All the democratic candidates at the debates the last two nights repeated carbon free by 2050 might not be aggressive enough to avoid the worse effects of climate change. Many of our current conventional exploration targets have a 20 year time line from discovery to market. Some of our competitors seem to be gradually repositioning into alternative energy. What’s Chevron’s future?
15 replies (most recent on top)
The enemy is no longer at the gate. They have long infiltrated our Congress and mainstream media. Every informed American should realize the NWO doesn’t operate on 5 and 10 year agendas. Theirs are long range plans that are 20 to 40 years in the making. Everything they do is with one objective in mind, to bring down the US in every respect. Divide and conquer is the means for them. Climate Change is only one tact.
The climate change models have been proven to be inaccurate over and over again. Nearly every time based prediction made has been wrong. What rational person would risk economic stability based on flawed and politically driven climate change predictions?
Here is an article from 2008 about predictions that the North Pole would be ice free within a year:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/weather/06/27/north.pole.melting/index.html
Chevron will do what Chevron needs to in order to make money. If O&G is no longer profitable, they will move resources into the energy sector that is profitable (keep in mind that profitability and commodity prices are not the same thing). However counter-intuitive it may seem, what spurs investment into alternate energy technologies is high prices in for O&G, not lower.. The consumer standpoint is; If O&G is the cheaper form of energy, why move from O&G?
- 1uxt: Grab all you can. Life will continue to evolve after you are gone. Might not include humans, but I am sure the c—roaches will be fine. The next intelligent life to evolve will have a nice hominid geologic datum, defined by a concentration of plastic and a clear plutonium-239 spike in well log.
By 2050, I will be dead and gone or nearly there.
Carbon reduction by carbon tax and the growth of alternative renewable energy would be very disruptive to the oil industry, but despite all the talk I suspect the pace of change will be slow. Wind and solar are finally becoming “real” alternatives, but it is unclear they will even comprise more than 10% of an alternative energy answer. A breakthrough technology like fission reactors could be a game changer, but I have been hearing that is on the horizon for the last 50 years without it ever materializing. Reductions in carbon emissions in the last decade where not due to austerity, but rather were related 95% to cheap natural gas replacing coal. The one bet I will make is people will not accept real sacrifices for the “other” (other nations or other generations), so any move away from hydrocarbons would require the development of real alternatives first.
@aps, I’m one who retired well because I always was diligent about saving and investing. I’m not one to piss my money away on exotic cars, fancy clothes or buying gas just anywhere. If I can find it cheaper nearby, that’s where I’m going. Most smart people would do the same.
People who retired well don’t need to worry about where the cheapest gas is. They buy it anywhere. As for those scratching around for a living....
Oil is down 7.5% today at 2:00 p.m. EST. What a kick in the nut sack for those invested too heavily in oil stocks. All because oil speculators placed their bets on the Fed starting up another round of QE and effectively realized today that maybe it’s only a 1/4 point they’ll get. I’m glad I’m retired, out of the biz, hold no oil stocks and closely following my GasBuddy app to see where the cheapest gas stations are.
Scientific Journals written by who, @ocr? Please cite a few of them so that I can judge you as being part of the solution or the problem. My mind is made up. CC is a hoax.
The low IQ here is insufferable. Read some scientific journals
There seems to be wide consensus among climate scientists that man make climate change is real, and, at any rate, I am surprised there is not more discussion that the government response to climate change (whatever it cause) is a real risk factor in project economic forecasts (greater for heavy oil than gas).
Correct, man made impacts on global warming are negligible, and yet the United States accounts for only 15% of total worldwide carbon emissions. So why are the Democrat “Socialists” pushing this New World Order agenda so hard? What are China and India, the top two polluters, doing about it? Oh yes, I forgot— they were exempted from the Paris Accords. Does anyone really fall for this wealth redistribution hoax? Trump will easily win the White House again in 2020. I also think Democrats will lose seats in the House and Senate and several more Governorships because of their ludicrous stance on Climate Change, Open Borders and Immigration.
Man made impacts on global warming are negligible. Climate change is a just a clever way for socialists to justify implementation of their disastrous policies.
Toast