By Paul Wiseman
“I’ve spent my lifetime on this, 46 years, and this is the worst position I’ve seen us in, in 46 years,” said Mark Stansberry, an oil and gas advocate as well as energy advisor and corporate development strategist. Indeed, it is not hard to find someone bashing oil, natural gas, and coal these days. Airwaves and social media are awash with factoid snippets on energy, often exaggerated or out of context. But finding the truth, or at least a more balanced approach, seems to be increasingly difficult. The question arises, what can the oil and gas industry do to improve its image, to get a more balanced view? Or what can be done to at least start a rational discussion of the benefits fossil fuel energy brings to everyone?
On the other hand, the question arises as to whether there are some things the industry could indeed do to improve its environmental and social footprint. These and others are questions addressed by three men who have spent years working against misinformation and opposition regarding the industry.
Along with Stansberry, the Permian Basin Petroleum Association (PBPA) has long been at the forefront defending independent operators, led by its president, Ben Shepperd, who has been at the helm of PBPA since 2006 and worked diligently to promote the industry’s broad interests in the largest operating basin and one of the oldest. The industry is also supported by Tom Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research and the American Energy Alliance.
To counter the often vitriolic and unfounded industry criticism, Stansberry noted, oil and gas advocates cannot emulate the methods of their antagonists. “It’s important for us to come across authentically. If we come across authentically, it’s much better. And I think most of our industry does that. But I find that those who are opposed are just opposed. A lot of it’s without reason.”
All three emphasized the importance of being more vocal about oil and gas’s societal benefits, along with how it provides energy security, and the fact that the U.S. oil and gas industry is much cleaner than its counterparts in almost any other country.
To that point, Pyle pointed out, “It’s not just smokestacks and gas tanks. It’s smartphones and pharmaceuticals and chewing gum and cosmetics and life-saving plastics that are in hospitals. It’s vaccines, it’s refrigeration.” Oil and gas and its derivatives such as plastic have “revolutionized the world, and have created an environment where we live longer, we’re smarter, we’re better educated. By and large the bottom line is, without these resources, we would not have the lifestyle that we have now.”
“In fact,” he continued, “if you took away everything in a room that was made from oil and gas, we would be pretty much wearing fig leaves and fanning ourselves with bamboo.”
To uphold the rightful place of oil and gas in people’s lives, it is necessary to be pro-active in the public square, and educate all sides, according to PBPA’s Shepperd.
“Our industry has an important obligation to educate and inform the public, lawmakers, and others about the vital importance of what the women and men in our industry provide to the world. PBPA has led in creating reports of the economic and lifestyle benefits that can only exist because of oil and gas exploration across Texas and New Mexico.” says Shepperd.
For Stansberry, authentic engagement is key toward overcoming the sound bite mentality of current media. “What we found was the messages are very short and brief anymore and you see that in the media, you get a 30 second, or two minute, news information sound bite. And that’s what you go by,” but it’s far from the whole story.
In past days Stansberry toured the U. S. debating energy policy, but finds that harder to do now because few opponents want to engage, preferring to repeatedly quote their own message.
Much of this messaging is funded by what Pyle called the green industry, or “Big Green, Inc.” He cited research showing that 17 “left-leaning organizations… have funneled over $5 billion worth of green into thousands of environmental groups, in a five-year span.” He believes their only goal is to shut down the oil and gas industry. “That’s a fact, that’s what the oil and gas industry is up against.”
To which Stansberry adds, “If they’re going to shut it down, why do they want to shut it down?” He said he would like to have that kind of debate, one where the two sides can dialogue about the real issues.
The Real Message
While any industry, oil and gas included, can indeed do some things better, Pyle faults oil and gas companies who “take it too far,” to the point of encouraging carbon taxes and other more radical environmental ideas. “Don’t apologize for your industry, don’t shy away from the discussion of the technology that is involved in the industry. And lastly, don’t let the greens control the narrative,” he said.
Oil and gas has a strong story to share, and shouldn’t be shy about it, according to Shepperd.
The efforts or commitment by the oil and gas industry to tackle environmental challenges aren’t new, Shepperd asserts. “The ability of the oil and gas
industry, and in particular the booming Permian Basin, which is responsible for more than half of all oil and gas production in the United States, to produce record oil and gas, while decreasing methane intensity, is unparalleled. The industry has deployed new and innovative technologies and incredible capital focused on environmental development and sustainability.”
PBPA is a proud member of a group of associations and companies that are committed to these efforts, known as the Texas Methane and Flaring Coalition. This organization was founded primarily to address growing concerns about air emissions and has routinely published information showing the measureable decline in both the number of flares as well as the volume of flared gas.
According to the Railroad Commission of Texas in their most recent fiscal report, the total percent of gas flared is .19%, down from a 2.2% high in 2019.
Possibly Open Ears—Undercurrents of Green Backlash Among the Citizenry
In truth, Pyle pointed out, most Americans do not want to pay the higher taxes, utility bills, or vehicle costs likely to be necessary for the energy transition. He cited a recent nationwide survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted by the IEA’s sister organization, The American Energy Alliance, and the Committee to Unleash Prosperity. Done in the first two weeks of May, 2023, it showed “overwhelming rejection” of the idea of paying the cost of fulfilling the government’s green mandates when voters understand “what the practical effects of these policies will be.”
On the question of whether likely voters trusted the Federal government to decide what types of cars should be subsidized or mandated, 70 percent said no. And when asked if they trusted the government to make right decisions on the issues, 68 percent said no.
That’s the tone for issues directly affecting voters. But the question of increasing regulations on the oil industry got more heads nodding, to the tune of 60 percent in favor. Said Pyle: “Because it doesn’t affect them directly, right? At least they don’t think it does, but of course it does.” He adds that it would affect them by potentially raising the price of oil, which would affect everyone.
And to the question of whether energy use taxes should be raised, a resounding 77 percent said no—but when asked if the government should fund more new-tech research, 77 percent thundered their approval—again, spending government money, which appears to be someone else’s.
Then There is Energy Security
“We’re in a battle, a war, economically, at least,” said Stansberry, “with several countries. If we don’t embrace our past in oil and gas—which is also our future—in a big way, after looking at every other option, then we’re in trouble. Because we’re going to need fossil fuels.” They’re needed because they’re required in thousands of products besides fuel, items that are not likely to go away.
Pyle concurred, pointing out that the Russia/Ukraine situation and “the whole thing that’s going on in Europe should be a wake-up call, that we need to have supply chains here, and we don’t have a better supply chain here than in oil and gas.” The irony for him is that the United States is “the richest energy nation in the world—we have more oil and gas under our lands and waters than any other country, including Russia, including Saudi Arabia, if you throw it all together. I argue that’s the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.”
Stansberry, Pyle, and Shepperd are all actively engaged in extolling the benefits of oil and gas and its industry. They encourage everyone to join them in having reasonable discussions about energy and the future.
Paul Wiseman is a freelance energy writer. His email address is fittoprint414@gmail.com.