Oil and Gas Issues

[Sleepy]

Thanks to charles in the northern sea route thread:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,854.msg140105.html#msg140105

Cross posting my own comment:
The road to hell.
http://english.gov.cn/archive/white_paper/2018/01/26/content_281476026660336.htm
A lot of bs in there, especially after reading this section:

(2) Participating in the exploration for and exploitation of oil, gas, mineral and other non-living resources

China respects the sovereign rights of Arctic States over oil, gas and mineral resources in the areas subject to their jurisdiction in accordance with international law, and respects the interests and concerns of residents in the region. It requires its enterprises to observe the laws of the relevant States and conduct risk assessments for resource exploration, and encourages them to participate in the exploitation of oil, gas and mineral resources in the Arctic, through cooperation in various forms and on the condition of properly protecting the eco-environment of the Arctic.

[gerontocrat]

Hullo Sleepy,

The USA and the West are being outflanked by China and Russia. Developing the Arctic (shipping, oil, bas and other minerals) is a significant part of that long-term strategy. I understand that Sweden is worried about Russia. One thing Sweden could do is develop its renewables and EVs to remove dependence on Russia.

You posted on how in Sweden the authorities are being dumb on, e.g. allowing households to send excess PV energy into the network. One could argue that that is against national security priorities.

[Sleepy]

So sad.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php

[Sebastian Jones]

So sad.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php

Fortunately the EIA has a terrible record of projecting how much fossil fuels we shall produce/consume. They consistently over estimate, and not that this graph does not include the decline that is inevitable.

[Bob Wallace]

So sad.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php

Fortunately the EIA has a terrible record of projecting how much fossil fuels we shall produce/consume. They consistently over estimate, and not that this graph does not include the decline that is inevitable.

The EIA is terrible when it comes to predictions but they might be fairly correct for the next two years.  Petroleum use will not drop until there is an energy source that can replace its function at a reasonable price.

That technology is now emerging.  Rather, the technology has emerged but some additional price drop is needed. 

Battery powered buses are starting to replace diesel buses.  Tesla's 18-wheeler should be on the road in a couple of years.  We're short years from manufacturing price parity between EVs and ICEVs.  Give the world large and small vehicles with adequate range selling for competitive prices and it will probably look like someone has flipped a switch.  Those lines will plummet.

[numerobis]

Price drops continue, but it’s mostly about deployment now. Tesla is struggling to scale up to be 2% of the US market. The demand is there, supply is not.

[Bob Wallace]

Price drops continue, but it’s mostly about deployment now. Tesla is struggling to scale up to be 2% of the US market. The demand is there, supply is not.

It seems like it's only in the last few months that major manufacturers have been publicly admitting that they are going to be going large with EVs.  Most of the talk is having new EVs ready to sell in 2020.  Then a couple of years for EVs come out of factories in large numbers. 

Once the big manufacturers truly commit to EVs I expect things to take off.  Part of that is building a lot more battery factories which seems to be started.

I'll guess peak oil use is about 2025.  Or a bit sooner if GM can put a self-driving EV on the road by the end of next year.  If GM goes after the robotaxi business then I expect they will flood the major cities after an initial run to make sure the bugs are out.  That could move peak oil demand a year or two closer.

[Sleepy]

So sad.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php

Fortunately the EIA has a terrible record of projecting how much fossil fuels we shall produce/consume. They consistently over estimate, and not that this graph does not include the decline that is inevitable.

The EIA is terrible when it comes to predictions but they might be fairly correct for the next two years.  Petroleum use will not drop until there is an energy source that can replace its function at a reasonable price.

That was pretty much my own thinking expressed by Bob. Add what's going on in Russia and China, but also my neighbour Norway. They recently offered a record high 75 new production licences on the Norwegian continental shelf. They are really pushing hard now to keep things rolling and they don't have to account for their emissions abroad.

[numerobis]

It'll be interesting to see how many of these accorded leases actually produce oil, rather than ending up being a way to squeeze money out of the oil companies.

Offshore oil is very expensive and takes years to set up. Some of these leases will produce, but many of them would only be ready about when EVs are likely to really take off -- which would kill the economics.

[Sleepy]

I posted a couple of links in #2081. The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate looks happy enough.

“The projects now being approved generally have good profitability and can tolerate an oil price as low as 30‐40 dollars per barrel,” says Nyland.

http://www.npd.no/en/news/News/2018/The-Shelf-2017/
More numbers and projections in the links at the end of that one.

[Bob Wallace]

It'll be interesting to see how many of these accorded leases actually produce oil, rather than ending up being a way to squeeze money out of the oil companies.

Offshore oil is very expensive and takes years to set up. Some of these leases will produce, but many of them would only be ready about when EVs are likely to really take off -- which would kill the economics.

It's 1908 and Henry Ford just started selling his Model T.  At the same time all over the country livery stables are investing in larger barns and fancier carriages.

This is not likely to end well for companies spending money on new oil field development.

[TerryM]

It'll be interesting to see how many of these accorded leases actually produce oil, rather than ending up being a way to squeeze money out of the oil companies.

Offshore oil is very expensive and takes years to set up. Some of these leases will produce, but many of them would only be ready about when EVs are likely to really take off -- which would kill the economics.

It's 1908 and Henry Ford just started selling his Model T.  At the same time all over the country livery stables are investing in larger barns and fancier carriages.

This is not likely to end well for companies spending money on new oil field development.

What's the future look like for countries that squandered their wealth fighting for oil in the mid east?
Terry

[numerobis]

It'll be interesting to see how many of these accorded leases actually produce oil, rather than ending up being a way to squeeze money out of the oil companies.

Offshore oil is very expensive and takes years to set up. Some of these leases will produce, but many of them would only be ready about when EVs are likely to really take off -- which would kill the economics.

It's 1908 and Henry Ford just started selling his Model T.  At the same time all over the country livery stables are investing in larger barns and fancier carriages.

This is not likely to end well for companies spending money on new oil field development.

My heart bleeds for the oil companies. It really does.

[Bob Wallace]

It'll be interesting to see how many of these accorded leases actually produce oil, rather than ending up being a way to squeeze money out of the oil companies.

Offshore oil is very expensive and takes years to set up. Some of these leases will produce, but many of them would only be ready about when EVs are likely to really take off -- which would kill the economics.

It's 1908 and Henry Ford just started selling his Model T.  At the same time all over the country livery stables are investing in larger barns and fancier carriages.

This is not likely to end well for companies spending money on new oil field development.

What's the future look like for countries that squandered their wealth fighting for oil in the mid east?
Terry

I'm not sure what countries have squandered their wealth if you mean have spent themselves into penury.   

If you mean the countries that have been spending money keeping oil flowing for the entire world  it means that it will no longer mean a need to spend that money.  It will be an additional benefit on top of lower spending for energy.

The US, for example, is not spending money keeping a pipeline open only to the US.  Keeping a US carrier fleet in the area to assure that the flow of oil out of the Middle East benefits all oil consuming nations. 

[TerryM]

I'm not sure what countries have squandered their wealth if you mean have spent themselves into penury.   

If you mean the countries that have been spending money keeping oil flowing for the entire world  it means that it will no longer mean a need to spend that money.  It will be an additional benefit on top of lower spending for energy.

The US, for example, is not spending money keeping a pipeline open only to the US.  Keeping a US carrier fleet in the area to assure that the flow of oil out of the Middle East benefits all oil consuming nations.

I had no idea you were such a patriot, and I'll spare you any of Einstein's quotes on patriotism.
Terry

[Bob Wallace]

I'm not much of a patriot.  I make no attempt to overlook the US's faults.

I do attempt to be a realist.

Perhaps you're looking at my statements through your anti-US goggles....

[sidd]

Wonder how much the king got out of these plutocrats. I am still not clear why he needs it. Surely bombing Yemen can't be costing that much with copious US help, or else the state of Saud finances is more parlous that I imagined.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-saudi-arrests-princealwaleed/saudi-billionaire-prince-alwaleed-released-as-corruption-probe-winds-down-idUKKBN1FG0E1

An amusing interview with a very frightened plutocrat:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-saudi-arrests-alwaleed-transcript/transcript-of-reuters-interview-with-saudi-arabias-prince-alwaleed-bin-talal-idUKKBN1FG08F

sidd

[TerryM]

I'm not much of a patriot.  I make no attempt to overlook the US's faults.

