Banjo Hangout Logo
Banjo Hangout Logo

Premier Sponsors

727
Banjo Lovers Online


Page: 1  2   Last Page (2) 

Jun 15, 2021 - 12:06:34 PM
Players Union Member

rinemb

USA

13474 posts since 5/24/2005
Online Now

Having spent most of my science career in the oil and gas business, though fading into retirement, I still read some of the biz articles I can access free. Recently, I read an article declaring that oil corporations need to face the growing trend of ESG Investment and how they score with those that track this kind of thing. ESG has already impacting hiring in the oil biz, as many younger folks see themselves as being immoral to work in the oil and gas business.
Are your investments, ie: IRAs, 401Ks, or port folio directed to high scoring in the ESG measures?

I have attached an introduction to ESG:

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/esg-investing 

Jun 15, 2021 - 12:23:49 PM

YellowSkyBlueSun

Virgin Islands (U.S.)

207 posts since 5/11/2021

It's easy to say you won't work in an "immoral" industry, it's another thing entirely to live in a smaller house in a worse neighborhood with no college money for your kids because you don't want dirty oil money.

Is there any type of data that supports the claim that hiring problems in the oil industry are caused by ESG sentiment? I'm an engineer and haven't observed that at all. At the end of the day, most engineers and laborers are practical people, and despite what they share on their facebook page they will take the highest paying job they can get regardless of the ESG impacts.

ESG Investing is, ironically, not financially sustainable. Take two portfolios. One focused on ESG, the other focused on ROI. The latter will always beat the former. Every time. With IRAs, 401ks, and other retirement income, the vast majority of people are invested in passive index funds and ESG doesn't play into their strategy at all. They simply select the funds that best match their appetite for risk, fees, and RoI. Investments that focus on ESG will always have higher risk and lower RoI than investments that don't. The only way that ESG concepts would actually work is within a regulatory environment that converts environmental/social negative externalities into nontrivial financial liabilities.

The purpose of my investments is to increase my personal wealth, and the wealth of future generations within my family. My investment strategy is dictated by that purpose. While I agree with the concepts of ESG, it would not be logical for me to let those concepts drive my investment strategy.

Edited by - YellowSkyBlueSun on 06/15/2021 12:25:42

Jun 15, 2021 - 1:14:20 PM
Players Union Member

rinemb

USA

13474 posts since 5/24/2005
Online Now

Is there any type of data that supports the claim that hiring problems in the oil industry are caused by ESG sentiment?

I cannot support this claim presently, but I know I have read it and heard it. That said, young folks could just claim that because they don't want to relocate to Texas or Midwest, or spend time "in the field", or suffer through numerous boom/bust cycles, etc. ? Or hiring persons may say that because its easier to hire good foreign workers-especially in science and engineering?
I will try to do some backing-up googling to support this comment later.
brad

Jun 15, 2021 - 1:18:01 PM
Players Union Member

rinemb

USA

13474 posts since 5/24/2005
Online Now

Jun 15, 2021 - 2:23:30 PM

banjo bill-e

Tuvalu

11272 posts since 2/22/2007

Money flows are international. If local people will not invest, foreigners certainly will. And workers---from somewhere---will gladly fill high paying jobs. That is what immigrants do when the locals will not.

I was visiting friends lately that were on a tear, giving the oil companies hell, and I noticed that they owned three cars and a monster pickup and a tractor and two motorcycles and a powerboat and--------(I kept my observations to myself, as they are indeed friends)

Many more will talk the talk than actually walk!

Jun 16, 2021 - 6:53:49 AM
Players Union Member

rinemb

USA

13474 posts since 5/24/2005
Online Now

Yes, the green hypocrisy with many folks is almost funny. Most of us, I think, are greening a bit, in our own ways, more or less. You may ride a bicycle and be proud of that, yet burn oil for your heat. I may repurpose, and reuse, but not a big recycler. I went from a 14 mph beast to a 30 mph whimp. Yet, I am not going give the finger to the person passing me in their big Chevy Suburban...like happened to me at times.
I have not put my savings in a ESG Portfolio, but I have told my broker, not to put me in one particular stock.
Brad

Jun 16, 2021 - 7:33:10 AM
likes this

YellowSkyBlueSun

Virgin Islands (U.S.)

207 posts since 5/11/2021

So, I dug into that Business Insider article. It's a pretty typical BI article, lots of conjecture and a headline that isn't supported by the content.

It says that a poll found that 14% of millennials wouldn't want to work in Oil/Gas because it has a negative image. That means that 86% would want to work in oil/gas. It also says that the top two factors for employment are salary (72%) and technological exposure (43%), both of which are very high in oil/gas and make it quite attractive to any potential employee. It says that "only" 2% of US college graduates consider oil/gas as a top field, but keep in mind that the vast majority of all college graduates are not qualified to work in oil/gas. Only 6% of graduates are engineers of any discipline, and 11% are business majors. Let's say that half of those engineers and business majors are likely not qualified to work in oil/gas. That leaves 8% of all college graduates that are qualified to work in oil/gas. If 8% are qualified, and 2% are interested, it means that at least 25% of all qualified college graduates consider oil/gas to be a top career field, which I think is a pretty good market share.

It's true that oil/gas has a labor force problem, but I don't think it has anything to do with ESG sentiment. The issue is that in order to work in oil/gas, you need to be highly intelligent, highly motivated, or both. And the people that have those qualities can make a lot more money working in information technology, defense contracting, or other more lucrative fields. It's the same issue mining companies had when the automotive plants opened up. Why would a laborer work for $2/day in a mine when they can work for $5/day in a car factory? Why would an engineer work for $90,000/year in oil/gas when they can work for $175k/year in software development? It's the same issue with EVERY industry that claims a labor shortage: labor is a marketplace, and the salaries are too low. It's really that simple.

I've made this argument before about a lot of things, but at the end of the day it's the same issue: people will say whatever they think should be said, but at the end of the day they want the best lives for themselves and their individual families. People act in their own self-interest 99.99% of the time. There are not very many people in this world that will take a lower salary because of an abstract social issue, regardless of how much they care about that issue. 

Edited by - YellowSkyBlueSun on 06/16/2021 07:41:08

Jun 16, 2021 - 3:20:36 PM

12236 posts since 1/15/2005
Online Now

quote:
Originally posted by YellowSkyBlueSun

So, I dug into that Business Insider article. It's a pretty typical BI article, lots of conjecture and a headline that isn't supported by the content.

It says that a poll found that 14% of millennials wouldn't want to work in Oil/Gas because it has a negative image. That means that 86% would want to work in oil/gas. It also says that the top two factors for employment are salary (72%) and technological exposure (43%), both of which are very high in oil/gas and make it quite attractive to any potential employee. It says that "only" 2% of US college graduates consider oil/gas as a top field, but keep in mind that the vast majority of all college graduates are not qualified to work in oil/gas. Only 6% of graduates are engineers of any discipline, and 11% are business majors. Let's say that half of those engineers and business majors are likely not qualified to work in oil/gas. That leaves 8% of all college graduates that are qualified to work in oil/gas. If 8% are qualified, and 2% are interested, it means that at least 25% of all qualified college graduates consider oil/gas to be a top career field, which I think is a pretty good market share.

It's true that oil/gas has a labor force problem, but I don't think it has anything to do with ESG sentiment. The issue is that in order to work in oil/gas, you need to be highly intelligent, highly motivated, or both. And the people that have those qualities can make a lot more money working in information technology, defense contracting, or other more lucrative fields. It's the same issue mining companies had when the automotive plants opened up. Why would a laborer work for $2/day in a mine when they can work for $5/day in a car factory? Why would an engineer work for $90,000/year in oil/gas when they can work for $175k/year in software development? It's the same issue with EVERY industry that claims a labor shortage: labor is a marketplace, and the salaries are too low. It's really that simple.

I've made this argument before about a lot of things, but at the end of the day it's the same issue: people will say whatever they think should be said, but at the end of the day they want the best lives for themselves and their individual families. People act in their own self-interest 99.99% of the time. There are not very many people in this world that will take a lower salary because of an abstract social issue, regardless of how much they care about that issue. 


That reminds me of my wife's family's lake house next door neighbor's son.  He is about 10 years younger than my wife and graduated from The Citadel with an engineering degree, got married several years later and began his career in gas and oil ...... most of it in the MIddle East.  We were visiting my wife's brother last year who had just boiught a house on the lake and he asked us if we wanted to take a boat ride to see the house that Steve (neighbor's son) was building.  Attached is a photo when about 3/4th finished.  Steve's main residence is in Houston so this is a vacation house.  If young folks like the idea of "surplus", the oil and gas is not a bad way to fly!


