RE:RE:RE:RE:TOU take PEYWell said. The world can't quit O&G cold turkey any more than I can afford to not pay attention to the economic realities of ICE versus EVs. Right now ICE wins but $2/liter gas is narrowing that gap considerably.
The irony, and hypocrisy if you prefer, is that without O&G investments I probably could not afford my ICE vehicles. They are my infationary hedge especially with all other sectors tanking and not bouncing. The hypocrisy is not limited to those of us that believe in climate change and invest in O&G. When I see Cenovus's CEO travel to Washington to extoll the the ESG vrtues of Canadian O&G when I know they have been beaten mightily with regulations to do so I see it clearly.
The best O&G names that I see and like are using their gains to help them either start to transition or at least clean up their operations ESG wise. Enbridge is using solar farms to run their plants and the solar power doesn't go away when and if the fossil fuels do. They just transistion into a different type of energy delivery company because after all that is what they are.
I would love to see PEYTO do more of this forward kind of thinking but I think DG's heart isn't in it and he only complies where ESG means good business and that is good enough for me. After all NG is the cleanest of the fossil fuels already and will probably be the last one standing especially if they figure out efficient carbon capture and RNG.
PEY and ENB are probably what I consider my two longest hold O&G investments because I believe they will either withstand the coming ESG storm by being the lowest cost producers or because they will ride it out by transitioning so that they are not fighting the headwinds.
GLTA
Yasch22 wrote: Ganga: long answer to your chirps.
1. Climate change + global warming is real. Even if -- IF -- it turns out the minority is right on this, it doesn't matter, because everyone in positions of authority (government, CEOs, big investment houss) believe it's real.
2. The best path to change is steady, orderly, urgent transition from
(a) Coal -- the worst.
(b) Oil -- next in line.
(c) Natural gas? Not so much.
-- especially if it's responsibly produced, as in Canada (not as in southern USA, Russia, Middle East)
-- a big chunk of NG needed for fertilizer production (10% of Canadian ng used for fertilizer)
-- baseload considerations will keep a lot of NG power plants in operation for at least a couple of decades.
3. The key phrase is orderly transition. Canada, the US, and Europe need to maintain energy independence at every step. That means NG & oil especially will stay relevant for another 10 years? 20? This is definitely not a buy-and-hold till death -- for me.
4. EVs are not more damaging to the environment than ICE vehicles. Every serious lifecycle or cradle-to-grave study shows that. One of the latest (March 2022) comes from Ford Motors itself:
https://wdet.org/2022/03/10/university-of-michigan-ford-study-examines-potential-greenhouse-gas-savings-tied-to-evs/ If you want more studies comparing lifecycle GHG emissions from EV vs ICE, let me know.