Sustainable Development Technical Section

Could endeavors seeking clean energy, alternative energy, renewables, decarbonization, and positive climate change lead to unintended consequences including climate crisis, economic instability, geopolitical disruption, and exhaustion of natural resources?

All we know is that the world needs more energy, all sorts of energy.

Hopefully affordable ;)

Could the unintended consequences of these endeavors if not globally coordinated result in a more challenging situation and an escalation of greater competition over world natural resources leading even to a worse climate crisis and serious impacts on ecosystems and mankind?

The ticket today, if the world was in peace, is so high due to the complexity of processes, controlled access to resources, development gaps among nations, policies, and capacities.   People are inclined to over-invest in future choices based on ever-changing preferences. Humans are susceptible to miscalculations in perceived series commitments.  Ironically, there is no real means to predict what the preferences will be in the future, thus long-term plans are hard to devise, particularly in an unstable/agitated world.  The power will always be with those who possess easier access to energy and don't be surprised if all relations change as the dominant source of energy changes. Those in power would still strive to remain in power.  The greater the energy transition impact, the greater economical and geopolitical disruption.  A green future needs more access to natural resources.  The IEA states that current electric cars require six times the amount of minerals of a conventional car. One would wonder how that would be a drive to Green Future!! The issue gets even more complicated when one realizes that these minerals are minded and get processed in different places with emissions. One needs to evaluate options throughout their whole lifecycle.   With this transition, it seems that power is distributed among different nations. This "chain of powers" can be broken on one of its links is isolated due to any reason.  In such a complex process, supply chain can be a dangerous weapon.

I have given a title to one of my presentations "Humans Centric Future" and I truly believe that future efforts must focus on not only the business dimension but more on humans.

With all challenges and complexities that may seem discouraging, it becomes even more lucid that a Green Future that is humans centric can't be achieved without peace, global harmony, and global coordination which can only happen if it is seen by a global eye, thought of by a global mind and governed by a global government/leader.  This leader or government does not have to be one - they can be many but think as one.  The alternative is what we have observed in the past and witnessed during our lifetime at various scales; nothing but conflicts, disruptions, unrest, corruption, disputes, etc., or the least to say lack of coordination and unity.

• What would you describe as a human-centric future?
• What could SPE role be in this important issue?

Could endeavors seeking clean energy, alternative energy, renewables, decarbonization, and positive climate change lead to unintended consequences including climate crisis, economic instability, geopolitical disruption, and exhaustion of natural resources?

All we know is that the world needs more energy, all sorts of energy.

Hopefully affordable ;)

Could the unintended consequences of these endeavors if not globally coordinated result in a more challenging situation and an escalation of greater competition over world natural resources leading even to a worse climate crisis and serious impacts on ecosystems and mankind?

The ticket today, if the world was in peace, is so high due to the complexity of processes, controlled access to resources, development gaps among nations, policies, and capacities.   People are inclined to over-invest in future choices based on ever-changing preferences. Humans are susceptible to miscalculations in perceived series commitments.  Ironically, there is no real means to predict what the preferences will be in the future, thus long-term plans are hard to devise, particularly in an unstable/agitated world.  The power will always be with those who possess easier access to energy and don't be surprised if all relations change as the dominant source of energy changes. Those in power would still strive to remain in power.  The greater the energy transition impact, the greater economical and geopolitical disruption.  A green future needs more access to natural resources.  The IEA states that current electric cars require six times the amount of minerals of a conventional car. One would wonder how that would be a drive to Green Future!! The issue gets even more complicated when one realizes that these minerals are minded and get processed in different places with emissions. One needs to evaluate options throughout their whole lifecycle.   With this transition, it seems that power is distributed among different nations. This "chain of powers" can be broken on one of its links is isolated due to any reason.  In such a complex process, supply chain can be a dangerous weapon.

I have given a title to one of my presentations "Humans Centric Future" and I truly believe that future efforts must focus on not only the business dimension but more on humans.

With all challenges and complexities that may seem discouraging, it becomes even more lucid that a Green Future that is humans centric can't be achieved without peace, global harmony, and global coordination which can only happen if it is seen by a global eye, thought of by a global mind and governed by a global government/leader.  This leader or government does not have to be one - they can be many but think as one.  The alternative is what we have observed in the past and witnessed during our lifetime at various scales; nothing but conflicts, disruptions, unrest, corruption, disputes, etc., or the least to say lack of coordination and unity.