 

Jun 18, 2021 - 8:43:09 AM

2692 posts since 2/10/2013

Unethical acts by some big oil companies have tarnished their reputation. Chevron's ecological disaster in South America is one example. In Alaska regulations forbid offshore drilling, so land was moved to manufacture an artificial peninsula to avoid complying with drilling regulations. Oil companies are responsible for capping wells which are no longer active. They avoid the expense of capping wells by declaring they are still active and continue polluting. Some bigger companies operations are sold to smaller companies which will declare bankruptcy and the bill for cleanup passed to Uncle Sam. As far as I know, no governmental agency. state or federal, has take action to prevent this from happening.

Public relations wise, putting a pipeline through American Indian land was not wise. The effect on this on the general public was "peanuts" compared to what could have happened if the American Indians had used well staged and produced infomercials to be shown on national TV. Years ago, an Individual playing the role of a distressed American Indian just stood there and shed a single tear while the commercial discussed pollution. This simple commercial was more effective at affecting public opinion than anyone could have expected.



After the news about the Exxon Valdez spill died down, Exxon immediately went to court to avoid complying with as many penalties as possible.

Some oil producing countries are diversifying their finances and economies to compensate for a diminishing demand for oil. I think oil will always be in demand, but some of these demands may be greatly reduced or even disappear. As oil revenues for some countries diminish, social and economic disorder is expected. Hopefully solutions will be sought before the problems become disasters. I am not holding my breath waiting for action.

Jun 19, 2021 - 1:15:54 AM

m06

England

10320 posts since 10/5/2006

Some very generalised and cynical assumptions about ethical investment/career choice here. I’m always amused when I read statements that include ‘99.9% of...’.

I’ve seen it work both ways: a CND supporter I knew personally who went to work in the nuclear industry and individuals who shun bigger salaries and make ethical decisions.

Increasingly folks are waking up to personal responsibility and choice and putting that understanding into practice when able to do so. I sense that the idea of ‘maximising my wealth regardless’ is gradually becoming socially taboo. That doesn’t mean that some people won’t still think and behave that way.

Edited by - m06 on 06/19/2021 01:16:47

Jun 19, 2021 - 3:36:17 AM

4191 posts since 12/6/2009

What greenie people are ignoring and what I find puzzling....every greenie wears clothes, lives in houses or shelters, uses transportation whether it be their own or the trucks trains planes boats, products whole dependent on, and most 99% life couldn’t exist without fossil fuels. Books newspapers tools yes even banjos and your sneakers on your feet.....food products production in any mass form of production....medical, medicine, ....etc etc......everywhere you look whether your rich poor foreign born whatever your ethnicity and or whatever your perceived mental ideology or faith.....it will be a long long time before greenie dreams even come close to their shallow thinking dreams....even if a scientist wakes up tomorrow with the energy revolution that ends fossil fuel....it would take 100s of years if not thousands of years to change the whole world into a greenie dream world.....and what are we doing?.... we argue, whats better an electric car or a gas car....eesshhh oh and one more minor point brought up a couple weeks go by a thinker....its a fact we are being (our planet) drawn closer in orbit towards the sun.....is there a greenie in the room who would solve that problem? eh?

Edited by - overhere on 06/19/2021 03:40:27

Jun 19, 2021 - 8:53:15 AM

2692 posts since 2/10/2013

I don't understand why the use of a material/product should absolve the providers from ethical conduct. That is like saying most people drive cars, so automakers should not be subject to environmental or safety legislation.

Jun 19, 2021 - 12:54:52 PM

m06

England

10320 posts since 10/5/2006

To read in b/w environmentalism referred to as ‘shallow thinking’ is quite a stunning example of the author of that thought believing themselves to be somehow separate from and unaffected by the bigger narrative...and scientific fact.

We’re all in this one together whether we like/accept/understand it or not; it’s the global narrative that includes us all.

Edited by - m06 on 06/19/2021 12:56:59

Jun 20, 2021 - 6:20:58 AM
Players Union Member

rinemb

USA

13474 posts since 5/24/2005
Online Now

Richard said: "...Oil companies are responsible for capping wells which are no longer active. They avoid the expense of capping wells by declaring they are still active and continue polluting. Some bigger companies operations are sold to smaller companies which will declare bankruptcy and the bill for cleanup passed to Uncle Sam. As far as I know, no governmental agency. state or federal, has take action to prevent this from happening..."

I thought I would break this portion of Richard's comments down...

"Oil companies are responsible for capping wells which are no longer active."
True, but for clarification, we don't "cap" wells anymore. State and Federal Statutes allow for "temporary abandonment" for a limited time to repair the well, or convert for other purposes-such as waterflooding older fields etc.
Or we "plug" a well following state and Federal statutes and orders. This involve a variety of methods but all include placing cement down the borehole to protect usable waters and invasion into oil or gas wells nearby. All of this is an expensive procedure.

"They avoid the expense of capping wells by declaring they are still active and continue polluting."
Not so, legally, and following the rules and regulations governing this biz. "Inactive" wells must be plugged in a regulated amount of time if not produced. In Kansas, one year, sometimes an additional year is granted under strict rules. Most wells do not pollute. Injections wells must pass integrity testing (MIT) every several years to keep in service. there is much more to this, I will not bother with here.

"Some bigger companies operations are sold to smaller companies which will declare bankruptcy and the bill for cleanup passed to Uncle Sam."
The reason there has always been the business of big companies selling to small companies, is most wells become uneconomic faster with higher overhead majors and biggies. So they sell off non-profit wells to us small folks who can operate and maintain wells cheaper still under strict rules and regs. We don't buy wells to go out of business. Ok, ok, there are always exceptions to the rules and laws subject to penalty of laws.

"As far as I know, no governmental agency. state or federal, has take action to prevent this from happening..."
We are and have been one of the most heavily regulated businesses on the planet for decades and more. Subject to harsh fines, loss of licenses, and prison. But, yes, wells drilled in very early 1900s were mostly unregulated in this new Industry. These 100+ year old unplugged wells are where most of the problems lie. Ownerships and even locations of well are very difficult to locate or find responsible parties. Thousands alone here in Kansas. So in order to clean up and stabilize and plug these wells, Industry and government pay into funds to pay for finding and plugging these ancient well.
Brad

Jun 21, 2021 - 3:31:45 AM

4191 posts since 12/6/2009

if we all can force are constipated brains and free up thought process....Oil is not the 100 percent problem. there is a natural element that that because it is is not used but only the human factor. I read a stupid argument about the planets wobble ....the author wrote....the earths wobble is caused by melting glaziers......I did some research and found a billion years ago the planet was even then wobbling in its orbit.....I also know a college graduate that thought the sun was closer to the earth then the moon. whats it all mean?....mmmmmmm

Jun 21, 2021 - 5:31:44 AM
Players Union Member

rinemb

USA

13474 posts since 5/24/2005
Online Now

quote:
Originally posted by overhere

if we all can force are constipated brains and free up thought process....Oil is not the 100 percent problem. there is a natural element that that because it is is not used but only the human factor. I read a stupid argument about the planets wobble ....the author wrote....the earths wobble is caused by melting glaziers......I did some research and found a billion years ago the planet was even then wobbling in its orbit.....I also know a college graduate that thought the sun was closer to the earth then the moon. whats it all mean?....mmmmmmm


smiley crying

Jun 21, 2021 - 5:57:33 AM

YellowSkyBlueSun

Virgin Islands (U.S.)

207 posts since 5/11/2021

We don't need to have another climate change thread. I don't think that's the point of OP. I see more of a dilemma of ethics and dispersed responsibility that could lead to a much more interesting discussion. The question is the: At what point are you far enough removed from the negative impacts of your job that you can sleep easy at night.

Let's take two ends of the spectrum. On one end, your job is to dump crude oil directly into the ocean. On the other end, you're an homesteader that produces no negative environmental impacts. Obviously, the far end is unethical. But what about the guy that drives the tank truck to the ocean? What about the guy that operates the oil well drill? Unethical, perhaps? What if you design the drill? What if you drive the truck that carries the drill to the jobsite? The CEO? A clerk in accounts payable? What if you're the cook that runs the cafeteria of the corporate office of the oil company? And what about the consumer, surely they play a role? What about the millions of people that hold shares in the company through index funds in their 401k and demand consistent profitably? How far do we go before it's "okay" to help the effort that eventually causes pollution? Where is the line?

