very happy to be quoted, warmly & accurately, by @climatemegan in this excellent analysis of the current state of the oil market and prospects for managed decline. i do want to elaborate on one quote in particular, however.. https://twitter.com/ClimateHome/status/1260623476400029696

when i say climate folks should not have an 'entirely antagonistic' relationship with the oil industry, that is not because i'm trying to excuse a history that includes some 50 years of climate denial - or, indeed, 50 years of neocolonial exploitation before that.

to the contrary. the history of the industry demonstrates it will never cede an inch without a fight. the recent announcement by some majors that they will be carbon neutral by 2050 is reminiscent of nothing so much as the old arguments about oil companies 'concession' contracts.

shell, bp, exxon & others all used to have concessions that gave them ownership and control of developing country oil for 40 or 50 or 60 years. for *decades*, they insisted that sanctity of contract made those contracts untouchable. a strategy of denial, if you will.

when it became impossible to deny that sovereign governments were empowered to change a contract's terms, the oil companies pivoted: any changes had to be agreed between government and company; a govt couldn't just legislate the changes. and contracts would still run to expiry.

eventually, of course, developing country governments realized that this, too, was obfuscatory bullshit. not only did they legislate changes to the concessions - they nationalized entire industries.

but. the oil companies VERY SUCCESSFULLY DELAYED THIS OUTCOME FOR DECADES. how?

a big part of it was ignorance. they kept developing country govts in the dark about everything they could: how much oil was actually in the ground; how you ran a refinery; how you sold oil. before they could take over the industry, govts literally had to pry this knowledge loose

oil companies finally (finally!) acknowledging they need to become carbon neutral = the pivot to accepting that *maybe* concession contracts could be altered - but that changes could only happen with the companies' consent, on their timeframe, and with them still in control.

2050 is a reeediculous timeframe for eliminating the oil industry. it needs to happen twice that fast. and it could. but not with the current leadership. which brings me to the point: if climate folks really want to see the end of the industry on the timescale required..

they're gonna have to be ready to run it.

as soon as possible.

@GaraviniG's recent (2019), excellent 'The Rise and Fall of OPEC in the Twentieth Century' is a great place to start. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-rise-and-fall-of-opec-in-the-twentieth-century-9780198832836?cc=nz&lang=en&