Eco-friendly energy on oil companies' agendas?

When the names "Shell" and "Chevron" come to mind, somehow they don't ignite a sense of responsibility-driven, environmentally-concerned companies. We've all heard about the outright environmental abuse some of these Big Oil names have become involved in. But, maybe all of our concern is having some effect on their views...

In a recent article titled, "Oil companies discuss energy challenges," there are talks going on revolving around fuel-efficiency and alternative energy sources. "When some of the industry's top executives gather in Houston next week to discuss global energy challenges, finding new and more effective ways to produce oil and gas — as well as alternatives to fossil fuels — will dominate the discussion."

Go figure. It's almost like McDonalds is holding a summit on how to stop coronary heart disease.

The article goes on to say, "John Hofmeister, head of Royal Dutch Shell's U.S. arm, and James Mulva, ConocoPhillips' chairman and chief executive, are taking part in separate national speaking tours with other representatives of their companies, talking and listening at town hall meetings in places like Edwardsville, Ill., and Little Rock, Ark.

Outlining his company's 35-city tour in Houston recently, Mulva acknowledged that he and others have traditionally done a poor job of conveying to the public how their businesses operate, the challenges they face, the advances they're making.

Often, consumers' main connection with oil companies comes from filling up their vehicles or, recently, reading headlines of record profits. For example, Exxon Mobil this month shattered its own record for the largest annual profit by any U.S. company, bringing in $39.5 billion. And ConocoPhillips reported its best-ever full-year earnings, $15.5 billion for 2006.

But what folks probably don't know, Mulva said, is U.S. oil companies have invested $11 billion in North America on renewable and other forms of energy in the past five years."

It goes on with, "Mulva called President Bush's proposal for expanding ethanol use to reduce gas consumption "very well motivated," but he said industry leaders "want a seat at the table" when state and federal officials set standards for the use and development of alternative energy sources. 'We believe very strongly the best way of meeting those metrics is to determine what they are and then let the industry ... come up with the resources and plans to meet those, (rather) than have mandates saying specifically, 'You have to do it this way and that," he said."

Pardon me, but we all know President Bush is NOT the environmental protector he wants to think he is...(see my blog post regarding Alaska). Therefore, whatever he proposes, I'm sure will be a bare minimum in actually being good for the Earth. Also, we have to remember that oil companies are corporations, and therefore, have one obligation: to maximize profit for their shareholders. No wonder Mulva mentioned that "the industry" should come up with guidelines regarding alternative-energy use. If bio-fuel and ethanol are not cost-effective, guess how long it will be before those ideas are thrown out? Nice try, Big Oil.