Life is a journey. I often forget that on a day-to-day basis, as I am a product of the instant gratification generation. I want things to change now, knowing full well that that is not how life or the world works. When my son played Little League, I would try to remind him that the game of baseball is a series of individual events, back- to-back: Each pitch is a different experience and a new opportunity. Just because he swung and missed on the first pitch does not mean that it will happen again. Sure, it is a possibility, but not an inevitability. It is possible to be successful after failure, and this is why uncertainty and risk are not the same thing. I tried to remind him of two things: “What did you learn from your experience?” and, “Live in the moment, but play the long game.”
Taking Stock of the Entire Landscape
As I’ve mentioned previously, there have been many narratives and “facts” that have come and gone in the last five years. What I find interesting is that the discussion around the “energy transition” seems to be in transition. The data and analysis continue to reveal that global demand for energy is not in decline, and the need for more energy becomes more apparent each day. The question is, what should be done?
I believe it is important that AAPG members step forward and lead the discussion regarding all forms of energy and the environment, provide a rational voice to the public and point out that no policy, mandate or solution happens in isolation. All choices regarding what type of energy will power society going forward have benefits and consequences. It is important to understand the impact of those choices and have an honest dialogue about the pros and cons of each (thank you, Hon. Chris Wright, Dr. Scott Tinker and Monika Simões).
We have seen the impact of removing baseload power from the grid in the effort to reduce CO2 emissions, driven by statements of a pending existential crisis and saving the planet. One result has been dramatically higher energy costs that affect everyone. The mantra of “price at the pump” is being displaced by “price at the plug.” The difficulty is that the cost of energy is not always transparent to the end user. Have you looked at your utility bill lately and understood the cause of the increase? When you fill your car with gasoline or CNG, you see the impact. The cost-benefit analysis is immediate, and the consumer can make different choices. In some instances, the choice is whether to buy groceries or pay a utility bill.
These are not the choices we would want anyone to make. We often view the world from our own perspective and believe that everyone should see it as we do. I understand that most people would say this is not the case, yet when it comes to energy policy or discussions around the environment, the tendency has been to focus on one issue in isolation rather than stepping back and taking stock of the entire landscape.
Should AAPG Issue Another Position on Climate?
Over the past month, the Executive Committee has been considering if AAPG should have an updated statement on climate. Is it important or essential? As president, it is my role to listen and ask questions regarding everything that can impact AAPG. I want members to know this is an ongoing discussion and that I am committed to understanding the entire spectrum of views that exist within our organization. I believe this is healthy dialogue and will certainly prompt engagement of our society. Let me provide you with some of my perspective.
In my geoscience career I have spent a lot of time thinking about regional geology. Those of you who have heard me speak from this perspective will appreciate this kind of approach. I was fortunate to learn the value of stepping back from an area or basin of interest and to look at the entire geologic setting, basin evolution and its depositional systems through history. This exercise changes your perspective and forces you to consider how your model within an area fits the entire context of a basin. It provides context to ask the questions: Is this interpretation reasonable? Am I missing something? Does my model fit the regional context?
I believe the same can be said for any discussion around the energy transition dialogue. Some people point out the need to save the climate at all costs. I don’t think anyone trained in earth science would disagree that being good stewards of the environment is something to neglect. But at what cost and with what impact? The world has spent an estimated $10 trillion dollars on renewable energy sources to date. The result: roughly a 2 to 3-percent increase in additional energy provided to the public and, in many instances, grid instability and higher cost. Any financial major at a university might look at the cost- benefit analysis and question the value of the investment. As a society, I believe we should do the same.
As geoscientists, I believe the role we should play in this dialogue is to help the public understand what is required to generate energy. We hear about the need for critical minerals, but we don’t often hear the requirements to refine and process the raw material into products that can be used by society. When we evaluate these aspects, it is quickly evident that it requires power – cheap and reliable power and a process that isn’t green. The same can be said for data centers and hyperscalers.
I have learned the phrase in this industry is the “fifth nine” (99.999 percent) that is the power reliability required. I can only think of three or four energy sources that can deliver this reliability.
Given that we are a scientific organization, many believe a climate statement for AAPG is essential. This seems to focus on a single issue. Should we not consider the entire system, the cost, the benefits and improving the human condition? Our membership is at the intersection of industry and academia. Let’s remember that much of the geoscience research and creation of universities is due to philanthropic generosity of many in the oil business, a fact often lost on today’s academic researchers.
If we only talk about climate, then every other decision is subjugated to the initial premise. We know that the Earth’s systems are far more complex with many variables that should be considered. The top two United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals are “no poverty” and “zero hunger.” We know there is a direct correlation between poverty and energy. There are roughly 7 billion people who live in energy poverty. What should society living outside of these conditions say to them? Countries that have abundant energy accessibility also have cleaner environments. How does this fit into a “regional” perspective on energy?
Our responsibility as geoscientists is not to narrow the conversation, but to broaden it and ensure that decisions about energy, environment, and society are grounded in sound science, full-system analysis, and a commitment to serving humanity.
Previously, the AAPG Executive Committee issued a Climate Statement in 2020. There was considerable debate on both sides. I will continue to work with the Executive Committee in this regard and bring forward to the membership any new perspectives.
I welcome everyone’s comments and thoughts regarding this matter, because if we don’t know where we are going, any road will take us there.