+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 43
Latest: Heredia05
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 11084
Total Topics: 250
Most Online Today: 18
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 12
Total: 12

Author Topic: Fossil Fuel Profits Getting Eaten Alive by Renewable Energy!  (Read 4813 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15358
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
This image from 350.org mocks Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane’s comments about the news. Photo credit: 350.org

3 Huge Signs the Divest From Fossil Fuels Campaign Is Winning

Cole Mellino | September 4, 2015 11:39 am

The campaign around the world to divest from fossil fuels has really heated up this year. Students at Swarthmore, Yale, Harvard and University of Washington among many others demanded their institutions put their money where their mouth is and stop investing “in an industry that is actively destabilizing the future that our education is meant to prepare us for,” as one student at Swarthmore put it.


Not all of the campaigns so far this year have been successful, but to date, 397 institutions have at least partially divested—including foundations, faith groups, pension funds, governmental organizations, universities, nonprofits and for-profits. One notable case came from the Norwegian Parliament, which took the unprecedented step of mandating that its sovereign wealth fund (the richest in the world) divest from coal burning and coal producing companies. And, in the past few weeks, there have been some more major divestment victories:


1. California Assembly votes to divest pension funds from coal California lawmakers passed a bill on Wednesday that requires the state’s two largest pension plans—California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS)—to divest their holdings from thermal coal.

Quote
“Coal is the fuel of the past and it’s no longer a wise investment for our pensioners,” said assemblyman Rob Bonta, who presented the bill before the assembly. “I’m pleased that my colleagues agree: it’s time to move on from this dirty energy source.”


The measure to divest CalPERS and CalSTRS—the largest public pension funds in the U.S.—is part of a legislative push in California to address climate change. “What a signal of hope amid California’s relentless drought and the planet’s hottest summer,” said Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org. “That California—Earth’s eighth biggest economy—will begin to pull its money out of fossil fuel stocks is a sign about what technologies are the future, and which are the dirty past.”

2. Environmental leaders launch “Divest for Paris” At the Paris Divestment Conference on Tuesday, environmental leaders launched Divest for Paris, which challenges “institutions, individuals and governments to show climate leadership and align their investments with their values by divesting from fossil fuels ahead of the COP21 Climate Summit in Paris.”

The event was co-hosted by 350.org and the European Green Party. “If you say you want action in Paris, then you have a responsibility to divest from fossil fuels,”said 350.org Executive Director May Boeve. “By shifting resources from the dirty energy of the past to the 100 percent renewable energy of the future, institutions can model the type of action we need from countries at COP21. With our climate in crisis, divestment is a moral necessity.”

Emphasizing the power of divestment as not just a moral necessity, but a democratic one, Nicolas Haeringer, 350.org divestment organizer in France said: “French institutions, such as the Caisse des Dépôts—France’s most important public investor—should set the example and listen to local authorities.

Divesting from fossil fuel helps address the climate crisis, but is also a democratic necessity: if investments have an impact on our future, then investors should listen to the demands of citizens and their representatives.”

3. The world’s largest coal port voted to divest from all fossil fuels. The city of Newcastle, Australia, which has the most coal going through its port every day, voted last week to divest its $270 million investment portfolio from fossil fuels, including coal. “The importance of this decision cannot be glossed over,” says 350.org. “It is outstanding leadership for a city that is neck-deep in fossil fuels to make the call that it’s time to get out of them. Obviously this divestment decision won’t stop the coal port from continuing on at this point, but it sets the direction for the city going forward.” Prime Minister Tony Abbott came out against the decision as have other Australian politicians.

Newcastle city councillor Declan Clausen explained the city’s aspirations moving forward:
Quote
There are an increasing group of start-ups in Newcastle that are looking at a clean-tech future, we are embracing those opportunities. The coal downturn has particularly affected the Hunter Valley. Clean techs are going to be a significant employer moving forward. Council is being on the front foot about that.

In response to the Newcastle vote, McKibben said, “We’re suddenly and decisively, in a one-way transition to a renewable future and the only question—perhaps the most important question humans have ever faced—is whether we can make that transition fast enough to save the planet.”

http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/04/divestment-campaign-winning/1/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15358
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Fossil Fuel Industry Bankruptcy is the writing on the energy wall   
 

The way these corporate fossil fuelers in the integrated (upstream PLUS downstream) big oil price gouging predatory fu cks operate is to do absolutely everything they can to make sure the downstream prices are "inelastic" (code speech for: make up every excuse in the book for not lowering them) on the way down, while ensuring they have a hair trigger on the way up.  ;) 

That said, they only have so much storage available (tanks, tankers sitting at ports, etc.). So they do try to not produce too much above what they can store to gouge consumers for tomorrow. THAT is what fossil fuelers perceive INCORRECTLY as the proper "supply and demand" calculus.

The fact is that demand destruction is going on because Renewable Energy technology, increased efficiency and more well insulated and carbon neutral building retrofits are TAKING A BIGGER AND BIGGER BITE OF THE downstream profit enchilada.

This dynamic may not save the biosphere (because it is too slow) but, because the fossil fuel industry business model operates mostly on volume sales (Profit margins are tiny on volume sales - without the artificial subsidy government babying and with the increased Renewable energy competition, bankruptcy is a high possibility.  ) to make a profit, a steadily decreasing amount of market share can, and will, drive them out of business. Fossil fuelers will never accept that as an economic fact of life.

Tough luck, fossil fuelers. 
« Last Edit: August 08, 2016, 06:36:12 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15358
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
 
09/28/2015 03:39 PM     

Fossil Fuel Divestment Reaches $2.6 Trillion  ;D

SustainableBusiness.com News

Who thought the movement to divest from fossil fuels could have any real impact?

But it is - $2.6 trillion has been pledged to be pulled from portfolios since the movement began just three years ago!

436 institutions and 2040 individuals from 43 countries have pledged to divest, according to Arabella Advisors' analysis. Pledges come from pension funds, health, education, philanthropy, faith, entertainment, climate justice and municipalities.

Once viewed as a strong, stable investment, the tides are  turning. Not only are fossil fuel investments viewed as fueling climate change, but the stocks are starting to be seen for what they are - long-term losers. There's a long way to go of course, with a total of $74 trillion invested worldwide.

On the other hand, fossil-fuel-free portfolios are doing just fine, and much of the money pulled is being invested in clean energy.  Green mutual funds, for example, outperformed conventional funds by over 14% from 2012-2014, according to researchers at University of Edinburgh Business School.

"Our research shows these environmentally-friendly investments - which were once the preserve of ethical stockholders - are now delivering better returns than their peers, and attracting interest from a much wider community of investors," says research lead Gbenga Ibikunle.

Read our article, Fossil-Free Portfolios Outperform Those With Coal, Gas, Oil.

Proof that DIVESTMENT from Fossil Fuel Industry Stocks is a sound financial decision

350.org started the divestment campaign:Divestment Campaign

California Legislation Forces Divestment

 This summer, California passed legislation that requires the state's two biggest pension funds to divest from coal.   

SB 185 - "Investing with Values and Responsibility" - mandates divestment be completed within 18 months for the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS). 

"Coal is the fuel of the past and it's no longer a wise investment for our pensioners," says Assemblyman Rob Bonta, who introduced the bill. 
Quote
"California's utilities are phasing out coal, and it's time our pension funds did the same,"
says Kevin de León, Senate President.

Where California goes, other states follow, and New York and Massachusetts are among six states that have similar bills in motion. 

Indeed, the Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Trust fund lost $500 million - 28% of its value - during the past year because of fossil fuel investments, according to Trillium Group. 

 Other notable commitments to divest include University of California system, Stanford University, University of Oxford, Norway's Pension Fund, British and Canadian Medical Associations, World Council of Churches, US Episcopal Church and Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Some are divesting from all fossil fuel companies, others are starting with coal and/or tar sands companies.

In fact, for the first time financial analysts concur that fossil fuel investments have become a significant risk to portfolios: HSBC, Citigroup, Mercer, Bank of England and the International Energy Agency have all come out with reports to this effect.

Finally, Green Investing Taking Hold? 

It's been about 20 years since green mutual funds, ETFs and portfolio advisors sprang up in an attempt to move peoples' portfolios to support the green economy.

Some of the largest companies started green investment units, but that's always been a tiny fraction of their operations. Over the summer, however, Goldman Sachs appointed a partner and managing director as its global head of environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing, and acquired Imprint Capital, a specialist firm in the field. Morgan Stanley and Bank of America/Merrill Lynch are following suit.

Morningstar recently announced it would begin displaying ESG scores for mutual funds and exchange-traded funds. 

Check out Fossil Free Funds, where you can see fossil fuel holdings in the 1500 most widely-held mutual funds. A ranking system identifies funds without fossil fuels.

Read Arabella Advisors' report, Measuring the Growth of the Global Fossil Fuel Divestment and Clean Energy Investment Movement.

Learn more about divesting and the movement:
 
Website: www.divestinvest.org


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15358
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Bloomberg Analysis: It Has Never Made Less Sense to Build Fossil Fuel Power Plants

Deirdre Fulton, Common Dreams | October 7, 2015 10:06 am

Wind and solar power are “much more competitive” against dirty energy sources than they were even just a few years ago, according to a detailed global analysis published this week.

In fact, according to the findings from the research company Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), wind power is now the cheapest electricity to produce in both Germany and the UK, even without government subsidies.  ;D Though Denmark passed the same milestone last year, this is the first time that threshold has been crossed by a G7 economy.

The analysis took into account not just the cost of generating a megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity, but also the upfront capital and development expenses, the cost of equity and debt finance and operating and maintenance fees.

In the U.S., coal and gas are still cheaper, at $65 per MWh, compared to onshore wind at $80 and solar at $107.

Still, given documented trends, “it’s impossible to brush aside renewables in the U.S. in the same way it might have been just a few years ago,” writes Bloomberg‘s Tom Randall.

“Renewables are really becoming cost-competitive and they’re competing more directly with fossil fuels,” BNEF analyst Luke Mills told Bloomberg. “We’re seeing the utilization rate of fossil fuels wear away.”

Indeed, while the future for renewables looks bright, the outlook for coal and other dirty energy sources is decidedly more dismal—and bound to become even more so.  ;D

“It’s a self-reinforcing cycle,” writes Randall. “As more renewables are installed, coal and natural gas plants are used less. As coal and gas are used less, the cost of using them to generate electricity goes up. As the cost of coal and gas power rises, more renewables will be installed.”

Already there is evidence of this shift taking place. Citigroup on Monday announced a new policy to cut its lending to the global coal mining industry—a development hailed by environmental groups as an acknowledgement that “the scale of the challenge posed by climate change calls for the financial sector to transition away from financing high-carbon energy sources in addition to scaling up financing for low-carbon energy.”

“With Bank of America, Crédit Agricole and now Citigroup withdrawing support for coal mining, this announcement shows major momentum away from financing coal by the banking sector,” said Lindsey Allen, executive director of the Rainforest Action Network, which campaigns for banks to cut ties with the coal industry. “But reducing credit exposure is only a partial step forward. We urge Citigroup and Wall Street laggards such as Morgan Stanley to cut all financing ties to both coal mining and coal-fired power.”

To that end, Rainforest Action Network and allied groups are planning a day of action this Friday targeting Morgan Stanley, which conducted half a billion dollars worth of coal deals in 2014, financed $1.2 billion for the largest coal fired power plant operators in the world last year and continues to finance mountaintop removal coal mining.

Dropping dirty fuels is just good business, said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, in a statement to the Washington Post on Tuesday.

“Clean energy solutions like wind and solar are getting more affordable and more accessible by the day, meaning they are increasingly the smartest long-term financial investments for utilities and other electricity producers across America,” he said, responding to the BNEF report. “The transition to a clean energy economy is going full speed ahead and pushing dangerous, dirty fossil fuels to the back of the line.”

http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/07/bloomberg-renewables-turning-point/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15358
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Oslo Becomes First Capital City in the World to Divest From Fossil Fuels  ;D

Tierney Smith, TckTckTck | October 19, 2015 3:39 pm

The City of Oslo has, today, become the first capital city in the world to ban investments in fossil fuels, as it announced it will divest its $9 billion pension fund from coal, oil and gas companies.

Today’s announcement follows a previous pledge in March to ban investment in coal.

Lan Marie Nguyen Berg, of the Green Party in Oslo said:

We are very happy to announce that Oslo will take responsibility for the climate, both through our own policies and our investments. The time for climate action is now, and the new city government will address climate change both locally and globally. The reduction in pollution will make the city even better to live in, and ensure that we take our global responsibility.

In June this year, the Norwegian Parliament also announced the country’s Sovereign Wealth Fund—worth $900 billion—would sell off over $8 billion in coal investments.

Oslo’s “brave decision” just weeks away from the UN climate talks in Paris has been welcomed by but national and international environmental groups.

Arild Hermstad of Norwegian environmental NGO Future in Our Hands said:

There’s a strong symbolism when the capital city of our oil producing nation says ‘no’ to investing in fossil fuels. It shows that fossil fuels are history, and that shifting away from them, and to renewables, is the future. We expect and we encourage other oil producing countries to follow suit.

350.org Europe Team Leader Nicolò Wojewoda said:

Oslo sets an example for cities around the world and shows investors like the Norwegian pension fund that if you have committed to divest from coal, it’s time to take the jump to divest from all fossil fuels now. If you want to see climate action, you can’t continue investing in the coal, oil and gas companies that are ruining our climate.

Oslo joins a growing movement of 45 cities around the world that have committed to ban investments in coal, oil and gas companies.

Last month, a study showed that to date more than 400 institutions and 2,000 individuals from across 43 countries, and managing more than $2.6 trillion have pledged to ditch their holdings in fossil fuels.   

As it becomes clear that large swathes of known fossil fuels must be left in the ground if the world is going to limit global temperature rise below the internationally agreed danger threshold of 2C, more and more institutions are pulling their funds out of these risky, dirty energy companies, and shifting their investments into fueling a renewable energy future.

What began as half a dozen college campuses in 2011, has grown to a global movement that is reaching right to the heart of the financial sector.

And the pressure is now on other to follow Oslo’s suit as the fossil fuel divestment movement challenges more investors to commit to divest from fossil fuels in the lead-up to the climate negotiations in Paris.

Wojewoda said:

Quote
Through this win and strong campaigns in London, Berlin, Amsterdam, Stockholm and many more cities, divestment is moving on to an even bigger stage—we hope that national governments in capital cities around the world will take notice, and start breaking their own links with the fossil fuel industry.   

http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/19/oslo-divest-fossil-fuels/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15358
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Why Bill Gates’ Position on Divesting From Fossil Fuels Is Wrong
Alex Lenferna 
October 23, 2015 1:17 pm

SNIPPETS:

It is one thing to say that divestment is not the solution to climate change, but it’s another to make Gates’ claim that divestment is a “false solution” that “won’t emit less carbon” and that there is no “direct path between divesting and solving climate change.”

Contrary to Gates, there is a chorus of influential and credible voices who have illustrated how divestment is an important part of aligning the financial sector with a clean energy future, and who have illustrated that the societal power it builds is an important and powerful tool in unlocking the clean energy revolution and legislation needed to help solve climate change.

We can start by asking the fossil fuel industry itself, who, despite their feeble attempts to discredit the fossil fuel divestment movement,    fund bogus divestment reports and claim divestment is an ineffective strategy, have reluctantly admitted to the power of divestment.

For instance, in contradiction to their PR poker face, Peabody, the largest private-sector coal company in the world, submitted a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission, where they admitted that by shifting perceptions around fossil fuels, spurring on restrictive legislation and driving unfavorable lending policies, divestment efforts “could significantly affect demand for [their] products and securities.”

For more divestment advice, we could also ask the researchers at Oxford University’s Stranded Assets Program, whose influential report on divestment points out that “in almost every divestment campaign [they] reviewed from adult services to Darfur, from tobacco to South Africa, divestment campaigns were successful in lobbying for restrictive legislation.” Their report illustrated that the political and social power that divestment builds through stigmatizing the fossil fuel industry could also “indirectly influence all investors … to go underweight on fossil fuel stocks and debt in their portfolios.”

Alternatively, we could ask those “radical” environmentalists  ;)  ;D over at HSBC bank who recently issued a  research report warning investors that the fossil fuel industry is at serious and growing risk of  stranded assets from climate policies and unfavorable economics, including reduced demand for fossil fuels and the rapid development of   renewable energy and efficiency measures. Contrary to Gates’ claim that divestment “won’t emit less carbon,” HSBC encouraged their investors to divest from fossil fuels and argued that divestment could lead to less fossil fuel production and less emissions.

According to HSBC, divestment could help “extend the carbon budget” and would create “less demand for shares and bonds [which] ultimately increases the cost of capital to companies and limits the ability to finance expensive projects, which is particularly damaging in a sector where projects are inherently long term.”

Perhaps another good place to ask for divestment advice is the financial analysts over at the 2° Investing Initiative, who pointed out that “divesting from fossil fuels is an integral piece to aligning the financial sector with a 2 degree C climate scenario.”

This claim is substantiated by the International Energy Agency (IEA), which estimates that reductions in fossil fuel investments of $4.9 trillion and additional divestment away from fossil-fueled power-transmission and distribution of $1.2 trillion will be needed by 2035 if we are to achieve the internationally agreed upon 2 degree C target—beyond which (and even before which) climate change becomes truly devastating.

-------------------------------

Agelbert NOTE: Bill Gates  (see the  crocodile tears about the welfare of humanity is the albi of tyrants) DOING what he DOES:

------------------------------

As part of Gates’ rejection of divestment, he provided a misleading (Exxon endorsed) assessment of the economics of the clean energy transition (seemingly out of the pages of a fossil fuel industry misinformation handbook or his favored climate contrarian adviser Bjorn Lomborg). Gates claimed that the only way current technology could reduce global emissions is at “beyond astronomical cost,”

Not only would transitioning in line with the 2°C target save us from high fuel costs, it would also create millions of jobs, grow the economy, prevent major negative impacts on global health and development, protect clean air and water, and avert the truly astronomical costs of climate change—estimated to be as high as $3,290 trillion by 2200.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/23/bill-gates-divest-fossil-fuels/

Agelbert COMMENT:
Excellent article. Bill Gates does not get the fact that the crime of ecocide is being been committed. And he does not get that because, up until now, Bill Gates has profited from the commission of that crime against humanity and the biosphere.

Bill Gates is irresponsible and criminally negligent. He and Melinda are a danger to their own offspring as well as the rest of the biosphere.

Quote

Representatives Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier from California urged Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Friday to launch an investigation into Exxon.

It's definitely time for this to happen - and the investigation shouldn't stop with Exxon - we need a full investigation into every part of Big Oil's decades-long disinformation campaign, particularly the role Koch Industries may be playing in it all.
 

When the DoJ took down Big Tobacco - it wasn't just Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds - they went after the lobbying groups and the research shills too.


Exxon's Climate Coverup

Corruption of Government and Environment by Fossil Fuel Companies

Bill Gates will come around to divest from fossil fuels AND his beloved Nuclear Power Crap as his profits turn into massive losses.  THAT, he CAN understand. Greed is what drives him and his dirty energy and GMO environment harming products fund.

Renewable is the cheaper energy option without fossil fuel and hidden nuclear subsides.

But in the meantime he will be supporting stupid, corrupt politicians that do not want Monsanto investigated or fossil fuel subsidies eliminated. Remember that.

Dr. Richard A. Houghton, acting president of the WOODS HOLE RESEARCH CENTER says TINA to a Low Carbon Economy

Quote
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: In the next decade there will be an epic battle for survival for humanity against the forces of ignorance and greed. It’s going to be Armageddon, represented by the oil industry on one side, versus the renewable industry on the other. And people are going to have to choose sides – including politically.

They will have to choose sides because oil and coal, they will not be able to survive – they are not going to be able to burn their proven reserves. If they do, then we are all dead. And they are quite willing to burn it. We’re all going to be part of that battle. We are going to watch governments being buffeted by the whims of money and greed on one side, and idealism and hope on the other.

Bill and Melinda Gates need to be held responsible for endangering future generations.   


Our Responsibility to Future Generations

I also wish to make one observation. It is in the category of correct accounting procedures. Perhaps it is such a shock to the corporate world that they had to invent a new accounting term (i.e. Stranded Assets.).

"Stranded Assets", the new term for fossil fuels and the accompanying infrastructure plant and equipment, in real world accounting, means "LIABILITIES".

When that realization FINALLY hits the balance sheet preparers in the corporate world, the red ink will produce a TORRENT of fossil fuel industry bankruptcies. GOOD!  ;D
« Last Edit: October 23, 2015, 07:39:57 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15358
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
His money gets him an audience and because he is rich some people worship the ground he walks on.  The fact is he is known to be an ass hole; he exploits people.  He is an I've got mine you get yours kind of guy who extends his philanthropy exclusively to third word issues like a 'Christian' who adopts third world children while neglecting their own. 

Techno-narcissism usually goes with the personality of such types and he is no exception.  Rather than change the system and advocate lifestyle change he imagines silver bullet solutions where new technology rides in on a white horse and patches the system he has be benefitted from. 

I've worked at his company where contract labor is exploited and where 'blue badge' full time employees act and live like gods.  No benfits and less pay for contract labor which is replaced at six to ten month intervals depending on their performance.

I can't imagine Bill ever being critical of technology in a wold where the technology his company markets has been responsible for eliminating far more jobs than it has created.  Yet Bill is considered a hero by most and that he had a penchant for publically humiliating his employees in meetings while he ran his company will continue to be for the most part, unknown.

The Upton Sinclair quote of a man not being able to find fault with the source of his paycheck is apropos regarding Bill. 

I'm feeling the need to stop now because ranting on about the negative aspects of anyone's personality is not something I relish.  Fingers point back whenever a finger is pointed but what I have written is necessary.  Promoting Techno-narcissism and business as usual is dangerous.  When it is done to promote a 'legacy' there can be no excuse.

Well said. 

I wish to make one observation. Gates and his ilk in the fossil fuel industry are going to lose a lot of money.

Here's why. It is in the category of correct accounting procedures. Perhaps it is such a shock to the corporate world that they had to invent a new accounting term (i.e. Stranded Assets.).

"Stranded Assets", the new term for fossil fuels and the accompanying infrastructure plant and equipment, in real world accounting, means "LIABILITIES".

When that realization FINALLY hits the balance sheet preparers in the corporate world, the red ink will produce a TORRENT of fossil fuel industry bankruptcies. GOOD!  ;D


And let's not forget all those refineries, pipelines, drilling rigs and, last but not least, ocean going oil tankers that will find it rather difficult to carry olive oil or biofuels instead of crude oil....     


Looky here, a floating white elephant!
Hellespont Alhambra (now TI Asia), a ULCC TI class supertanker, which are the largest ocean-going oil tankers in the world
« Last Edit: August 08, 2016, 06:43:49 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15358
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Quote

Bill McKibben - 350.org 
 
10:21 PM 
 
To: A G. Gelbert   
 
Dear friends,

Well, somewhat astonishing news tonight. Transcanada—the company that was so sure it would be building the Keystone Pipeline that it mowed the 1700 mile route and stockpiled the necessary pipe across the Midwest—tonight said it wanted to suspend its application:o      

This is—make no mistake—a massive victory for people power. You emailed, you phoned, you marched, and in record numbers you went to jail. That’s what it took to persuade the arrogant oil industry they simply couldn’t prevail in their plan to pump the world’s filthiest oil across the heart of the continent.

They’re clearly pursuing a gambit—knowing they’ve lost, they’re trying to ask for some extra innings from the umpire, on the theory that they’ll re-submit a new route for the pipeline after the next election.  :evil4:  President Obama shouldn’t give it to them. He should finally break his silence on Keystone and say the most important thing: it fails the climate test that he laid out. It will help cook the planet. It’s a bad idea no matter what route it takes, because it’s a fuse to one of the planet’s nastiest carbon bombs.

If President Obama rejects this pipeline once and for all, he’ll go to Paris with boosted credibility—the world leader who was willing to shut down a big project on climate grounds. Truthfully, though, we know it was a movement that shut it down: First Nations and Indigenous Peoples, climate scientists, farmers and ranchers, ministers and rabbis, young people and old people.

Tell President Obama not to let TransCanada play for time. It’s time to reject this pipeline once and for all.

They told us it was a done deal. We are an inch away from undoing it completely. And in the process, we’ve helped build a movement ready to take down hundreds of other fossil fuel projects and keep fossil fuels where they belong—underground. 


Thank you all for your relentlessness. Let's not stop now.

Onward,

Bill, Sara, Jason, Rae, Jamie, Deirdre and the rest of 350.org's KXL team
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15358
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
A graphic from SEPTEMBER of 2015 by Agelbert:

 

TODAY, January 13, 2016, SLB stock price:
Schlumberger Limited.


NYSE: SLB - Jan 13 2:47 PM EST 63.92

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15358
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Quote
The oil and gas industry is usually divided into three major sectors: upstream, midstream and downstream. The upstream oil sector :P is also commonly known as the exploration and production    (E&P) sector.[1][2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstream_(petroleum_industry)

BP cutting 4,000 global upstream jobs   ;D

Staff Writers  January 13, 2016   
 
BP said Tuesday it’s preparing to slash 4,000 upstream jobs as part of a broader restructuring plan.

According to Reuters, the company plans to cut its global upstream headcount by about 4,000 positions, equivalent to about 5 percent of its global workforce.

The cuts, part of a $3.5 billion restructuring program, will slim BP’s global upstream headcount down to 20,000.

A BP spokesperson told Retuers that the company will cut about 600 positions in the North Sea during the next two years, with most of those reductions occurring in 2016.

Further details about the cuts have not been disclosed yet.

The company had a headcount of about 80,000 at the end of 2015, Reuters added.

BP managed to beat analysts expectations in the third quarter despite low oil prices.

BP posted a $46 million profit for the third quarter, an improvement over the $5.82 billion loss seen last quarter, on revenues of $55.87 billion, down from $94.76 billion a year ago.

Third quarter earnings hit $0.60 per share, well above analyst targets of $0.33 per share, according to Zacks.

BP said in its third quarter results that its current divestment program was nearly complete, with total agreed divestments expected to reach $10 billion by the end of 2015.

The company expects to agree a further $3 to 5 billion in divestments this year before returning to a rate of around $2 to 3 billion in 2017.

BP agreed to sell its Alabama petrochemical complex to Indorama Ventures Public Company Limited on Wednesday for an undisclosed sum.

The Decatur complex makes chemicals that are essential for the production of thousands of items, from plastic water bottles to flat-screen televisions.


http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/01/bp-cutting-4000-jobs/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15358
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences

Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin announced last week his intention to push for divestment of coal and ExxonMobil stocks from the state’s retirement account, and lawmakers are preparing legislation to accomplish that.

State Treasurer Beth Pearce (fossil fuel toady   ) is not a happy camper. 
 

http://vtdigger.org/2016/01/12/state-treasurer-opposes-governors-call-for-carbon-divestment/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15358
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
U.S. rig count drops by 34 to new five year low  ;D

Staff Writers  January 13, 2016

SNIPPET:

Texas lost 13 rigs last week, the largest drop of all the major states.        

http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/01/u-s-rig-count-drops-by-34-rigs-to-five-year-low/


In other NEWS:  Fossil Fuel government rushes to prepare a happy talk propergander series  about "salt of earth, red blooded patriotic American" (and so on  ::)) fossil fuelers!
Quote
The American Movie Channel (AMC) said last week that it will produce a television show based on Phillip Meyer’s novel “The Son,” a multi-generational drama set in the Texas oil industry.  :P

According to Variety, AMC gave a straight-to-series order for the show that will follow six generations of the McCullough family as its members become major players in the oil and cattle industries.

http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/01/move-over-mad-men-amc-orders-texas-oil-drama/


DA oil Bidness is good for America! We have to DEFEND it. It is SAFE, SAFE, SAFE, I tell ya!   


 


Oklahoma shale site blaze destroys at least 20 vehicles
http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/01/oklahoma-shale-site-blaze-destoys-at-least-20-vehicles/



Three injured in Marathon Petroleum Galveston Bay refinery fire
January 12, 2016
http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/01/three-injured-marathon-petroleum-galveston-bay-refinery-fire/



Oklahoma regulators curb disposal well volumes after earthquakes
Nicolas Torres  January 8, 2016
http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/01/oklahoma-regulators-curb-disposal-well-volumes-after-earthquakes/



Texas man dies after blast at services facility
Staff Writers  January 7, 2016   
http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/01/texas-man-dies-after-blast-at-services-facility/





 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15358
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences

Half of U.S. Fracking Industry Could Go Bankrupt as Oil Prices Continue to Fall 

Andy Rowell, Oil Change International | January 18, 2016 9:29 am

So the slide continues with no end in sight. As expected this morning, the oil price has fallen below $28 a barrel on the back of the historic news over the weekend of sanctions being lifted on Iran.

This is the lowest level for oil since 2003.

The American shale industry needs oil at about the sixty to seventy dollar a barrel level in order to survive. Photo credit: Los Angeles Times

The American shale industry needs oil at about the 60 to 70 dollar a barrel level in order to survive. Photo credit: Los Angeles Times

The markets are spooked that the lifting of sanctions means the imminent introduction of half a million or so more barrels of oil per day from Iran into an already oversupplied market. The country has the world’s fourth largest reserves of oil.

Speaking earlier today at the Asia Financial Forum in Hong Kong, Stuart Gulliver, CEO of HSBC said “Major producers are currently delivering 2-2.5 million barrels per day more than demand, so the question is how long they can continue to overproduce for at that level.”

Already struggling with oversupply from various countries, the market now has Iran to contend with too.

After years of isolation due to sanctions, Iran reportedly has a significant amount of oil to place on the international market immediately. Analysts from Barclays said simply: “Iranian exports come at a very bad time.”

That can only mean one thing: a market awash with oil, which will only add a downwards pressure on the already low oil price.

The numbers are becoming brutal reading for the industry: The oil price has collapsed more than 70 percent since mid-2014.

And there is no respite in store. In his speech, HSBC chief executive, Stuart Gulliver, said he predicted the price of oil to be somewhere between $25 and $40 in a year’s time.

The American shale industry needs oil at about the 60 to 70 dollar a barrel level in order to survive.

Having limped along last year hoping for a rebound in prices this year, the industry is heading for deep trouble.


Last week, one analyst predicted that half of U.S. shale oil producers could go bankrupt before the oil price rebalances itself.   

Fadel Gheit, a senior oil and gas analyst at Oppenheimer & Co believes it could be two years before oil stabilizes near $60, which is still below the break-even point for many shale producers.

“Half of the current producers have no legitimate right to be in a business where the price forecast even in a recovery is going to be between, say, $50, $60. They need $70 oil to survive,” he told CNBC.

Even the big boys are taking a hit.

Last week, BHP Billiton was forced to writedown the value of its U.S. oil and gas assets by $US7.2 billion (Aus$10.4bn), admitting it needed $US60 a barrel oil to be “cashflow positive.”

But the reality is that under $30 dollar a barrel, it is only a matter of time before we see a range of bankruptcies in the shale industry.

“At this price range, nothing is safe,”     says Jesse Thompson, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. And he could well be proved right.

http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/18/fracking-industry-bankrupt/

Agelbert NOTE:
A picture is worth a thousand words Imminent Bankruptcies.   

 



« Last Edit: January 26, 2016, 07:47:09 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15358
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Schlumberger cuts 10,000 jobs, reports 39 percent decline in revenue   

Staff Writers  January 22, 2016   

Services giant Schlumberger said Thursday that it will cut another 10,000 jobs after reporting a 39 percent year-on-year revenue decline.

Schlumberger chairman and CEO Paal Kibsgaard said the company will reduce its headcount by 10,000 positions as it braces for “extended activity weakness” in the first half of 2016.

Further details about the cuts have not been disclosed yet.

“The worsening market conditions added further pressure to a deepening financial crisis in the E&P industry, and prompted customers to make further cuts to already significantly lower E&P investment levels. Customer budgets were also exhausted early in the quarter, leading to unscheduled and abrupt activity cancellations,” Kibsgaard said.

The latest round of redundancies brings Schlumberger’s job cut total to 34,000 since November 2014, the Financial Times said.

The company took a fourth quarter $530 million in pretax restructuring charges tied to expanding its incentivized leave of absence program and reducing its workforce.

Schlumberger also took a largely non-cash $1.6 billion pretax impairment charge for fixed assets, inventory write-downs, facility closures, contract terminations and other asset impairments.

Four quarter revenues fell 39 percent year-over-year to $7.74 billion while the company’s pre-tax operating income dipped 54 percent year-over-year to $1.28 billion.

Income from continuing operations, excluding charges and credits, dropped to $819 million in the fourth quarter from $1,941 billion during the same period in 2014.

North American revenue fell 55 percent year-over-year to $1.95 billion on a pre-tax operating income of $139 million, down from $849 million in the fourth quarter of 2014.

The company’s international revenue slid down to $5.71 billion, a 30 percent year-on-year decline, on a pre-tax operating income of $1.26 billion.

Schlumberger’s drilling group booked $2.95 billion in fourth quarter revenues on a pre-tax operating income of $494 million, a 48 percent drop from the same period in 2014.

The company’s production group earned $2.67 billion in fourth quarter revenues, a 45 percent year-over-year decline, and booked a pre-tax operating income $303 million, down from $898 million in the fourth quarter of 2014.

