Big Oil Maintains Greenwashing While Stiffing Renewables

July 16, 2013

Journalist Antonia Juhasz interviewed here, examines oil company strategies that have moved from “Beyond Petroleum” type greenwashing, more and more back to full-on, that’s-right-we’re-evil-what-about-it-you’ll-have-to-adapt service to their original business model – finding ever more expensive and rapacious ways to rip hydrocarbons out of the earth and puff them into the atmosphere.

Useful reminder and summary of where we are.

About these ads

11 Responses to “Big Oil Maintains Greenwashing While Stiffing Renewables”

  1. omnologos Says:

    ice businesses didn’t promote or help refrigerators. what’s new?

  2. Bruce Miller Says:

    Fact is: Oil fuelled U.S. is starving for oil! China’s huge demand has bid oil up to $100.00+ / bbl and rising! America needs China’s Thorium LFTR styled energy technologies to survive! We sense desperation at the tanks now, electric cars on the rise, something has to change? Chinese demand looms ever larger on our horizons while we pay to dispose of Thorium which are in effect fuel for Chinese LFTR technology reactors? Yes we do! Google the U.S. radioactive waste programs and see for yourself. U.S. is corpocracy controlled and unable to change and on an energy crash course with history, all the while, all other countries diversify energy to Solar Wind Wave, hydro, Tidal, Geothermal, Biological and Thorium fissioning sources?
    As my favourite cut and paste from the web says:
    “Had the $4 Trillions+ spent on Iraq, been spent even only on conventional Solar/Thermal development of South Western U.S.A. – Today, Americans would receive a huge ROI ( “Return On Investment”) in cheap electricity, in place of horrendous tax rates to service unpayable war debt to China. Americans would be gainfully working, using this renewable, perpetual, eternal, clean, radiation free, radioactive waste free, domestic, electricity source – to compete in world markets with well priced products, to irrigate dry lands, to heat and cool homes, and much less foreign oil would have be imported, fewer “Parasite Nations” supported. This is the lost “opportunity cost” for having Saddam’s scrotum on the Bushes mantlepiece? Shiite eh!”
    P.S., (Oil, gas, wells do go dry, not really sourced from an eternal pipe up &Allah’s-ass, as some believe – But, the Sun never stops shining, Wind blows forever)
    To learn how China intends handling her energy problems see:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UT2yYs5YJs ‎Kun Chen from Chinese Academy of Sciences on China Thorium half an hour of enlightenment here and needs not taking and rewinding to fully appreciate all that is revealed. U.S. and China in similar energy difficulties this video describes China’s resolutions for the future.

    • andrewfez Says:

      Hi Bruce,

      Where does your ROI quote come from?

      See ya,

      A Fez

    • daryan12 Says:

      Bruce,

      Even ignoring all the technical problems and potential hurdles a LFTR development would face (link here to some sites that discuss that) there’s a more fundamental problem.

      http://kevinmeyerson.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/thorium-nuclear-information-resources/

      Nuclear power tends to be very good at generating electricity, i.e. “on demand” energy. However we currently use oil & gas primarily for transportation energy or heating. While in the UK (for example) electricity is just 20% of TFC, transport & heating/cooling are about 35% each. This means we’d need to convert it to some medium to achieve that (Hydrogen, elec into batteries, methanol, etc.), paying an energy cost along the way (i.e. this energy transfer will not be 100% efficient).

      Furthermore, as I discuss myself in the link below demand for energy fluctuates considerably over a daily and yearly cycle, so you’d need to find some way of “bunkering” all of that nuclear energy for use when it is needed, or build a vast array of reactors with very low capacity factors (supply & demand and all that).

      http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/myth-v-%E2%80%93-but-we-can%E2%80%99t-rely-on-renewables-because-of-their-intermittence-nature/

      Now given that even the Nuclear power companies now accept that the overnight costs for nuclear are higher than wind power, who in their right mind would build a megalomaniac array of LFTR’s, which even the pro-nuclear UK’s NNL labs reckon would be significantly more expensive (if they worked of course! and that’s a very big if!) to run than existing LWR’s?

      There seems to be more than a few holes in you’re proposal.

  3. andrewfez Says:

    Here’s a little summary of BP, via Standard and Poor’s assessment. What’s changed in this summary, since last I read it a few years back, is that there used to be a paragraph dedicated to biofuels. Now all you get is an ambiguous reference to ‘low-carbon tech’.

    One of the things that changed since 2006-07 is that the housing bubble almost destroyed the economy and the markets. Everybody’s stock price had a huge dip. Dividends temporarily dried up. It scared the hell out of CEO’s and boards. So all the good times throwing money around like confetti are gone – no more ‘pet’ research projects – gotta act lean, mean and efficient. BP has had tough times since their oil spill too. They’ve been selling off assets to pay for huge damages they’re expecting. Naturally non-core things like solar and wind were out the door in the asset sell off. Now they are a lot smaller company than they once were.
    ——————————————————————————————————-

    CORPORATE STRATEGY. BP is aiming for upstream production growth of 1%, with a production target of around 1.5 million barrels of oil equivalent (MMboe) per day by 2015 and further projects on the way to ensure growth through 2020, and a 10% increase in LNG production by 2013. It also plans to modernize the Whiting refinery (to handle heavy crude) and close a performance gap with peers, and increase R&D investing in unconventional resources, conversion and low-carbon technologies. BP announced in the third quarter of 2012 the main terms of the sale of its TNK-BP 50% interest to Rosneft, which it will continue to account for on an equity basis. The deal will increase its reserves by 12.5%, but reduce its yearly production by 9% and will be earnings dilutive. Yet, we view the transaction as highly positive, given the disruptions that the Russian venture was causing. BP will receive a net $12.3 billion in cash, shares in Rosneft (an illiquid, lower value investment, but with material long-term potential, in our view) and two seats in Rosneft’s board, which, in our opinion, offers limited board influence in a quasi-national oil company.

    ——————————————————————————————————-

    Don’t quote me on this but I think the bulk of BP’s income is from midstream and downstream operations (piping, refinement, etc.) only a small portion is from actually drilling. Its 2015 target is to pull out 1.5 million barrels of oil per day, whilst global demand is around 90 million barrels per day. So if it meets its target, then it will be pulling out 1.6% of the global demand per day.

  4. Jean Mcmahon Says:

    I think things are very bad for the future of all life on the planet so prepare for a crash and accept

  5. andrewfez Says:

    And in other multinational corporation news:

    Coca-cola blames bad weather for earnings shortcomings. Monsoons in India and floods in Germany conspired to lower demand for cold, sugar-water.

    —————————————————————————————————-

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-16/coca-cola-profit-declines-as-european-sales-volumes-fall.html

    —————————————————————————————————

    I like Coke as an investment, as it’s a safe, non-volatile company. But when cheap oil gets scarce, the cost of water goes up, and the cost of growing sugar goes up (secondary to hotter growing seasons, less water, and more expensive petrol based fertilizer), these are all long term downsides that the investment community often misses when they focus on company money flow and business relations.

  6. Sir Charles Says:

    Shale gas – for example – might peak as early as 2017…

    Post Carbon David Hughes New Shale Gas Report: Drill Baby Drill

    A provocative new analysis of so-called unconventional fuel reserves in the United States concludes that the exuberant forecasts are simply unwarranted based on the facts of geology. In short, the hype around shale gas is just that. Hype. We speak with the author of the Drill Baby Drill study [http://www.postcarbon.org/drill-baby-drill/]. David Hughes is a fellow at the Post Carbon Institute.

    In this landmark report, PCI Fossil Fuel Fellow David Hughes takes a far-ranging and painstakingly researched look at the prospects for various unconventional fuels to provide energy abundance for the United States in the 21st Century. While the report examines a range of energy sources, the centerpiece of “Drill, Baby, Drill” is a critical analysis of shale gas and shale oil (tight oil) and the potential of a shale “revolution.”

    Sources in the video description at YouTube.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,627 other followers

%d bloggers like this: