Just a brief update here. I did participate in the API conference call last night. I asked the first question, the last question, and the most questions. I will report on the call in more detail when the transcript comes out, but for now several people have already written up brief essays on it:
Mark Gongloff at the Wall Street Journal
John Gartner at Wired
Tom Fowler at the Houston Chronicle
The podcast and transcript should be posted here (today or tomorrow, I am told) and then I will pull out my questions and answers and post them, as well as my impressions. I may also update this before the transcript comes out, but I need to rest my eyes first. It’s been a long 24 hours.
Author: Robert Rapier
Robert Rapier is a seasoned chemical engineer with three decades of international experience in the energy sector. He holds undergraduate degrees in chemistry and mathematics, and a master’s in chemical engineering. Robert has worked extensively in oil refining, production, synthetic fuels, biomass energy, and alcohol production, earning several patents along the way. As Editor-in-Chief of Shale Magazine and a prolific author for Investing Daily, he shares his expertise through various newsletters and his latest book, American Energy: A History of Power, Progress, and Change. Robert's insights have been featured on 60 Minutes, The History Channel, CNBC, and PBS, among others. His articles have appeared in top publications like the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and The Economist. For nearly a decade, he has covered the energy sector for Forbes.
View all posts by Robert Rapier
Robert – I read the transcript of the API conference call. It was interesting that the environmental bloggers didn’t really ask many questions. I’ve also searched their respective blogs. None of them have written about the conference call.
To environmentalists, Red Cavaney must seem like satan himself. Yet when they have the opportunity to directly talk with him they essentially blow it off.
Reading the transcript of both API conference calls, API comes off looking very credible. This seems to mirror my own experience with public permitting meetings. We go out of our way to be courteous and respectful to the envirnomental NGOs and will meet with them one-on-one and try to discuss issues in a civil manner.
Then when it comes time for the public meeting or speaking with reporters the environmentalists say vile things about us. Sometimes they just make stuff up. We hear back from the NGO member meetings, there it is even worse.
I am beginning to think that the environmental movement is just a giant echo chamber where facts and reality don’t matter but how people “feel” about issues or their intentions is the important thing. It is a movement that values symbolism over substance. It makes me question whether engaging the other side, like API attempted to do, will make a difference.
I’ve also searched their respective blogs. None of them have written about the conference call.
Treehugger now has something up on it:
Treehugger on API Call
Ok, that went up shortly after my post. He spelled “Cavaney” wrong.
He also misrepresents API’s position on climate change. He says that API has “warmly embraced the scientific consensus”. I think he is imprinting his own views on API. I’ve seen the same thing with the ConocoPhillips announcement last week.