I do attempt to be a realist.

Perhaps you're looking at my statements through your anti-US goggles....

I'm not anti-US. Nor am I anti-Britain, anti-France or anti-Mexico. It's a country that has made some major mistakes over the years, but so have Britain France and Mexico. - even my beloved Canada isn't beyond reproach.


I am anti-Trump and was anti-Clinton, but Bernie is still in my good graces.


America has done some very bad things. Don't shoot the messenger, or assume bias on his part.
Terry

[TerryM]

Sanctions be Damned!

The US receives her first shipment of LNG from Russia's new arctic plant. Another shipment of Yamal gas is following.

https://www.rt.com/business/417237-russian-lng-tanker-gas-arrived-us/

Terry

[Sigmetnow]

Sanctions be Damned!

The US receives her first shipment of LNG from Russia's new arctic plant. Another shipment of Yamal gas is following.

https://www.rt.com/business/417237-russian-lng-tanker-gas-arrived-us/

Terry

From the article:
“Technically, the cargo is not subject to sanctions imposed by the US on key stakeholders in the Russian energy sector since the gas was bought by the French company and delivered on a French vessel.”

Take care with articles from RT, Russia Today.  They are often a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda.

[TerryM]

Sanctions be Damned!

The US receives her first shipment of LNG from Russia's new arctic plant. Another shipment of Yamal gas is following.

https://www.rt.com/business/417237-russian-lng-tanker-gas-arrived-us/

Terry

From the article:
“Technically, the cargo is not subject to sanctions imposed by the US on key stakeholders in the Russian energy sector since the gas was bought by the French company and delivered on a French vessel.”

Take care with articles from RT, Russia Today.  They are often a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda.

The propaganda content doesn't appear much different from CBC, BBC, or NPR. Have you been reading articles in RT, or articles about RT to come to that conclusion?


Terry

[Bruce Steele]

Terry, I am with you on the prevalence of propaganda. Maybe it has always been so ? I recently saw RT television news on a cable network. For me watching RT was far more informative of world issues than anything available on the nightly US network pablum.  I also like Al Jazeera for world news coverage. If anyone is watching US news without a habit of reading newspapers they are NOT getting anything but pure crap.

[Sigmetnow]

...
The propaganda content doesn't appear much different from CBC, BBC, or NPR. Have you been reading articles in RT, or articles about RT to come to that conclusion?

Terry

RT is state-sponsored media with an obvious pro-Putin slant.  Not saying don’t read it, just to consider that fact.  Here are opinions from people who worked for RT:

And in March of this year, at the not quite state run but definitely state
sponsored TV channel that`s called "Russia Today", an American anchor
working at that ostentatiously Putin-friendly outlet decided that she`d had
enough of "Russia Today" and how they wanted her to cover the news, and she
ended up quitting her job at "Russia Today" while she was on the air and
she quit with a flourish.

A London-based journalist working for "Russia Today," she started
earlier today tweeting things from her "Russia Today" Twitter account,
things that definitely did not toe the Russia today party line.

She said things like, "Yes, we do work for Putin. We are asked on a daily
basis if not to totally ignore then to obscure the truth".

http://www.today.com/id/55691236/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/


Bruce, I like Al Jazeera very much.  Also The Guardian.  I am not beholden to US outlets.

[SteveMDFP]

Bruce, I like Al Jazeera very much.  Also The Guardian.  I am not beholden to US outlets.

Me, too.  Or three.  To me, Al Jazeera is very good, a lot like BBC World News, but far easier to access. 
Guardian tends to be very informative as well. 
Rachel Maddow is wonderful, but she concentrates on domestic politics, not global stories.

The rest of mainstream broadcast news in the US tends to be superficial pablum.  Some major newspapers and magazines are quite good. The Atlantic is a bright spot there.

