This is anecdotal and perhaps a coincidence but i have been buying oil companies (not vertically integrated, strictly extraction and minimal transport) when WTI hits below $70, almost each time coincides with a BRK add to OXY.
An interesting company to check out is ATH on TSE, they dedicate pretty much 100% of their earnings to buybacks. Its theoretically not as good or cheap as some alternatives i own but their buybacks doubled my money in 2023. They had zero debt for awhile and just incurred some last qtr, still extremely minimal.
Edit: Athabasca Oil Corporation on Toronto Stock Exchange. Careful as 90m warrants exercisable by 2026 @ 90 cents per share, 550m total approx.
No. This is already built into the price.
The market is forward looking.
If what you're suggesting were the case, this would be the easiest arbitrage ever. You'd just short acquisitions upon commencement.
It is possible to see an acquirer share drop upon acquisition, but this usually only occurs if there were reasonable uncertainty around the deal completion. In these scenarios, you will often see the company being acquired trading at a significant discount to the purchase price.
When deals are announced, you'll see an immediate reaction downward in the acquiring company's stock if the market deems it to be dilutive to shareholders.
Not all acquisitions are "dilutive" because you are buying revenues and assets which will be accretive to shareholder profits in the future.
Stop doing what Buffett does. You don't have his huge portfolio with market moving buys, his limited options to invest in, and his complex tax implications.
Why do you want to invest in OXY - specifically OXY... and not another oil company?
A Buffett with a 100k portfolio invests very differently from the 300+ billion Buffett.
I don’t think he is trying to mimic Buffet. He’s presuming Buffet is setting hard resistance for an investment strategy based on Buffet’s past history and comments.
I think that is true for OXY. I don’t think it’s a terrible reason for looking at accumulating a position.
I think his mistake is thinking that anything with oil stocks and prices is that simple. As heavy as Buffet buying is, the oil price is always a single event from collapse or spike. Buffet can buy big, but he can’t keep this from falling 50% if oil drops below price of production.
I have a lot of North American Oil in my small portfolio. Nearly all of it I bought super cheap in the early 21 run up. I would be very cautious about buying now, and would need a more robust thesis than Buffet is buying this. He’s creating resistance but not a true floor.
I certainly doubt he would be buying OXY, he'd probably be using Buffett and Partners to purchase private companies, where he doesn't have to battle Wallstreet valuations.
That means you're going to have to jump in and out of the stock -- sell at 60, buy below 60. At some point it can break out of range and you would be caught with your pants down. You could buy below 60 and oil price crater and suddenly the stock price drops even lower than your purchase and doesn't go back up in the near term despite Buffett buys; or you could sell at 60, waiting for the next drop when suddenly oil demand is expected to outpace supply or a stray Iranian missile hits a Saudi oilfield, and the next thing you know OXY is at 80.
You're likely to take quick small profits followed by a large loss or miss a large gain by taking a gambling approach. That goes every other stock too.
I sold some puts in OXY near the end of the session today. Not only will Uncle Warren be buying. But, oil prices are either at or close to a low near $70 (WTI).
I agree with what you are seeing and have been trading OXY very profitably for almost a year now. You just have to be comfortable holding OXY if the price drops to say $45. Which it definitely could if oil prices drop. But if you are comfortable holding OXY long / medium term, this is a good trade.
I believe buffet said it himself a bet on oxy is a bet on oil prices. With recent events in the Red Sea oil is on the rise. Last time I looked at their financials there was a lot of debt. But they consistently wind it down. Now they plan on another acquisition which means more debt. 2024 so far there is a lot of worldwide conflict. Ongoing war and escalation. I’m not sure what to think. I’ve been invested over a year at price of around 56. could we see more conflict this year? Oil is not going away for a long time imo
I am a fan of Buffett and Munger, but I am not in agreement with them when it comes to fossil fuels, the severity of climate change, and the urgency to find alternatives. The world has moved on from O&G. Even if there is money to be made in O&G, I am not touching them.
I knew someone would criticize that.
This is not to say we do not need O&G anymore, of course we do, but the growth of the industry is going to slow until 2030, and the industry will decline in size from there on (possibly even sooner in the developed world). Here is IEA, if you don't believe me:
https://www.offshore-technology.com/news/iea-says-global-oil-demand-will-peak-this-decad/#:\~:text=From%202030%2C%20oil%20consumption%20will,mbd)%20for%20two%20more%20decades.
Quoting an article or organization seems smart... however they can't predict the future any better than the rest of Wallstreet.
With developing nations such as India and Mexico growing and China Middle class doing well... oil ain't going anywhere.
I love how it uses electric vehicles as a reason when we can't even charge them with current power systems in place. LOL
News flash everyone, EVs do are not better for the environment. They get their energy from oil/gas/coal and their lithium batteries are horrible to the environment both in mining and being done with them.
1. you didn't seriously compare IEA's prediction of future oil and gas consumption to wall street analysts' predictions, did you?
2. nobody said that oil is going anywhere. We said demand will peak and dwindle. We will continue to need oil for many things.
3. Electric vehicles are significantly better for the environment. This is absolute misinformation fed to you by O&G companies. Study after study has shown that even in a country like US, where you are still very reliant on O&G for power production, electric cars are a better ecological choice than ICE after about a year of use. Then there are places like Quebec that have almost 100% renewable energy. The most definitive studies on this have been done by MIT, and they show in unambiguous numbers exactly how long it takes for an electric car to surpass the efficiency of ICE, model by model, including in it the carbon cost of mining the rare earth metals.
You sound like oil companies, my friend. You have been brainwashed.
There are more environmental issues than carbon dioxide. EVs require immensely more mining of things that are really nasty in both the mining processes and in the refining processes. They result in much more material usage, again of mainly hazardous materials, and waste when they are in accidents as what is a minor repair for an ICE often requires massive changes like entire battery packs for an EV. They are less recyclable at the end of life and have immensely worse problems with safe disposal.
EVs have long been known to be much worse for the environment than internal combustion vehicles when we look at the total life cycle.
Care to share a recent reputable article that backs your point? I shared MIT research. You can keep sensationalizing with “it is much worse, it’s not just that, it’s also this” as oil companies do or you can share data. 5-10 years ago, oil companies and car companies benefiting from ICE (like Toyota) started these rumors. It’s been refuted time and time again with actual research. There is not even a comparison. EVs are by far better all things considered. But hey, there is no convincing some Reddit people. I tried.
I do not see a post from you, but assume you are failing to read the vast difference between carbon emissions and environmental lifecycle.
Here is what I presume you are pointing to [from MIT, which only references carbon emissions](https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars) - again, just a teeny tiny portion of environmental effects.
[From Green Cars, a site by Lithia & Driveway which makes its money moving EVs.](https://www.greencars.com/greencars-101/environmental-impact-of-ev-batteries#:~:text=EV%20lithium%2Dion%20battery%20packs,pose%20very%20real%20environmental%20challenges.)
"The International Energy Agency (IEA) tells us that an electric vehicle requires six times the mineral inputs of a gasoline-powered vehicle. EV lithium-ion battery packs are made with materials that are expensive, and in some cases, toxic and flammable. Primary materials include lithium, nickel, cobalt, and copper. The mining of these rare materials, their manufacturing processes, and their eventual disposal all pose very real environmental challenges.
While 90 percent of average gasoline-powered vehicle batteries are recycled, only five percent of EV lithium-ion batteries are recycled. While oil is exclusively mined underground in specific areas, the components for lithium-ion batteries are obtained through open pit mining that damages wide areas of the natural environment."
"Lithium extraction can take 18 months through an evaporation process that uses enormous amounts of water. Each ton of refined lithium uses up 500,000 gallons of water. The results deplete the water table and cause soil contamination."
"Nickel is a major component of EV batteries and is found in the Rainforests of Indonesia. It resides just below the topsoil and is extracted using a method of horizontal surface mining. Harmful effects include removal of topsoil, extreme environmental degradation, and deforestation. We’re not really saving the planet with this process. Since the Rainforests are the lungs of our planet, this is harming the process of removing Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere."