• What would you describe as a human-centric future?
• What could SPE role be in this important issue?

Could endeavors seeking clean energy, alternative energy, renewables, decarbonization, and positive climate change lead to unintended consequences including climate crisis, economic instability, geopolitical disruption, and exhaustion of natural resources?

All we know is that the world needs more energy, all sorts of energy.

Hopefully affordable ;)

Could the unintended consequences of these endeavors if not globally coordinated result in a more challenging situation and an escalation of greater competition over world natural resources leading even to a worse climate crisis and serious impacts on ecosystems and mankind?

The ticket today, if the world was in peace, is so high due to the complexity of processes, controlled access to resources, development gaps among nations, policies, and capacities.   People are inclined to over-invest in future choices based on ever-changing preferences. Humans are susceptible to miscalculations in perceived series commitments.  Ironically, there is no real means to predict what the preferences will be in the future, thus long-term plans are hard to devise, particularly in an unstable/agitated world.  The power will always be with those who possess easier access to energy and don't be surprised if all relations change as the dominant source of energy changes. Those in power would still strive to remain in power.  The greater the energy transition impact, the greater economical and geopolitical disruption.  A green future needs more access to natural resources.  The IEA states that current electric cars require six times the amount of minerals of a conventional car. One would wonder how that would be a drive to Green Future!! The issue gets even more complicated when one realizes that these minerals are minded and get processed in different places with emissions. One needs to evaluate options throughout their whole lifecycle.   With this transition, it seems that power is distributed among different nations. This "chain of powers" can be broken on one of its links is isolated due to any reason.  In such a complex process, supply chain can be a dangerous weapon.

I have given a title to one of my presentations "Humans Centric Future" and I truly believe that future efforts must focus on not only the business dimension but more on humans.

With all challenges and complexities that may seem discouraging, it becomes even more lucid that a Green Future that is humans centric can't be achieved without peace, global harmony, and global coordination which can only happen if it is seen by a global eye, thought of by a global mind and governed by a global government/leader.  This leader or government does not have to be one - they can be many but think as one.  The alternative is what we have observed in the past and witnessed during our lifetime at various scales; nothing but conflicts, disruptions, unrest, corruption, disputes, etc., or the least to say lack of coordination and unity.

• What would you describe as a human-centric future?
• What could SPE role be in this important issue?

Could endeavors seeking clean energy, alternative energy, renewables, decarbonization, and positive climate change lead to unintended consequences including climate crisis, economic instability, geopolitical disruption, and exhaustion of natural resources?

All we know is that the world needs more energy, all sorts of energy.

Hopefully affordable ;)

Could the unintended consequences of these endeavors if not globally coordinated result in a more challenging situation and an escalation of greater competition over world natural resources leading even to a worse climate crisis and serious impacts on ecosystems and mankind?

The ticket today, if the world was in peace, is so high due to the complexity of processes, controlled access to resources, development gaps among nations, policies, and capacities.   People are inclined to over-invest in future choices based on ever-changing preferences. Humans are susceptible to miscalculations in perceived series commitments.  Ironically, there is no real means to predict what the preferences will be in the future, thus long-term plans are hard to devise, particularly in an unstable/agitated world.  The power will always be with those who possess easier access to energy and don't be surprised if all relations change as the dominant source of energy changes. Those in power would still strive to remain in power.  The greater the energy transition impact, the greater economical and geopolitical disruption.  A green future needs more access to natural resources.  The IEA states that current electric cars require six times the amount of minerals of a conventional car. One would wonder how that would be a drive to Green Future!! The issue gets even more complicated when one realizes that these minerals are minded and get processed in different places with emissions. One needs to evaluate options throughout their whole lifecycle.   With this transition, it seems that power is distributed among different nations. This "chain of powers" can be broken on one of its links is isolated due to any reason.  In such a complex process, supply chain can be a dangerous weapon.

I have given a title to one of my presentations "Humans Centric Future" and I truly believe that future efforts must focus on not only the business dimension but more on humans.

With all challenges and complexities that may seem discouraging, it becomes even more lucid that a Green Future that is humans centric can't be achieved without peace, global harmony, and global coordination which can only happen if it is seen by a global eye, thought of by a global mind and governed by a global government/leader.  This leader or government does not have to be one - they can be many but think as one.  The alternative is what we have observed in the past and witnessed during our lifetime at various scales; nothing but conflicts, disruptions, unrest, corruption, disputes, etc., or the least to say lack of coordination and unity.

• What would you describe as a human-centric future?
• What could SPE role be in this important issue?

Could endeavors seeking clean energy, alternative energy, renewables, decarbonization, and positive climate change lead to unintended consequences including climate crisis, economic instability, geopolitical disruption, and exhaustion of natural resources?

All we know is that the world needs more energy, all sorts of energy.

Hopefully affordable ;)

Could the unintended consequences of these endeavors if not globally coordinated result in a more challenging situation and an escalation of greater competition over world natural resources leading even to a worse climate crisis and serious impacts on ecosystems and mankind?

The ticket today, if the world was in peace, is so high due to the complexity of processes, controlled access to resources, development gaps among nations, policies, and capacities.   People are inclined to over-invest in future choices based on ever-changing preferences. Humans are susceptible to miscalculations in perceived series commitments.  Ironically, there is no real means to predict what the preferences will be in the future, thus long-term plans are hard to devise, particularly in an unstable/agitated world.  The power will always be with those who possess easier access to energy and don't be surprised if all relations change as the dominant source of energy changes. Those in power would still strive to remain in power.  The greater the energy transition impact, the greater economical and geopolitical disruption.  A green future needs more access to natural resources.  The IEA states that current electric cars require six times the amount of minerals of a conventional car. One would wonder how that would be a drive to Green Future!! The issue gets even more complicated when one realizes that these minerals are minded and get processed in different places with emissions. One needs to evaluate options throughout their whole lifecycle.   With this transition, it seems that power is distributed among different nations. This "chain of powers" can be broken on one of its links is isolated due to any reason.  In such a complex process, supply chain can be a dangerous weapon.

I have given a title to one of my presentations "Humans Centric Future" and I truly believe that future efforts must focus on not only the business dimension but more on humans.

With all challenges and complexities that may seem discouraging, it becomes even more lucid that a Green Future that is humans centric can't be achieved without peace, global harmony, and global coordination which can only happen if it is seen by a global eye, thought of by a global mind and governed by a global government/leader.  This leader or government does not have to be one - they can be many but think as one.  The alternative is what we have observed in the past and witnessed during our lifetime at various scales; nothing but conflicts, disruptions, unrest, corruption, disputes, etc., or the least to say lack of coordination and unity.

• What would you describe as a human-centric future?
• What could SPE role be in this important issue?

Hi all, I'm enjoying this exchange with great points being made from each of the folks who have weighed in.  There's nothing easy about changing the entire energy system, and how we use energy across industrial segments and sectors.  For every choice wherein we target some improvement, there are ALWAYS tradeoffs.  I quite like @Ryan Dyjur's point about zero emission being a misnomer, especially if you include waste throughout the process and at the end of life as a type of emissions.  Today, we don't have a way of utilizing any form of energy in a fully circular manner with no undesirable impacts on the environment, using abundantly available materials.  It's a difficult pill to swallow, but to improve, we must first face reality.  To make changes that have a net positive impact on people, the environment, and the health of the ecosystems we rely upon, we need to use more systems thinking, and ensure we educate the consumer so when they vote with their hard-earned money, they do so knowing the full scope of the impact of their decision.  Renewables and batteries in their current prevailing technological form are simply not scalable to completely displace hydrocarbons due to several issues including the requirement for more minerals to be extracted than we currently believe exist across several important feedstocks, and due to the fact that wind and solar require a huge physical footprint, and we have no way of recycling the inputs in an energy efficient way.  The mining and processing of these materials are also centralized in places that create other concerns. There are many exciting technological advances that are in early stages that could radically change this balance.  The bottom line is that we NEED to find a better way to source and use the abundantly available renewable resources to reduce our net carbon footprint.  This requires continued targeted R&D and investments, and an accelerated program to scale up the most promising solutions.

And to @Saeed Al-Mubarak's excellent point, we have to keep people at the center of this transition.  Saeed's posts across multiple communities, and the articles he's written are always thought provoking and insightful.  I much appreciate all your investment of time and energy to benefit SPE members sir!  The term, "People-Centered Transition" is increasingly being used alongside "Just Transition" which I've learned means very different things to different people.  There are tons of great SPE virtual events, papers, articles, and more on these topics, and a dizzying array of external papers, articles, and research on these topics.  The Energy Transition will move at different speeds, and will have very different meanings in different places.  There are still some 850 MM people without access to reliable energy, and during the most recent financial and energy crises, the world has for the first time since this metric has been tracked reversed the trend of reducing energy poverty.  So, there is work to do there for our industry.  We also have to look after the people in the energy industry as they cultivate new skills, expand their areas of expertise, and contribute in new ways.  Then there is the public at large in developed countries, and even there we have huge diversity.  You'll see a lot in the popular press about "Climate Justice" for disadvantaged and marginalized populations.  Additionally, we have an increasing proportion of society that is highly exposed to climate impacts from rising sea levels, to forest fires, to freshwater availability, to aridification and polar-shifting growing patterns of many cash crops.  Recent geopolitical events and economic changes are also exposing more people to energy security issues.  The list goes on and on.

I will not ramble further, but will leave you with two points for consideration:

1) The energy industry, and especially the O&G industry is chock full of incredibly intelligent, resourceful, adaptable, and resilient people.  That gives me great confidence that our industry and our people will remain relevant and central to driving a successful energy transition while keeping O&G production growing to ensure energy security, all while finding innovative ways to reduce and eventually eliminate most of the negative impacts from finding, developing and using hydrocarbons - though it may take more time that we have in our climate budget.  So, let's get a move on! Here's a recent article I co-authored on transferrable skills, and presented at the 2022 SPE ATCE: https://jpt.spe.org/twa/transferable-skills-petroleum-engineering-and-geoscience-skills-are-shaping-the-low-emission-energy-transition

2) ​​This is very much the purpose of the SPE Sustainable Development Technical Section and the Gaia Sustainability Program (which is nested within the SDTS).  We're here to create those open lines of communication, to ask better questions and explore more balanced answers together.  Collectively, we're working to contextualize sustainability for an extractive industry - no small feat!  And we're here to help operationalize sustainability to the front line and the leaders of our great industry to improve daily decisions and strategies.  We've developed communications materials to help you present to your colleagues and build a growing movement in our industry.  Please see the files attached.  Also, we have a very active, highly engaging and vibrant discussion ongoing in our Gaia LinkedIn Community here, now with over 1,350 members: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/12464854/   On that site, we regularly announce Gaia Talks SPE Live sessions, local SPE Section Gaia events shared virtually for all, and in-person events as well.  We need to improve our cross posting back this community, but I recommend you join our LinkedIn community as well.  LinkedIn recognized our Gaia group as one of their most engaged and active on their entire site!!

Looking forward to the continued discussion and collaboration!
With respect,
Josh Etkind

Could endeavors seeking clean energy, alternative energy, renewables, decarbonization, and positive climate change lead to unintended consequences including climate crisis, economic instability, geopolitical disruption, and exhaustion of natural resources?

All we know is that the world needs more energy, all sorts of energy.

Hopefully affordable ;)

Could the unintended consequences of these endeavors if not globally coordinated result in a more challenging situation and an escalation of greater competition over world natural resources leading even to a worse climate crisis and serious impacts on ecosystems and mankind?

The ticket today, if the world was in peace, is so high due to the complexity of processes, controlled access to resources, development gaps among nations, policies, and capacities.   People are inclined to over-invest in future choices based on ever-changing preferences. Humans are susceptible to miscalculations in perceived series commitments.  Ironically, there is no real means to predict what the preferences will be in the future, thus long-term plans are hard to devise, particularly in an unstable/agitated world.  The power will always be with those who possess easier access to energy and don't be surprised if all relations change as the dominant source of energy changes. Those in power would still strive to remain in power.  The greater the energy transition impact, the greater economical and geopolitical disruption.  A green future needs more access to natural resources.  The IEA states that current electric cars require six times the amount of minerals of a conventional car. One would wonder how that would be a drive to Green Future!! The issue gets even more complicated when one realizes that these minerals are minded and get processed in different places with emissions. One needs to evaluate options throughout their whole lifecycle.   With this transition, it seems that power is distributed among different nations. This "chain of powers" can be broken on one of its links is isolated due to any reason.  In such a complex process, supply chain can be a dangerous weapon.

I have given a title to one of my presentations "Humans Centric Future" and I truly believe that future efforts must focus on not only the business dimension but more on humans.

With all challenges and complexities that may seem discouraging, it becomes even more lucid that a Green Future that is humans centric can't be achieved without peace, global harmony, and global coordination which can only happen if it is seen by a global eye, thought of by a global mind and governed by a global government/leader.  This leader or government does not have to be one - they can be many but think as one.  The alternative is what we have observed in the past and witnessed during our lifetime at various scales; nothing but conflicts, disruptions, unrest, corruption, disputes, etc., or the least to say lack of coordination and unity.

• What would you describe as a human-centric future?
• What could SPE role be in this important issue?

• Debottlenecking production systems and remediating under-performing wells to 
• Expanding LP gas gathering and usage for sales, heat or power.
• Reducing fugitive methane, acid gas, NOX & SOX emissions.
• Reducing fresh and agricultural grade water consumption and expanding the beneficial usage of produced water including by expanding heat capture and usage.
• Electrification and automation of anything that moves.
• Appropriate fuel substitution to reduce costs and emissions.  
• Production system, infrastructure, logistics and schedule optimization.
• Re-vitalizing, re-purposing or abandonment of idle or marginal wells and facilities.
• Revisiting stranded resource development opportunities close to existing infrastructure.
• Supporting near field E & A.

Hi all, I'm enjoying this exchange with great points being made from each of the folks who have weighed in.  There's nothing easy about changing the entire energy system, and how we use energy across industrial segments and sectors.  For every choice wherein we target some improvement, there are ALWAYS tradeoffs.  I quite like @Ryan Dyjur's point about zero emission being a misnomer, especially if you include waste throughout the process and at the end of life as a type of emissions.  Today, we don't have a way of utilizing any form of energy in a fully circular manner with no undesirable impacts on the environment, using abundantly available materials.  It's a difficult pill to swallow, but to improve, we must first face reality.  To make changes that have a net positive impact on people, the environment, and the health of the ecosystems we rely upon, we need to use more systems thinking, and ensure we educate the consumer so when they vote with their hard-earned money, they do so knowing the full scope of the impact of their decision.  Renewables and batteries in their current prevailing technological form are simply not scalable to completely displace hydrocarbons due to several issues including the requirement for more minerals to be extracted than we currently believe exist across several important feedstocks, and due to the fact that wind and solar require a huge physical footprint, and we have no way of recycling the inputs in an energy efficient way.  The mining and processing of these materials are also centralized in places that create other concerns. There are many exciting technological advances that are in early stages that could radically change this balance.  The bottom line is that we NEED to find a better way to source and use the abundantly available renewable resources to reduce our net carbon footprint.  This requires continued targeted R&D and investments, and an accelerated program to scale up the most promising solutions.

And to @Saeed Al-Mubarak's excellent point, we have to keep people at the center of this transition.  Saeed's posts across multiple communities, and the articles he's written are always thought provoking and insightful.  I much appreciate all your investment of time and energy to benefit SPE members sir!  The term, "People-Centered Transition" is increasingly being used alongside "Just Transition" which I've learned means very different things to different people.  There are tons of great SPE virtual events, papers, articles, and more on these topics, and a dizzying array of external papers, articles, and research on these topics.  The Energy Transition will move at different speeds, and will have very different meanings in different places.  There are still some 850 MM people without access to reliable energy, and during the most recent financial and energy crises, the world has for the first time since this metric has been tracked reversed the trend of reducing energy poverty.  So, there is work to do there for our industry.  We also have to look after the people in the energy industry as they cultivate new skills, expand their areas of expertise, and contribute in new ways.  Then there is the public at large in developed countries, and even there we have huge diversity.  You'll see a lot in the popular press about "Climate Justice" for disadvantaged and marginalized populations.  Additionally, we have an increasing proportion of society that is highly exposed to climate impacts from rising sea levels, to forest fires, to freshwater availability, to aridification and polar-shifting growing patterns of many cash crops.  Recent geopolitical events and economic changes are also exposing more people to energy security issues.  The list goes on and on.

