EcoWatch: Big Oil is in Big Trouble (The Dumbest Article Ever Written About ExxonMobil)

Guest post by David Middleton

ecowatch

With the most divisive presidential election in U.S. history just days away from concluding, it is easy to understand why more is not being made of the news, but just to tell you something seismic happened on Friday last week.

The world’s largest listed oil company, Exxon, announced that it was going to have to cut its reported proved reserves by just under a fifth—by 19 percent.

It would be the biggest reserve revision in the history of the oil industry. It is yet another sign that Big Oil is in big trouble.

For years people have been warning that Big Oil’s business model was fundamentally flawed and was not only putting the climate at risk, but millions of dollars of shareholders’ money.

For years the industry’s critics warned the industry was ignoring the risks of climate change and was just caring on drilling regardless.

But the oilmen did what the oilmen do: find oil and gas, no matter the consequences.

And the worst oil company has been Exxon which for decades has denied climate change and the impact that climate change will have on its business.

For decades it could have invested wisely in renewables but it carried on looking for oil and gas—including unconventional oil which is even more carbon intensive than conventional oil. Its critics warned this was pure folly: but the oilmen carried on drilling anyway.

Big Oil is used to doing things its own way.

The warnings have kept coming, but the boys from Exxon didn’t listen. Oil Change International, 350.org, Carbon Tracker and many others in the #keepintheground movement have been saying for years that large swathes of oil reserves must stay in the ground.

They warned that fossil fuel reserves will become “stranded assets.”

Exxon often dismissed its critics as irrelevant lentil-eating, sandal wearing hippies, who wanted to take humanity back to the stone age.

[…]

EcoWatch

ExxonMobil has very good reasons for dismissing these sorts of critics “as irrelevant lentil-eating, sandal wearing hippies, who wanted to take humanity back to the stone age”… Although this would actually be unfair to “irrelevant lentil-eating, sandal wearing hippies.”  The folks at EcoWatch clearly are dumber than “irrelevant lentil-eating, sandal wearing hippies.”  It’s very appropriate that the mental health awareness ribbon is green, because “all shades of green” seems to be a form of mental illness.

ExxonMobil’s potential reserve revision has nothing to do with “keeping it in the ground” or stranded assets.

Exxon Facing Historic Reserves Reduction as Slump Persists

Joe Carroll

October 28, 2016

Exxon Mobil Corp. warned it may be facing the biggest reserves revision in its history as production sank to a seven-year low and profit slid amid a prolonged slump in energy markets.

About 3.6 billion barrels of reserves in the Canadian oil sands and the equivalent of another 1 billion barrels of oil in other North American fields may be in jeopardy if the average energy prices seen during the first nine months of 2016 persist, Exxon said in a statement on Friday. That would equate to 19 percent of Exxon’s reserves and would be the largest de-booking since the 1999 merger that created the company in its modern form.

Exxon’s accounting has prompted a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into whether the company should have written down assets as a result of the oil slump, a person with knowledge of the matter said last month. The company didn’t say on Friday whether removing reserves from the books would result in asset-impairment charges that could hurt its financial results.

“The fact that everyone else has recorded charges and they have not created a red flag,” said Brian Youngberg, an analyst at Edward Jones & Co. in St. Louis. “In the big picture, it doesn’t mean those reserves won’t eventually get produced.”

[…]

Bloomberg

The phrase “proved reserves” has a very precise and legally binding definition.  In order to book reserves as proved, they have to be economically recoverable using the current strip prices.

Among other changes, the SEC Final Rule requires companies to estimate proved reserves using oil and natural gas prices based on the 12-month historical average of the beginning-of-month prices. Prior to the 2008 ruling the SEC rules required that a single-day, fiscal year-end spot price be used to determine economic producibility and future cash flows of oil and gas reserves. The SEC Final Rule changed this requirement to a 12-month average price, calculated as the unweighted arithmetic average of the first-day-of-the-month price for each month within the 12-month period prior to the end of the reporting period, unless prices are defined by contractual arrangements, excluding escalations based upon future conditions.2

The SEC Final Rule defines the term “proved oil and gas reserves” as “those quantities of oil and gas, which, by analysis of geoscience and engineering data, can be estimated with reasonable certainty to be economically producible, from a given date forward, from known reservoirs, and under existing economic conditions, operating methods, and government regulations, prior to the time at which contracts providing the right to operate expire, unless evidence indicates that renewal is reasonably certain regardless of whether deterministic or probabilistic methods are used for the estimation.”3

SRR

Reserves that were proved at $100/bbl aren’t proved at $50/bbl if they are not economically recoverable at $50/bbl.  The reserves don’t vanish, they don’t become stranded and if they are already developed and producing, companies generally don’t shut them in and stop producing them.  Production decisions are generally made on a “cost-forward” basis.  Taking reserves off the books frequently results in impairments, forcing companies to take write-downs against earnings.

Proved (1P) and probable (2P) oil & gas reserves are accounting measures used in the valuation oil companies.  Proved developed producing (PDP) reserves are worth more than proved developed non-producing (PDNP) reserves, which are worth more than proved undeveloped reserves (PUD).  Product price movements routinely prove and disprove reserves.

I was going to use this as my featured image; but decided it was in poor taste.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
95 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Frederick Michael
November 1, 2016 6:22 am

AND the election may not even be “just days away from concluding”.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Frederick Michael
November 1, 2016 10:00 am

Yes, I get the idea that arguing for weeks about “hanging chads” will be a best case scenario…

Tom O
Reply to  Frederick Michael
November 1, 2016 12:22 pm

I still fear an administrative decision to suspend the election. Since most GOP leadership seems to be more in Clinton’s pocket than has Trump’s back, such a decision to postpone – perhaps until the next federal election cycle 2 years from now, probably would be more acceptable to them than potential AG investigations from an administration that didn’t appreciate the lack of campaign support. That is, if there was a reason to be concerned about such investigations. 😉

benofhouston
Reply to  Tom O
November 1, 2016 2:42 pm

They don’t have the authority to do so, and any attempt of that sort would be political suicide, and might lead to riots or violence. If Obama tries it, I am quite serious when I say to expect a military coup and complete collapse of both political parties.

Max
Reply to  Tom O
November 1, 2016 3:36 pm

I understand that an election can be postponed up to 42 months. Consider the things which could justify. Claimed Russian involvement, middleeast war, racial unrest, health issue. If it happens there will be an upturn in interest in prophesy.
Max

Reply to  Max
November 2, 2016 8:08 am

@Max – that would be unprecedented. It did not happen in 1864 or 1944, so I doubt it.

SMC
Reply to  Tom O
November 1, 2016 4:56 pm

What says an election can be postponed for 42 months? The constitution certainly doesn’t say anything like that. What the constitution does say is:
“The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

Frederick Michael
Reply to  Tom O
November 1, 2016 10:23 pm

Gee guys, I was just hinting that the Electoral College vote is the true ending and even that may not settle it. It could go to the House.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  Tom O
November 2, 2016 6:25 am

Elections weren’t suspended even during the World Wars or the Civil War. There;s no chance of suspension.
“l With the most divisive presidential election in U.S. history”
When I read a superlative statement like that, I immediately try to think of a counter example
The 1860 election may be one, the 1876 Hayes-Tilden election may be another.

November 1, 2016 6:22 am

Those reserves were added to the book as prices rose over the last 15 years and most of those reserves will be recovered as prices rise again. There’s a lot of confusion and misinformation being put out by all sides, but what can’t be disputed is that prices today are twice what they were in the late 90’s, and that a lot of what’s left in the ground does require today’s $50 per barrel. Furthermore, most OPEC nations can’t survive at prices below $75 per barrel. This means they’ll eventually end their current price war and stabilize production. When they do the natural decline in non OPEC nations will create a gap, and we may even see a price spike. The long term will be up.

MarkW
Reply to  fernandoleanme
November 1, 2016 6:32 am

Everything’s just about twice the price it was in the 90’s. Not just oil.

george e. smith
Reply to  MarkW
November 1, 2016 11:01 am

No ! Money is about half the value it had in the 90’s.
G

Reply to  MarkW
November 1, 2016 12:40 pm

George-
I think that’s what Mark is trying to say..

gnomish
Reply to  fernandoleanme
November 1, 2016 12:56 pm

3 silver dimes will still get you a burger, a gallon of gas or a pack of smokes just like it did in 1965

Reply to  gnomish
November 2, 2016 6:34 am

#1 – Try finding 3 silver dimes!
#2 – I will pay more for them! 😉

Resourceguy
November 1, 2016 6:23 am

What else did you expect from them during the quiet phase of Peak Oil and other failed scarcity stories? They either don’t know resource cycles in the economy and technology or they refuse to learn.

MarkW
Reply to  Resourceguy
November 1, 2016 6:33 am

How much you want to bet someone that within a week, someone will pipe up claiming that this big drop in “proven reserves” is proof that peak oil is either just around the corner or has already happened.

DRH
November 1, 2016 6:26 am

And Exxon has always been very conservative about their reserves, far more so than other oil companies.

Reply to  DRH
November 1, 2016 9:32 pm

Thanks DRH, I was going to add the same thing. It is why they have such a stable investment , no “wild catting” with their predictions like penny stocks.

November 1, 2016 6:26 am

Of course the Greens pretend the reserves “disappeared” and since most people don’t know what is meant by proven, it probably works. Thank you for letting people know how this works.
How Exxon could have gotten into “renewables” without using oil and gas is questionable. As far as I know, there is little or no mining equipment that runs exclusively on electricity produced by turbines and panels, there are no manufacturing plants for the turbines are the fully renewable electric, no construction equipment to install the turbines that are electric, and no electric transportation vehicles that deliver parts to the plant site. It would be a real trick to get wind turbines and solar panels without using billions of barrels of oil.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Reality check
November 1, 2016 9:28 am

And there’s the rub. So-called “renewables” AREN’T “sustainable,” and never will be, because they simply can’t provide the energy required to produce and transport and erect what humanity needs. People simply take for granted all that they have thanks to so-called “fossil fuels,” and they really need to be reminded, as in hit over the head with it 1,000 times until it sinks in.

Tom O
Reply to  AGW is not Science
November 1, 2016 12:27 pm

Nor are there enough “rare earth metals” to support the number of panels and wind mills needed, much less the batteries that would be required to “make it through the night,” or the next “hottest day evah.”

Richard Baguley
Reply to  AGW is not Science
November 1, 2016 12:38 pm

Rare earth metals are not used in making silicon or poly-silicon solar panels. Also, rare earth magnets are not used in wind turbines with gearboxes (non-direct drive designs)

schitzree
Reply to  Reality check
November 1, 2016 7:06 pm

What they meant by ‘getting into renewables’ is that they expect the oil companies to (in the best socialist tradition) share the wealth, and provide $billions$ for renewable programs. Why do you think whenever we see this kind of thing it’s always aimed at Exxon? BP already handed over the Danegeld, and so has Shell.
It’s a mandatory Tithe. And you withhold what the Greens consider their rightful share at your own peril.

MangoChutney
November 1, 2016 6:30 am

because “all shades of green” seems to be a form of mental illness

I’d like to object to this blanket statement. Personally, I think CAGW is BS, but I’m very keen on the environment and have been recycling since before it became fashionable. I consider myself to be a “shade of green”, just not watermelon green.

MangoChutney
Reply to  David Middleton
November 1, 2016 6:39 am

Maybe, David. The watermelons have tried to link sceptics of CAGW with all sorts of carp, including mental illness. Linking the phrase with mental illness is not worthy of you

MangoChutney
Reply to  David Middleton
November 1, 2016 6:40 am

JMHO

stevekeohane
Reply to  David Middleton
November 1, 2016 7:49 am

Maybe this is more appropriate:
http://i66.tinypic.com/3128ev4.jpg

Reply to  David Middleton
November 1, 2016 9:23 am

“All shades of green” is not referring to plants. Rather it is referring to greenbacks, the color of the US currency.

MarkW
Reply to  MangoChutney
November 1, 2016 6:35 am

I drank too much last night, and this morning I too was a “shade of green”.

Reply to  MangoChutney
November 1, 2016 12:46 pm

Mango –
Recycling is the amongst the dumbest forms of greenery. At least it is just possible that CAGW might come to pass – however unlikely. But, recycling for its own sake is just self-delusion, and in the end is extremely unlikely to have positive results, unless you own a recycling plant.

MJB
November 1, 2016 6:34 am

Kind of ironic that if pricing of carbon has the desired effect the price of oil will go up, which will make more of the reserves economically available, therefore less oil in the ground.

Reply to  MJB
November 1, 2016 1:34 pm

No. A Carbon Tax is a political gift to OPEC to keep Middle Eastern oil more competitive than western oil and coal. Think about it.
Wonder how much Saudi (and other) offshore money funds its way into “Foundations” that support the CAGW hacks and Carbon Taxes. I suspect (and have been told directly) that other countries think western countries are run by self destructive fools.

Reply to  canabianblog
November 1, 2016 1:47 pm

Plus most greens have no idea of the fossil fuel required to build and maintain “Renewables”:comment image?dl=0

Ernest Bush
Reply to  canabianblog
November 1, 2016 11:32 pm

Western countries are run by self destructive fools. The U.S. Government is a prime example.

Bruce Cobb
November 1, 2016 6:37 am

The Stupid, it burns. Or is it just garden variety lying? Hard to tell with Warmunists. A bit of both perhaps.

Kamikazedave
November 1, 2016 6:53 am

“A bit of both perhaps.”
Their cup runneth over with both.

John W. Garrett
November 1, 2016 7:04 am

Great post (and spot on). The nutters obviously know nothing about petroleum and natural gas reserve reports or economics (what else is new?). They clearly are ignorant of Securities and Exchange reserve reporting regulations and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”).
P.S., Unfortunately, the advertisements are disrupting the website. The newest batch are particularly obnoxious and intrusive.

TA
Reply to  David Middleton
November 1, 2016 3:06 pm

What ads? I don’t get any ads because my browser blocks them. “NoScript” by name.

Reply to  John W. Garrett
November 1, 2016 8:37 am

These are administered by wordpress.com, and I have no control over them. I’ve notified wordpress staff yesterday of these ads that are violating their rules, and they are working to remove them. The worst offender is hotels.com and anybody who has recently searched for a hotel room is likely to get that ad.
In the meantime, simply clear your browsing history, including cookies, and they will go away.

MarkW
Reply to  Anthony Watts
November 1, 2016 10:06 am

We, the ungrateful masses would thank you, if we weren’t so ungrateful.

November 1, 2016 7:19 am

Actually learning such improper subjects as accounting standards is against the green religion, just like learning real climate science or ecology.

Thomas Gillespie
November 1, 2016 7:48 am

In fact, in terms of reserves, if you care for a little read on this issue: https://insuspectterrane.com/2016/05/25/the-petroleum-age-has-just-begun/

November 1, 2016 7:50 am

In case you would like a little read on reserves and resources:https://insuspectterrane.com/2016/05/25/the-petroleum-age-has-just-begun/

Phil R
Reply to  Tom G(ologist)
November 1, 2016 11:21 am

Tom G(ologist),
Very interesting article. Skimmed it, but will have to go back and read through it later. Never visited your site before, but it will now become one I will check regularly.
By the way, read and enjoyed John McPhee’s book years ago (may still have it somewhere), although he spelled it “terrain.”

Ric Thistlethwaite
Reply to  Phil R
November 1, 2016 7:38 pm

In Suspect Terrain. Great book. Check out the collected geology works Annals of the Former World. John McPhee’s books are all highly read-worthy.

Jan Christoffersen
Reply to  Phil R
November 2, 2016 7:57 am

Phil,
I read “Annals of the Former World” for the first time more than ten years ago. I read it again just a few months ago, this time in order from the oldest to youngest geological eras represented in the lower 48 of continental United States. A truly entertaining read and a remarkable, detailed story well written by a non-geologist.

Reply to  Phil R
November 9, 2016 12:18 pm

Yes – that was before he learned that the word terrane, a homonym of terrain, has a different meaning in geology.

arthur4563
November 1, 2016 8:00 am

I wonder what “wise investments in renewables” they are talking about? Exxon is an oil company.
They aren’t able to compete building windmills nor solar panels and we hardly need another windmill or solar panel factory – they all get destroyed by foreign competition. The Feds invested hundred of millions in solar panel factores and they went belly up. Another “wise investment in renewables” I suppose. Not a single detail about what those wise investments might be from these near sighted green folks from down under.

Griff
Reply to  arthur4563
November 1, 2016 9:49 am

Well here’s some examples of oil companies, including Exxon, investing in renewables:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-10/big-oil-unexpectedly-backs-newest-non-fossil-fuels
“While fossil fuel companies have been dabbling in clean energy for years, they typically stayed close to their roots by focusing on ethanol and other biofuels. This round of investments takes them into the heart of the clean-energy industry. As crude prices struggle to recover and growth projections for renewables soar, oil companies see a chance to diversify.”
Or there’s this:
http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/08/27/is-one-big-oil-company-giving-up-on-big-oil.aspx

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Griff
November 1, 2016 10:36 am

Saying the same thing twice doesn’t make it more true. To put Total’s move into perspective, it’s like someone making $50,000 a year dropping $500 on something. Once.

Reply to  Griff
November 1, 2016 12:52 pm

A lot of fossil fuel companies are into renewables – It looks good on the CV, and its free money. Why wouldn’t they?

Hivemind
Reply to  Griff
November 1, 2016 10:58 pm

“…like someone making $50,000 a year dropping $500 on something.”
Perhaps you’ve never lived on $50,000 a year. For somebody on that sort of income, $500 is a lot of money.

Barbara
Reply to  arthur4563
November 1, 2016 10:12 am

Another means of getting money to fund renewable energy projects. Force companies into a business they don’t want to be in. Trash companies that don’t want to supply funding for renewable energy projects.
Exxon is not the only company that has been caught up in this scheme.

Dave in Canmore
November 1, 2016 8:05 am

Give EcoWatch a break, they don’t understand the free market, basic economics, ordinary logic of economizing, math, running a business, free voluntary action or the idea that one ought to know something before one starts talking about it. If I had those handicaps, I’d sound dumb too!

November 1, 2016 8:25 am

That article showed up in my newsfeed, too. I almost gave it the knee-jerk response, “Of course their reserves are lower. They are trying to raise the price of oil.”
EcoWatch has a history of really bad articles. When you respond by citing scientific reports, the faithful respond with comments about how anti-science you are.

Hot under the collar
November 1, 2016 8:39 am

….”irrelevant lentil-eating, sandal wearing hippies, who wanted to take humanity back to the stone age”.
Are you sure they haven’t plagiarised this phrase from some alarmists CV?

Walter Sobchak
November 1, 2016 9:00 am

“the most divisive presidential election in U.S. history”
Sorry, folks. 2016 is not even in the same county as 1860.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  David Middleton
November 1, 2016 10:38 am

It got pretty ugly when Federalists started jailing their political opponents. If Shrillary gets in, watch for an attempted repeat.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  David Middleton
November 1, 2016 12:20 pm

They didn’t start using artillery after those two.

Reply to  David Middleton
November 1, 2016 1:24 pm

Only one candidate has threatened to jail their opponent in this election and it wasn’t Hillary.

MarkW
Reply to  David Middleton
November 1, 2016 3:00 pm

The person who falsely claims that Trump lies, is now lying about what Trump said.
Why am I not surprised?

DC Cowboy
Editor
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
November 2, 2016 2:40 am

or 1828 for that matter. At least we haven’t had accusations that one candidates spouse is a prostitute and subsequent challenges to duels. Well, maybe not, but it’s been pretty darn close.

AGW is not Science
November 1, 2016 9:36 am

“Oil Change International, 350.org, Carbon Tracker and many others in the #keepintheground movement have been saying for years that large swathes of oil reserves must stay in the ground.”
I think we should put all the idiots who think we should keep fossil fuels in the ground into the ground themselves, for good – or at least until they turn into fossil fuels themselves, at which point they’ll actually be useful for something and future generations can dig them up. ;-D

Barbara
Reply to  AGW is not Science
November 1, 2016 11:56 am

Oil Change International, Washington, D.C., Formed 2005
Form 990 downloads: 2006-2014
From U.S. IRS Form 990: 2014
Board includes: Michael Brune
Schedule O:
Educate The Public About Alternative Energy
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/203272355
Networking.
As I recall, Brune is with the Sierra Club and BlueGreen Alliance?

Barbara
Reply to  Barbara
November 1, 2016 7:03 pm

BlueGreen Alliance Board Co-chairs:
Leo W. Gerard, Pres. USW International
Michael Brune, Executive Director, Sierra Club
See other Board members for networking.
http://www.bluegreenalliance.org/about/board-of-directors
—————————————————–
USW
Scroll down to:
“Gerard also allied the USW with the American Wind Energy Association …”
http://www.usw.ca/union/leaders/leo-w-gerard
More information on this topic online.

Hivemind
Reply to  AGW is not Science
November 1, 2016 11:08 pm

“keep fossil fuels in the ground”
Better yet, anybody who uses this as a hashtag, should be sent to Antarctica. Australia has the biggest territorial claims there and would be happy to devote a large part of it to keeping these idiots. Unfortunately, since the entire Antarctic area is a protected area, they wouldn’t be allowed to heat themselves with oil, coal or gas. Only with solar and wind power.
Remember the way South Australia went dark because the wind went too high and forced the bird choppers to cut out to protect themselves? The wind in Antarctica is much higher than that all the time.

Griff
Reply to  Hivemind
November 2, 2016 6:16 am

No.
I do recall severe weather cutting power lines and tripping them out, cutting off the wind power.

November 1, 2016 10:55 am

The biggest irony is that those “reserves” do not actually disappear. Eventually the price will go back up (as inevitable as the sun rising), and voila! There is another 3.6 billion barrels!

November 1, 2016 10:57 am

“Big Oil is used to doing things its own way.
The warnings have kept coming, but the boys from Exxon didn’t listen.”
Sounds like the South Park episode @ CAGW.

November 1, 2016 12:16 pm

The SEC should help define how to report the value of energy assets for all oil and natural gas companies, not politically litigate a single company.

Stan on The Brazos
November 1, 2016 1:54 pm

One of the biggest frustrations relating to oil and gas projects and reserve estimation is future pricing. The SPE(society of petroleum engineers) and the SEC have strict rules relating to reserve estimation, these are good rules and make a lot of sense. I would usually try to underestimate reserves to accelerate the tax write off. One other point major oil company research organizations are very good – your ideas and work get tested in the real world of dollars and if these do not work they are discarded.

November 1, 2016 9:20 pm

The greatest loss from this misguided focus on CO2, (CO2 has no significant effect on climate) is that it has distracted humanity from the real problem which is burgeoning irrigation. Irrigation accounts for about 97% of the measured increasing water vapor http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/tpw-1-deg-product . Increased water vapor counters planet cooling (a good thing) but increases risk of rain/flooding.
By far the most ominous issue is depletion of fresh water aquifers. As the aquifers run out there will be a comparatively sudden decline in irrigation and food production. What humanity should be doing, instead of this CO2 nonsense, is developing infrastructure and methods for the rational management of fresh water.

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
November 3, 2016 3:34 am

Dan, I give you California as a poignant example that you’re exactly right on that. Here we have one of the most populace states in the US, the 10th largest economy in the world, vapidly inviting all comers, selling proven desert at margins that would shock an oil company, taxing it’s populace at usurious rates, and making no investment at all in water infrastructure.
It’s the sort of scam you see in Baja California Sur all the time, and now it’s come to roost in California. These are the works of Governor Moonbeam and his ”irrelevant lentil-eating, sandal wearing hippies, who wanted to take humanity back to the stone age”.

Robert from oz
November 2, 2016 1:04 am

Exxon often dismissed its critics as irrelevant lentil-eating, sandal wearing hippies, who wanted to take humanity back to the stone age. I just love this .

barrybrill
November 2, 2016 2:37 am

The puzzle is that a “small” global carbon tax is supposed to persuade all of humanity to reduce hydrocarbon use – to the point of solving all the perceived problems of DAGW.
Since the millennium (just 16 short years) energy prices first quadrupled – apparently without solving DAGW – and then halved. Yet the alarmists have serenely persisted with their meme that a small upwards price adjustment of “carbon” will fix everything.
The outcomes of the recent gyrations in global oil prices have conclusively refuted the theoretical argument for a global carbon tax.

Reply to  barrybrill
November 3, 2016 3:44 am

We call this “empirical evidence” in the sciences Barry. It doesn’t fly among the climate elite. For some unknown reason there’s a mental disconnect there between perception and action. My personal belief is it’s associated with the Zika virus; my theory is the virus actually invaded humans right around 1990 and it’s effected millennials by reducing the size of their brains to the point they’ve become practically useless. I fear the next generation will be flesh eating zombies.

Reply to  Bartleby
November 3, 2016 3:45 am

/sarc

Griff
November 2, 2016 6:15 am

Oil companies launch major renewables investment fund…
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2476100/reports-oil-majors-prepare-to-launch-renewables-investment-fund
(link will get paywalled after a few days: try searching for it direct if so)

Reply to  Griff
November 3, 2016 3:51 am

So Griff, you understand that will only increase the price of fossil fuels produced by those companies? Because we’ve already, very successfully, demonstrated “renewables” don’t work? So the companies you mention will essentially pay an indulgence to the AGW religion and pass the savings on to the customer?
Brilliant plan. I feel much better now.

Griff
Reply to  Bartleby
November 3, 2016 8:43 am

all I can tell you is that oil/energy compnies think it is commercially worthwhile to invest in renewables…
The Times today tells me shell has predicted demand for oil will reach peak demand in 5 to 15 years and that Shell is well placed to make a profit selling oil substitutes.

Reply to  Griff
November 4, 2016 7:01 am

Sure – as long as they are subsidized. remove the subsidies and watch how long they invest in them.

November 2, 2016 7:08 am

I pay $2.25 per US gallon of regular unleaded gasoline.
So, It’s all good.

Smart Rock
November 2, 2016 10:18 am

And the worst oil company has been Exxon which for decades has d*nied climate change

I must be missing something – I don’t think I’ve ever actually seen any sort of d*nial from Exxon. If anyone has a record of such a thing – please post it in this thread.
That was a major quibble. This is a minor quibble: how can anyone have d*nied or even referred to climate change “for decades”? As I recall, the term came about, almost certainly less than a decade ago, when it became clear that “global warming” wasn’t warming fast (possibly not even warming at all, but how do we know when we are only fed adjusted temperature data) enough to support the massive edifice of impending disaster scenarios that were built on its rather shaky foundations.
If you think about it for a minute, “climate change” is a term that is so utterly devoid of any real meaning, that it’s not really possible to “d*ny” it at all. As such, I suppose it makes a good slogan; anything at all can be used as “proof” that “climate change is real, here, now……” (etc. etc. ad nauseam).

Reply to  Smart Rock
November 3, 2016 4:04 am

They called it cooling first, then warming, now change.
The trick is simply to provoke the opponent into denying the cause is human, but they’ve cleverly conflated the AGW hypothesis, which is rooted in human activity, with any change at all. So now, when you try to argue there’s no poof humans are responsible they turn on you and accuse you of denying change happens. It’s clever in an underhanded, abusive and blatantly manipulative way. It’s morally and intellectually bankrupt, and it works.
It’s very much like the entire AGW hypothesis itself, which is founded on the correlation between two variables that appear to rise together, much like “global average” temperature and pork belly prices, or the cost of a deck of smokes; they all go up together. It’s fait accompli in the minds of most people and they just depend on that association. It’s “the big lie” and it’s the perfect trap for the intellectually challenged.

%d bloggers like this: