%{[ data-embed-type="image" data-embed-id="5d086d8ff6d5f267eec842f7" data-embed-element="aside" data-embed-align="right" data-embed-alt="Don Stowers" data-embed-src="https://img.ogj.com/files/base/ebm/ogj/image/2018/08/don_stowers.png?auto=format&h=640&w=640" data-embed-caption="" ]}%

We hear a lot of noise these days from people who call themselves environmentalists. They come from all walks of life. Some are ordinary folks who have day jobs when they’re not chaining themselves to equipment or writing letters to their local newspaper. Some are Hollywood actors and actresses who think their status as celebrities gives them special insight into the country’s problems. Others are politicians or aspiring office-holders who latch on to an issue to help them get votes. No doubt some of them are sincere.

Sincerity, however, only goes so far in this world. If you take a stand on an issue, you ought to do your homework. Learn the facts. If someone asks you a question, give a carefully considered answer, not a kneejerk response that looks good (to some) on a bumper sticker.

If we eliminate hydrocarbons as an energy source, what do we replace it with? Currently, we use hydrocarbons as a fuel for transportation, for generating electricity, and to run our industrial plants, shopping centers, and office complexes. It is demonstrably impossible to do all this with renewable energy alone. We simply cannot build enough giant wind turbines and solar panels to generate a comparable amount of energy. Not even close.

What is the environmentalist response to this? I’m not sure, and I’m not anxious to find out. It may be cool in some circles to poke fun at your daddy’s gas-guzzling SUV, but I doubt the anti-oil crowd is ready to return to a pre-industrial society.

I consider myself pro-environment. Who doesn’t want clean air and potable water? The nerdiest, tofu-eating college student from Massachusetts may say she wants to live in a healthy, clean environment. But doesn’t the meanest, orneriest West Texas oilman want the same thing? Surely he doesn’t want his kids or grandkids growing up in an environment that could lead to their early deaths due to carcinogens in the air they breathe and the water they drink.

In the nearly 10 years I’ve been at the helm of Oil & Gas Financial Journal as editor, I’ve talked to a lot of people in and out of the petroleum industry about hydrocarbons, from exploration and production all the way to the consumer. Or from wellhead to burner-tip, as natural gas people put it. Nobody wants to damage the environment.

Which is not to say that accidents don’t happen. The Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 proved that oil spills and fatalities can occur even in the heavily regulated US offshore industry, which prides itself on its safety and environmental record. Aided by the Coast Guard and a number of other agencies, BP began efforts to contain the resulting oil spill and began clean-up as soon as the fire aboard the rig was extinguished. It was a massive undertaking, and I’ll concede it may be a long time before the full effects of the spill are known. We still don’t have all the answers.

What we do know is that accidents like this one are extremely rare. The safety and environmental record in the Gulf of Mexico is incredibly good. Although the government shut down all activity in the Gulf for months, that apparently isn’t enough for some environmentalists who would ban all offshore drilling and production permanently. Really? Over one accident when there are thousands of wellsites that were drilled without incident?

Land-based accidents also occur, such as the pipeline break in Mayflower, Ark. back in March that reportedly released more than 200,000 gallons (5,500 barrels) of heavy crude from the oil sands onto the streets and lawns of the small community south of Little Rock.

Do steps need to be taken to make pipeline transport safer? Yes. Is it equally unsafe to transport crude oil, such as from the Bakken, via railcar? Arguably, yes. Rail accidents are much more common than pipeline ruptures.

Industry people who want the Keystone pipeline have an unlikely ally in their dispute with environmental groups – the labor movement. America is emerging from a recession, and the jobless rate remains high. One organization, the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) says it supports a balanced energy policy that protects the environment, develops needed energy sources, and creates jobs.

When the widely respected Environmental Defense Fund recently lent its name and support to the Center for Sustainable Shale Development, there was an audible moan from some factions in the environmentalist movement. The EDF was accused of "selling out" to the "frack" advocates.

What is unsustainable right now isn’t oil or gas. It’s the extremist rhetoric coming from some elements in the environmental community. Surely they’ll run out of steam soon.

Hardcore enviros are not realistic

In order to access this content, you must be logged-in and have an active subscription to the OGJ Premium Archive