I will not ramble further, but will leave you with two points for consideration:

1) The energy industry, and especially the O&G industry is chock full of incredibly intelligent, resourceful, adaptable, and resilient people.  That gives me great confidence that our industry and our people will remain relevant and central to driving a successful energy transition while keeping O&G production growing to ensure energy security, all while finding innovative ways to reduce and eventually eliminate most of the negative impacts from finding, developing and using hydrocarbons - though it may take more time that we have in our climate budget.  So, let's get a move on! Here's a recent article I co-authored on transferrable skills, and presented at the 2022 SPE ATCE: https://jpt.spe.org/twa/transferable-skills-petroleum-engineering-and-geoscience-skills-are-shaping-the-low-emission-energy-transition

2) ​​This is very much the purpose of the SPE Sustainable Development Technical Section and the Gaia Sustainability Program (which is nested within the SDTS).  We're here to create those open lines of communication, to ask better questions and explore more balanced answers together.  Collectively, we're working to contextualize sustainability for an extractive industry - no small feat!  And we're here to help operationalize sustainability to the front line and the leaders of our great industry to improve daily decisions and strategies.  We've developed communications materials to help you present to your colleagues and build a growing movement in our industry.  Please see the files attached.  Also, we have a very active, highly engaging and vibrant discussion ongoing in our Gaia LinkedIn Community here, now with over 1,350 members: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/12464854/   On that site, we regularly announce Gaia Talks SPE Live sessions, local SPE Section Gaia events shared virtually for all, and in-person events as well.  We need to improve our cross posting back this community, but I recommend you join our LinkedIn community as well.  LinkedIn recognized our Gaia group as one of their most engaged and active on their entire site!!

Looking forward to the continued discussion and collaboration!
With respect,
Josh Etkind

Could endeavors seeking clean energy, alternative energy, renewables, decarbonization, and positive climate change lead to unintended consequences including climate crisis, economic instability, geopolitical disruption, and exhaustion of natural resources?

All we know is that the world needs more energy, all sorts of energy.

Hopefully affordable ;)

Could the unintended consequences of these endeavors if not globally coordinated result in a more challenging situation and an escalation of greater competition over world natural resources leading even to a worse climate crisis and serious impacts on ecosystems and mankind?

The ticket today, if the world was in peace, is so high due to the complexity of processes, controlled access to resources, development gaps among nations, policies, and capacities.   People are inclined to over-invest in future choices based on ever-changing preferences. Humans are susceptible to miscalculations in perceived series commitments.  Ironically, there is no real means to predict what the preferences will be in the future, thus long-term plans are hard to devise, particularly in an unstable/agitated world.  The power will always be with those who possess easier access to energy and don't be surprised if all relations change as the dominant source of energy changes. Those in power would still strive to remain in power.  The greater the energy transition impact, the greater economical and geopolitical disruption.  A green future needs more access to natural resources.  The IEA states that current electric cars require six times the amount of minerals of a conventional car. One would wonder how that would be a drive to Green Future!! The issue gets even more complicated when one realizes that these minerals are minded and get processed in different places with emissions. One needs to evaluate options throughout their whole lifecycle.   With this transition, it seems that power is distributed among different nations. This "chain of powers" can be broken on one of its links is isolated due to any reason.  In such a complex process, supply chain can be a dangerous weapon.

I have given a title to one of my presentations "Humans Centric Future" and I truly believe that future efforts must focus on not only the business dimension but more on humans.

With all challenges and complexities that may seem discouraging, it becomes even more lucid that a Green Future that is humans centric can't be achieved without peace, global harmony, and global coordination which can only happen if it is seen by a global eye, thought of by a global mind and governed by a global government/leader.  This leader or government does not have to be one - they can be many but think as one.  The alternative is what we have observed in the past and witnessed during our lifetime at various scales; nothing but conflicts, disruptions, unrest, corruption, disputes, etc., or the least to say lack of coordination and unity.

• What would you describe as a human-centric future?
• What could SPE role be in this important issue?

"Urgency" seems still to be the word lacking. We are seeing big corporations making excess profits and simply doing Share Buy-backs instead of reinvesting billions in reducing emissions and FIDing new CCUS projects. The Custody Chain means Upstream cannot just ignore Scope 3 emissions, WE are consumers too, WE are all in it together. How much Electrification has your company completed since COP26?

WE have the chance, the finance, to change from within, everyone needs to get stuck-in. WE live now in a World with Irreversible Climate Change. Just read the last IPCC reports six months ago. Since then we have seem devastating floods in Pakistan, droughts in Somalia, and a superstorm in Florida.

Better to change from within - OUR Custody Chain emissions must be halved by 2030. Get ahead of the Regulation - be proactive. Words are better now - but real, tangible action is needed.

• Debottlenecking production systems and remediating under-performing wells to 
• Expanding LP gas gathering and usage for sales, heat or power.
• Reducing fugitive methane, acid gas, NOX & SOX emissions.
• Reducing fresh and agricultural grade water consumption and expanding the beneficial usage of produced water including by expanding heat capture and usage.
• Electrification and automation of anything that moves.
• Appropriate fuel substitution to reduce costs and emissions.  
• Production system, infrastructure, logistics and schedule optimization.
• Re-vitalizing, re-purposing or abandonment of idle or marginal wells and facilities.
• Revisiting stranded resource development opportunities close to existing infrastructure.
• Supporting near field E & A.

Hi all, I'm enjoying this exchange with great points being made from each of the folks who have weighed in.  There's nothing easy about changing the entire energy system, and how we use energy across industrial segments and sectors.  For every choice wherein we target some improvement, there are ALWAYS tradeoffs.  I quite like @Ryan Dyjur's point about zero emission being a misnomer, especially if you include waste throughout the process and at the end of life as a type of emissions.  Today, we don't have a way of utilizing any form of energy in a fully circular manner with no undesirable impacts on the environment, using abundantly available materials.  It's a difficult pill to swallow, but to improve, we must first face reality.  To make changes that have a net positive impact on people, the environment, and the health of the ecosystems we rely upon, we need to use more systems thinking, and ensure we educate the consumer so when they vote with their hard-earned money, they do so knowing the full scope of the impact of their decision.  Renewables and batteries in their current prevailing technological form are simply not scalable to completely displace hydrocarbons due to several issues including the requirement for more minerals to be extracted than we currently believe exist across several important feedstocks, and due to the fact that wind and solar require a huge physical footprint, and we have no way of recycling the inputs in an energy efficient way.  The mining and processing of these materials are also centralized in places that create other concerns. There are many exciting technological advances that are in early stages that could radically change this balance.  The bottom line is that we NEED to find a better way to source and use the abundantly available renewable resources to reduce our net carbon footprint.  This requires continued targeted R&D and investments, and an accelerated program to scale up the most promising solutions.

And to @Saeed Al-Mubarak's excellent point, we have to keep people at the center of this transition.  Saeed's posts across multiple communities, and the articles he's written are always thought provoking and insightful.  I much appreciate all your investment of time and energy to benefit SPE members sir!  The term, "People-Centered Transition" is increasingly being used alongside "Just Transition" which I've learned means very different things to different people.  There are tons of great SPE virtual events, papers, articles, and more on these topics, and a dizzying array of external papers, articles, and research on these topics.  The Energy Transition will move at different speeds, and will have very different meanings in different places.  There are still some 850 MM people without access to reliable energy, and during the most recent financial and energy crises, the world has for the first time since this metric has been tracked reversed the trend of reducing energy poverty.  So, there is work to do there for our industry.  We also have to look after the people in the energy industry as they cultivate new skills, expand their areas of expertise, and contribute in new ways.  Then there is the public at large in developed countries, and even there we have huge diversity.  You'll see a lot in the popular press about "Climate Justice" for disadvantaged and marginalized populations.  Additionally, we have an increasing proportion of society that is highly exposed to climate impacts from rising sea levels, to forest fires, to freshwater availability, to aridification and polar-shifting growing patterns of many cash crops.  Recent geopolitical events and economic changes are also exposing more people to energy security issues.  The list goes on and on.

I will not ramble further, but will leave you with two points for consideration:

1) The energy industry, and especially the O&G industry is chock full of incredibly intelligent, resourceful, adaptable, and resilient people.  That gives me great confidence that our industry and our people will remain relevant and central to driving a successful energy transition while keeping O&G production growing to ensure energy security, all while finding innovative ways to reduce and eventually eliminate most of the negative impacts from finding, developing and using hydrocarbons - though it may take more time that we have in our climate budget.  So, let's get a move on! Here's a recent article I co-authored on transferrable skills, and presented at the 2022 SPE ATCE: https://jpt.spe.org/twa/transferable-skills-petroleum-engineering-and-geoscience-skills-are-shaping-the-low-emission-energy-transition

2) ​​This is very much the purpose of the SPE Sustainable Development Technical Section and the Gaia Sustainability Program (which is nested within the SDTS).  We're here to create those open lines of communication, to ask better questions and explore more balanced answers together.  Collectively, we're working to contextualize sustainability for an extractive industry - no small feat!  And we're here to help operationalize sustainability to the front line and the leaders of our great industry to improve daily decisions and strategies.  We've developed communications materials to help you present to your colleagues and build a growing movement in our industry.  Please see the files attached.  Also, we have a very active, highly engaging and vibrant discussion ongoing in our Gaia LinkedIn Community here, now with over 1,350 members: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/12464854/   On that site, we regularly announce Gaia Talks SPE Live sessions, local SPE Section Gaia events shared virtually for all, and in-person events as well.  We need to improve our cross posting back this community, but I recommend you join our LinkedIn community as well.  LinkedIn recognized our Gaia group as one of their most engaged and active on their entire site!!

Looking forward to the continued discussion and collaboration!
With respect,
Josh Etkind

Could endeavors seeking clean energy, alternative energy, renewables, decarbonization, and positive climate change lead to unintended consequences including climate crisis, economic instability, geopolitical disruption, and exhaustion of natural resources?

All we know is that the world needs more energy, all sorts of energy.

Hopefully affordable ;)

Could the unintended consequences of these endeavors if not globally coordinated result in a more challenging situation and an escalation of greater competition over world natural resources leading even to a worse climate crisis and serious impacts on ecosystems and mankind?

The ticket today, if the world was in peace, is so high due to the complexity of processes, controlled access to resources, development gaps among nations, policies, and capacities.   People are inclined to over-invest in future choices based on ever-changing preferences. Humans are susceptible to miscalculations in perceived series commitments.  Ironically, there is no real means to predict what the preferences will be in the future, thus long-term plans are hard to devise, particularly in an unstable/agitated world.  The power will always be with those who possess easier access to energy and don't be surprised if all relations change as the dominant source of energy changes. Those in power would still strive to remain in power.  The greater the energy transition impact, the greater economical and geopolitical disruption.  A green future needs more access to natural resources.  The IEA states that current electric cars require six times the amount of minerals of a conventional car. One would wonder how that would be a drive to Green Future!! The issue gets even more complicated when one realizes that these minerals are minded and get processed in different places with emissions. One needs to evaluate options throughout their whole lifecycle.   With this transition, it seems that power is distributed among different nations. This "chain of powers" can be broken on one of its links is isolated due to any reason.  In such a complex process, supply chain can be a dangerous weapon.

I have given a title to one of my presentations "Humans Centric Future" and I truly believe that future efforts must focus on not only the business dimension but more on humans.

With all challenges and complexities that may seem discouraging, it becomes even more lucid that a Green Future that is humans centric can't be achieved without peace, global harmony, and global coordination which can only happen if it is seen by a global eye, thought of by a global mind and governed by a global government/leader.  This leader or government does not have to be one - they can be many but think as one.  The alternative is what we have observed in the past and witnessed during our lifetime at various scales; nothing but conflicts, disruptions, unrest, corruption, disputes, etc., or the least to say lack of coordination and unity.

• What would you describe as a human-centric future?
• What could SPE role be in this important issue?