Watch videos with subtitles in your language, upload your videos, create your own subtitles! Click here to learn more on "how to Dotsub"

Santa Clara eco group B-Legit confronts Chevron on alternative energy

0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
This is B-Legit, an environmental justice group on Santa Clara University campus. There are also some friends joining us randomly and... we are about to go to a talk that David Reeves is giving and he is from Chevron... and we are going to ask some pointed questions and see what we can figure out. My perception is that the premise isn't quite accurate. Our capital investment runs about 22 billion dollars per year and I don't believe the portion dedicated to removals was dropped, but you might have some data I'm not familiar with. If you look at where our capital investment goes, 22 billion dollars a year... that was about how much money we made in 2008 which was a record year for us like you said So essentially everything we make, if you think about it, is going back into the ground. cause we invest about 3 billion dollars a year in refineries and pipelines and trucks and things like that the rest of it is all in developing crude oil and natural gas. That's essentially what we do. And there's a small sliver, relatively small sliver for us, related to removals. So unlike the company who is spilling oil into the gulf right now, we never proclaimed to be any different. BP had a big position and a public position saying that they were moving away from petroleum. which personally I found to be somewhat disingenuous when 95% of their revenue continued to come from it We are what we are, and we are a oil and gas production company and a refining and marketing company we are investing... our philosophy in investing in renewables, and it kind of goes back to the principals of the speech, If public policy wants us to invest in renweables, and we find that as an attractive investment for our shareholders relative to the other things that we can do, we will do it We don't feel necessarily that it is our responsibility to take un-economic action to advance public policy Public policy is there for us all to participate in and make the choices. and so I would be quite surprised if you had the chairman here that he would come up with a different answer. we recognize that we have to follow the rules and participate in the rules, but the rules are shifting on us they may or may not cause our company to be at an advantage or disadvantage for the future but it is what it is, and that's what the shareholders who bought the company have chosen to invest in so far. We are not reconsidering investments. We have 10 drilling rigs around the world that are operated by Trans Ocean. on leases that we're developing somewhere around the world what happened in the gulf, first of all, we think of the visuals on TV and the events that are doing devastating harm to the environment in the gulf right now. Before all that happened, 11 people got killed. That's immediately the most devastating part for them and their families. I can tell you without being an expert on the up-streaming production side of the business that there are widely varied practices that go on between the different companies and whats going to happen as a result of what BP's had happen to them you can see it playing out, its pretty obvious. The regulators have shifted their point of view, and it will constrain activity So we will follow whatever the rules are. I would like to believe that the discipline we have of operational excellence in the company would not allow that to happen to Chevron. I can't say that for sure, it could happen. first time I said that couldn't happen was probably when it would happen. So it's really about learning the lessons, going back and understanding the operations that we've got what are the extra precautionary steps that we have to take, or we won't be invited to participate in the lease process and ultimately as a company, that's what we're in business to do and if we're not allowed to do it in the gulf we'll go somewhere we're allowed to have access to it. It will be up to public policy what are the rules we have to operate in. whether we find that attractive as an investment in the future or not. We will not draw back as long as we are able to invest safely according to the rules, the MMS regulates that. Great question, very simple answer. It goes back to, ultimately what would the affect of the Kyoto protocol have been? I mentioned earlier the intent there was to put a cost on carbon. So the real answer to why we didn't answer it... we didn't want the cost. cause ultimately what happens is, a very clear distinction here.. Countries that were growing that are still coming, the populations are still moving up in terms of standards of living like China were not about to sign the Kyoto Protocol. They need cheep energy. Our economy runs, today in the US, largely on cheap energy and weening ourselves from that over time. If we we're to sign the Kyoto Protocols and actually put in regulations to do that, you would see the US economy disadvantaged relative to global economy. and ultimately our standard of living to drop. and that's really ultimately why it was never signed and probably never will be signed.

Video Details

Duration: 5 minutes and 55 seconds
Country: United States
Language: English
Genre: None
Views: 114
Posted by: ranvideo on Jul 6, 2010

Santa Clara eco group B-Legit confronts Chevron on alternative energy

Caption and Translate

    Sign In/Register for Dotsub to translate this video.