[gerontocrat]

Off topic discussing media choices - but as everyone seems to be doing off-topic:

Bloomberg.com

Good for business news - "know thine enemy as yourself"
Good for factual reporting on what's going on in the world - to some extent. At least tries to give facts.
Not bad for environment.
Opinion pieces from both Liberals and Libertarians s (which matters) and posted as opinion.

For me, worth a quick look most days.

[Buddy]

With the price of Exxon stock at $83 a short while back.....I bet a friend of mine that Exxon stock would see $60 before it sees $90.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/exxon-aims-triple-permian-shale-162901312.html

We'll see how that turns out.  XOM was at $89.30 a couple days ago....but looks like it has "run out of gas" (so to speak).

I am counting on "greedy Texas frackers" to push supply UP.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/exxon-aims-triple-permian-shale-162901312.html

[Buddy]

Someone on the "cars, cars, cars" thread posted a GREAT video of Tony Seba the other week.  I hadn't heard of Tony Seba before that.....  So a big shout out to whoever posted that.  GREAT INFORMATION.

Oil companies are heading for the abyss much faster than they thought.  And I am wondering if Saudi Aramco is going to get their IPO by the end of this year.  I am now having my doubts.  I know they will come public....but if they keep waiting....they are going to be in deep shit.

[sidd]

Chevron apparently bribed their star witness in a New York countersuit against Eucadorian plaintiffs and their lawyers. Eucador courts had previously decided against Chevron for environmental cleanup. The US judge in the case held shares of Chevron, yet did not recuse.

So now the plaintiffs are going after Chevron's 25 billion in Canada.

https://www.alternet.org/environment/chevron-accused-2-million-witness-bribery-plot-ecuador-pollution-case

sidd

[Sebastian Jones]

Someone on the "cars, cars, cars" thread posted a GREAT video of Tony Seba the other week.

You are welcome Buddy!

[Buddy]

Thanks again Sebastian.  I encourage EVERYONE to watch it a COUPLE of times.

It has impacts for SEVERAL industries DIRECTLY.....and the whole planet, indirectly.

The continued push down in energy costs AND transportation costs will continue to "fuel" (pun intended) global economies for some time.

Those two things.....drop in renewable power costs AND drop in transportation costs will not only "strand" some unused carbon fuels underground.... it will also strand many INEFFECTIVE and LYING politicians like Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, etc on an unused carbon desert.

Thanks again Sebastian.....👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

[Susan Anderson]

Funny that , in this world of single use plastics , the greater threat to oceans is our multi-use manmade fibres in clothes . The fibre fragments finding their way into our oceans primarily from washing may be a similar tonnage to the visible plastic that is causing such a fuss .

Impressive, but difficult to believe, figure. Do you have source for this? Article? Scientific paper?
[Found this : https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/20/microfibers-plastic-pollution-oceans-patagonia-synthetic-clothes-microbeads]

These so-called "manmade fibres" are synthetics (aka plastics). Natural fibers degrade (cottom, hemp, linen, wood, tencel, etc. Apparently rayon is not as bad as the rest, but though I like it, I haven't found it degrades at the same rate as other natural fibers. [edited typo -> I meant fibers not resources]

What's "manmade" is the clothing - weaving, sewing, etc. - so you're really talking about a subset of plastic.

[SteveMDFP]

These so-called "manmade fibres" are synthetics (aka plastics). Natural fibers degrade (cottom, hemp, linen, wood, tencel, etc. Apparently rayon is not as bad as the rest, but though I like it, I haven't found it degrades at the same rate as other natural resources.

What's "manmade" is the clothing - weaving, sewing, etc. - so you're really talking about a subset of plastic.

Rayon is an interesting fiber.  It's cellulose in molecular structure, so biodegradable.  But still quite versatile:

http://www.swicofil.com/products/200viscose.html

Manufacturing it can be environmentally unfriendly, but I don't think necessarily so.
Perhaps there should be a tax on petroleum-based clothing fabrics, and exempt rayon, cotton, and other biodegradables.

[Buddy]

Yesterday ExxonMobile yet again got just above $89 a share ($89.25).  Looks like sellers were more than happy to "get out of Dodge"....and get of Dodge they did.

This morning.....XOM missed their earnings projection....and they are selling off.  Now....I'm NOT prepared to celebrate any "win"....because it is STILL TOO EARLY to start dancing.  Markets CAN BE FICKLE.

But....it will be funny if yesterday proves to be another "failed attack" on the $90 level....and that XOM continues to move "slowly south" over the next year or more.  I won't be breathing any "sigh of relief" until XOM moves BELOW $80.

What I will be MORE INTERESTED IN WATCHING.....is the inventory levels in the coming 2 - 3 months.  Will the US keep increasing their drilling in Texas and New Mexico?  Will they bring TOO MUCH gas to the market for it to absorb?

Time will tell.....

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/exxon-misses-street-4q-forecasts-132737304.html

[gerontocrat]

Yesterday ExxonMobile yet again got just above $89 a share ($89.25).  Looks like sellers were more than happy to "get out of Dodge"....and get of Dodge they did.

This morning.....XOM missed their earnings projection....and they are selling off.  Now....I'm NOT prepared to celebrate any "win"....because it is STILL TOO EARLY to start dancing.  Markets CAN BE FICKLE.

One has also to take into account that the whole US stock market is going through a dose of irrational exuberance - that is lifting all boats. With West Texas Intermediate in the high 60's and confidence in OPEC and Russia sticking to the production cuts, Exxon has to really screw up to be hit hard.

Of course, sentiment can change really quickly, as can events. In the 1960's the UK Prime Minister was asked what really worried him. His reply? "Events, dear boy, events".

[Buddy]

Like Yogi Berra said......"it's deja vu all over again."

https://finance.yahoo.com/m/492aa143-8b7d-3e7b-a92f-e5ea328f85c7/deja-vu%3A-oil-investors-could.html

Greed kills......

[Buddy]

Do you hear that "sucking sound"?  That is the sound of $$$ getting sucked out of the oil and gas markets.

Worldwide....the 10 largest oil and gas companies have a MARKET VALUE of about 1.5 TRILLION US DOLLARS.  That is going to change SIGNIFICANTLY over the next few years.

And not JUST oil and gas drillers.  You also have pipelines and refiners that are going to be in a world of hurt.  As I have noted in the past....this is going to be a LONG AND PAINFUL RIDE FOR LONG INVESTORS IN OIL AND GAS.

The "beta" for ExxonMobile (XOM) is .7.  Beta is a measure of how much a stock moves compared to the market.  A stock with a beta of 1.0 moves about the same as the market moves.  Today the market is down about 1.5 - 2.0%.....so a stock like XOM would be expected to move a little less than that.....about 1.0 - 1.4%.  XOM is down 6% today.  That is a BIG MOVE for XOM.  There are going to be steep drops....and steep "counter rallies" over coming years.  But make no mistake....the PRIMARY MOVE AND DIRECTION IS CONTINUING DOWN for oil and gas companies.

And it has a LONG....LONG....way to go.....

My bet with my friend was $60 before $90.  It make take a while to get down to $60...many months or longer.  But $90....could be DECADES IN THE FUTURE....IF IT HAPPENS AT ALL.

[Sigmetnow]

The Dow average is currently down 545 points.  The market as a whole is overdue for a major ‘correction.’


Update:  “The Dow Jones was down 666 points today, the 6th largest point drop in history -- next to four days during the height of the 2008 financial crisis and the first day the stock market was open after 9/11.”
https://twitter.com/ericholthaus/status/959533780280266768

[Susan Anderson]

The Dow average is currently down 545 points.  The market as a whole is overdue for a major ‘correction.’

Ooh er! This is slightly off topic, but as good a place to put it as anywhere. 538 (quality statistics US sports and politics) had an evaluation of progress since Trump, which towards the end shows some of these metrics in context. Scroll down for oil and gas measures.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-measured-trumps-first-year-according-to-his-own-goals-heres-what-we-found/

[gerontocrat]

The Dow is down because the US economy and the world economy and corporate earnings are doing very well. But this means the Fed will up interest rates a bit - panic! That's how dumg the stock market is.

[gerontocrat]

Exxon Share Price last 5 years. One days drop in context

[Buddy]

Here is a chart of XOM since 2001.  You can see where "support" at the high $50's area is.  That is...of course....why I thought (and still think) that $60 will be attained BEFORE any successful attempt at $90.  And that combined with THE FUNDAMENTALS of frackers in Texas drilling their little hearts out.

Now....it is VERY POSSIBLE that XOM will head MUCH further south of the $60 area.  THAT....of course....is in the hands of (1) current holders of XOM stock, and (2) POTENTIAL future buyers as well as POTENTIAL FUTURE SHORTERS of XOM.  A "shorting" of XOM CREATES a sell transaction that then needs to find a buyer.

And the price of oil itself....will of course affect what the investors of XOM will be thinking about XOM.

XOM is over $300 BIllION in market value itself.  This will be fascinating to watch over the coming few years.  A LOT OF PAIN to come.....

[numerobis]

With the price of Exxon stock at $83 a short while back.....I bet a friend of mine that Exxon stock would see $60 before it sees $90.

Risky bet. There aren't enough EVs yet to cut demand for oil substantially. Coming soon, but in the immediate I expect oil prices to continue creeping up (slowly, because there's lots of idle supply waiting for prices to rise).

Peak oil demand within 10 years doesn't preclude a price spike in the next 5 years.

Once we hit peak oil, XOM will drop well below $60; it'll be like the coal industry today. Even with willing buyers for coal, the sellers will all be bankrupt because they all bet on growth.

[Buddy]

Risky bet. There aren't enough EVs yet to cut demand for oil substantially.

It's NOT about EV's in the short run.  And by "short run" I mean 2 - 3 years.  In the short run....it is about frackers and Permian Basin oil.  THAT...is going to keep a "cap" on oil prices.

In 3 years or so.....then the SERIOUS ramp up in EV's begins to get a little more serious....and begins its relatively quick trek up "the S curve".

But in the short run....it is about GREED and FRACKERS.

Could I lose my $60 before $90 bet on Mobile?  Sure....it is a future event and anything is possible.  There is ALWAYS the possibility of some "international issue" that could bump the price of oil over the short run.  But keep in mind that the "smart money" has already started moving out of Dodge LONG AGO on oil assets.  And bump up in oil prices or oil asset prices....now becomes a SELLING OPPORTUNITY for holders.....and a SHORTING OPPORTUNITY for traders.

[mitch]

Important thing to note is that Exxon price has been range-bound since 2007 (high of $103, low of $56). The reserves that Exxon actually owns are dropping. And, fracked oil is not cheap--it would not have been developed 25 years ago even if the technology existed. It is evidence that recoverable oil is dropping. 

[Sigmetnow]

Chevron to Statoil:  If I’m going down, you’re going down with me!

Oil Giant Sues Other Oil Giant Over Climate Change

Last fall, the cities of Oakland and San Francisco sued oil behemoth Chevron for billions of dollars because of its role in causing climate change. Chevron is, of course, fighting the case, but if it loses, it wants to take down another oil company with it.

In a complaint filed in December and highlighted by Emily Atkin at The New Republic on Thursday, Chevron decided to file a third party suit against Norway’s state oil company, Statoil.

The reason? Because Chevron believes Statoil is responsible for climate change. Here’s what Chevron lawyers submitted while also claiming the Oakland and San Francisco suit is frivolous:

“While Chevron agrees that the Plaintiffs’ claims are meritless, for the reasons stated below, Statoil (an agency or instrumentality of Norway)—as well as potentially the many other sovereign governments that use and promote fossil fuels—must be joined as third-party defendants in this matter.” ...

https://earther.com/oil-giant-sues-other-oil-giant-over-climate-change-beca-1822662897

[Sigmetnow]

The cost of oil rig cleanup is staggering.

California taxpayers could foot the bill to shutter old oil rigs in the Pacific

It’s been nearly three years since an oil pipeline ruptured in Santa Barbara County, coating seven miles of beaches with crude oil and killing dolphins, birds and sea lions.

Area parks and fisheries have since re-opened. The pipeline has not, and the company that owns it is under criminal indictment. But the financial impacts of the 2015 Refugio oil spill continue to wash up in California.

The latest example: State lawmakers are considering an unprecedented request to spend more than $100 million in taxpayer money to dismantle two offshore oil-drilling facilities—a platform connected to the ruptured pipeline and a man-made island in nearby Ventura County—because the oil companies that were leasing the sites went bankrupt last year.
...

https://calmatters.org/articles/california-taxpayers-foot-bill-shutter-old-oil-rigs-pacific/


Getting Old Is Expensive if You’re an Oil Well
• Asia-Pacific is home to about 35,000 offshore wells: WoodMac
• Infrastructure left over from drilling boom of 1970s-1980s

The tens of thousands of oil and gas wells sprinkled across offshore Asia-Pacific left over from the drilling boom of the 1970s and 1980s will soon need to be decommissioned, a task that could add up to a $100 billion clean-up bill, according to energy consultant Wood Mackenzie Ltd. And the region’s state-owned oil companies, and ultimately the tax payers, are on the hook for about half of that, it said. ...

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-02-01/-100-billion-clean-up-bill-awaits-asia-s-old-offshore-oil-wells

[Sigmetnow]

‘Big Five’ in Alberta’s oilpatch suspected of sitting on a $2 trillion liability

The five companies that own most of the oilsands production in Alberta should come clean with the public about the "enormity" of the costs — adding up to nearly $2 trillion in a worst-case scenario — of their pollution, says a new study. ...

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/01/31/news/big-five-albertas-oilpatch-suspected-sitting-2-trillion-liability

[Buddy]

‘Big Five’ in Alberta’s oilpatch suspected of sitting on a $2 trillion liability

The five companies that own most of the oilsands production in Alberta should come clean with the public about the "enormity" of the costs — adding up to nearly $2 trillion in a worst-case scenario — of their pollution, says a new study. ...


https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/01/31/news/big-five-albertas-oilpatch-suspected-sitting-2-trillion-liability

My guess is that fossil fuel companies in general.....coal, oil, and gas....are sitting on S**TLOADS of liabilities.  Pipeline companies included.....and nuclear companies also (in addition to fossil fuel companies).

Here in Georgia....the wise people (sarcasm intended)  CONTINUE to plow ahead with a  nuclear plant that is billions over budget....and will likely NEVER PRODUCE ENERGY.  Amazing.....

http://savannahnow.com/news/2018-01-26/georgia-senate-bill-aims-protect-consumers-pocketbooks-vogtle

"The troubled expansion is five years behind schedule and its price tag has nearly doubled to $27 billion. Despite a staff recommendation that the project is uneconomic and a finding that the company will make $5 billion in profits from the delays, the Georgia Public Service Commission in December gave the green light to complete the expansion with few added consumer safeguards."

[crandles]

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/energy/energy-outlook/a-view-to-2040

Electricity from solar and wind increases about 400 percent

Is there any answer other than 'tell me another'?

see also
https://mustelid.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/exxonmobil-positioning-for-lower-carbon.html

[Buddy]

I'm likely going to go back to my friend who I had bet "ExxonMobile stock sees $60 before $90....and have him change to the bet.

Change it to.....$35 before $90.

If XOM sees $90....I don't think it will be for decades.  And over the next 5 years.....it could be beaten to an absolute pulp (below $35).  Along with other fossil fuel companies.  Now that is "kind of cocky"....and obviously I don't need to change the bet to give him better terms.... but I see the next few years unfolding AGAINST OIL COMPANIES....just as the 1970 - 2007 period worked FOR THEM.

I don't care about the bet with him...it is very minor.  But HE has significant $$$ in XOM on the long side.  Maybe my case to him won't sway him....but I feel I OWE IT TO HIM to lay it out.  Afterall......he is a friend.....not an enemy.  And I have FUNDAMENTAL ARGUMENTS...as well as technical arguments.