Full year revenues declined to $35.47 billion from $48.58 billion in 2014 and full year pretax operating income fell 38 percent to $6.51 billion.

The company’s full year North America revenue fell to $9.81 billion, down from $16.15 billion in 2014, while North American pre-tax operating income dropped to $999 million compared to $3.057 billion in 2014.

Full year international revenue slid down to $25.196 billion, a 21 percent year-over-year decline, and international pretax operating income declined 22 percent year-over-year to $5.95 billion.

http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/01/schlumberger-cuts-10000-jobs-takes-over-1-billion-q4-impairment-charge/



Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15358
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences

Shell: Yearly earnings could plunge by $9 billion
   

Staff Writers  January 26, 2016   

Royal Dutch Shell warned on Wednesday that full year earnings for 2015 may drop by nearly $9 billion from the previous year.

Shell expects full year 2015 earnings on a current cost of supplies (CCS) basis, excluding identified items, to be in the range of $10.4 billion to $10.7 billion, a sharp slide from $19 billion in full year earnings in 2014.

Shell had initially expected full year earnings to come in at about $10.8 billion, the BBC said.

The company expects its fourth quarter 2015 earnings on a CCS basis, excluding identified items, to be in the range of between $1.6 billion to $1.9 billion, down from $4.2 billion in the fourth quarter of 2014.

Upstream earnings are expected to account for $400 million to $500 million of fourth quarter earnings, while Integrated Gas is expected to account for about $1.6 billion to $1.9 billion.

The company’s downstream business will account for an estimated $1.4 billion to $1.6 billion of fourth quarter earnings, with earnings from oil products expected to be between $1.3 to $1.4 billion and earnings from chemicals coming in at an estimated $100 to $200 million.

Shell said identified items for the fourth quarter of 2015 are expected to be in the range of a net charge of $200 million to “an immaterial gain, mainly reflecting gains on sale of assets and impairments.”

Identified items for the full year of 2015 are expected to be a net charge of about $6.8 to $7.0 billion.

Income attributable to Royal Dutch Shell shareholders is expected to be between of $0.6 billion to $1.0 billion for the fourth quarter 2015 and between $1.6 to $2.0 billion for the full year 2015.

Cash flow from operating activities for the fourth quarter 2015 is expected to be between $4.8 to $6.0 billion and between $29.2 billion to $30.4 billion for the full year.

“I’m pleased with Shell’s operating performance in 2015, and the momentum in the company to reduce costs and to improve competitiveness,” Shell CEO Ben van Beurden said.

Production for the fourth quarter 2015 was 3 million barrels of oil equivalent per day and 2.9 boepd for the full year 2015.

Shell said it cut operating costs by about $4 billion, or about 10 percent, in 2015 and expects a further $3 billion reduction in operating costs in 2016.

Those operating cost cuts do not include synergies tied to Shell’s pending acquisition of BG Group.

Shell confirmed that it will reduce its headcount by about 10,000 staff and direct contractor positions in 2015 and 2016 across both companies, as “streamlining and integration of the two companies continue.”

Shell’s capital investment in 2015 is expected to be $29 billion, a 20 percent reduction from 2014 levels.

Capital investment in 2016 for Shell and BG combined is currently expected to be $33 billion, around a 45 percent reduction from combined spending that peaked in 2013.

“Flexibility for further reductions is available and will be utilised should conditions warrant that,” Shell added.

The company said asset sales for 2014 and 2015 now exceed $20 billion, well above its initial estimate of $15 billion set out in early 2014.

Shell added that “preparations are well advanced for $30 billion of asset sales in 2016-18, assuming the successful completion of the combination.”

Shell agreed in April to acquire UK-based BG Group for about $70 billion in cash and shares, when Brent crude prices were hovering around $62 per barrel.

Chinese antitrust regulators approved the combination in December, marking the end of the pre-conditional approval process.

Shell shareholders are scheduled to vote on the BG Group combination on January 27.

“The completion of the BG transaction, which we are expecting in a matter of weeks, will mark the start of a new chapter in Shell, to rejuvenate the company, and improve shareholder returns,” van Beurden added.

Shell’s fourth quarter and full year 2015 results and fourth quarter 2015 dividend are scheduled to be announced on February 4. 2016.

http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/01/shell-flags-q4-profit-slide/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

+-Recent Topics

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
December 13, 2018, 09:21:14 pm

Money by AGelbert
December 13, 2018, 08:49:12 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
December 13, 2018, 07:43:53 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
December 13, 2018, 07:15:13 pm

Fossil Fuel Profits Getting Eaten Alive by Renewable Energy! by AGelbert
December 13, 2018, 07:12:01 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
December 13, 2018, 04:16:22 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
December 12, 2018, 09:35:12 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
December 12, 2018, 09:25:57 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
December 12, 2018, 05:07:12 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
December 11, 2018, 07:44:59 pm