Industry's communications with the public: Can it be improved?

In 1964, I found myself in Shell’s New Orleans office as a location visitor from the northeast. I became convinced that going to work for Shell would be interesting, even though I was pretty sure oil companies were greedy and unethical. It is hard for me to remember why I had that opinion. What was it based on? What did I really know?

For the past 46 years, I have seen one campaign after another by trade associations, oil companies, and technical societies try to educate the public. If the public only knew how much we cared about the environment, how much they depend on us to uphold their standard of living, and how important it is that we have a domestic supply of oil and gas, they would appreciate our hard work and give us the benefit of the doubt when we screw up.

These efforts have had their impacts. We’re better off for them. But let’s realize these efforts are not going to radically change anything for the following reasons:

• From time to time we really do screw up. And when we do the mistakes are hard to hide and painful to see. Santa Barbara,Exxon Valdez, Macondo…We look at these as rare events which are teachable moments that allow us to improve our safety record. The public only sees the event and the fact that it was preventable. There is no such thing as a smart accident. All accidents are preventable in hindsight and were caused by what appear, after the fact, to be some pretty stupid mistakes. We look bad. “Any idiot could see how to keep this accident from happening. You obviously must not have cared what harm you might do to people, birds, fish, etc.”
• We post our gasoline prices for all to see. People aren’t forced to see how the price of bread fluctuates and rises over time. We remind people hundreds of times a day when we raise our prices. Of course human nature is such as not to notice when the price goes down.
• Our companies employ many people and interface with many vendors. We are bound to have annoyed someone’s relative somewhere along the way.

There is not much we can do about these. But there are three other things that I think we can work on:

• We have never met a proposed regulation, removal of a tax benefit, or proposed imposition of a tax that we liked. No matter what, our PR systems will go into overdrive to explain how it will cause the end of the economy as we know it.
• We have never been in favor of any proposal that would encourage others to use less of our product. We opposed Ross Perot’s proposed gasoline tax and Al Gore’s proposed BTU tax; both of which were attempts to make it more economical to conserve energy and invest in things beyond petroleum.
• Our spokespersons look like “fat cats” and speak in measured tones. Although many of them have worked their way up from humble beginnings, they don’t look and sound it when hauled before Congress or the press. They listen to the advice of their lawyers and PR personnel. “The only way to avoid saying something that could be used against you is to not say anything meaningful.”

So what might we do? Here are some ideas:

• Let’s start talking about the need to use less of our product. We know the world would be better off if we used energy more intelligently. Let’s discuss ways to conserve energy, and programs to change the market which encourage conservation. Rather than rail against crazy utopian proposals, let’s use our understanding of the economics and practicality of the situation to propose workable solutions.
• Let’s start talking about the need to replace hydrocarbons with other sources of energy. We know that the percent of energy derived from oil and gas is going to have to decrease at some point in the future. We know unless we start this replacement now, we will not have it in place when we need it. As good stewards of the world’s energy supply, we know we need to start changing the economic forces so the technologies and economies of scale that will be needed can be developed. Let’s use our knowledge to come up with proposals to tip the economics in favor of wind, solar, nuclear, etc. Let’s propose some realistic combination of taxes on hydrocarbons and subsidies for other forms of energy.
• Let’s learn how to listen to the advice of lawyers and PR personnel, but make overriding business decisions that allow us to risk speaking from the heart. The plain truth, and even admitting mistakes, makes a pretty good defense in the court of public opinion.

Do these three things which are clearly not in our immediate best interest and the world may not love us. But maybe they will listen when we have something we need to tell them.

Kenneth E. (Ken) Arnold
Senior Technical Advisor
WorleyParsons

Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed by the author are entirely his own and do not represent either an endorsement, or reflection, of the policies or official position of WorleyParsons on the matters raised therein.

This page reflects viewpoints on the political, economic, cultural, technological, and environmental issues that shape the future of the petroleum industry. Offshore Magazine invites you to share your thoughts. Email your Beyond the Horizon manuscript to David Paganie at[email protected].