The U.S. Needs a Bigger Energy Boat

Putting The Sheer Magnitude of Forecasted Energy Demand into Perspective

Our team and client base continue to expand. As with any business, we are adjusting tactically to the times and wanted to provide a quick update on our recent activity. I am passing along the "what and why” behind our actions, but I wanted to respectfully request that you review our recent thought leadership piece, which was the impetus that ultimately convinced us to change our team’s name.  

What are we doing?

We are changing the name of our group to “Consulting & Advocacy.”

Why are we doing this?

We were originally working on an internal pet project that initially focused on quantifying the incremental power and energy demand that the growth of generative artificial intelligence would require. Figuring out the answer to this question led us down a rabbit hole that convinced us to take a step back and reflect on how our team provides value to our clients. Based on the analysis, we wanted to publish a comprehensive thought leadership piece that conveys three distinct takeaways:

  1. The hydrocarbon industries are critical to remaining economically competitive over the foreseeable future, particularly as the growth of generative AI materializes
  2. The need for material non-financial data and disclosure remains a critical component of risk management, strategic messaging, and investor diligence, but the high-level term “ESG” is now predominantly counterproductive, rhetorical, and polarizing
  3. Changing our team’s name to “Consulting & Advocacy” better reflects the strategic focus, deliverables, and overall value-add we have been offering clients, both over the previous four years and moving forward

What are we asking?  

There are a variety of headwinds the industry continues to experience.  Unfortunately, these headwinds remain embedded in the capital markets and regulatory landscape, and we feel the detractor narrative continues to disproportionately influence the generalist’s understanding of the industry.  We particularly think the “Quad O” revisions relating to the Super Emitter program underscore a broader concern for the hydrocarbon industries – various regulatory environmental enforcement has essentially been outsourced to “deputized” NGOs who are incredibly well-funded, incessantly motivated, and technologically savvy – and they are not at all fans of our industry.

Particularly with the introduction of Carbon Tracker and MethaneSAT, the margin of error for the fossil fuel industry is razor thin, and the need to improve the overall quality of material non-financial data, disclosure, and messaging is critical.

We take solace in the fact that objective data and comprehensive empirical analysis are on our side. Unfortunately, for the time being, the energy narrative is predominantly controlled by the detractor communities. We have been incredibly successful in helping clients overcome these obstacles.

If your management team, board, or broader stakeholders would like to discuss our findings in more detail, we would love to have a chance to answer your questions.

We would sincerely appreciate you and your team taking the time to read this piece. Admittedly, it is long, but we feel you will find great value in its data and findings. Thank you again for your consideration, and we look forward to talking to you soon.

Read Thought Leadership piece here.