Smoking Gun – Sierra Club admits donations targeting a natural gas competitor
On February 2, 2012, the Sierra Club allowed a Time magazine blog to break a poorly kept “secret” whose existence had threatened to get out of hand. In a post…
I love honest people. Engaging in straightforward discussions and even arguments is one of my favorite pastimes. This morning, I opened up my copy of Chesapeake Energy’s annual report and read the following clear statement of objectives:
Some of the great public debates of the next 10 years will focus on how we should meet America’s growing need for more electricity. Presently, coal meets 52% of our electricity needs, nuclear 21%, natural gas 21% and hydro, wind and other renewables about 6%. It is imperative for our company and industry that natural gas be seen as the preferred solution (emphasis added) to meeting the twin challenges of generating more electricity in the years ahead while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Chesapeake Energy demonstrated part of how it intended to meet that objective during the recent discussions in Texas about TXU’s plans to build new coal fired generation right in the heart of Chesapeake’s primary production areas – the US mid-continent. During that discussion, Chesapeake Energy set up a group called the Clean Sky Coalition and ran a series of TV ads with the theme of “Face it, Coal is Dirty”. (See, for example, a story by John J. Fialka in the April 27, 2007 issue of the Wall Street Journal titled Coalition Ends Ad Campaign Bashing Coal)
The letter from the Chairman in the annual report provides a good look at what I believe is a strong strategy for making a good profit. There is, after all, a reason why I receive the annual report – I have been an investor in the company for quite a number of years. However, I do think it is important for my pro-nuclear colleagues to enter the battle with open eyes. Here is an important part of the stated strategy:
Today we see policymakers promoting alternative fuels such as wind, solar, biofuels, and nuclear. These are all legitimate alternatives (though some much less so than others), yet none can offer energy in great abundance at reasonable price anytime soon. On the other hand, burning natural gas instead of gasoline, diesel or coal reduces greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 50%. We believe the evidence clearly demonstrates that natural gas is by far the most practical solution to the problem – it is abundant, affordable, reliable, clean burning and domestically produced.
To spread the word about the positive attributes of natural gas, Chesapeake has recently helped establish a foundation based in Washington, D. C., called the American Clean Skies Foundation (www.americancleanskies.com). This foundation will become a leading voice in the debate about how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid abrupt climate change. The foundation will encourage conservation of all types of energy, but will primarily advocate the increased use of natural gas in the U. S. and around the world.
Read that last sentence carefully again and see if you see the contradiction.
Rod Adams is Managing Partner of Nucleation Capital, a venture fund that invests in advanced nuclear, which provides affordable access to this clean energy sector to pronuclear and impact investors. Rod, a former submarine Engineer Officer and founder of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc., which was one of the earliest advanced nuclear ventures, is an atomic energy expert with small nuclear plant operating and design experience. He has engaged in technical, strategic, political, historic and financial analysis of the nuclear industry, its technology, regulation, and policies for several decades through Atomic Insights, both as its primary blogger and as host of The Atomic Show Podcast. Please click here to subscribe to the Atomic Show RSS feed. To join Rod's pronuclear network and receive his occasional newsletter, click here.
I’ve been involved in a reasoned discussion with an oil field accountant / attorney about US natural gas prices and total resource base. I thought that it would be worth preserving and sharing that discussion here so that it would not get buried. If you read closely between the lines, you will see why I…
I have always tried to be clear when I talk about how fossil fuel interests have been responsible for much of the success of the organized anti-nuclear movement. Many people in various discussion forums have misinterpreted my words “fossil fuel interests” as meaning just major oil companies, but I am trying to encompass a larger…
A couple of days ago, I wrote about my discovery that Robert O. Anderson, a long time leader in the global petroleum business, had provided the seed money that David Brower used to fund Friends of the Earth, an organization that has been fighting against nuclear energy for more than 40 years. I pointed out…
On April 28, 2011, Roland Kupers, a former Royal Dutch Shell executive and current visiting fellow at Oxford University, published an opinion piece titled The end of nuclear power that exposed his dislike of nuclear energy. Here is an example quote from that piece: That dream always contained the seeds of a nightmare. While the…
Richard Muller has a lot in common with Amory Lovins. They both received MacArthur Foundation Fellowships (aka “Genius Grants”) several decades ago – Muller in 1982 and Lovins in 1993. They both get a lot of attention from the commercial media and from elected politicians. They both were active members of large environmental groups early…
A good friend sent me a link to an interesting diary on Daily Kos titled “Clean Coal”‘s Dirty Hands?. That diary entry used an article written by Peter Montague, titled INSIGHTS: Carbon Sequestration that provides some very interesting documentation of grants provided by The Joyce Foundation to a number of mainstream environmental organizations. The essential…