The future of oil and gas companies?
Discussion
As per the title really. I noticed a shell car charger at a services at the weekend which got me thinking.
The o&g cos are late to that party and don't have much scope for generation, or infrastructure beyond existing petrol stations.
I work in advanced nuclear and had expected to see some of AMR /SMR design being funded or bought by the big O&G cos as they look to replace O&G revenue... But haven't seen this happen.
They clearly can't rely on O&G for ever so... Those in the business... What's the future of O&G upstream and downstream?
The o&g cos are late to that party and don't have much scope for generation, or infrastructure beyond existing petrol stations.
I work in advanced nuclear and had expected to see some of AMR /SMR design being funded or bought by the big O&G cos as they look to replace O&G revenue... But haven't seen this happen.
They clearly can't rely on O&G for ever so... Those in the business... What's the future of O&G upstream and downstream?
I’m sitting on quite a few Shell shares. They were one of the few single stocks I owned before the pandemic and got absolutely smashed. I then bought another tranche when they were low to average down.
I am still fairly comfortable holding. The end of O&G and ESG concerns get a lot of coverage, but surely there are decades if not centuries in the oil game. Right now they are absolutely printing money, especially with gas at all time highs. Politicians are setting big targets, but they’re generally in 2030-2050 so it’s pure can kicking.
I am still fairly comfortable holding. The end of O&G and ESG concerns get a lot of coverage, but surely there are decades if not centuries in the oil game. Right now they are absolutely printing money, especially with gas at all time highs. Politicians are setting big targets, but they’re generally in 2030-2050 so it’s pure can kicking.
As we will be burning oil and gas for decades and using other petroleum based products I don't think they need to worry.
Other than short recession and covid blips world oil consumption has steadily increased over recent decades despite Oaris. COP etc.
Talk is cheap but there is not much sign of any long term reduction in world oil a d gas consumption.
In the case of the UK the reliance on wind bakes in demand for gas as we need a backup for low wind periods.
T
Other than short recession and covid blips world oil consumption has steadily increased over recent decades despite Oaris. COP etc.
Talk is cheap but there is not much sign of any long term reduction in world oil a d gas consumption.
In the case of the UK the reliance on wind bakes in demand for gas as we need a backup for low wind periods.
T
Hmmm, oil and gas has no real future …. We’re still completely dependent on the stuff for materials, and pretty much everything we touch in our daily lives starts life as a petrolchemical feedstock - and there is nothing at all in the pipeline to displace this.
While we may have to drive round in electric cars, there is again no realistic alternative to diesel and fuel oil for industrial process, power and aviation. Sure, people are making electric aeroplanes, but they are toys that fly a few people for 20 minutes.
As for them investing in nuclear - fission is political poison, they would be insane to go anywhere near it.
While we may have to drive round in electric cars, there is again no realistic alternative to diesel and fuel oil for industrial process, power and aviation. Sure, people are making electric aeroplanes, but they are toys that fly a few people for 20 minutes.
As for them investing in nuclear - fission is political poison, they would be insane to go anywhere near it.
As someone sat in the north sea at the minute, the older assets are being priced out by emissions taxes and high lift costs. New projects are happening but the political will to explore them properly is waning (see the SNP tis week).
The worry is that the rest of the world aren't playing to the same rules as Western Europe so they will continue exploration whilst we hand energy dependency to less stable routes in the hope of signalling how 'green' we are. As some above have said, nearly everything we use has some sort of hydrocarbon base so the rush to close oil fields is a little short sighted until credible alternatives are found.
As for the companies themselves, I know BP are looking to develop a big wind farm off Scotland so I guess that will offset carbon taxes and diversify their portfolio. I believe Shell have similar interests in solar energy, so they won't die, they'll just buy in to other industries that offset their main business.
The worry is that the rest of the world aren't playing to the same rules as Western Europe so they will continue exploration whilst we hand energy dependency to less stable routes in the hope of signalling how 'green' we are. As some above have said, nearly everything we use has some sort of hydrocarbon base so the rush to close oil fields is a little short sighted until credible alternatives are found.
As for the companies themselves, I know BP are looking to develop a big wind farm off Scotland so I guess that will offset carbon taxes and diversify their portfolio. I believe Shell have similar interests in solar energy, so they won't die, they'll just buy in to other industries that offset their main business.
I was told in the climate change politics thread that the reason oil and gas companies don't do anything significant to dispel the "myth" of man-made climate change is because they stand to make even more money from alternative energy supply options. So I assume we will see them get even bigger and richer.
take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:
I guess I'm thinking more medium / long term. You don't want to be diversifying into another market when profits have gone and you have declining revenue.
I'd have thought they would starting this process now whilst they're still making large profits.
They started the diversification process some time ago. I'd have thought they would starting this process now whilst they're still making large profits.
take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:
As per the title really. I noticed a shell car charger at a services at the weekend which got me thinking.
The o&g cos are late to that party and don't have much scope for generation, or infrastructure beyond existing petrol stations.
I work in advanced nuclear and had expected to see some of AMR /SMR design being funded or bought by the big O&G cos as they look to replace O&G revenue... But haven't seen this happen.
They clearly can't rely on O&G for ever so... Those in the business... What's the future of O&G upstream and downstream?
O&G isn’t going anywhere in the foreseeable future. It will evolve for sure, more money will go into carbon capture & sequestration. Shell & BP both have the distribution infrastructure for car charging stations when it become economic. They’ve dabbled in power generation in the past but never stayed in the market long. They will say & do the right things while still doing traditional O&G.The o&g cos are late to that party and don't have much scope for generation, or infrastructure beyond existing petrol stations.
I work in advanced nuclear and had expected to see some of AMR /SMR design being funded or bought by the big O&G cos as they look to replace O&G revenue... But haven't seen this happen.
They clearly can't rely on O&G for ever so... Those in the business... What's the future of O&G upstream and downstream?
SMR technology is still a bit far away for them at present, get a few facilities licensed/approved/proven to do what it says on the tin, they might buy in
The future is probably that they'll increasingly invest in green forms of energy. And not just voluntarily:
Shell lost a court case in may, the District Court of The Hague ordered Shell to reduce CO2 emissions by the end of 2030 to net 45% compared to the level of 2019.
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/...
The injunction was issued in a lawsuit brought by seven foundations and associations and more than 17,000 individual claimants. According to the claimants, RDS, as the policy-making head of the Shell group, is not doing enough, acting unlawfully and must do more to reduce CO2 emissions. Plaintiffs claimed that CO2 emissions should be reduced by 45% or alternatively 35% or 25% from 2019 levels by 2030. The claims concern the CO2 emissions of the Shell group itself and those of its suppliers and customers.
Shell lost a court case in may, the District Court of The Hague ordered Shell to reduce CO2 emissions by the end of 2030 to net 45% compared to the level of 2019.
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/...
The injunction was issued in a lawsuit brought by seven foundations and associations and more than 17,000 individual claimants. According to the claimants, RDS, as the policy-making head of the Shell group, is not doing enough, acting unlawfully and must do more to reduce CO2 emissions. Plaintiffs claimed that CO2 emissions should be reduced by 45% or alternatively 35% or 25% from 2019 levels by 2030. The claims concern the CO2 emissions of the Shell group itself and those of its suppliers and customers.
rxe said:
Hmmm, oil and gas has no real future …. We’re still completely dependent on the stuff for materials, and pretty much everything we touch in our daily lives starts life as a petrolchemical feedstock - and there is nothing at all in the pipeline to displace this.
While we may have to drive round in electric cars, there is again no realistic alternative to diesel and fuel oil for industrial process, power and aviation. Sure, people are making electric aeroplanes, but they are toys that fly a few people for 20 minutes.
This. O&G aren't going anywhere for a while yet.While we may have to drive round in electric cars, there is again no realistic alternative to diesel and fuel oil for industrial process, power and aviation. Sure, people are making electric aeroplanes, but they are toys that fly a few people for 20 minutes.
DeltonaS said:
The future is probably that they'll increasingly invest in green forms of energy. And not just voluntarily:
Shell lost a court case in may, the District Court of The Hague ordered Shell to reduce CO2 emissions by the end of 2030 to net 45% compared to the level of 2019.
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/...
The injunction was issued in a lawsuit brought by seven foundations and associations and more than 17,000 individual claimants. According to the claimants, RDS, as the policy-making head of the Shell group, is not doing enough, acting unlawfully and must do more to reduce CO2 emissions. Plaintiffs claimed that CO2 emissions should be reduced by 45% or alternatively 35% or 25% from 2019 levels by 2030. The claims concern the CO2 emissions of the Shell group itself and those of its suppliers and customers.
If you legislate to make a market unprofitable a company can just exit that market. There is a worldwide market for oil.Shell lost a court case in may, the District Court of The Hague ordered Shell to reduce CO2 emissions by the end of 2030 to net 45% compared to the level of 2019.
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/...
