by Phildo » Tue 02 Feb 2010, 14:18:54
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', 'H')i there Phildo.
Shell's scenarios don't include any choices that would negatively impact Shell's core business model.
For Shell, this is all a massive PR stunt. Their scenarios are concerned with Shell and Shell's business sector and continuity as it applies to Shell.
Shell's core business, oil discovery and exploitation, is shrinking. They are being pushed out of deals all over the world as remaining reserves are being nationalized. The fact is that without broad support, their business evaporates by 2020.
Their outlook is to diversify into CO2 trading and possible sequestration, discovery and exploitation of remaining reserves, and eventually transition more heavily into energy markets.
Looking over their website scenarios, several things come to mind. They are advocating a strong NGO and government hand in creating markets through regulation and legislation. Since they are part of a cabal of wealthy multinationals, and have been running their sectors via the government for 20 years, it seems guaranteed to continue. All you need to do is buy the latest products, and vote for one of the two leading candidates. Apparently everything else will work itself out.
No real disagreements in that.
I am not really a fan of Shell, their products, or their business, per se -- BUT I respect their extreme competence in what they do. Do you follow the difference?
Even on the Technical Side of things they are leaders in quality. The API (American Petroleum Institute) standards and specs we use in the Energy Engineering side of things is extremely competent. I can just read and read their documents -- like Mind Candy. Major player behind that? Shell Oil.
I agree that Shell is in it for Shell. And the links I put there was mostly because I was just being lazy on explaining the Best/Worst/Changed Case Scenario planning models. If you are at all into that at all -- grab a copy of that "Art of The Long View" book. Good read, but EXCELLENT concept. I first read it back when I was a US Army LT, and still use it on most projects, today.
You are correct -- The real underlying calculus behind the Blueprints v. Scramble was Shell was thinking it was running out of Oil around 2014 to 2015.
Mercedes figured out the same thing for themselves. They are slated to be out of producing Gas/Oil burners by 2015. I respect Mercedes the same as I do Shell -- for their competence. As maybe contrasted with the Corporate Incompetence folks like GM.
The CO2 stuff put on the Shell presentation is fluff for the public. Most of the Energy folks are also cross-tied as Bankers and just see the "Carbon issues" as more bankable/money assets. Could do a whole thread on my board-room experiences on that game.
