When was the last time you saw someone in our industry write about conservation? I may not win any industry awards, but I think there is a place in our industry for someone who is a die-hard conservationist and environmentalist. I would love to have that role.
We all know that if we conserve more of something we depend on, we will better utilize it - water, energy, money or food. If we can find ways to do more with less, we have better control over the basic resource. So why don't we have a strong conservation culture in the oil-consuming countries?
There probably is nothing more controversial in our industry than saying oil and gas prices will climb. However, in my opinion, as demand eventually outstrips reserves and production, we are not going to be able to control prices unless - or until - we develop significant alternative energy sources.
We do not know when the next major energy source is going to be available or what form it will take. In the absence of an alternative, we can speculate that oil and gas prices will climb as demand increases and supplies diminish.
If we implement a strong conservation policy, however, we might avoid this pain. It may drive the price of oil to US $8/bbl or $10/bbl in the near term; it might not. At the minimum, it will reduce the possibility of unaffordable energy prices in the longer term.
Governments clearly have the most important role in setting the agenda. I think governments should increase incentives for investment in alternative energy sources. I prefer to see us manage by objective rather than by crisis.
There also should be greater incentives for us to conserve. Perhaps we could earn tax credits if we drove fewer miles. Or perhaps we could lower our taxes if we burned fewer kilowatts than our neighbors. The best energy conservation incentive might be a progressive energy tax - the more you use, the more you pay.
The more we conserve, the less dependence we have on unstable energy supplies. But can our industry be profitable with lower prices? Yes. Technology has dramatically lowered oil and gas production costs. I believe technology, processes and skills will emerge so that oil and gas companies can be just as profitable at lower commodity prices.
At the same time, I would like to see new policies implemented that ensure adequate energy is available, and dependable, for the long term - policies that encourage good stewardship of our resources. Sadly, we have placed no emphasis in the United States, to my knowledge, on developing a policy that rewards and compensates conservation, and we are desperately in need of one. In fact, the best pollution solution might be an aggressive conservation program.
Why should the United States take a leadership role in conservation? The answer is simple - we consume the most. Thus we can have the greatest impact on prices and attitudes toward conservation. We should, as a nation, drive our consumption, and consequently the price, as low as possible and trust that companies will streamline themselves and technology will evolve quickly enough to create profitable business models that can produce at a lower cost. If we could reduce our demand by just 10%, our need for additional supply also would decrease.
When it comes to critical energy requirements, we need a global, long-term view. A strong conservation effort is the best model for stewardship of the Earth's resources. Such an effort could deliver rapid and significant benefits in terms of our dependency on imported oil, the trade deficit and fluctuations in commodity pricing. Conservation will extend the life of the Earth's natural resources and give us more time to make a huge transition to the next major energy source. It also provides for the best utilization of a finite gift.

John Gibson, john.gibson@halliburton.com, is president of Halliburton Energy Services.

Comments