Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ron who wrote (8478)	12/6/2006 11:55:56 AM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 36921

what BS, why is China exempt from Kyoto ????

To: Ron who wrote (8478)	12/6/2006 12:17:20 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Thanks :>)

To: Ron who wrote (8478)	12/6/2006 11:59:36 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 36921

20 years ago [during my employment with BP] I was suggesting to BP Oil to seek government legislation for environmental protection. Environmental protection requires a lot of investment, but investing in energy systems is what oil companies do. No investment = no profits. With legislation and technological shifts, the big companies like BP Oil and Shell are positioned to invest in whatever communities want. Competitors are less positioned to do so. So it was a win-win strategy for the public and BP Oil. I'm not in favour of altruism by shareholders. Critics don't think of that: <Shell has made an effort to at least appear green, though critics would say the company is more about propaganda than anything else, given that Shell's main product is oil. > It's not a matter of propaganda. BP Oil finally did adopt the strategies I'd been going on about and uses "Beyond Petroleum" and has invested a lot in ensuring they are positioned to move beyond burning carbon into the atmosphere. Suppose, for example, that governments control CO2 emissions [by tax cuts on other activities and countervailing carbon emissions taxes], then BP for example would benefit from oil and gas-fired power stations cooling and compressing exhaust CO2 to liquid and piping it down 500 metres and more under the ocean. Producing liquid CO2 would mean something like 25% more oil would be needed to run the process, if my very rough back of envelope calculation way back in the 1980s was right. Whatever the correct figure, it would mean more oil used, which is what BP sells. At the current price of oil, I doubt that anyone will be building hydrocarbon power stations so it's a bit academic. Nuclear is probably more economic. But Saudi Arabia and co will want to produce their oil and they are not competitive with alternative energy sources at $70 a barrel. So oil prices will come down. Mqurice