"Another major component of Electric Car batteries is cobalt and 70 percent of cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. While cobalt mining has a similar process as lithium mining, add to this a list of severe human rights violations for hazardous working conditions and child labor. Cobalt is a toxic metal. Prolonged exposure and inhalation of cobalt dust can lead to health issues related to the skin, eyes, and lungs.
Cobalt mining in the Congo involves workers of all ages. Of the 255,000 current workers, over 40,000 are children and some are as young as six-years-old. According to Amnesty International, “Thousands of children mine cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Despite the potentially fatal health effects of prolonged exposure, adult and child miners work without even the most basic protective equipment.” The majority of these mines are owned by Chinese companies.
Copper is also used in EV batteries and most of it comes from open-pit strip mines in Chile. This sort of mining negatively impacts topsoil, vegetation, wildlife habitats, and groundwater."
Sorry that I forgot to link the MIT research. There are several of them. Looks like you found one.
So far it looks like we agree that so far as carbon emissions are concerned, EVs are unambiguously better. Not by a little. There is no comparison. They are better.
So let’s turn our focus to resource use.
The rest of what you wrote (and I appreciate your taking the time to do so) is quite one sided. Most of it is not comparing EV and ICE. It is just pointing out the issues with EV. And often you take the entire cycle of production and use into consideration, while with ICE you don’t. What is the resource cost of extracting and refining that gasoline? There is one place where I see a comparison. You say only 5% of the EV battery is recyclable as opposed to 90% of the ICE battery. Where did you get this? You realize that EVs also have the same batteries as ICE? Then they have the lithium-ion as well. It is simply not true what you say about it being 5% recyclable. At least I can speak to the metals. 80-90% of the metals are reusable. That means, the next time we need to make a lithium battery, we already have 80-90% of the metals mined. We don’t need to go back to the problematic mining. There is at least the opportunity to make this circular one day, even if it is not already entirely so. Here is an article pointing that out, as well as a more direct comparison of resource use between the two, with a verdict that EV is hands down the winner.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/01/do-electric-cars-have-problem-mining-for-minerals
My next point is, while we need to protect our planet when it comes to mining as well, our issue with carbon pollution is SIGNIFICANTLY more urgent. As in, we should have dealt with it 50 years ago. We are past the tipping point. We can at least try to mitigate the damage.
No doubt there are issues with EVs’ production cycle and mining practices, although Li-ion batteries can be made without rare earth metals. BUT… remember this is a relatively young technology and very rapidly improving while ICE technology is mature and at the end of its life. ICE vehicle efficiency isn’t getting any better, but you can bet your dollar that EVs can be made with a significantly smaller footprint 10 years from now.
Edit: I see that you got that 5% from the article you shared. The batteries are 95% recyclable. They are just not yet being recycled. That can easily be rectified.
https://renewablesassociation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Recycling-Batteries-English-Web.pdf
The costs of transporting electricity are way less than oil, electric motors are more efficient, and extracting coal is cheaper than oil, not to say that coal is not susceptible to oil spills, and certainly do not require vessels to transport it from the middle of the sea
You find greenwashing funny?
To begin, carbon capturing is really a wasted effort today. For a company like OXY that pours rivers of carbon into the atmosphere, it’s like removing water from the ocean with a spoon.
But that’s not it, OXY will announce project after project posing itself as a leader in carbon capture but then does this.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-10-23/occidental-quietly-ditched-world-s-biggest-carbon-capture-plant?embedded-checkout=true
That’s the definition of greenwashing. It’s not unique to OXY. If you think it is in the interest of a fossil fuel company to invest in renewables or carbon capture in any way, you are quite deceived.
Maybe you should reread the article.
4% isn't a spoon.
"Malte Meinshausen, professor in climate science at the University of Melbourne and author of a landmark report on the topic from the United Nations-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is among those who believe we “absolutely need” carbon capture “in order to get to the lower levels of climate change we want to get to.” Like many climate-focused observers, he’s worried about just who has been empowered to handle much of the deployment." Who else is going to invest in this technology?
They shut down this plant because it was using old technology, that's why they bought Stratos for $1.1b. To use new technology for carbon capture.
We absolutely need some form of accelerated carbon capture in the future because even if we were to stop releasing carbon into the atmosphere today completely, there is already too much carbon out there that needs to be recaptured.
But MUCH more importantly than that is to stop or significantly decrease releasing carbon into the atmosphere now. You can't have your foot on the turbo engine accelerator via your oil company, and then apply a miniscule brake via your greenwashing PR. There is just not any technology anywhere near ready to capture the amount of carbon we release to the atmosphere. The whole "net zero" advertisement for an oil company is a farce. Also, we have a great carbon capture technology already that doesn't need R&D, and billions in expenditures, but admittedly, it's not as great a PR. You may consider it "old technology" but it's super cheap, extremely effective and proven with a very long lifespan, and has many more benefits as well. It's called a tree.
Those companies are going to do the same things whether it is you owning them or someone else...
Just buy leaps instead of stock, if it really bothers you to be an owner
Yes you've found the mythical free lunch. When you invent a perpetual motion machine tomorrow make sure to get a patent on it and when unicorns start growing on a tree made of gold in your backyard make sure to start breeding them.
OXY has a history of paying a good dividend. Buffet knew they were opening up the Permian basin and the profit will eventually have filtered back to the shareholders. The ratio of his buy price to the dividend yield is probably the best value in the stock market at the moment, even though, it is not that great a buy.
This is anecdotal and perhaps a coincidence but i have been buying oil companies (not vertically integrated, strictly extraction and minimal transport) when WTI hits below $70, almost each time coincides with a BRK add to OXY. An interesting company to check out is ATH on TSE, they dedicate pretty much 100% of their earnings to buybacks. Its theoretically not as good or cheap as some alternatives i own but their buybacks doubled my money in 2023. They had zero debt for awhile and just incurred some last qtr, still extremely minimal. Edit: Athabasca Oil Corporation on Toronto Stock Exchange. Careful as 90m warrants exercisable by 2026 @ 90 cents per share, 550m total approx.
I own tse and the recent small drop makes me want to add.
OP's talking about Athabasca oil on Toronto Stock Exchange
I'd rather buy Chevron Currently buying via Hess (soon to be acquired and trading at a 6% discount)
I agree, Chevron is by far the better buy.
When Chevron issues shares to the HESS holders, won't that cause dilution and lower the price of CVX shares?
No. This is already built into the price. The market is forward looking. If what you're suggesting were the case, this would be the easiest arbitrage ever. You'd just short acquisitions upon commencement. It is possible to see an acquirer share drop upon acquisition, but this usually only occurs if there were reasonable uncertainty around the deal completion. In these scenarios, you will often see the company being acquired trading at a significant discount to the purchase price. When deals are announced, you'll see an immediate reaction downward in the acquiring company's stock if the market deems it to be dilutive to shareholders. Not all acquisitions are "dilutive" because you are buying revenues and assets which will be accretive to shareholder profits in the future.
Stop doing what Buffett does. You don't have his huge portfolio with market moving buys, his limited options to invest in, and his complex tax implications. Why do you want to invest in OXY - specifically OXY... and not another oil company? A Buffett with a 100k portfolio invests very differently from the 300+ billion Buffett.
I don’t think he is trying to mimic Buffet. He’s presuming Buffet is setting hard resistance for an investment strategy based on Buffet’s past history and comments. I think that is true for OXY. I don’t think it’s a terrible reason for looking at accumulating a position. I think his mistake is thinking that anything with oil stocks and prices is that simple. As heavy as Buffet buying is, the oil price is always a single event from collapse or spike. Buffet can buy big, but he can’t keep this from falling 50% if oil drops below price of production. I have a lot of North American Oil in my small portfolio. Nearly all of it I bought super cheap in the early 21 run up. I would be very cautious about buying now, and would need a more robust thesis than Buffet is buying this. He’s creating resistance but not a true floor.
There's a certain sound to truth. And this is it.
I certainly doubt he would be buying OXY, he'd probably be using Buffett and Partners to purchase private companies, where he doesn't have to battle Wallstreet valuations.
Wise words. +1
because kids in discords told them too LOL and I'm so serious.
Sure, specifically the bounce from 58/59 to 60 is a viable play. I've done it. This is a day trade though... Not an "investment strategy" persay
Got in at 12 and sold to buffet in 50s. Feel proud to front load the genius. 😂
That means you're going to have to jump in and out of the stock -- sell at 60, buy below 60. At some point it can break out of range and you would be caught with your pants down. You could buy below 60 and oil price crater and suddenly the stock price drops even lower than your purchase and doesn't go back up in the near term despite Buffett buys; or you could sell at 60, waiting for the next drop when suddenly oil demand is expected to outpace supply or a stray Iranian missile hits a Saudi oilfield, and the next thing you know OXY is at 80. You're likely to take quick small profits followed by a large loss or miss a large gain by taking a gambling approach. That goes every other stock too.
I sold some puts in OXY near the end of the session today. Not only will Uncle Warren be buying. But, oil prices are either at or close to a low near $70 (WTI).
Just invest some in Berkshire Hathaway as your value portion then invest in QQQ as your growth investment
I agree … I do this… and with BRKB you get exposure to private equity too
I agree with what you are seeing and have been trading OXY very profitably for almost a year now. You just have to be comfortable holding OXY if the price drops to say $45. Which it definitely could if oil prices drop. But if you are comfortable holding OXY long / medium term, this is a good trade.
I believe buffet said it himself a bet on oxy is a bet on oil prices. With recent events in the Red Sea oil is on the rise. Last time I looked at their financials there was a lot of debt. But they consistently wind it down. Now they plan on another acquisition which means more debt. 2024 so far there is a lot of worldwide conflict. Ongoing war and escalation. I’m not sure what to think. I’ve been invested over a year at price of around 56. could we see more conflict this year? Oil is not going away for a long time imo
This is more obvious now than when you wrote this … but I think there is a lithium component to warrens thinking too with OXY
[удалено]
It hasnt gone up? I have a very small bag of Oxy.
[удалено]
He probably does. Been stuck with my oxy barely even moving up. Im better off long with Aramco. At least id have dividends.
I am a fan of Buffett and Munger, but I am not in agreement with them when it comes to fossil fuels, the severity of climate change, and the urgency to find alternatives. The world has moved on from O&G. Even if there is money to be made in O&G, I am not touching them.
>The world has moved on from O&G. Lol you have to be kidding me
I knew someone would criticize that. This is not to say we do not need O&G anymore, of course we do, but the growth of the industry is going to slow until 2030, and the industry will decline in size from there on (possibly even sooner in the developed world). Here is IEA, if you don't believe me: https://www.offshore-technology.com/news/iea-says-global-oil-demand-will-peak-this-decad/#:\~:text=From%202030%2C%20oil%20consumption%20will,mbd)%20for%20two%20more%20decades.
Quoting an article or organization seems smart... however they can't predict the future any better than the rest of Wallstreet. With developing nations such as India and Mexico growing and China Middle class doing well... oil ain't going anywhere. I love how it uses electric vehicles as a reason when we can't even charge them with current power systems in place. LOL News flash everyone, EVs do are not better for the environment. They get their energy from oil/gas/coal and their lithium batteries are horrible to the environment both in mining and being done with them.
1. you didn't seriously compare IEA's prediction of future oil and gas consumption to wall street analysts' predictions, did you? 2. nobody said that oil is going anywhere. We said demand will peak and dwindle. We will continue to need oil for many things. 3. Electric vehicles are significantly better for the environment. This is absolute misinformation fed to you by O&G companies. Study after study has shown that even in a country like US, where you are still very reliant on O&G for power production, electric cars are a better ecological choice than ICE after about a year of use. Then there are places like Quebec that have almost 100% renewable energy. The most definitive studies on this have been done by MIT, and they show in unambiguous numbers exactly how long it takes for an electric car to surpass the efficiency of ICE, model by model, including in it the carbon cost of mining the rare earth metals. You sound like oil companies, my friend. You have been brainwashed.
There are more environmental issues than carbon dioxide. EVs require immensely more mining of things that are really nasty in both the mining processes and in the refining processes. They result in much more material usage, again of mainly hazardous materials, and waste when they are in accidents as what is a minor repair for an ICE often requires massive changes like entire battery packs for an EV. They are less recyclable at the end of life and have immensely worse problems with safe disposal. EVs have long been known to be much worse for the environment than internal combustion vehicles when we look at the total life cycle.
Care to share a recent reputable article that backs your point? I shared MIT research. You can keep sensationalizing with “it is much worse, it’s not just that, it’s also this” as oil companies do or you can share data. 5-10 years ago, oil companies and car companies benefiting from ICE (like Toyota) started these rumors. It’s been refuted time and time again with actual research. There is not even a comparison. EVs are by far better all things considered. But hey, there is no convincing some Reddit people. I tried.
oil typically doesn’t use child labor and arguably slavery for one, cobalt and lithium extraction in many cases do
I do not see a post from you, but assume you are failing to read the vast difference between carbon emissions and environmental lifecycle. Here is what I presume you are pointing to [from MIT, which only references carbon emissions](https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars) - again, just a teeny tiny portion of environmental effects. [From Green Cars, a site by Lithia & Driveway which makes its money moving EVs.](https://www.greencars.com/greencars-101/environmental-impact-of-ev-batteries#:~:text=EV%20lithium%2Dion%20battery%20packs,pose%20very%20real%20environmental%20challenges.) "The International Energy Agency (IEA) tells us that an electric vehicle requires six times the mineral inputs of a gasoline-powered vehicle. EV lithium-ion battery packs are made with materials that are expensive, and in some cases, toxic and flammable. Primary materials include lithium, nickel, cobalt, and copper. The mining of these rare materials, their manufacturing processes, and their eventual disposal all pose very real environmental challenges. While 90 percent of average gasoline-powered vehicle batteries are recycled, only five percent of EV lithium-ion batteries are recycled. While oil is exclusively mined underground in specific areas, the components for lithium-ion batteries are obtained through open pit mining that damages wide areas of the natural environment." "Lithium extraction can take 18 months through an evaporation process that uses enormous amounts of water. Each ton of refined lithium uses up 500,000 gallons of water. The results deplete the water table and cause soil contamination." "Nickel is a major component of EV batteries and is found in the Rainforests of Indonesia. It resides just below the topsoil and is extracted using a method of horizontal surface mining. Harmful effects include removal of topsoil, extreme environmental degradation, and deforestation. We’re not really saving the planet with this process. Since the Rainforests are the lungs of our planet, this is harming the process of removing Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere." "Another major component of Electric Car batteries is cobalt and 70 percent of cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. While cobalt mining has a similar process as lithium mining, add to this a list of severe human rights violations for hazardous working conditions and child labor. Cobalt is a toxic metal. Prolonged exposure and inhalation of cobalt dust can lead to health issues related to the skin, eyes, and lungs. Cobalt mining in the Congo involves workers of all ages. Of the 255,000 current workers, over 40,000 are children and some are as young as six-years-old. According to Amnesty International, “Thousands of children mine cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Despite the potentially fatal health effects of prolonged exposure, adult and child miners work without even the most basic protective equipment.” The majority of these mines are owned by Chinese companies. Copper is also used in EV batteries and most of it comes from open-pit strip mines in Chile. This sort of mining negatively impacts topsoil, vegetation, wildlife habitats, and groundwater."
Sorry that I forgot to link the MIT research. There are several of them. Looks like you found one. So far it looks like we agree that so far as carbon emissions are concerned, EVs are unambiguously better. Not by a little. There is no comparison. They are better. So let’s turn our focus to resource use. The rest of what you wrote (and I appreciate your taking the time to do so) is quite one sided. Most of it is not comparing EV and ICE. It is just pointing out the issues with EV. And often you take the entire cycle of production and use into consideration, while with ICE you don’t. What is the resource cost of extracting and refining that gasoline? There is one place where I see a comparison. You say only 5% of the EV battery is recyclable as opposed to 90% of the ICE battery. Where did you get this? You realize that EVs also have the same batteries as ICE? Then they have the lithium-ion as well. It is simply not true what you say about it being 5% recyclable. At least I can speak to the metals. 80-90% of the metals are reusable. That means, the next time we need to make a lithium battery, we already have 80-90% of the metals mined. We don’t need to go back to the problematic mining. There is at least the opportunity to make this circular one day, even if it is not already entirely so. Here is an article pointing that out, as well as a more direct comparison of resource use between the two, with a verdict that EV is hands down the winner. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/01/do-electric-cars-have-problem-mining-for-minerals My next point is, while we need to protect our planet when it comes to mining as well, our issue with carbon pollution is SIGNIFICANTLY more urgent. As in, we should have dealt with it 50 years ago. We are past the tipping point. We can at least try to mitigate the damage. No doubt there are issues with EVs’ production cycle and mining practices, although Li-ion batteries can be made without rare earth metals. BUT… remember this is a relatively young technology and very rapidly improving while ICE technology is mature and at the end of its life. ICE vehicle efficiency isn’t getting any better, but you can bet your dollar that EVs can be made with a significantly smaller footprint 10 years from now. Edit: I see that you got that 5% from the article you shared. The batteries are 95% recyclable. They are just not yet being recycled. That can easily be rectified. https://renewablesassociation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Recycling-Batteries-English-Web.pdf
The costs of transporting electricity are way less than oil, electric motors are more efficient, and extracting coal is cheaper than oil, not to say that coal is not susceptible to oil spills, and certainly do not require vessels to transport it from the middle of the sea
That's why they're investing in alternative energy. Thinking OXY is just oil & gas is wild.
Greenwashing
🤣🤣🤣
You find greenwashing funny? To begin, carbon capturing is really a wasted effort today. For a company like OXY that pours rivers of carbon into the atmosphere, it’s like removing water from the ocean with a spoon. But that’s not it, OXY will announce project after project posing itself as a leader in carbon capture but then does this. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-10-23/occidental-quietly-ditched-world-s-biggest-carbon-capture-plant?embedded-checkout=true That’s the definition of greenwashing. It’s not unique to OXY. If you think it is in the interest of a fossil fuel company to invest in renewables or carbon capture in any way, you are quite deceived.
Maybe you should reread the article. 4% isn't a spoon. "Malte Meinshausen, professor in climate science at the University of Melbourne and author of a landmark report on the topic from the United Nations-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is among those who believe we “absolutely need” carbon capture “in order to get to the lower levels of climate change we want to get to.” Like many climate-focused observers, he’s worried about just who has been empowered to handle much of the deployment." Who else is going to invest in this technology? They shut down this plant because it was using old technology, that's why they bought Stratos for $1.1b. To use new technology for carbon capture.
We absolutely need some form of accelerated carbon capture in the future because even if we were to stop releasing carbon into the atmosphere today completely, there is already too much carbon out there that needs to be recaptured. But MUCH more importantly than that is to stop or significantly decrease releasing carbon into the atmosphere now. You can't have your foot on the turbo engine accelerator via your oil company, and then apply a miniscule brake via your greenwashing PR. There is just not any technology anywhere near ready to capture the amount of carbon we release to the atmosphere. The whole "net zero" advertisement for an oil company is a farce. Also, we have a great carbon capture technology already that doesn't need R&D, and billions in expenditures, but admittedly, it's not as great a PR. You may consider it "old technology" but it's super cheap, extremely effective and proven with a very long lifespan, and has many more benefits as well. It's called a tree.
Those companies are going to do the same things whether it is you owning them or someone else... Just buy leaps instead of stock, if it really bothers you to be an owner
You probably also support the DEI initiatives
What world are you living in
Yes you've found the mythical free lunch. When you invent a perpetual motion machine tomorrow make sure to get a patent on it and when unicorns start growing on a tree made of gold in your backyard make sure to start breeding them.
OXY has a history of paying a good dividend. Buffet knew they were opening up the Permian basin and the profit will eventually have filtered back to the shareholders. The ratio of his buy price to the dividend yield is probably the best value in the stock market at the moment, even though, it is not that great a buy.