The injunction was issued in a lawsuit brought by seven foundations and associations and more than 17,000 individual claimants. According to the claimants, RDS, as the policy-making head of the Shell group, is not doing enough, acting unlawfully and must do more to reduce CO2 emissions. Plaintiffs claimed that CO2 emissions should be reduced by 45% or alternatively 35% or 25% from 2019 levels by 2030. The claims concern the CO2 emissions of the Shell group itself and those of its suppliers and customers.
all of the above.
the global OG players will still be operating in africa/asia/latam for a long time to come.
in more regulated markets their shift is to diversify and become players in the energy market as a whole. a mix of their usual products plus de-carbonized/renewable fuels, electricity production [renewables but also CCGT power stations], carbon sinks [carbon capture or planting forests to sell carbon credits].
just go to one of the major OG company's energy transition websites and read up, the rest of them are pretty much identical.
the global OG players will still be operating in africa/asia/latam for a long time to come.
in more regulated markets their shift is to diversify and become players in the energy market as a whole. a mix of their usual products plus de-carbonized/renewable fuels, electricity production [renewables but also CCGT power stations], carbon sinks [carbon capture or planting forests to sell carbon credits].
just go to one of the major OG company's energy transition websites and read up, the rest of them are pretty much identical.
irc said:
DeltonaS said:
The future is probably that they'll increasingly invest in green forms of energy to ofset it's emissions. And not just voluntarily:
Shell lost a court case in may, the District Court of The Hague ordered Shell to reduce CO2 emissions by the end of 2030 to net 45% compared to the level of 2019.
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/...
The injunction was issued in a lawsuit brought by seven foundations and associations and more than 17,000 individual claimants. According to the claimants, RDS, as the policy-making head of the Shell group, is not doing enough, acting unlawfully and must do more to reduce CO2 emissions. Plaintiffs claimed that CO2 emissions should be reduced by 45% or alternatively 35% or 25% from 2019 levels by 2030. The claims concern the CO2 emissions of the Shell group itself and those of its suppliers and customers.
If you legislate to make a market unprofitable a company can just exit that market. There is a worldwide market for oil.Shell lost a court case in may, the District Court of The Hague ordered Shell to reduce CO2 emissions by the end of 2030 to net 45% compared to the level of 2019.
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/...
The injunction was issued in a lawsuit brought by seven foundations and associations and more than 17,000 individual claimants. According to the claimants, RDS, as the policy-making head of the Shell group, is not doing enough, acting unlawfully and must do more to reduce CO2 emissions. Plaintiffs claimed that CO2 emissions should be reduced by 45% or alternatively 35% or 25% from 2019 levels by 2030. The claims concern the CO2 emissions of the Shell group itself and those of its suppliers and customers.
So in Shell's case the courts decision has world wide consquences, for it's entire operation.
DeltonaS said:
irc said:
DeltonaS said:
The future is probably that they'll increasingly invest in green forms of energy to ofset it's emissions. And not just voluntarily:
Shell lost a court case in may, the District Court of The Hague ordered Shell to reduce CO2 emissions by the end of 2030 to net 45% compared to the level of 2019.
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/...
The injunction was issued in a lawsuit brought by seven foundations and associations and more than 17,000 individual claimants. According to the claimants, RDS, as the policy-making head of the Shell group, is not doing enough, acting unlawfully and must do more to reduce CO2 emissions. Plaintiffs claimed that CO2 emissions should be reduced by 45% or alternatively 35% or 25% from 2019 levels by 2030. The claims concern the CO2 emissions of the Shell group itself and those of its suppliers and customers.
If you legislate to make a market unprofitable a company can just exit that market. There is a worldwide market for oil.Shell lost a court case in may, the District Court of The Hague ordered Shell to reduce CO2 emissions by the end of 2030 to net 45% compared to the level of 2019.
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/...
The injunction was issued in a lawsuit brought by seven foundations and associations and more than 17,000 individual claimants. According to the claimants, RDS, as the policy-making head of the Shell group, is not doing enough, acting unlawfully and must do more to reduce CO2 emissions. Plaintiffs claimed that CO2 emissions should be reduced by 45% or alternatively 35% or 25% from 2019 levels by 2030. The claims concern the CO2 emissions of the Shell group itself and those of its suppliers and customers.
So in Shell's case the courts decision has world wide consquences, for it's entire operation.
"Royal Dutch Shell RDSa.L is not ruling out moving its headquarters from the Netherlands to Britain, the oil company's chief executive Ben van Beurden said in a Dutch newspaper interview published on Saturday."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-royal-dutch-she...
irc said:
DeltonaS said:
irc said:
DeltonaS said:
The future is probably that they'll increasingly invest in green forms of energy to ofset it's emissions. And not just voluntarily:
Shell lost a court case in may, the District Court of The Hague ordered Shell to reduce CO2 emissions by the end of 2030 to net 45% compared to the level of 2019.
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/...
The injunction was issued in a lawsuit brought by seven foundations and associations and more than 17,000 individual claimants. According to the claimants, RDS, as the policy-making head of the Shell group, is not doing enough, acting unlawfully and must do more to reduce CO2 emissions. Plaintiffs claimed that CO2 emissions should be reduced by 45% or alternatively 35% or 25% from 2019 levels by 2030. The claims concern the CO2 emissions of the Shell group itself and those of its suppliers and customers.
If you legislate to make a market unprofitable a company can just exit that market. There is a worldwide market for oil.Shell lost a court case in may, the District Court of The Hague ordered Shell to reduce CO2 emissions by the end of 2030 to net 45% compared to the level of 2019.
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/...
The injunction was issued in a lawsuit brought by seven foundations and associations and more than 17,000 individual claimants. According to the claimants, RDS, as the policy-making head of the Shell group, is not doing enough, acting unlawfully and must do more to reduce CO2 emissions. Plaintiffs claimed that CO2 emissions should be reduced by 45% or alternatively 35% or 25% from 2019 levels by 2030. The claims concern the CO2 emissions of the Shell group itself and those of its suppliers and customers.
So in Shell's case the courts decision has world wide consquences, for it's entire operation.
"Royal Dutch Shell RDSa.L is not ruling out moving its headquarters from the Netherlands to Britain, the oil company's chief executive Ben van Beurden said in a Dutch newspaper interview published on Saturday."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-royal-dutch-she...
DeltonaS said:
irc said:
DeltonaS said:
irc said:
DeltonaS said:
The future is probably that they'll increasingly invest in green forms of energy to ofset it's emissions. And not just voluntarily:
Shell lost a court case in may, the District Court of The Hague ordered Shell to reduce CO2 emissions by the end of 2030 to net 45% compared to the level of 2019.
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/...
The injunction was issued in a lawsuit brought by seven foundations and associations and more than 17,000 individual claimants. According to the claimants, RDS, as the policy-making head of the Shell group, is not doing enough, acting unlawfully and must do more to reduce CO2 emissions. Plaintiffs claimed that CO2 emissions should be reduced by 45% or alternatively 35% or 25% from 2019 levels by 2030. The claims concern the CO2 emissions of the Shell group itself and those of its suppliers and customers.
If you legislate to make a market unprofitable a company can just exit that market. There is a worldwide market for oil.Shell lost a court case in may, the District Court of The Hague ordered Shell to reduce CO2 emissions by the end of 2030 to net 45% compared to the level of 2019.
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/...
The injunction was issued in a lawsuit brought by seven foundations and associations and more than 17,000 individual claimants. According to the claimants, RDS, as the policy-making head of the Shell group, is not doing enough, acting unlawfully and must do more to reduce CO2 emissions. Plaintiffs claimed that CO2 emissions should be reduced by 45% or alternatively 35% or 25% from 2019 levels by 2030. The claims concern the CO2 emissions of the Shell group itself and those of its suppliers and customers.
So in Shell's case the courts decision has world wide consquences, for it's entire operation.
"Royal Dutch Shell RDSa.L is not ruling out moving its headquarters from the Netherlands to Britain, the oil company's chief executive Ben van Beurden said in a Dutch newspaper interview published on Saturday."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-royal-dutch-she...
DeltonaS said:
irc said:
DeltonaS said:
irc said:
DeltonaS said:
The future is probably that they'll increasingly invest in green forms of energy to ofset it's emissions. And not just voluntarily:
Shell lost a court case in may, the District Court of The Hague ordered Shell to reduce CO2 emissions by the end of 2030 to net 45% compared to the level of 2019.
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/...
The injunction was issued in a lawsuit brought by seven foundations and associations and more than 17,000 individual claimants. According to the claimants, RDS, as the policy-making head of the Shell group, is not doing enough, acting unlawfully and must do more to reduce CO2 emissions. Plaintiffs claimed that CO2 emissions should be reduced by 45% or alternatively 35% or 25% from 2019 levels by 2030. The claims concern the CO2 emissions of the Shell group itself and those of its suppliers and customers.
If you legislate to make a market unprofitable a company can just exit that market. There is a worldwide market for oil.Shell lost a court case in may, the District Court of The Hague ordered Shell to reduce CO2 emissions by the end of 2030 to net 45% compared to the level of 2019.
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/...
The injunction was issued in a lawsuit brought by seven foundations and associations and more than 17,000 individual claimants. According to the claimants, RDS, as the policy-making head of the Shell group, is not doing enough, acting unlawfully and must do more to reduce CO2 emissions. Plaintiffs claimed that CO2 emissions should be reduced by 45% or alternatively 35% or 25% from 2019 levels by 2030. The claims concern the CO2 emissions of the Shell group itself and those of its suppliers and customers.
So in Shell's case the courts decision has world wide consquences, for it's entire operation.
"Royal Dutch Shell RDSa.L is not ruling out moving its headquarters from the Netherlands to Britain, the oil company's chief executive Ben van Beurden said in a Dutch newspaper interview published on Saturday."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-royal-dutch-she...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff