Big oil works hard to dodge truths
The World Petroleum Congress is still not ready for the most critical and awkward conversation in the group’s 88-year history.
The membership from 65 member countries, executives from hundreds of oil and petrochemical companies and various hangers-on have found the courage to talk about climate change. They’ve got ideas on reducing greenhouse gases and capturing carbon to achieve the Paris Accords’ goal of net-zero emissions.
But executives from Exxon, Aramco, Chevron and Equinor will also lay out plans for megaprojects capable of producing billions of barrels over decades. Refiners will explain how they will reduce pollution and waste while delivering even more products.
The industry’s most talented propagandists will offer advice on burnishing petroleum’s image as resentment toward fossil fuels grows.
What is not on the official program, but fills the nightmares of those in attendance, is how to manage the industry’s contraction. Which companies will provide the petroleum products the planet will always need, and who will abandon the field and offer clean energy to meet growing demand?
Undoubtedly, the world will always need to extract and refine oil and natural gas to maintain our standard of living. But we burn most of our fossil fuels, which has raised the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Higher CO2 equates to higher temperatures, which means a changing climate, and not in a good way. We cannot burn as much oil and gas as we do today and maintain life on Earth, and if we stop combusting it, we will obviously need less of it. That is the critical conversation that is not on the congress agenda.
CEOS and ministers from petrostates will instead spend four days in Houston talking about the industry’s cleverness in the face of a planetary crisis.
One fierce debate will be the merits of offshore wells that produce millions of barrels over decades in comparison to nimble shale wells that produce tens of thousands of barrels over just a few years. The former costs billions, the latter millions. One
is a gamble on the future, the other a response to the present.
Expect corporate executives to brag about reducing the amount of carbon emitted per unit of energy produced. Experts will also talk about capturing carbon, whether at the refinery or the power plant, and sequestering it underground.
Here’s the dirty little secret, though, about both efforts. Reducing carbon intensity is good but doesn’t necessarily lead to a reduction in total emissions. Capturing carbon is expensive, and so far, capturing energy from the wind and the sun is a lot cheaper than burning fossil fuels with a capture system.
Petrochemical companies will talk about how they make modern life possible. They make plastics for health care, construction and packaging, and all of us rely on petrochemicals for pharmaceuticals, house paint, varnish, cosmetics and anything derived from chemicals.
Spend an hour spent walking through a public park or along a beach, though, and you see the problem with plastic. Consumers do a lousy job of controlling plastic pollution. In Kenya, we joked the plastic bag was the national bird because one was caught in every acacia tree in the country.
Microplastics, though, are the real concern. These are the tiny specs of petrochemicals that are so small we don’t notice them in our food and water. Public health officials are worried about microplastics building up in our bodies and the harm they will cause in the long run.
Global campaigns are underway to mandate reduction of the amount of oil and natural gas we burn for energy and transportation. There is a worldwide movement to reduce plastic use and to adopt alternatives to petrochemicals wherever possible.
Environmentalists, who are conspicuously absent from the congress’ marquee panels, are set on achieving peak oil and gas demand in this decade.
Their goal is to start reducing consumption by 2030 and reach net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.
The organizers behind this week’s congress in Houston, held every three years, have a different agenda.
They say their objects are “the promotion, for the benefit of the public, of the sustainable supply and efficient use of oil, gas and other energy resources.” But while their program is rich with conversation about efficiency, they fail when it comes to talking about sustainability.
Most people taking the stage make their fortunes by peddling oil and gas, and they are primarily interested in attracting investment and expanding their businesses.
They don’t want to discuss winding down their industry, even if that is the only sustainable and efficient future for the planet.