it don't make a shit.  We all know you speak out of both sides of your mouth at all times and will waffle on everything.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

It's ok, I know you didn't because about a year after it happened you pulled the plug on your account and had everything deleted.  Way back then I went back through all the quoted replies after your new account (that you claimed wasn't you) said you criticized it and yep... nada.  The way this board works, if you criticized the call it would have been in a quoted reply at some point whether calling out a bad take or giving you a high five.

Again, it don't make a shit.  We all know you speak out of both sides of your mouth at all times and will waffle on everything.

Total bullshit. I was absolutely critical of him then, and mentioned it here as Biden was doing it more recently. I’ve repeated it dozens of times. 

Would love to know how I’ve spoken out of both sides of my mouth and ever waffled on anything.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2024 at 8:00 PM, Fudge Nuggets said:

It's ok, I know you didn't because about a year after it happened you pulled the plug on your account and had everything deleted.  Way back then I went back through all the quoted replies after your new account (that you claimed wasn't you) said you criticized it and yep... nada.  The way this board works, if you criticized the call it would have been in a quoted reply at some point whether calling out a bad take or giving you a high five.

Again, it don't make a shit.  We all know you speak out of both sides of your mouth at all times and will waffle on everything.

Plenty of “Guest” posts still viewable in the thread. They’re just fundamentally different when you read it now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2024 at 12:39 AM, MadTrapper said:

Hadn't seen that clip even if a year old.  But when the narrator says "that's something that is hard to wrap our head around", in reference to net zero oil, that kind of sums up the PR challenge.  Anthropogenic CO2 for both permanent sequestration and enhanced oil recovery is, in theory, a very practical way for an oil company to approach this era of net zero emission goals.  Whether they be pie-in-the-sky or not is another topic IMHO.

But why many lay persons with the loudest and most ardent followers are still so negative on net zero oil, assuming it can truly be done economically, is baffling to me. It's simple mass balance.

It's not another topic. Whether CO2 projects are economic ipso facto determines whether net zero is pie-in-the-sky. After all, everyone responds to incentives.

Nobody is writing off CO2 EOR as wholesale unpractical.  Whether CO2 is used in place of water, steam, gels, chemicals, are a matter of economics specific to each reservoir/field/operation. Clean energy projects so far are less economic than hydrocarbons.

The industry's Scope 1 and 2 emissions alone are a massive 5 gigaton/yr. At the moment, the total global capture capacity projected at 2030 is...0.5Gt/yr. 10%...assuming zero increase in demand in hydrocarbon. Netting out the industry emissions to zero requires expenditure of money, energy, and time on a scope thats unrealistic. That's why some are 'so negative'.

The pledge for net zero is not binding. Operators will commit to the extent 'required' by the capital markets (eg wall street) or regulators. Their capex on core, profitable business, are revised and reverted every few years.. you think they're truly going to spend on a 30 year horizon to meet 2050 emissions promise? current executives won't be around, board won't be around, hell, most of these companies in operations today won't be around by then.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

It's not another topic. Whether CO2 projects are economic ipso facto determines whether net zero is pie-in-the-sky. After all, everyone responds to incentives.

Nobody is writing off CO2 EOR as wholesale unpractical.  Whether CO2 is used in place of water, steam, gels, chemicals, are a matter of economics specific to each reservoir/field/operation. Clean energy projects so far are less economic than hydrocarbons.

The industry's Scope 1 and 2 emissions alone are a massive 5 gigaton/yr. At the moment, the total global capture capacity projected at 2030 is...0.5Gt/yr. 10%...assuming zero increase in demand in hydrocarbon. Netting out the industry emissions to zero requires expenditure of money, energy, and time on a scope thats unrealistic. That's why some are 'so negative'.

The pledge for net zero is not binding. Operators will commit to the extent 'required' by the capital markets (eg wall street) or regulators. Their capex on core, profitable business, are revised and reverted every few years.. you think they're truly going to spend on a 30 year horizon to meet 2050 emissions promise? current executives won't be around, board won't be around, hell, most of these companies in operations today won't be around by then.

 

 

Completely agree and didn't intend to dismiss the economic elephant in the room.  It will take massive investment and those that do will assume risk that the project will be uneconomic. And to your point, what happens when Vicki retires as CEO at Oxy? Will these major net zero projects continue or will that side of the company be cleaved off and saddles with debt because it doesn't compete with the rest of the O&G portfolio? 

I guess my main hangup was thinking some are negative on the Anthropogenic CO2 EOR aspect simply because more oil will continue to be produced vs. the fact that it's unproven at scale and faces economic headwinds. Can completely understand the latter argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, MadTrapper said:

Completely agree and didn't intend to dismiss the economic elephant in the room.  It will take massive investment and those that do will assume risk that the project will be uneconomic. And to your point, what happens when Vicki retires as CEO at Oxy? Will these major net zero projects continue or will that side of the company be cleaved off and saddles with debt because it doesn't compete with the rest of the O&G portfolio? 

I guess my main hangup was thinking some are negative on the Anthropogenic CO2 EOR aspect simply because more oil will continue to be produced vs. the fact that it's unproven at scale and faces economic headwinds. Can completely understand the latter argument. 

Seems to me the winds have slightly shifted. The flows into ESG-centric funds have waned.  i.e., there is less financial pressure for companies to signal compliance with things like COP21, COP28, NZE2050, etc. A few reports I've seen from companies, they are behind on their emissions objective, so its a moving target just to show they're doing something.

Despite how much lip service Oxi pays around emissions reduction in their investor material.... for actual compensation, only 4.5% (30% of 15% cash incentive) of Vicki's total target pay is tied to it. Board doesn't seem too invested in that topic.

The other determinant is political pressure and that's more difficult to predict. Like if the govt places a carbon-intensity cap on projects before they're sanctioned. If you ask me... once the public gets around to the benefits of nuclear, a lot of this stuff goes away. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...