Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: Oil Company chairman in global warming shock

  1. #31
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: Oil Company chairman in global warming shock

    Quote Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
    WE denied Germany oil in WW2 and they made their own just as we invented synthetic rubber. Again I have no doubt that the things to relace fossil fuels are already on the boards. Theres just no need for them yet. To much is based on oil to change it now.
    Having actually looked at some of this technology I can assure you it is a bigger problem than you think. South Africa probably has the most experience with it at the moment.

    Too much is indeed based on oil at present. That IS the problem. You can't just plug in the new tech. The examples you give are ones where governments had to intervene and subsizide heavily as military efforts to patch problems. (Weren't gasoline and tires rationed in the US during the war--and we were far less effected than others." Not preparing for the future is foolhardy, but, hey, investing for the future reduces today's profits. The change to very short time horizons in the corporate world is proving rather destructive over the long haul. It creates a vicious cycle that is hard to break. It wasn't this way when I entered industry, but it has accelerated over the past seven years. I have a hard time finding places to invest my own money. Corporate R&D pipelines are now empty, and the longterm returns look poor.

    The basic corporate attitude is much as you have stated, apathetic complacency. Until they have a gun pointed at their head or a 100% sure bet, they will do nothing. Their track record over the past few years has been quite poor with regards to making such predictions. It is easier to stay comfortable in the pack and not invest in the future, it doesn't carry risk of short term failure or reduce short term profits. That is why this sort of thing needs to be driven by government through various incentives and/or research--just like other major national/international initiatives have been. And when incentives are done intelligently, the free market system can produce great results. Doing nothing is the one sure path to failure.

    In the U.S. right now, corporate research is dying. Why? Quite a few of us understand what sort of things we will need in the next 10 or 20 years, but there doesn't seem to be much desire to invest time and effort to make them feasible. Instead we face complacency and short term profit taking.

    Quoting from the original post: "governments tend to feel limited in their ability to introduce new policies for reducing emissions because they fear business resistance, while companies are unable to take their investments in low-carbon solutions to scale because of lack of long-term policies." That sums up the vicious cycle quite nicely. The do nothings are winning the corporate war, and they are doing it in govt as well. I always found it funny that my own company would inevitably support the lobbying efforts of others in their industry to resist any regulatory changes. Why did I think that? Because we did such a good job at complying that it would have given us an advantage if rules were tightened. It is the sleazeballs/fly by nights/and dying dinosaurs that have the most to gain by keeping things the same. Talk about short sighted...

    During a strategy session, I was listening to some of my company's execs wail about proposed regulations and the inevitable phase out of some products for various reasons. I asked them this simple question, "If we can anticipate the change, and use our R&D to develop a product that fits the new requirements, don't we walk away winners?" I saw it as an opportunity to embrace the changes and thereby destroy the competition with new high margin products. They saw it as only the loss of their mature low margin products... No leadership coming from that group.
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

  2. #32
    The very model of a modern Moderator Xiahou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in the cloud.
    Posts
    9,007

    Default Re: Oil Company chairman in global warming shock

    I thought we spent a good bit of time talking about new technologies. The technology to being harvesting our vast reserves of shale oil for example. It's not like there are no alternatives to oil out there right now- most diesel engines could currently be powered by vegetable oil with little or no modification, then there's hydrogen, ethanol, ect. Point being, there are alternatives out there- but there is currently little need or demand for such things.

    I find myself having a tough time agreeing with any of these 'the sky is falling' predictions about oil supplies. It's not like we'll wake up one morning and be out of oil leaving us to scurry frantically for alternatives. Supply, demand, and market forces will be what ultimately moves people away from oil.
    "Don't believe everything you read online."
    -Abraham Lincoln

  3. #33
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: Oil Company chairman in global warming shock

    The U.S. Department of Energy, in a March 2004 study, reports oil shale reserves in the United States alone of over 2,000 billion barrels. Worldwide, oil-shale reserves are estimated as high as 14,000 billion barrels.

    To put this in perspective, U.S. oil-shale reserves alone would be sufficient to provide 100 percent of U.S. crude oil consumed at current usage for over 200 years.

    Worldwide reserves of 14,000 billion barrels are sufficient to provide the world's crude oil requirements for at least several hundred years..
    So if the USA uses 100% oil shale and it would last 200 years that means USA uses 10 billion per year.

    Luckily the west uses a lot of oil for its population because if the rest of the world consumed as much as the west we would see a much quicker reserve depletion.

    The entire world based on USA consumer rates would total about 240 billion barrels used per annum. (40 billion barrels per billion people at USA rates).

    That means 14,000 billion barrels would last the world 64 years if the third world consumes at western rates. This doesn't even factor in population growth.

    Our only saving grace is that the third world doesn't currently consume oil as fast as the first world.
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  4. #34
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: Oil Company chairman in global warming shock

    Think of all that yummy carbon dioxide. We could be more like Venus. We've increased CO2 by what, 60 or 80 ppm over the past few hundred years? We're just getting warmed up (pun intended.) So with ten times as much increase we would be at levels about four times the present. That should be fun...
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO