Seeking Alpha

"We are losing our shirts" on natural gas, ExxonMobil (XOM +0.7%) CEO Rex Tillerson says,...

"We are losing our shirts" on natural gas, ExxonMobil (XOM +0.7%) CEO Rex Tillerson says, maintaining that current natural gas prices are not sustainable for the energy industry to continue to cover the cost of finding and producing new supplies. Tillerson also argues the effects of global warming are "manageable," and current warming models aren't accurate.
From other sites
Comments (25)
  • Stoploss
    , contributor
    Comments (1727) | Send Message
     
    Hats have to be off for greedy Bob.
    27 Jun 2012, 10:00 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4377) | Send Message
     
    I think this has been apparent to anyone that watches the markets. Gas prices have been so low that in many cases it does not even cover the cost of production.

     

    Even with the current shift in some generating plants to gas vs coal, the supply still vastly exceeds the demand, which makes the current low prices not sustainable for long. Any big jump in price and/or decrease in supply will also probably move some generating capacity back to coal.
    27 Jun 2012, 10:03 AM Reply Like
  • J 457
    , contributor
    Comments (972) | Send Message
     
    Look for NG above $3.50 by July and some of those beaten down coal stocks to double by early August. I think ACI to $12-$13 by mid Aug. We'll see.
    27 Jun 2012, 10:46 AM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (4180) | Send Message
     
    "Tillerson also argues the effects of global warming are 'manageable.'"

     

    What Tillerson is "managing" is to fund propaganda campaigns to convince people there is no global warming while Exxon works on melting the polar caps so they can get at the oil beneath them.
    27 Jun 2012, 10:11 AM Reply Like
  • phxcrane
    , contributor
    Comments (589) | Send Message
     
    Show me where science has been able to predict anything long term with any accuracy. Nasa can not even tell you where there debris is going to come down. Weather can't be predicted with any degree of accuracy except for short periods of time. There is a better statistical probability that there models are wrong then that their right.
    27 Jun 2012, 10:25 AM Reply Like
  • davidingeorgia
    , contributor
    Comments (2713) | Send Message
     
    Shhhhhh! People aren't supposed to know about the polar cap thing yet! Of course, ExxonMobil is also using some of their ill-gotten gains to build their own mind control ray, so don't forget your tinfoil hat!

     

    Ever hear of solar cycles? Or is that too much cognitive dissonance for you to handle?
    27 Jun 2012, 10:28 AM Reply Like
  • daro
    , contributor
    Comments (1684) | Send Message
     
    tillerson's comments were a correct statement of fact. Whether or nor you believe in global warming, you must concede there is a chance of it happening. If and when the costs of global warming are borne, XOM will not be paying them. It is the taxpayer that will pay them. therefore, they are "manageable" as far as XOM is concerned. Classic corporate doublespeak. nothing else.
    27 Jun 2012, 12:17 PM Reply Like
  • daro
    , contributor
    Comments (1684) | Send Message
     
    also when tillerson says that "current warming models are not accurate" what does he mean? maybe he means that they are too conservative. who knows? another classic non-responsive corporate doublespeak designed to avoid or deflect the issue.
    27 Jun 2012, 12:20 PM Reply Like
  • American in Paris
    , contributor
    Comments (5494) | Send Message
     
    Phxcrane,

     

    The models are based on basic chemistry. CO2 absorbs certain spectra of electromagnetic radiation when it bounces off the Earth's surface.

     

    And the recorded rise in global temperatures is already too great to be due to natural causes. There is no natural process that causes 1 Centrigrade movement in a single century.

     

    Since every rise in global temperatures over the last half billion years has accompanied by big CO2 buildups, the burden is on you to refuse the models that represent the scientific consensus.
    27 Jun 2012, 01:57 PM Reply Like
  • American in Paris
    , contributor
    Comments (5494) | Send Message
     
    David,

     

    Solar cycles are irrelevant.
    27 Jun 2012, 01:57 PM Reply Like
  • Lake Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (198) | Send Message
     
    If you look at the temperature record over the last 100,000 years or so (using proxies such as glaciation, etc.) the charts tell you the risk is far greater that we plunge into a deadly ice age than a damaging warming period. Those cycles are driven by the obliquity of the earth's axis and have been fairly regular for a long period. We are on the tail end of an interglacial warming period that is likely to be followed by an ice age and massive reglaciation of the higher latitudes. The earth is actually more livable (produces more, increased speciation) when the planet warms.
    27 Jun 2012, 02:21 PM Reply Like
  • delurkingjustforyou
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    Sunrise? Sunset?
    Science is the act of looking and seeing, checking and rechecking.
    If you're not willing to rely on that, then there'll be no convincing you.
    27 Jun 2012, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • vireoman
    , contributor
    Comments (1122) | Send Message
     
    Tillerson may be right when he says global warming is "manageable," but he is clearly referring to humans when he says that. For the most part, wildlife (ie, nature) doesn't have the same luxury of adjustment that we do. Due to scarcity of quality habitat, lack of corridors for movement, etc, drastic alteration in climate will likely mean the end of the line for innumerable species.
    27 Jun 2012, 04:08 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4377) | Send Message
     
    Even that "chemistry" model may be flawed. There is a lot of speculation that perhaps the whole "cause and effect" scenario of global warming theory is backwards.

     

    Despite the True Believers on both sides, I think the science on the issue is far from settled - there is too much we don't know. As someone pointed out, even the short term seaonal hurricane predictions are often way off base.
    28 Jun 2012, 03:03 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4377) | Send Message
     
    This is one of those areas where though quite a few people believe that global warming is occuring, there is a whole bunch less agreement on the causes.
    28 Jun 2012, 03:06 PM Reply Like
  • Abigsoxfan
    , contributor
    Comments (884) | Send Message
     
    Didn't take long for the global warming nuts to come out. Read Meltdown by Patrick J. Michaels.

     

    http://bit.ly/LBnzsR

     

    Dry, scientific writing, the type that left wing nuts get easily bored with, but a ton of facts which also bores and confounds the left. Better to watch a fluff movie by Al Gore riddled with lies. The same Al Gore who resolutely refuses to debate anyone from the other side on the issue as Al knows he is ignorant when it comes to science even though he did invent the internet.
    27 Jun 2012, 10:19 AM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (398) | Send Message
     
    1) Dear liberal arts/finance majors:

     

    Here is the raw data on atmospheric CO2:

     

    http://1.usa.gov/LBvnuO

     

    Nature or Science is waiting with baited breath on your article(s) explaining the cause of increasing atmospheric CO2.

     

    2) If Tillerson is losing his shirt on NG, he needs to be focused on XOM operational issues and not prating on scientific issues.

     

    3) What makes the clownish comments on global warming particularly hilarious on SA is the juxtapositiont of global warming comments with all of the pseudo mathematical mumbo jumbo that gets published on why stocks/indexes go up or down.
    27 Jun 2012, 11:40 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4527) | Send Message
     
    Unfortunately, a lot of gas and oil has been pre-sold and will likely continue to be pumped at these rates - even at below breakeven - for the forseeable future.

     

    The good news is that this may well enable a transition to NG and eventually generate the demand needed, but the bad news is it will take a while.
    27 Jun 2012, 10:20 AM Reply Like
  • Whitehawk
    , contributor
    Comments (3129) | Send Message
     
    So why doesn't Tillerson start partnering with other industrialists to build up infrastructure for NG and increase demand? (The same question I pose to Boone P., who also whines too much.) The bill in Congress is a price fixing bill, and not the road to freedom and profitability.
    27 Jun 2012, 11:50 AM Reply Like
  • Big Bad Bulls
    , contributor
    Comments (206) | Send Message
     
    You know, we in the US have to be the only country in the world that demonizes our oil and gas companies. Every other country and especially their governments know that oil and gas will still represent the majority of their transportation fuels for as far as the eye can see. The latest numbers I saw were around 80% through 2035.

     

    Every other country is looking to the US to either teach them how to frack for nat gas or they are trying to buy up our reserves. Just look at China and Russia, two of our friends :( and notice they have no trouble doing whatever it takes to secure the reserves they need to run their country.

     

    Here, we are looking at sunshine, algea and turbines. Although these ideas have their place and will supplement fossil fuels, they are a long way off. Meanwhile, we have this oversupply of nat gas that has come down so low in price that we are not going to be able to keep drilling at anywhere near the current pace. What we should be doing and I have been pounding the table on this for three years is converting as many of our truck fleets over to nat gas. In addition, ultimately, we should be building up nat gas refueling infrastructure to allow nat gas cars to be an option for consumers like they do in Europe. If Obama had spent 1/10 the amount of money supporting that instead of Solyndra and other failed "green" companies, we would be much further down the road to energy security than what we are now. Lets see, if we build infrastructure s othat there is a market for nat gas we create the following:

     

    More jobs
    Energy security
    Money stays in US
    Cleaner emissions
    Cheaper cost to fill up the tank.

     

    What's not to like? That is my type of green.
    27 Jun 2012, 12:32 PM Reply Like
  • Lake Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (198) | Send Message
     
    Big Bad Bulls is spot on.

     

    Spain wrecked its economy chasing a green dream. Sure, we'd all like to snap our fingers and live in a "Jetsons" future where everthing was clean and cheap. It will take a long time to get there and we need to continue with fossil fuels.

     

    Obama's claptrap about outsourcing is laughable. It is he who is outsourcing energy jobs by restricting US development. That increases fossil fuel jobs elsewhere (Venezuela, Saudia Arabia, Nigeria) while restraining them here.

     

    We have the best Oil and Gas companies in the world. They innovate and they are efficient and shareholder friendly. They pay massive amounts of taxes and fund good paying jobs. They should be held up on a pedestal instead of lambasted. When tinpots like Chavez hear Obama bash our own companies he thinks it's a green light to nationalize their investments.
    27 Jun 2012, 02:25 PM Reply Like
  • Sacandaga
    , contributor
    Comments (19) | Send Message
     
    "You know, we in the US have to be the only country in the world that demonizes our oil and gas companies."

     

    The British hate BP, Mexicans hate Pemex, and the French despise Total with even more vehemence than we hate Exxon/Mobil.
    And for the very same reason - they inflict lots of pain on people's wallets, and they make piles of money.
    27 Jun 2012, 03:09 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (4180) | Send Message
     
    "If Obama had spent 1/10 the amount of money supporting [the Natural Gas Act] instead of Solyndra and other failed "green" companies,"

     

    It was the House Republicans who blocked the Natural Gas Act. Never made it through Congress.
    27 Jun 2012, 10:45 PM Reply Like
  • PostScience
    , contributor
    Comments (73) | Send Message
     
    Exxon CEO states the obvious, before going on to expound on his personal, uninformed theories about global warming. I guess you don't need to be a genius to make money in the oil business.
    27 Jun 2012, 12:49 PM Reply Like
  • Sacandaga
    , contributor
    Comments (19) | Send Message
     
    Warren Buffett is right as usual:
    We should be shutting in and locking up U.S. reserves of oil and gas and buying and consuming everything that the rest of the world can produce at today's ridiculously low oil prices.
    50-75 years from now, when they are drained dry and we have ample alternate fuel sources and no longer need them, we will have plenty of oil and gas feedstock left to supply our chemical industries.
    27 Jun 2012, 02:46 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