Del

It's not morally wrong, but career-wise if you have no personal interest in the space, energy isn't exactly the easiest vertical to lateral out of either. I'd do a search on here for Houston IB, there have been some interesting discussions about the future of energy IB.

It's possible to do 1 year in O&G and then move to a similar vertical (think power, infra, industrials) and if that's your way into banking it might be worth it

Careerwise that's a personal choice but from a macro allocation of capital standpoint, it's morally wrong to NOT invest in oil & gas, unless you want to utterly destroy the middle class. We're a bit more insulated in the US but Europe is taking a huge beating because they outsourced their energy policy to an autistic teenage girl. The best thing that could lift Africa out of poverty would be mass investments into fossil fuel power to allow for industrialization.

It's funny because they ended up making the environment even worse in the process. They got rid of nuclear for "environmental" reasons even thought it has no emissions, to now bring back coal (!!!) because Russia turned off their gas.

Forms of energy change and in the early 20th century a big form of energy was working animals, so we can fund whatever comes next also, but anyone saying just outright stop investing in oil & gas is either naive or a bad faith actor.

Hahaha get Bodied lib

Rather work with my guys than some dweeb in consumer. O&G most based.

On a serious note, as others have mentioned, no way we “transition” to a cleaner energy source without further investment into O&G. This net zero carbon bs is a hoax pushed by politicians to appeal to liberals. In reality, there’s multiple decades left before there is a clean energy source that can be produced at mass scale and is economically viable for the consumer. And if you work at a good bank, you’ll be on mandates that are contributing to the development and transition to an alternative energy source, if that helps you sleep at night.

People shit on our industry all the time, especially on this app, but at the end of the day we’re working with real assets that have a global impact. Very sweaty coverage group though, and Houston is hot asfff

Honestly I don't understand this whole morally wrong thing - let’s you are holier-than-thou and use EV rather than a normal car. Where do you think the electricity comes from? Where do you all the plastic required to build the car comes from?

O&G will always be prevalent in our life - we need to accept it and find an alternative solution rather than pushing on this EV/ESG nonsense.

If you need to make a thread on here and get every energy banker hype’d up. Then it for sure is to you. Look at the responses on here, energy is very black/white these days forget having an “interest” these are your fellow colleagues possibly.

The reality is proof of the pudding is in the middle. Without a massive investment and expansion of renewables all the folks on this thread would not have the rosy outlooks their jobs do today. Difference between Vivek and Trump, is Trump knew growing all forms of energy was needed (wind gen exploded under him). Vivek says whatever sounds cool on TV.

can matter be right or wrong? it can't, the physical non-human things that surround us can't be labeled as moral or not, so you're asking about the morality behind those that work in OG finance, but then, one must understand that morality is a consequential thing that is judged by the intention of the driver of the actions i.e. the person. Morality, then, is concerned with one's intention, and not actions, because an accident can't be moral or not, but one's actions consequential to his intention can be morally analyzed. But then, what moral path do we choose? Results or the means? Results, intentionally pursued, can only be moral if it has a good impact, but in such a case we leave out the freedom aspect of one's thoughts. Is he really 100% free to opt not to pursue an action? He isn't. The reality of a job is that you'll never be 100% free to decide about your actions, so the only thing that matters is the "means" path of one's performing this job. Then, the motivation that lies behind his action, and the results of that motivation, is the only thing that matters. His motivation, in order of priority, aren't related to impact the environmental through the decisions he takes on his job, but about some of his primal needs that can't be satisfied otherwise if one doesn't adhere to the reality of a capitalist society: competition, job market, services requested by capitalists, etc. His motivation isn't tied to the consequences of his actions because he doesn't has freedom of choice, he's constrained to do certain things because of more superior human needs such as love, eating, sleeping, taking care of their family, etc. that can't be otherwise achieved if he doesn't dispose of capital.

philosophical questions require philosophical answers, and I cut it here just because I got tired of it, not because I covered it all

It's not a mere coincidence that the most impoverished nations with the worst quality of life and shortest life expectancies lack cheap access to stable energy sources... put differently, arguably the number one pre-requisite for a high standard of living (and a consequently prospering society) is affordable and constant access to energy. I think because the standard of life in America is so abundantly high, we lose sight of the most basic things and forget that our standards are not the norm - not globally and not throughout most of human history. That's why, at least the past few centuries (honestly probably more), there's been a pretty distinct connection between energy and power/money. And objectively, no source of energy has been as affordable / constant as oil and gas. Even a lot of "renewables" technologies are dependent on oil and gas products lmao (like how is plastic made for EVs?? woop it's a petroleum project, shocking! or how is electricity generated?) and really no other energy source is produced enough / store-able enough to keep up with our demand levels. Soooo is it immoral to want a high quality of life? I don't believe so lol. That said, you could argue that oil and gas is a finite resource and that we need new ways to generate energy, I think that's true and fair and it'd be great to have innovation in the space, but at the same time, totally criminalizing oil and gas is fake news nonsense that younger generations are being brainwashed with

Morally wrong? Ask the Sackler family about that

it was morally wrong of you to kill my brain cells with this question. 

points for self-awareness with your name though 

I don’t think so. Renewables are a big trend now and energy banking will likely shift to that. Power is often from electric sources. And this will keep going up in the future

It’s not morally wrong but enjoy being fired every 5 years when oil and gas bottoms out. Worst industry group ever and it nearly tanked my career 

Fossil fuels are the cleanest and most efficient energy source currently known to man in application. Learn more before you start the moral crusade.

only if you have a very warped sense of morality. 

I'm just gonna say it

Something like "no net carbon by 2050", something that big of a move should have more debate and discussion around it, not just made up by some unelected academics and NGOs. I never voted on a campaign where someone took a stand on no net carbon by 2050. Did you? Stuff like this should have more public discussion and not just hey we're doing this, deal with it

Particularly when pretty much all of the claims of the hardcore environmental crowd have been wrong. Greta said the world was supposed to end...(checks notes) 2 months ago. We had 5 years to stop the climate disaster, or something, back in 2018. If the world ends, it's been nice knowing you all!

dumbape1

As someone who loves to hike/backpack and explore the outdoors is it morally wrong to join an O&G team and will I be stuck in that type of industry for the rest of my career?

Oil and gas is a changing industry with huge focus by EU majors in particular on energy transition, renewables, green fuels and the “greener” LNG and move away from crude/Brent oil. US is similar but to a lesser extent. Oil majors are also becoming increasingly efficient in there operations and so I think working in m&a in this area is by no means bad at all. All tho there are some really bad oil companies that still exist such as Aramco and Exxon who seem to give no fucks at all about energy transition.

thanks for sharing the great information

There are "moral" challenges to every industry. Would you second guess tech for the way they deal in our personal data, lie to the public and all the other shady shit? Industrials because they pollute? The list goes on.

When you're older, wiser, and have more credibility, you can find your professional niche that aligns with your moral compass. But as a young'un, you say no to a staffing because of "ethics", that's not going to end well.

Fwiw, there are far better reasons to skip energy banking - cyclicality, limited transferable skills, the shitholes you have to work in. 

"In the propensity-score-weighted (p-weighted) model, which is our preferred specification, gaining access to electricity is associated with a 10.7 percentage point increase in the overall empowerment index. It is also associated with a 4.6 percentage point increase for decision-making, 10 percentage point increase for mobility, 6.9 percentage point increase for financial autonomy, 2.7 percentage point increase for reproductive freedom, and 8.0 percentage point increase for social participation" - Electrification and Women’s Empowerment by Hussain Samad & Fan Zhang.

Energy is perhaps the most morally permissible sector to be working in