Cheap reliable energy is bad, very bad. It makes life good, and that's bad.
If you told me someone could convince a whole group of people to off themselves, I would immediately think of koolaid.
Do you remember it being colder
- Thread starter Howboutthemdawgs
- Start date
If you told me someone could convince a whole group of people to off themselves, I would immediately think of koolaid.
You never heard XOM’s CEO say they won’t be developing more O&G production in the near term.You missed my point entirely. Many folks think being smart environmentally means doing away with 100% of anything fossil-fuel-wise. By using wind, solar, nuclear, and geothermal for power generation as additional / supplemental sources of energy, (thus reducing greenhouse gases) - I'll ask it again ........ what the H is wrong with that?? Less pollution is less pollution. Do we care nothing for what our kids & grandkids will be saddled with???
Before we see a post again about China burning coal for electricity - if a pile of people jump off a building - do we all want to follow suit?? The argument that, "..... well - China burns coal ....." is the same logic as jumping off buildings. China is working on many ways to generate power much more cleanly. They want a piece of the world-wide "green technology" market. Just because they haven't shut down all their coal plants doesn't mean they aren't moving toward transitioning from coal to cleaner energy sources. Smart, intelligent countries will want to grab as much of that global green market as possible, since it'll create thousands of good-paying jobs in those countries. Will the U.S. lead in that endeavor ..... or suck hind T##???
I worked on stack pollution mitigation projects at coal-fired power plants in my career. Coal is filthy, any way you look at it, and burning it releases a toxic brew of particulate and chemical pollution that no one would want to live near. I worked on one in Jersey where the people living downwind of that plant had a long list of ailments, diseases, and neurological problems. After numerous air studies, soil studies, plant studies, water studies, and blood samples from residents - it was found that the mercury levels were very high downwind of the plant. Not so upwind. Burning coal gives off mercury pollution, as well as sulfur compounds and many other toxic gases. Chemical fact. But .......... maybe the science community has it all wrong ....... and social media yappers know soooooo much more.
If you read much financial / investment reporting, the big oil companies are going ahead with their future-sighted, smart plans to "go greener" whether the "all-knowing" public agrees with it or not. The transition to cleaner isn't going to stop. An article I just read about a week ago had interviews with the CEO's of Exxon, Chevron, and I believe Shell. They all said the same thing - "Don't look for us to 'drill-baby-drill.' We're looking at 'cash-baby-cash' since we're producing record amounts of oil already. Much of our future growth will be from mergers & acquisitions, plus our ongoing projects for cleaner sources of energy - not more drilling." Bringing more oil into the marketplace may be good for consumers at the pumps - but it's not good for their bottom lines. Or the environment - and the big oil companies are playing the long game. They know cleaner & greener is the way forward.
XOM’s recent Outlook on Energy affirmed once again for like the 5th straight year that substantial new O&G development will be required to meet energy and petrochemical product demand even with the most optimistic implementation of renewables and electrification. It says precisely that more drilling will be needed to meet needs into 2050.
Now with that said, of course they’re investing tactically in other technologies. They aren’t an O&G company. They’re an energy company.
BP is the major going headlong into the uncharted territory of “O&G is bad.” Have a look-see at how that’s working out. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bp-announces-layoffs-aims-cut-141100974.html
Last edited:
