Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

semafor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 86 posts

Re: Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

#61

Post by brmgb »

csnover wrote: post #52
azinman2 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shouldn’t be a surprise. They’re an oil and gas company, with gigantic investments in that space, a culture that supports it, knowledge to do it, politics solved for it, and a crap ton of inertia. The expectation that they’d pivot is far less likely than likely. This isn’t a sector known for disruption outside of new ways to extract.

The insane thing about this is to me that Exxon did seem to have ideas about pivoting away from oil and gas in the 1970s[0]. They funded research that brought down the cost of solar panels five-fold and started manufacturing and selling their own panels[1], they developed the lithium-ion battery[2], and they created subsidiaries for servicing the nuclear power industry[3], among other things. I’ve never understood th…

It’s not an either/or situation. Most of the Big Oil companies have significant investments in renewable power. It’s just that oil is insanely profitable, to a point which is hard to grasp so it dwarfs whatever else they do.

Re: Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

#62

Post by NikkiA »

throwaway33381 wrote: post #9
luhn wrote: post #4

> Exxon’s vision is that eventually these pipelines will ferry CO2 captured from industrial point sources like cement and steel plants, and potentially from natural gas power plants, and transport it to underground rock formations or old oil wells where it could be buried (Denbury also owns a number of large sites for carbon sequestration). Color me skeptical. The article offers no supporting evidence that this is Ex…

It sounds more like an excuse to continue to output oil while doing absolutely nothing to stop the further degradation of out environment.

"We're not extracting oil, we're making space for future captured CO2"

Re: Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

#63

Post by rotexo »

philips wrote: post #28

It is important to remember how poorly the first experiments in carbon transport and storage have gone. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36021530 https://ieefa.org/resources/norways-sleipner-and-snohvit-ccs...

This is a really good point. I wasn’t at all aware of this case study. Makes me suddenly very pessimistic about carbon dioxide removal efforts as well.

Re: Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

#64

Post by cutemonster »

jimlongton wrote: post #14
throwaway33381 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds more like an excuse to continue to output oil while doing absolutely nothing to stop the further degradation of out environment.

Related: Revealed: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-clima...

Interesting (I think I've seen here at HN before?)

And replace this:

> while doing absolutely nothing to stop the further degradation of out environment

with:

> doing something to profit from the further degradation of our environment

Eat the cake and have it too

Re: Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

#65

Post by gruez »

juujian wrote: post #27

They're going to charge us twice. Once for emitting it, second time for sequestering it. The fight for subsidies up here in Canada is insane. The electricity generated is already more expensive then renewables, and soon they can pad their margins with novelty projects that may or may not pan out, while telling us in their annual reports how great they are.

>They're going to charge us twice. Once for emitting it, second time for sequestering it.

The local water utility charges you once for providing the water, and another time for treating it (ie. sewers). Are you similarly outraged?

Re: Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

#66

Post by nsriv »

csnover wrote: post #52
azinman2 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shouldn’t be a surprise. They’re an oil and gas company, with gigantic investments in that space, a culture that supports it, knowledge to do it, politics solved for it, and a crap ton of inertia. The expectation that they’d pivot is far less likely than likely. This isn’t a sector known for disruption outside of new ways to extract.

The insane thing about this is to me that Exxon did seem to have ideas about pivoting away from oil and gas in the 1970s[0]. They funded research that brought down the cost of solar panels five-fold and started manufacturing and selling their own panels[1], they developed the lithium-ion battery[2], and they created subsidiaries for servicing the nuclear power industry[3], among other things. I’ve never understood th…

The idea is to become so big by selling oil that you are essentially paid/begged to create the new industry that solves the problem, thereby giving you first-mover advantage in the new era. The obstructionist stuff is a little bit performative for shareholders, but there will be an inflection point in their public attitudes. Unfortunately it'll be past the inflection point for favorable living conditions.

Re: Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

#67

Post by Bluestrike2 »

csnover wrote: post #52
azinman2 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shouldn’t be a surprise. They’re an oil and gas company, with gigantic investments in that space, a culture that supports it, knowledge to do it, politics solved for it, and a crap ton of inertia. The expectation that they’d pivot is far less likely than likely. This isn’t a sector known for disruption outside of new ways to extract.

The insane thing about this is to me that Exxon did seem to have ideas about pivoting away from oil and gas in the 1970s[0]. They funded research that brought down the cost of solar panels five-fold and started manufacturing and selling their own panels[1], they developed the lithium-ion battery[2], and they created subsidiaries for servicing the nuclear power industry[3], among other things. I’ve never understood th…

Despite having all sorts of advantages (a head start and patents for batteries and renewable energy tech, robust research capabilities, etc.) and a literal roadmap of how climate change would play out, they realized that it was easier and less risky--for them, at least--to maintain the status quo. After all, once you've started a revolution, there's no guarantee that you'll keep control of it.

A long, slow transition that started in the 70s would have been, if not painless, then close enough to it that the pain was easily managed. Worries about stranded assets? By the time the transition was over, they'd have been near the end of their expected lifespans anyways. New, more nimble competitors popping up? They could just acquire them.

Lost revenue? Please. They convinced the world not to take action on climate change, and even managed to hoodwink one of the two major political parties in the US that climate change didn't even exist in the first place. Persuading politicians and the public to support mindbogglingly massive federal subsidies to fund the transition away from fossil fuels would have been easy in comparison. And probably cheaper, for that matter.

I mean, my god. I can just imagine the marketing and PR angle: The industry that chose to end itself to save humanity's future. We'd have shoveled money at them, and thanked them for the privilege.

Had they been willing, they could have pushed for an energy transition that, in the end, would have likely been as profitable or even more profitable than what they managed since they first understood just how catastrophic climate change would be. Instead, they chose to merely delay the inevitable. They'll still face the very consequences that scared them off of acting on climate change, only they'll be worse due to the shortened window of action.

The only difference is that the executives who first made that decision will likely not be around for it.

Re: Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

#68

Post by Dylan16807 »

cutemonster wrote: post #64
jimlongton wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related: Revealed: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-clima...

Interesting (I think I've seen here at HN before?) And replace this: > while doing absolutely nothing to stop the further degradation of out environment with: > doing something to profit from the further degradation of our environment Eat the cake and have it too

> Eat the cake and have it too

I don't understand how you're using this metaphor here. What's the cake? WRT the environment, they're just eating it.

Re: Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

#69

Post by Dylan16807 »

mullingitover wrote: post #45
PaulHoule wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny but Exxon could become a ‘net zero’ company without fundamentally changing its business. You see, companies get charged for the carbon they emit, not the carbon that their customers emit. An oil refinery is an ideal place to implement carbon capture because it is a concentrated source of emissions and is already using technology such as amine strippers that one would use for carbon capture. Refineries burn a lo…

The idea of Exxon becoming “net zero” is a howler and we can’t let them get away with it. We need to price the carbon emissions at the source. If they want to pass on the external carbon costs to their customers, so be it.

> The idea of Exxon becoming “net zero” is a howler and we can’t let them get away with it.

Get away with what, a talking point?

> We need to price the carbon emissions at the source. If they want to pass on the external carbon costs to their customers, so be it.

What if a power company buys a bunch of natural gas, with emissions already paid, then captures the burned carbon instead of emitting it?

Re: Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

#70

Post by wizofaus »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #69
mullingitover wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of Exxon becoming “net zero” is a howler and we can’t let them get away with it. We need to price the carbon emissions at the source. If they want to pass on the external carbon costs to their customers, so be it.

> The idea of Exxon becoming “net zero” is a howler and we can’t let them get away with it. Get away with what, a talking point? > We need to price the carbon emissions at the source. If they want to pass on the external carbon costs to their customers, so be it. What if a power company buys a bunch of natural gas, with emissions already paid, then captures the burned carbon instead of emitting it?

> then captures the burned carbon instead of emitting it?

Presumably the only reason they would is if they could get paid carbon credits for doing so.

Post reply on HN