Familiar refrains from some fossil fossils

Big Energy promotes Big Energy at Houston energy conference

Posted by Josh Dorner (Guest Contributor) at 9:37 PM on 28 Feb 2008

Read more about: energy | oil | oil and gas drilling | Texas

Today's first panel focused on "supply-side solutions" and featured quite a line-up:

Dana Flanders, President, Chevron Technology Ventures
James Hackett, Chairman, President, and CEO, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Thad Hill, Executive Vice President and President, NRG Texas
Robert Kelly, Founding Director, DKRW Energy LLC
Aubrey McClendon, Chairman of the Board, CEO and Director, Chesapeake Energy Corporation

This being a veritable who's who of the old energy economy, I was interested to see what they would say when among friends, as it were.

While it started out positive, with Chevron's Flanders citing efficiency ("a barrel saved is a barrel found") as the most promising new technology, things went downhill quickly as the discussion turned to the promise of oil shale and other unconventional fossil fuels like tar sands and liquid coal.

For his part, NRG's Hill repeated the talking points the nuclear industry is aggressively pushing these days. He referred to the nuclear waste issue as "not that big of a problem" and cited politics as the only real obstacle. Somehow I think the people of Nevada might disagree. And despite shockingly serious recent incidents in Japan and here in the U.S. at the Davis Besse facility in Ohio, Hall claims that nukes have had a "phenomenal safety record."

The most interesting -- and perhaps telling -- comments came from the head of Anadarko, one of the biggest oil exploration companies in the world. After some platitudes around environmentalism in regards to more drilling, particularly in the Arctic Refuge, he went on the attack.

Apparently, widespread opposition to drilling in the Arctic is based merely on "soundbites" about "snow-capped peaks" from "California environmentalists" (check!) who "control parts of the media" (I wish!). Arctic drilling is "just not that big of a deal" because of the industry's ability to drill without negative environmental impacts, as demonstrated by its "unblemished record" following the 2005 hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, he added.

(If at least 44 spills following Katrina -- "ranging in size from several hundred gallons to nearly 4 million gallons" and equal in size to 2/3 of the oil released from the Exxon Valdez -- is not a blemish, I'd hate to know what is.)

The panel ended with some interesting remarks from the CEO of Chesapeake Energy (a natural gas company that is an outspoken foe of coal). As gas prices remain on a seemingly inexorable march toward a new record -- with The New York Times reporting this week on $4 gas to come, and the toll high prices are taking on families -- McClendon said "it's not expensive relative to other things" and challenged people to "find [him] a liquid at 7-11 that costs less than gasoline."

For story: Familiar refrains from some fossil fossils
4 Comments | Post a Comment

The ANWR is a line in the sand. It's symbolic.

If we can't stop the exploitation of a "National Wildlife Refuge," what are the odds we have what it takes to stop global warming?

Nuclear waste probably isn't the biggest problem. Proliferation and the mining of nuclear fuel may be bigger. The cost of fuel will rise with demand as will the amount of mining, and it isn't any more renewable than oil. It should not be deployed without proven technology that fixes the fuel and proliferation problems.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 8:16 AM on 29 Feb 2008

It's the 1002 Stupid!

A little history lesson is in order. The 1002 area of 1.5 million acres on the coastal plain was set aside as an area for future oil exploration. Without the 1002, it is unlikely that the Alaskans nor many members of Congress would have agreed to setting up ANWR in the first place. Congress ordered and environmental impact study (completed in 1986) that said that environmental damage from drilling would be minimal.

It was after this that the Democrat party renegged on the deal to open the 1002 to exploration. There is oil and gas exploration on 77 of the 567 federally created wildlife refuge, including areas that are MUCH more environmentally sensitive than the 1002, like the Rainey NWR in Louisiana.

The Audobon society and other conservation groups collect royalties from oil and gas exploration on their conservation properties. The industry has worked very responsibly with these groups to ensure that impacts are minimal. An oil company is the largest fee land holder in the state of Louisiana. They are working on deals to grant the surface fee lands to conservation groups while maintaining the mineral rights for development - truly a win-win for both environmentalists and industry.

With 21st century technology there is no reason to believe the 1002 could not be developed responsibly.

by DarthPetrol at 8:55 AM on 29 Feb 2008
[ Parent ]

Need new EIS...

Congress ordered and environmental impact study (completed in 1986)

That was 21 years ago. A bit outdated, don't ya think?

by Tasermons Partner at 9:33 AM on 29 Feb 2008

nuclear power needs massive inputs

of water. we don't have the kind of free water resources laying around anymore to run nuclear. it's a dead issue.

keep it simple. this point is irrefutable, unfixable and clear.

by robertogreen at 9:46 AM on 29 Feb 2008
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.