Exxon: Future climate rules won't curb fossil fuel investments


Exxon Mobil (XOM) dismisses any notion that it would retreat from oil sands and deepwater reservoirs amid potentially stringent carbon regulations in the future, saying fossil fuel production will continue to be key to meeting global energy demand for decades.

XOM's report on the risks that climate change policies could pose to the company's assets and future profitability - the first detailed response to these concerns by a major oil company - acknowledges the need to adopt policies to address climate change, but it concludes that governments are highly unlikely to adopt policies that cut emissions so sharply that oil and gas consumption would be severely restricted.

Some investors have argued that XOM's shareholder value could be put at risk if oil producers were unprepared for a future of constrained fossil fuel production under tougher climate rules.

From other sites
Comments (15)
  • The Patriot
    , contributor
    Comments (358) | Send Message
     
    I would be happy if existing pollution controls are continued and in some cases
    strengthened, if the supreme court would take CO2 of the list of pollutants.
    31 Mar 2014, 06:00 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Obama will be gone in 2 yrs.

     

    Just hang on 'till then, all will be good.

     

    CO2 is not a pollutant. If we had none, all life on the planet would cease to exist.
    31 Mar 2014, 06:06 PM Reply Like
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    C02 in not a pollutant...Nor is DDT.
    31 Mar 2014, 06:44 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    What does DDT have to do with CO2?

     

    As we approach Mid cycle elections, the crazy haters of profits come out. ironically on a Site that is about making profits.
    31 Mar 2014, 06:46 PM Reply Like
  • WyoOil
    , contributor
    Comments (133) | Send Message
     
    About 50% of the population is under age 40, meaning that none of them are old enough to have EXPERIENCED either the 1973 or 1979 fuel shortages. They have lived in a world without shortages of anything (excepting their own critical thinking skills). Remember, these same folks are the perennial winners of participation trophies, where showing up constitutes success.

     

    Therefore it is much easier for each of them to embrace the notion of "evil big oil", or the perception that we can do without hydrocrabons, when they have never had to wait in line for hours to get fuel, be limited to 10 gallons per purchase, postpone or cancel their vacation due to gaps in the (government mandated) distribution system, or worry if they have enough fuel to drive to work next week.

     

    The electric vehicles they promote rely, not withstanding the (often ignored) fact that the movement to natural gas fired electric generation, and away from coal, on that same oil producer.

     

    The utopia they demand is crushed when it runs up against reality, but one always has the option to ignore reality. However, they do so at the expense of everyone else. Give that boy another trophy for emoting, as thinking is not required in their universe.
    31 Mar 2014, 07:37 PM Reply Like
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    Nothing other than it is not dangerous. The left creates fear with junk science on that they wish to ban.
    31 Mar 2014, 09:42 PM Reply Like
  • Topcat56
    , contributor
    Comments (215) | Send Message
     
    Could not agree with you more. I remember the 70's fuel shortages all too well. This might be overly simplistic thinking on my part, but I've never understood why the fossil fuels and renewable energy has to be an either/or situation. We are a hydrocarbon society and will continue to be for quite some time, as much as this might distress certain people. But it is just common sense to develop alternative energy sources whenever we can, I think that whatever energy we can generate from wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, we are that much more to the good. The reality is that, barring an unforeseen breakthrough in alternative energy, the vast majority of our energy needs will continue to be met from fossil fuels.
    1 Apr 2014, 03:17 AM Reply Like
  • WyoOil
    , contributor
    Comments (133) | Send Message
     
    @Top No argument there. However, a comprehensive energy policy, has to be "comprehensive"--that takes full advantage of all available sources. The problem with the Beltway solution is that it ignores the fact the renewables, based on the current technology, can only supply a maximum of 8% of our energy needs.

     

    However, the Beltway thinks they can mandate a solution--by first dismissing coal and nuclear, and secondly by demanding we absorb the incremental KWH cost of wind and solar without any economic penalty. Only within government is that solution considered "comprehensive", while ignoring the fact that hydrocarbons will be a significant (majority?) part of the energy stream for at least another 30 years.

     

    So the expectation is that we operate under a mandate that eliminates less expensive and reliable sources, excludes new technologies (remember TMI happened over 35 years ago), mandates we use sources that still require massive (and online) "hot" backup from traditional sources, and operates under the perception that renewable has few, if any, environmental impacts (as if a massive solar farm in the desert or windmills scattered across Wyoming, and the distribution infrastructure they require, are totally inert.)
    1 Apr 2014, 10:43 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    WyoOil,

     

    Indeed.
    31 Mar 2014, 08:03 PM Reply Like
  • comsense8
    , contributor
    Comments (25) | Send Message
     
    The defense of common sense rarely accounts for the fact that hydrocarbons supply the source for all of our life saving supplies in medicine, food production and virtually every thing in sight. Sit in a room in any home in the Western Hemisphere and you cannot see an item that is not sourced from hydrocarbons. Your inorganic products (rocks) were cut, broken and/or polished with petroleum energy. Go, try to get along with it. Back in 73 and 79 we had terrible inflation because the Arabs decided to punish us.
    31 Mar 2014, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • comsense8
    , contributor
    Comments (25) | Send Message
     
    The defense of common sense rarely accounts for the fact that hydrocarbons supply the source for all of our life saving supplies in medicine, food production and virtually every thing in sight. Sit in a room in any home in the Western Hemisphere and you cannot see an item that is not sourced from hydrocarbons. Your inorganic products (rocks) were cut, broken and/or polished with petroleum energy. Go, try to get along with it. Back in 73 and 79 we had terrible inflation because the Arabs decided to punish us.
    31 Mar 2014, 09:30 PM Reply Like
  • bennysomen
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Obama will be gone in 2 yrs. however, the electorate that elected him twice will be around.
    31 Mar 2014, 10:02 PM Reply Like
  • michaelpf
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    WyoOil, well said
    31 Mar 2014, 10:11 PM Reply Like
  • maybenot
    , contributor
    Comments (6327) | Send Message
     
    Good gawd! If XOM states it is full speed ahead with oil type energy -- who will argue with that?

     

    What a management team they have. Gotta love it.

     

    Long XOM
    1 Apr 2014, 12:55 AM Reply Like
  • Veritas1010
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    Oil & Gas are here to stay. Renewables are fine, and I agree in theory with the move away from nuclear and coal.

     

    But, if the "move" requires help from our most benign and intelligent government, then I rather take my chances with market dynamics. Hasn't this government done enough to disrespect common sense and trample constitutional rights (and yes, our reciprocal responsibilities).

     

    Please, only ask government to leave us be. Or does everyone want some more of the creeping nanny state?

     

    disc.: long on individual responsibility and reciprocal freedom, all long on big oil and gas and modern civilization it has enabled - even with its imperfections in an imperfect world.
    1 Apr 2014, 01:22 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs