New Haven Independent: Conoco Execs Face The Public

Conoco Execs Face The Public

by Bruce Crowder | October 24, 2007 10:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)

Frank%20Panzarella.jpg Almost 100 concerned citizens spent a late October evening in an air-conditioned conference hall lit by 22,000 watts of incandescent light to discuss energy conservation, global warming and fossil fuel dependence. Hmmm, what can be done? Is oil giant ConocoPhillips, which was once ranked as the third most toxic corporation in the U.S., serious about doing what it takes to lead us into a clean, sustainable energy future?

Possibly. Just don’t ask them to turn down the spigot.

In one of a series of “Town Hall Meetings” held around the country, ConocoPhillips organized Tuesday night’s forum at the Omni Hotel. Quinnipiac University cosponsored the event. They invited the New Haven community to pitch questions and share ideas about our energy future.

ConocoPhillips has been saying a lot of things lately that you wouldn’t expect to hear from one of the largest oil companies in the world. Sigmund “Sig” Cornelius, senior vice-president of planning, strategy & corporate affairs, told the crowd that the science is in: “It’s undeniable that the concentration of greenhouse gases in the environment is increasing … We recognize that combustion of fossil fuels contributes to greenhouse gases. We want to be part of the solution.”

To that end, ConocoPhillips has joined the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), which is a coalition of large corporations lobbying the federal governments for caps on man-made greenhouse gas emissions - 80 percent of which are caused by the fossil fuel products that ConocoPhillips sells.

CO2, the primary man-made greenhouse gas, is a fundamental (i.e. unavoidable) product of fossil fuel combustion. So why would an oil company want to actively lobby the government for restrictions on greenhouse gases?

For one thing, they can see the writing on the wall. Sabrina Watkins, manager of environmental technology, said she sees a benefit in getting involved early in order to “help write sound, practical legislation and target the lowest cost opportunities first.” In the European Union, they are already accounting for carbon production and are working a carbon cost model into all new major programs.

Meeting the greenhouse gas caps are where matters get confusing. ConocoPhillips CEO James Mulva has encouraged people to conserve energy, supports raising fuel economy standards and encourages people to “drive less.” How can an oil company face its shareholders after telling the world that we should use less of their products? Posed with this question, Cornelius said he figures “we wouldn’t necessarily reduce output.” Rather than slow down production, the strategy would rely heavily on trapping greenhouse gases underground in a process called “carbon sequestration.” Natural gas was stored this way for millions of years before we found it. The trick is to pull out the fuel, extract the energy, pump the waste back in the hole and then cork it back up.

One major limitation of this strategy is that the emission source needs to be relatively close to the hole. In regions like the Northeast, which is not known for its extensive oil and gas fields, this is not a likely option. Meanwhile, the oil company is spending billions of dollars to increase fossil fuel refining.

The need to increase renewable components of our energy portfolio was a resounding theme throughout the evening. Panelists and audience members alike repeated the need for more biofuels, such as biodiesel, in the nation’s energy portfolio. In response to a question from New Haven State Rep. Robert Megna, Watkins said that Conoco is investing “tens of millions of dollars” on biofuel research and that while biodiesel holds a tiny percentage of the market share, there is “plenty of room for growth.” She also added that it is a matter of “and, not or”, meaning that Conoco sees biofuels and renewables as one part of diverse fuel portfolio.

The evening was a golden opportunity to pose direct questions at oil executives. Participants didn’t let the opportunity pass.

Colin Bennett, a member of the Connecticut Youth Activist Network, called oil the “energy of the past.” He said he came out to see what they have to say. “I’ll listen with an open mind…I’d like to see what steps they’re willing to take to get away from oil.” During the forum, Bennett responded to concerns about the need for reliability in our energy structure by emphasizing the importance of the environmental impact of fossil fuels: “Reliable energy is nice, but I’d like a planet to live on.”

Joseph Crocco, from SCG and CNG, said he was there mainly to listen to public feedback so he could better understand the needs of his company’s natural gas customers.

Frank Panzarella (pictured at the top of the article), from Fight The Hike, criticized the state for not doing enough to support renewable sources. He called the CCEF “window dressing” compared to what we need to invest. Panelist Lisa Dondy, president of the CCEF, agreed, saying that they would love to grow the ratepayer-funded program.

While it is unlikely that all the participants walked away with the same vision for our country’s energy future, it seemed that forum’s goals were achieved to some degree. Representatives from the oil industry, which had recently polled lower in popularity than the tobacco industry, got a chance to have a frank discussion with their customers and critics. Nathan Karnes (pictured) was elated to hear a direct admission from an oil executive that fossil fuels contribute to global warming. Dozens of people discussed their fears, hopes and concerns with our energy options. As panelist Eric Brown of the CBIA put it, “we’ll find answers to these questions, but they’re not going to be easy to find.”

Share this story: digg / newsvine / facebook

Comments

Posted by: charlie | October 24, 2007 11:38 AM

Things don't just change for no reason. Our oil consumption is ridicluous. The U.S.A. uses more oil than the next five greatest oil-consuming countries combined, which are China, Japan, Russia, Germany and India, even though those next five countries have nearly 10 times our population - see http://www.globalfirepower.com/list_oil_consum.asp.

Unfortunately, this situation won't change until the government stops handing out massive subsidies to automobile transit and suburban sprawl (through tax writeoffs for home mortgages, massive highway projects, sprawl-oriented legal systems, and hundreds of other indirect subsidies), and starts investing in a real mass transit system. A few people trying to conserve energy, or a few windmills, honestly isn't going to make any difference at all. It will just cause other people to use more oil.

Unfortunately, we are in a bind, unless our goverment's policy of massively subsidizing cars, oil, and sprawl takes a complete turn. Taxes must be raised on fuels. The government's (state and federal) subsidy of sprawl must end.

Posted by: robn | October 24, 2007 1:10 PM

Biofuel will take food out of the mouths of the poor....as I write this the California dairy industry is imploding because biofuel corn purchasers have driven the price of feed beyond what the industry can support.

Likewise, the science behind carbon sequestration is very weak. The techniques under discussion could cause horrible disasters if the sequestered CO2 is catastrophically released by seismic events or changing ocean conditions.

There are 1.3 trillion barrels of declared oil reserves left, which sounds like a lot, but will be exhausted in our lifetimes. Since we're easily headed towards $100 per barrel in the near future, not counting future price escalation, thats one hundred trillion dollars of projected future income from oil. So my question for you is, do you REALLY think that oil company executives give more of a shit about your grandchildren than they do about their McMansions in Sugarland?

Posted by: Esbe | October 24, 2007 5:48 PM

Corn ethanol is a terrible hoax, as are many bio-fuels. It takes almost as much energy to make ethanol from corn as the ethanol itself produces. As Robn notes, it also drives up the price of food. Further, the typical way corn is grown is very environmentally destructive. To grow it, previously fallow acreage is now being plowed and fertilized, which leads to erosion and polluted run-off.

The Brazilians make sugar cane ethanol, which makes a bit more sense as the cane stocks themselves are burned to create the energy to make the fuel. There is a huge tariff on Brazilian ethanol, however, because otherwise farmers in Iowa would be upset and of course the 2 million farmers in the U.S. get to rule over the remaining 298 milliion of us, that's only natural. Now, if the Brazilians cut down the rain forest to grow more sugar to make the ethanol, then the situation is really terrible.

Posted by: Josiah Brown | October 24, 2007 6:54 PM

For your possible interest, here is the volume of curriculum units that resulted from a seminar on "Renewable Energy" that Gary Brudvig, chair of the Chemistry Department at Yale, led this year for public school teachers:
http://www.teachers.yale.edu/curriculum/index.php?url=http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/nationalcurriculum/units/2007/5/

Posted by: robn | October 24, 2007 8:00 PM

Adding to Esbe's condemnation of ethanol, there has been an environmental disater in southeast asia because biofuel (palm oil) incentives encouraged destruction of rainforests. Not only was there a disadvantage of losing huge carbons sinks (forests are your natural carbon sequestration) but the slash and burn techniques for clearing palm oil plantations blackened the skys over asian nations and measurably added to the greenhouse effect. Biofuel is an environmental dead end. Solar collection with hydrogen as a medium for storage is our only hope. If we don't get cracking with infrastructure that can be developed cheaply with remaining oil, humanity's very small window of opportunity will close.

Posted by: Omnicient | October 25, 2007 7:40 AM

ESBE: I heard CP talk not of corn but corn-stalks for ethanol -- what I assume would otherwise be waste or livestock feed.

It was a very interesting town meeting. CP may be on a public relations tour, but they were giving us real information, not PR spin. Anyone (SCG and CNG)wanting to know some of this community's concerns on energy issues, from Canadian oil sands to CL&P rate increases and inadequate subsidy for solar panels on homes, got an earful Tuesday evening.

Posted by: Nathan Schock | October 25, 2007 9:20 AM

Ethanol is driving up the price of food? What do you think $90 per barrel oil is doing?

Posted by: Bruce | October 25, 2007 10:05 AM

Thanks for the comments.

Robn & ESBE, there may be some danger zones when it comes to biofuels, but that doesn't mean that biofuel is a "dead end". There are a huge variety of feedstocks and manufacturing methods for some of these fuels. Certain algaes that consume CO2, for example, have been successfully harvested to make fuel oil. You don't necessarily need to use food crops nor do you need to burn down rainforests. These are just some poor choices that we are now learning from.

I wouldn't completely rule out Hydrogen as an energy storage medium, but the required infrastructure changes will probably prevent this scenario from ever materializing. I hate always being such a naysayer on this topic, but the technology is not even close to being ready. Notice how you never hear anyone claiming that fuel cell cars are "just around the corner" any more? That's because they're not. We'd be better off using solar directly, though costs are still prohibitively expensive on any meaningful scale. They will find larer markets, but not large-scale power production or transportation.

Biofuels are much more advanced in development and can largely utilize existing infrastructure. They can be phased into our existing fuel supplies in increasing amounts as they grow in production volumes. I think they are a much more likely candidate for renewable fuel solutions than hydrogen, which (in the near term) will be made primarily from fossil fuels anyways.

Posted by: robn | October 25, 2007 12:53 PM

Bruce,

In the short term, the energy industry will take the cheapest, most profitable route to manufacturing any new fuel type.

In the case of hydrogen, you are correct that in the short term it will be produced from fossil fuels, which isn't so good.

In the case of biofuels, it will eat into the food supply, which is really really bad.

In the case of the former, we use existing industry to build an infrastructure that will be in place for a solar supplied future. In the case of the latter, we penalize the poor with rising food prices (with the unmentioned double whammy that all of this food is grown with petroleum derived fertilzer.)

Your assertion that solar costs are too high is extremely incorrect. Added to the cost of a gallon of gasoline is substantial hidden cost...millions of dollar used to clean up after massive spills such as Exxon Valdez..billions of dollars wasted on petroleum related health problems such as cancer and asthma....trillions of dollars of cash and debt for military presence worldwide defending energy resources. Add those in and solar will start sounding cheap.

Posted by: diane wright | October 29, 2007 3:35 PM

Firstly, I appreciate the information about different energy options as there are many out there to consider and it is important for us all to be well informed. I'd like to emphasize what Sabrina Watkins, manager of environmental technology, is quoted as saying in this article. She said concerning using different types of energy, that it is a matter of "and, not or." In otherwords, Conoco sees biofuels and renewables as one part of a diverse fuel portfolio.

Part of that diverse portfolio includes the types of fuels we are using. Another part is what others were mentioning...our laws and social customs that dictate what is used and how much. We need more support, for example, for the Energy Bill that mandates 35 mpg for cars and trucks by 2020. I am working with a coalition that supports this bill and don't think we can underestimate what an important step this is.

Lastly, I'd like to point out that ConocoPhillips is a member of the California Climate Action Registry. This is an organization that companies can join (voluntarily) to register their greenhouse gas emissions. Thank you for this step ConocoPhillips. It makes me believe the things you say when I see action taken.

New Haven Independent

Conoco Execs Face The Public

Comments

Sorry, Comments are closed for this entry

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Legal Notices

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed