Thread regarding ExxonMobil Corp. layoffs

If your objective is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, then the correct questions to ask are:

1. What can each oil product producer do to be more efficient (in terms of carbon dioxide emissions per unit production) during the production process, and
2. What can oil product customers do to be more efficient (in terms of carbon dioxide emissions per mile, or per ton-mile, or per kWh generated, whatever)

Almost all oil products, such as gasoline, are fungible. And the underlying market is inelastic over the short term.

Trying to influence point 2 by shaming just one of the oil producers in point 1 accomplishes nothing. If ExxonMobil stopped producing tomorrow, everyone in point 2 will simply buy from one of the other oil producers (at perhaps higher prices, but again, demand is inelastic over the short term). These non-ExxonMobil fuels will be consumed in the same piston engines, turbine engines, or boilers that would have burned the ExxonMobil stuff.

Oil product customers base their decisions on procuring and deploying new, more efficient machinery and processes based on a variety of inputs. But even once a customer makes a decision, it could take months or even years to realize the full carbon dioxide savings. At the same time, other oil product producers base their decisions on production levels based on a variety of inputs. It could take weeks or months to change production levels.

In terms of refinery capacity, look at https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/Locations/United-States and add up all the refinery capacity for the refineries shown. (Baton Rouge = 502,500 bbl, Baytown = 584,000 bbl, Beaumont = 366,000 bbl, Billings = 60,000 bbl, Joliet = 250,000, total = 1,762,500 bbl). Then go to https://archive.is/Mdh7c. Gross input to Atmospheric Oil Distillation Units = 13,846,000 bbl, Operating Capacity = 16,943,000 bbl. There is 3,097,000 bbl of extra operable capacity; the loss of ExxonMobil's 1,762,500 bbl will just mean someone else refines that 1,762,500 bbl. Long term there isn't expected to be any net changes in prices; our oil product customers will just pay a bit extra for a few months.

In terms of oil well capacity, there are plenty of oil wells that are currently idled because the market is oversaturated with crude. Owners of those wells can put them back into production once ExxonMobil's wells bow out of the market. Long term there will be a permanent price increase caused by ExxonMobil's departure from the market, but it will not be gigantic.

So lets say on Monday, January 11, 2021 at noon ET, ExxonMobil sends the order: Shut down every well, turn off every refinery. Prices will spike initially short term. But as the new wells come back up, and as the existing non-ExxonMobil refinery capacity handles the shift in demand, prices will soon go down to a slightly elevated level than they would be.

Note that I said "slightly elevated level than they would be." Fuel prices fluctuate naturally. It is entirely possible that February's fuel prices would be below where they were on January 11, 2021 at 11:59 AM. The point is ExxonMobil's news would only makes prices slightly higher than they otherwise would be (or in this case, the price would have been even lower had ExxonMobil stayed in the market).

Oil product customers might change plans as a result, but again it would take months or years to fully deploy a more efficient solution. Compared to a world where ExxonMobil stayed in the market, there would be no change in consumption in February, March, or April. If the overall price trend goes down in spite of ExxonMobil's announcement, it is entirely possible that oil product customers will make no changes.

We've established that in the short term, a decision by ExxonMobil to leave the market will not change demand (and, consequently, oil product customer carbon dioxide emissions). We've established that there is a chance that ExxonMobil's decision could create a long-term change, but only as a function of increased fuel prices. Fuel prices vary anyway, so establishing such a linkage compared to the counterfactual case is misleading.

Based on the above, ExxonMobil can't influence the demand of oil product customers. It can't influence the carbon dioxide emissions of its oil product customers. All it can do is influence which oil product customers will be ExxonMobil's oil product customers. That's great and wonderful, but doesn't actually do any good.

Everything written here is the truth. It remains the truth (albeit an inconvenient one) even if it gets downvoted due to its perceived blasphemy. Take care, y'all.

@4gur+18MqYmI4

Something tells me you're just a disgruntled NSI employee.

@4khf+18MqYmI4, @4ihm+18MqYmI4 This might be beyond your comprehension, but just because you and Exxon think only in the short term and are not concerned about scope3 (or 1 or 2) emissions doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees with you. The arrogance and ignorance will cost Exxon dearly. Do you even know the meaning of scope 3 emissions? Pathetic.

@4khf+18MqYmI4

"The point of the article was to outline, in addition to processing, the impact of the final product."

Yes, the final product. The final product used by ExxonMobil's customers.

It is quite bizarre that you are trying to violently disagree with the points raised earlier by... agreeing.

@3wdj+18MqYmI4

Me thinks you're the ignorant one. The information on the refining /processing is already reported to state agencies. That information is ALREADY public information. The point of the article was to outline, in addition to processing, the impact of the final product.

Funny that you say the ignorance of the employees is what is causing the company to fail. I'd wager it's NSI employees like you that have weighed the company down over the years. Typical exxon style, thinking they are always correct (even when obviously have no clue on the topic and talking from their a–)

Again, the issue here is the emissions of ExxonMobil's customers after ExxonMobil is done with the product.

Yes, ExxonMobil's own emissions during the production of fuels is something ExxonMobil can reduce.

But once ExxonMobil gasoline hits the market, it is essentially like any other gasoline. John Doe's car is still going to put out X kg of carbon dioxide for every 100 km of distance traveled. It makes little difference if that tank of gasoline was refined by ExxonMobil or Shell. In any event, it is out of ExxonMobil's control.

Even better, literally everything I wrote, and the OP's URL, is about customer emissions. I have no idea how someone could read what I wrote and assume I am speaking about ExxonMobil's own, direct emissions. Should I try using smaller words next time?

@3lvf+18MqYmI Your ignorance is staggering. Any scientist or engineer should know that the entire process of production, refining and manufacturing produces emissions, not just the burning of gasoline in cars. Ever heard of the CCS project in Labarge that Exxon put on hold? The intention of that project, had it gone ahead, would have been to capture and sequester CO2 produced along with gas. If Exxon has such ignorant employees, no wonder they're failing.

What the heck?

Fuel demand is inelastic (at least, in the short term). https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=19191

And there is nothing magical about ExxonMobil's gasoline that somehow causes cars to emit more carbon per mile.

Given that fuel demand won't change, and given that none of the alternatives cause customers to somehow emit less carbon for a given level of demand, the thesis in @lns+18MqYmI4 is correct. It is a bit shocking that many ExxonMobil employees can't grasp this; perhaps that is the real reason it is struggling compared to its peers.

@lns+18MqYmI4

If exxonmobil dropped shop tomorrow and didn't provide any fuels and shutdown production/refining, yes there would be a sharp reduction in demand to go along with the sharp hike in prices. Your analogy is just plain wrong.

@lns+18MqYmI4, just because Exxon and you think only in the short term doesn’t mean that everybody else should do the same. You are being illogical. And even in the short term, all sources or suppliers of energy, plastics and other hydrocarbon products do not produce the same emissions per unit.

Wow, the complete lack of logic here is stunning.

To OP: See, those aren't ExxonMobil's emissions. They are its customers. Thought exercise: Lets say that ExxonMobil closes up shop completely tomorrow. All refineries closed, all gas stations closed. Fuel demand is inelastic in the short term, so ExxonMobil's customers today will just be Chevron's customer's tomorrow. Doot doot doot, emissions unchanged.

To the other posters: You are trying to make analogies using things that have elastic demand. What.

@hkl+18MqYmI4
The difference is people who consume sugar and beer make that choice ahole.

@hkl+18MqYmI4
The difference is people who consume sugar and beer make that choice ahole.

@ hkl+18MqYmI4 You’re right. Companies should be allowed to withhold information about the products they sell that people spend money to buy.. the customers should not be allowed to educate themselves and make informed decisions.

Budweiser should report how many of its drinkers of their beer are alcoholics and have developed cirrhosis of the liver!

Morton’s should report on how many people have used their salt and have developed high blood pressure because of it!

Sugar companies need to report on the number of people that have used their product in cookies, pastries, soda, etc and have developed type 2 diabetes because if it.

The only solution is to have the mother state regulate how much each of us can use of all of these products that hurt us or the environment.

Are you with me?!

If not, you are evil and you should be be able to comment online anymore.