# The Future of Oil and Gas Stocks and Pipelines ??



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

i actually believe that this story makes sense: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ases-in-wake-of-dutch-ruling/article26360947/

i am aware if the fact that we need fossil fuels and will for some time to come but i now believe that there is a growing political battle with opponents of fossil fuels gaining real ground

various pensions funds around the world are divesting of o and g equities and we are seeing continuing pressure on them

this story paints a picture of oil and gas companies being sued in the manner of tobacco companies, it happened in holland and they are targeting canada next

our supreme court is so hopped up on its own sense of entitlement and superior wisdom that i believe that might actually make such a similar ruling (it would be anti-democratic as hell but this is an anti-democratic court)

i like to hold all ten sectors but i am beginning to think that energy and pipelines might not worth the trouble for geezers looking for safe and stable stocks

this is of course in addition to what might be a prolonged rout in energy prices


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

fatcat said:


> i actually believe that this story makes sense: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ases-in-wake-of-dutch-ruling/article26360947/
> 
> i am aware if the fact that we need fossil fuels and will for some time to come but i now believe that there is a growing political battle with opponents of fossil fuels gaining real ground
> 
> ...




this is indeed a real concern. I'm thinking that it probably has predecessors. When uranium was hot news & nuclear reactors were the glowing (ha) story of the future, oil must have slumped into a back seat.

what happened to oil during those eras? instead of researching the history myself, i wonder if i could cop out & ask folks on here who are knowledgeable to shed light on how oil recovered from its darkest depths in bygone years.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

What does the whole 'divestment' trend hope to accomplish? I guess they wash their hands and conscience of it, but it's not like selling those stocks is going to hurt the energy company. They're not going to dump all their shares and once and lose their shirt, so the stock price is unlikley to be affected by the divestment. And by selling them, they get rid of the chance to actually make a change in the company from being a large shareholder. Have the tobacco companies been a bad investment since they were all divested and sued? Doesn't look like it.

There's been some good examples of a divestment for ethical reasons actually ending up with a worse result for everyone. Total's departure from Sudan (and Myanmar too I think) resulted in less benefits to the society as the chinese buyers weren't as keen on providing free health clinics and new schools to the locals.

On a global scale, energy companies will do just fine for the next few decades. Regionally, some companies may suffer as certain types of oil are developments drop out of favour (either due to economics or public acceptance). Things like open pit bitumen mining. Or energy intensive SAGD, or whatever.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Remember, the future is plastics (with apologies to The Graduate). 

Even if we stop burning oil and gas, they are the feedstocks to produce plastics and other composites. The market may not be as big or lucrative, but it will always exist.


----------



## GPM (Jan 23, 2015)

I don't have a link, but I just read an an article by Gwyn Morgan who founded Encana. (Retired now?). In his opinion, to make a difference, you should target the users. This is almost every company in the world and person. That kinda leaves no companies to invest in. Production causes a fraction of a percent of total pollution. 

Sept 7/2015 and Globe and Mail.

The suing is indeed a scary thought.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

i am aware that oil will be needed for some time to come, as you say bgc it is used in plastics and hundreds of other essential products

pie, what is different from past recoveries from dark days is that we didn't have this growing movement that is absolutely anti-fossil fuel and these people are filled with something like religious fervor

one would assume that common sense and economics would triumph and we can have an orderly decades long unwind from fossil fuels but as the Great Leap Forward shows us there are people and not a small number that believe this is a here and now matter of survival and they are motivated

i am not advocating an abandonment of energy companies (i have no oil but have kept gas via peyto and keyera, i don't know what i will do with trp and enb but am inclined to sell at least one of them)



> I don't have a link, but I just read an an article by Gwyn Morgan who founded Encana. (Retired now?). In his opinion, to make a difference, you should target the users. This is almost every company in the world and person. That kinda leaves no companies to invest in. Production causes a fraction of a percent of total pollution.


 makes sense to me but remember the people who are part of this movement aren't concerned about making sense


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

fatcat said:


> makes sense to me but remember the people who are part of this movement aren't concerned about making sense


They can make progress until people find out the alternatives are more expensive and have drawbacks, though maybe not the same drawbacks as O&G. 

If they really wanted to make a difference, they would focus on one of the biggest emitters which would be coal fired powerplants, particularly in china. You convert those over the NG (maybe with our LNG as a supply) and you've dropped the CO2 emissions by a substantial percentage. Next one would be agriculture. That's a little more difficult.

A logical approach would be to list all the emitters/polluters in descending order, and work from the top down to get reductions. A 20% reduction in emissions from coal fired power plants has a much bigger impact than shutting down all oil and gas operations in alberta.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

One woman in a Chinese city put a mask filter over her baby's face and went around doing her everyday shopping. By the time she removed the mask, it was completely black.

She sent the mask away for independent assessment and it was full of contaminants, including many cancer causing agents.

Finances and economics is of little concern to people gasping for clean air to breathe.

The solution is alternative renewable energy sources, which means more research dollars, higher government acceptance, and an overall commitment to eliminate the use of fossil fuels totally.

Tip toeing around the tulips isn't going to get it done, and we have to stop pretending that it will.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Depending on the feedstock of the coal, there is more radioactive waste being sent in the atmosphere due to burning coal than there is produced in a nuclear power plant (per MW produced). Of course, the nuclear waste is a bit safer contained at the plant than floating through the air.
Coal in certain areas will have radioactive isotopes of common elements, naturally occuring in the matrix. It doesn't get burned and goes right up, or sometimes is captured.

Let's just go from coal to NG first. That's a huge step in terms of reducing CO2 and other contaminants.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

nobleea said:


> ... A logical approach would be to list all the emitters/polluters in descending order, and work from the top down to get reductions. A 20% reduction in emissions from [chinese] coal fired power plants has a much bigger impact than shutting down all oil and gas operations in alberta.



wouldn't that would require a federated world government ruled from heaven, though. It's so much easier just to point the finger at another country. But these days many are saying Why not start in our own back yard.

there must surely be some high environmental costs to alternative energy systems. I don't have these answers, but common sense asks What is the life span of a solar panel? where are these to be disposed of once useless? perhaps these are fabricated from possibly toxic composite materials and/or materials that don't biodecompose?

same issues apply to wind turbines. Although the turbine tower components could probably be recycled until metal fatigue wears them out, i'm not sure about the nacelles & would not be surprised to learn that they are nasty packages of polymers.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

humble_pie said:


> wouldn't that would require a federated world government ruled from heaven, though. It's so much easier just to point the finger at another country. But these days many are saying Why not start in our own back yard.


sure, but why go to ALL that work for nothing? eliminating all O&G in canada is a drop in the bucket, won't make a lick of difference except turn canada in to a have not country. it's like trying to make your detached garage as energy efficiency as possible by sealing all the windows and cracks and increasing the attic insulation, but then not closing the garage door.

and we're not even the worst! some of the most carbon intensive oil in the world comes from California!


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

alrightee then, the question becomes How is China going to be Persuaded to convert all their coal fired plants to NG?

on a fairy tale planet ruled by a benevolent world gummint, the gummint could issue a directive to convert, then fines if one country or another wouldn't comply.

but here on the real planet, feelings of hopelessness set in when i think about pollution culprits on the other side of the planet.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> same issues apply to wind turbines. Although the turbine tower components could probably be recycled until metal fatigue wears them out, i'm not sure about the nacelles & would not be surprised to learn that they are nasty packages of polymers.


i believe they are building more environmentally friendly turbines (read less bird killing, less noise and less unsightliness) but based on what i have seen they are an ugly and intrusive way to generate energy

we are a long way from anything like exchanging a one-for-one unit of fossil fuel made energy for a unit of so called "renewable" energy


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Hard to say what are safe and stable stocks of the future. Nobody could have predicted Apple's rise to fame since the stock price was around $8 (split adjusted) in 1995. 

I personally believe O&G stocks will come back. It might take time, but this sector will come back. 

On the subject of solar, what are those panels made out of? Silicon. How is silicon made? With silica of course. Where does silica come from? The earth. How is that harvested? With big machines? What runs those big machines? Oil. How is silicon made? With heating silica and carbon based materials. Where does the heat come from? Oil.

@fatcat, agreed "we are a long way from anything like exchanging a one-for-one unit of fossil fuel made energy for a unit of so called "renewable" energy"

Absolutely but at least the process is starting...


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

thankx ... what i had in mind was where & how to dispose of the nacelles, though.

products like these - solar panels, turbine nacelles - are made with several or even many different kinds of engineered polymers bonded together, so these are usually impossible to separate & recycle. There could be metal & glass elements as well.

the cost of burying or burning these items is a negative consideration for alternative forms of energy. Some of these products could subsist in the soil for hundreds of years, could break down into toxic chemical elements over time.

it's like they always say, there's no free lunch.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

That's the thing eh? There is really no perfect answer, only trade offs.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

humble_pie said:


> thankx ... what i had in mind was where & how to dispose of the nacelles, though.
> 
> products like these - solar panels, turbine nacelles - are made with several or even many different kinds of engineered polymers bonded together, so these are usually impossible to separate & recycle. There could be metal & glass elements as well.
> 
> ...


At least those items produce energy when in use. They should have a life of 25-35+ years. Disposing of solar panels will be done, even if just to recover valuable rare and precious metals. Right now, there is not the volume to warrant full scale recycling facilities, but those will come. Same with wind turbine blades and other composite parts. Many (I read 80%) are being recycled for re-use in new locations. There is one German plant that turns them into filler material for concrete. Not hard to do, just need a sufficient supply of blades and other composite materials.

There are many other products that we use daily that require disposal or recycling in much larger volumes. Some examples: Synthetic carpets, plastic auto components, fibreglass boats, synthetic building materials, bathtubs, shower enclosures, light bulbs, mirrors, ...... The list goes on. I would be far more concerned about these large volume products than the minimal recycling of wind/solar components.


----------



## tenoclock (Jan 23, 2015)

They can divest all they want, it just makes O&G stocks that much more attractive. The world is addicted to oil and this addiction is not going to go away anytime soon. The developing nations are just starting out with industrialization and their populations dwarf those in the industrialized world. I would invest in oil companies that have a global outlook as opposed to local.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Leonardo DiCaprio joins fossil fuel divestment movement as it reaches *$2.6 trillion mark*

http://mashable.com/2015/09/22/leo-...l&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=rss#3LpHI5eSbqkd


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

fatcat said:


> Leonardo DiCaprio joins fossil fuel divestment movement as it reaches $2.6 trillion mark


*The wolf is hilarious*.
Great actor, but geez.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Hillary Clinton opposes Keystone XL pipeline 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...opposes-keystone-xl-pipeline/article26481653/

she is doing this for one reason, environmental money ... deep pocket donors of the Leap Forward variety

sure we need oil but this is a serious foe that pipelines and the oil patch are facing ... add in the ndp in government and i think oil and pipelines are going to take a big hit


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

http://ca.reuters.com/article/enter...PZ20150922?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=0

Leonardo di Caprio and other investors selling their O & G assets....


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

fatcat said:


> Hillary Clinton opposes Keystone XL pipeline


Mrs. Whitewater has been dragging her feet for several weeks on Keystone XL.
She was asked repeatedly about her position.
Her answer was - *I will tell you tomorrow*.

Basically, she needed to "consult" with her lobby groups - the Tides, Lead Now and the Soros backed front groups.
Now that she consulted, this is her decision.

Also interesting she waited for the Pope to land before announcing her decision.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

No reaction to TRP stock this morning.
Keystone XL rejection is probably mostly priced in at this point.
Short of a GOP win next Nov, KXL is essentially dead in the water.

Just wondering though - how Mrs. Whitewater plans to run for President and more important, swear in as President, given a plethora of scandals and investigations going on?
So, let me get this straight - there are active investigations against someone for breach of national security by the FBI and he/she plans to take oath as President?
And then turn around and appoint a Director for the FBI?
Hilarious....


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

You forget that she is female...the USA needs her as president to show there are no barriers...integrity be damned


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Eder said:


> You forget that she is female...the USA needs her as president to show there are no barriers...integrity be damned


*Yellow dogs* have rights too.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

i can vote for her but would rather not and probably won't
i did vote for obama


----------



## CPA Candidate (Dec 15, 2013)

We live in a era of enormous hypocrisy with respect to attitudes and beliefs concerning oil and gas. Widespread calls for limiting further extraction and transportation from those who have built entire careers of travelling around the country, strumming a guitar on tour or going from movie set to movie set. You can bet that any signatory to the leap manifesto has burned far greater share of oil than average citizens. 

The message is clear - we have ours (wealth) utilizing these resources and now we're going to interfere with your ability to make a living or earn a return or have access to reasonably priced products.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Protectionism is growing in the US, and the general consensus in the US is that Keystone Pipeline offers very little economic benefits to Americans, considering it will traverse 2000 miles on US land, and crossing more than 1000 rivers and lakes.

The pipeline companies haven't done themselves any favors, with all the leaks and spills. They have exposed questionable quality and performance issues.

I believe I read the southern leg of the Keystone was halted for poor welding, and it all had to be dug up and welded properly. The company hired incompetent welders with no pipeline experience. The company put cost and expediency ahead of quality.

Then there was the Nexen spill........which apparently they didn't even know had happened until someone was walking by and saw it. 

The Nexen pipeline was supposed to be state of the art technology, regarding quality, safety and the ability to monitor it.

Pipelines are the safest and best way to transport oil.............but the companies have to exhibit the highest magnitude of competence, to have people accept a pipeline running anywhere near them.

Pipeline failures..............shouldn't be headline news on a recurring basis.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

CPA Candidate said:


> We live in a era of enormous hypocrisy with respect to attitudes and beliefs concerning oil and gas. Widespread calls for limiting further extraction and transportation from those who have built entire careers of travelling around the country, strumming a guitar on tour or going from movie set to movie set. You can bet that any signatory to the leap manifesto has burned far greater share of oil than average citizens.
> 
> The message is clear - we have ours (wealth) utilizing these resources and now we're going to interfere with your ability to make a living or earn a return or have access to reasonably priced products.


You mean:


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think the whole point is that people are forced to consumer fossil fuels in their daily lives, due to a lack of alternatives.

It is the alternatives, that environmental groups seek to research and develop. In the meantime............we have to use what we have.

Progress is being made, albeit quietly in the background.

My son is installing security fencing around 4 more solar farms right now in southwestern Ontario.................that few people even know exist.

Along the shores of Lake Huron, there are rows and rows of wind turbines generating electrical power.

The technology isn't perfect, but is being researched and refined more every day.

Fossil fuels will be around for awhile, but I doubt we will ever run out of them.

I think they will be abandoned before depletion and become a notation in the history of energy, alongside whale oil and kerosene lamps.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

No I don't think Oil and gas are going anywhere. The only viable alternative sources of electricity is hydro and nuclear. Good luck getting a brand new dam or nuclear plant built. Probably just as hard as a new mine or pipeline, maybe harder.

Wind doesn't generate enough power and the costs are outrageous. Even if this was somehow enhanced, the amount of concrete and mined metals, and energy that go into the manufacture of a wind turbine would negate the environmental benefit. It also has significant social hurdles (NIMBY, uglying up the landscape, etc.)

Solar sounds promising, perhaps. It's the energy source I know least about, and I haven't hear of any major downsides or hurdles to it (other than cost, of course).

O&G has been hit with a triple whammy. Low prices, huge increases to government largess (with the requisite busybodies that don't know much coming up new ways to meddle in things they don't understand) and celebrities/the general public taking an interest and fighting against it with Saudi money.

Just give it a few year... prices will come back, governments will have to stop borrowing and implement austerity (goodbye busybodies and solar subsidies) and the celebrities will latch onto some other glittery cause for them to protest for.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Solar is insanely expensive. 20 year FIT contracts in Ontario started at 80 cents a kwh (you pay 8-16 at retail depending on peak) and the new ones I believe are around 45 cents/kwh. It only becomes affordable when the peak rates get insanely high, primarily by punishing large users with egregious fees. By comparison, last time I checked Bruce Power gets about 6 cents per kilowatt hour for private nuclear.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sags said:


> Along the shores of Lake Huron, there are rows and rows of wind turbines generating electrical power.


Yup, I have seen them - right beside these signs
NIMBY works for everything...


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

what i have seen of wind turbines makes me not like them one damn bit
never mind the noise for neighbors and bird killing
they are a blight on the landscape


----------

