no country for old oil men - home energy storage

Oil and gas (O&G)
Executives are rarely the object of empathy.
In fact, in the drama of climate change, geopolitics and innovation, it is risky to portray them as "bad guys.
I have enough confidence in carbon.
There is no future to take this risk.
Traditionally, O & G CEOs check the stock price almost every hour.
Now, they may be more obsessed with checking and tossing and turning around at night, wondering how energy conversion will affect their business.
Can they control the situation?
These CEOs have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, who have seen their share price flat for years and stay only for dividends (
At least now . . . . . . ).
They also have social responsibility for pensioners, employees and a planet suffering from products.
At the same time, demand for oil and gas is increasing, and the industry plans to mine more oil over the next decade.
Over the past year, carbon dioxide pollution has increased significantly due to the booming world economy.
Despite the rise of renewable energy and electric vehicles, the U. S.
The Energy Information Administration expects fossil fuels to account for 77% of energy use in 2040, not only because the profit margin of hydrocarbons is still significantly higher than that of renewable energy.
I'm not here to defend O & G ceo.
Instead, I offer a VC investor perspective with Shell, Total, Kuwait Oil, Petronas, Chevron, husky, Cenovus and
How will their leaders respond to the energy transformation that will weaken the value of their flagship products?
How do they protect everyone who still depends on their industry?
O & G ceo has no easy choice.
Choose, choose, but which one is the best?
Large energy companies can invest in a number of attractive projects, and the competition for funds is fierce.
What is the best option to satisfy shareholders in the short and long term?
What about all interest groups that care about the environment, economic growth and social stability?
The first option is obvious: milk until it dies.
Some CEOs have decided that energy transformation will not happen under their supervision.
Their plan is to minimize
Long term profits until the end of the term. Full stop.
Second, the choice of hydrocarbon lamps is: from the highest-cost, highest-
Carbon-content oil, turning to cheap, flexible energy sources such as fracking oil, and more importantly natural gas.
This option may delight many shareholders, while advocating a transfer to natural gas is the first phase of the energy transition.
Third, for conspiracy theorists (but maybe not)
There's catch-and-Kill Strategy.
Like the National Inquirer's shameful story of buying and putting on shelves in order to protect allies or manipulate celebrities, CEOs may do the same with clean technology startups.
This is not far-fetched.
14 years ago, the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?
Automakers and oil companies allegedly bought technology in the 1990 s to disrupt the commercialisation of electric vehicles. Catch-and-
The Kill clean tech acquisition can provide a good PR for O & G.
A ceo of Majiya Victoria may slow down.
Speed up the acquisition of technology, limit it to certain markets, or give startups enough capital to make sure they fail.
While some CEOs may still dream of pursuing this option, most are more aware.
It doesn't work, and it will almost certainly backfire in the long run.
Better choice?
Finally, "Prius meets Elon "(PME)option.
More enlightened CEOs need a way to protect their core business while on the track of energy transformation.
PME plans can be used for shared fuel
Rising prices began to ease environmental damage.
But in a quarterly analyst call, the cost of a startup can be hard to defend.
For example, when Toyota made its first appearance at Prius in 1997, it became the first Volkswagen.
Mixed gasoline produced
Electric cars.
No one takes Toyota seriously.
"Toyota Prius is just a green one to be laughed --
When the marketing science program was introduced to the United StatesS.
The consumer report wrote: "The market in 2000.
At that time, it was difficult for American automakers to justify hybrid projects to shareholders, especially when Toyota sold only 5,562 vehicles in the United States. S.
Debut that year
In 2012, Toyota's sales reached 236,655 vehicles, which is more risky than Toyota's.
Toyota has discovered a shift to clean cars and made innovations ahead of this curve-instead of losing its core business, it has strengthened its core business.
Today, the pace of change is even faster than the idea of Prius, which is happening throughout the industry value chain: Engine, car design, infrastructure, maintenance, etc.
If the O & G ceo does not take action, Elon and other electric vehicle manufacturers will turn a blind eye to them.
What might the PME plan look like? The PME program requires the ceo to spread the O & G business from upstream oil to downstream utilities and power.
This requires acquisitions and new operations in the areas of battery storage, electric vehicle charging, renewable energy and smart grid.
It is encouraging to note that several O & G companies seem to have taken this path.
For example, Shell recently worked in AutoGrid (
Smart Grid software
And acquired GreenLots (
Charging infrastructure for electric vehicles), Sonnen (
Household energy storage)and LimeJump (
Virtual power plant).
At the same time, the total investment in Ambri (energy storage), PowerHive (off-
Power grid energy management), Stem (
Energy storage and virtual power plant)
Renewable energy (
Solar, wind and hydro).
It also acquired a majority stake in SunPower (solar cells).
These investments are more than verbal services for environmental-conscious consumers.
Ed crux and Amway Laval of the Financial Times assert that there is a "battle of power" between oil giants and utilities ".
The author notes, "Shell has come up with the idea that by the time it was in its 2030 s, it could be the world's largest power company.
"Similarly, Total is also calling for a rebranding of his brand as an" energy company "and focusing on the fastest power sector --
Growth in energy consumption.
It is not the EasyO & G ceo who chose the PME program, they will still be attacked by the media.
At least for the time being, this could lead to some yo
As profits may not match the initial oil profit margin, there has been a year-on-year increase in the stock market.
It's not easy to play with this option.
Traditional C
Control, avoid the uncertainty of investors, management risks, etc.
-Various traps will be created.
An inevitable question for CEOs who follow the PME program is: will they be at the forefront of commercializing clean technology in receptive markets such as California and Western Europe?
Can they lead the industry to a profitable and sustainable future?
The end of "milking cows" seems to be approaching, insisting that the status quo is no longer a good option in the modern energy industry.
I commend O & G ceo who is driving innovation in the new energy industry.
There is a price to force change too early, too extensive, and too mandatory.
Britain's exit from the EU, Trump and the yellow waistcoat movement shows what happens when change leaves too many societies behind.
However, a new era is emerging.
The tossing and turning CEO either wakes up like a dinosaur or dares to become a rock star who creates the world of tomorrow.
Today, there is no country for the old oil people.