"the latest distillation of cutting edge, conservative peer reviewed science, (peer reviewed science of course being the basis of much of the progress of human civilization over the last few centuries), says the world has 12 years worth of current carbon emissions to be EVER emitted before irreversible tipping points are breached. So, dramatic changes must occur extremely quickly or utter disaster will occur."
Being classically schooled in statistics and the sciences, one of the first things that was drummed into my head is that the degree of accuracy of predictions in the physical world varies with the inverse of the product of the number of determinants affecting that physical world, all raised to some or other exponential power.
And a planet's climate is a highly complex physical system, with a large number of multi-variate influencing factors (most of which are indeterminate and many more are likely to be unknown).
So when I hear someone cite a prediction, accurate to a single year point-in-time (in this year, 12 years), for a chaotic, multi-variate, physical system like the climate, then that is no outworking of "cutting edge, peer-reviewed science".
Rather, it is BS.
Because the denominator - which comprises of a multitude of factors - in the prediction accuracy function when there are many influencing variables is large. Very large.
Which means the accuracy of any such predictions are low. Very low.
Truly credible scientific research would never involve the sort of hubris which presumes to be able to make such precise predictions about the climate.
"One of the reasons I'm happy to invest in hzn is because they seem ok with running down existing assets and not developing new ones. To develop new oil fields would put us at serious risk of ending up with stranded assets, or at least much less profitable ones..."
I detect a bit of a forked tongue here; you claim to be invested in a company which is in run-off mode, yet it is public knowledge that the company is in the midst of the development which will increase oil output by 1.4 mb pa.
Moreover, HZN management is on the record as saying that it will continue to look for attractive investment opportunities to expand production organically.
So the very reason you claim forms the basis for your investment, is opposite to the stated strategy of the company.
As for your alarmist, "serious risk of ending up with stranded assets", that's what's known in online discussion circles as unadulterated, hyperbolic bunkum.
For the IEA - the pre-eminent agency your yourself cite - predicts total global demand for oil to rise by a significant 177 mboe between 2019 and 2030
Why, even OPEC - which has absolutely zero interest in talking up the long-term demand prospects for oil (quite the opposite, really) - expects global demand for oil to continue to rise for the next 15 years, and to not decline, thereafter, but to plateau for the following decade.
Oil demand in 25 years will be a full 19% higher than it is today, according to OPEC (who as a reminder, have nothing to gain by talking up the prospects for the oil market):
[Source: OPEC World Oil Outlook 2021]
So demand for oil is going to continue rising for decades to come, meaning that any talk about HZN ending up with ...uh... "stranded assets would require the life of those assets to extend out 3 decades.
If I came to learn that HZN was developing an oil field which had 30-years' worth of reserves, I would mortgage my home to buy as many HZN shares as I possibly could.
Trouble is, in that case, the market value of the company would be measured in the tens of billions of dollars, instead of the mere several tens of millions it is today, which highlights the sheer absurdity of your assertion.
Talking about stranded oil assets is little short of laughable; it really is.
.
HZN Price at posting:
9.8¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)