Here's another example: Say you're a civil engineer that is an anti-war environmentalist. Is it hypocritical to design a rail spur that goes to a tank factory? Would it be immoral to manage the construction of a haul road in a sulfide mine?

Again, the root question and point of discussion is this: Everyone participates in the global economic system. Everyone contributes, and everyone benefits. But at what point are you far enough removed from the negative impacts, that you can feel morally clean and sleep easy at night. How close can you get to the drill rig before you're considered "morally responsible" for the pollution it causes?

I don't know the answers to these questions, or if there even is an answer, but I'm curious as to what other people think.

Edited by - YellowSkyBlueSun on 06/21/2021 06:00:17

Jun 21, 2021 - 6:13:47 AM
Players Union Member

rinemb

USA

13474 posts since 5/24/2005
Online Now

YSBS, questions: "How close can you get to the drill rig before you're considered "morally responsible" for the pollution it causes?"

Yes there are rare accidents of consequence on the environment with a drilling rig. Please offer what pollution a drilling rig causes? With all of the regulations, and oversight, there is rare pollution with a drilling rig. It, does take a few acres out of production for a year or two....Of which the landowner is handsomely paid damages for. Those damages paid are always at least equal to best price scenario for crop loss, but usually much much more than that, typically cvan be more than would they could sell those acres for.
Brad

Edited by - rinemb on 06/21/2021 06:21:43

Jun 21, 2021 - 6:23:23 AM

YellowSkyBlueSun

Virgin Islands (U.S.)

207 posts since 5/11/2021

The drill rig isn't the point. It's a metaphor, it could be any activity that causes or carries a perception of causing pollution. The point of the question is about distributed moral responsibility. How close to the direct action can you get before you're guilty of the effects? How far removed from the "bad stuff" do you need to be in order to be considered innocent? Because at the end of the day, whether or not a career is moral is just a question of where you draw that line.

You could use all sorts of examples. Here's another the IDF Cat D9: Is the operator of a IDF Cat D9 morally responsible for simply carrying out his orders? Most would probably say yes, because the "just following orders" excuse doesn't resonate with people anymore. But what if we go further? Does a Caterpillar design engineer carry moral responsibility for the work carried out by a IDF Cat D9? What about the factory worker that welds it together? When that Cat D9 is built and then placed on a train at the factory and hauled to a port for shipment, does the locomotive conductor carry similar moral responsibility? Where is the line?

Edited by - YellowSkyBlueSun on 06/21/2021 06:32:35

Jun 21, 2021 - 6:31:17 AM
Players Union Member

rinemb

USA

13474 posts since 5/24/2005
Online Now

quote:
Originally posted by YellowSkyBlueSun

The drill rig isn't the point. It's a metaphor, it could be any activity that causes or carries a perception of causing pollution. The point of the question is about distributed moral responsibility. How close to the direct action can you get before you're guilty of the effects? How far removed from the "bad stuff" do you need to be in order to be considered innocent? Because at the end of the day, whether or not a career is moral is just a question of where you draw that line.


Ok, gotcha.  So, presently my answer is...that I can sleep at night with what I do.   I could be biased.   I believe the planet's occupants presently have a long way to go to be "mostly" off of fossil fuel dependancy.  So lets do the best we can for the planet and its folks to find, produce, refine, and make stuff with fossil fuels-in the meantime.  All of this has been getting better for decades, and is getting better yet.  

Brad

Jun 21, 2021 - 7:42:51 AM
Players Union Member

rinemb

USA

13474 posts since 5/24/2005
Online Now

The hypocrisy can be incredible with the environment matter. This is one, that you can either laugh or cry, that is fairly recent. I just picked one article out of many to illustrate.
So, I wonder if anyone does not buy or invest in North Face or similar products because of their pollution ethics. Brad

https://techstartups.com/2021/06/05/environmental-hypocrisy-90-north-face-products-made-fossil-fuel-ceo-liberty-energy-says/

Jun 21, 2021 - 7:45:56 AM
Players Union Member

rinemb

USA

13474 posts since 5/24/2005
Online Now

BTW, when NF first came on the market, and I a much younger packbacking dude, I owned a lot of NF stuff. Still have a couple of sleeping bags. Not sure if I would buy any more stuff from them. But if I factored in hypocrisy to my buying and investing, I would starve, freeze, and have to bury my money in the back yard. ;-) Brad

Jun 21, 2021 - 8:14:04 AM

4191 posts since 12/6/2009

quote:
Originally posted by YellowSkyBlueSun

We don't need to have another climate change thread. I don't think that's the point of OP. I see more of a dilemma of ethics and dispersed responsibility that could lead to a much more interesting discussion. The question is the: At what point are you far enough removed from the negative impacts of your job that you can sleep easy at night.

Let's take two ends of the spectrum. On one end, your job is to dump crude oil directly into the ocean. On the other end, you're an homesteader that produces no negative environmental impacts. Obviously, the far end is unethical. But what about the guy that drives the tank truck to the ocean? What about the guy that operates the oil well drill? Unethical, perhaps? What if you design the drill? What if you drive the truck that carries the drill to the jobsite? The CEO? A clerk in accounts payable? What if you're the cook that runs the cafeteria of the corporate office of the oil company? And what about the consumer, surely they play a role? What about the millions of people that hold shares in the company through index funds in their 401k and demand consistent profitably? How far do we go before it's "okay" to help the effort that eventually causes pollution? Where is the line?

Here's another example: Say you're a civil engineer that is an anti-war environmentalist. Is it hypocritical to design a rail spur that goes to a tank factory? Would it be immoral to manage the construction of a haul road in a sulfide mine?

Again, the root question and point of discussion is this: Everyone participates in the global economic system. Everyone contributes, and everyone benefits. But at what point are you far enough removed from the negative impacts, that you can feel morally clean and sleep easy at night. How close can you get to the drill rig before you're considered "morally responsible" for the pollution it causes?

I don't know the answers to these questions, or if there even is an answer, but I'm curious as to what other people think.


on the contrary....ESG strategies are impacted by environment and can be driven by opinions rather than facts. foolishness; " oh I wont buy oil stock because there wont be any use for oil as soon as we put up enough windmills and install enough batteries in everything in the world that needs energy........

" Environmental, social and governance, or ESG investing, is a form of sustainable investing that considers an investment’s financial returns and its overall impact. An investment’s ESG score measures the sustainability of an investment in three specific categories: environmental, social and corporate governance. " this is not about global warming its about stupidity with investing.

Jun 21, 2021 - 8:23:43 AM
likes this

YellowSkyBlueSun

Virgin Islands (U.S.)

207 posts since 5/11/2021

quote:
Originally posted by rinemb

 But if I factored in hypocrisy to my buying and investing, I would starve, freeze, and have to bury my money in the back yard.


And that's exactly the issue with making judgments about this type of thing. I don't think we can claim it's hypocritical to criticize a system while also participating in that system, because that basically makes any criticism impossible.  You don't have to be perfect to want things to be better. It's not hypocritical to drive your car to an anti-oil protest anymore than it's hypocritical for a soldier to attend an anti-war protest.

We can go the other way, too. What about fisherman that support companies that pollute inland freshwaters and vote for politicians that cut clean water protections? (just an example, it's not meant to start a political discussion).

Is the roughneck to blame for pollution caused by oil? The design engineers? Their managers?  What about the stockholders that demand high profits? What about the poeple buying the products? Every person with a 401k owns stock in ExxonMobil, ConecoPhilips, Halliburton, Marathon, and Occidental. Is it really hypocrisy when nearly every person in the world is involved?

Going back to the original post. Sustainable Investing. Fundamentally, an investment is not sustainable if it doesn't produce consistent RoI over the long term. Any strategy that prioritizes political activism over consistent returns will not be sustainable in the long term. 

Edited by - YellowSkyBlueSun on 06/21/2021 08:26:43

Jun 21, 2021 - 8:31:49 AM
Players Union Member

rinemb

USA

13474 posts since 5/24/2005
Online Now

Can't blame me, as a career petroleum geologist. My job is/was, to convince people where there are hidden economic petroleum reserves a mile or two underground. I was usually wrong. Blame the geologist living in his ten million dollar burb home near Dallas. ;-)
Brad
Folks should also know, in our biz, the geologist is usually wrong...the engineer is rarely wrong. Just something we learned to live with. another ;-)
Sorry, YSBS, just had to keep the ol Big Oil thing going.

Jun 21, 2021 - 8:49:15 AM

YellowSkyBlueSun

Virgin Islands (U.S.)

207 posts since 5/11/2021

So, let's play a game. Situation: A petroleum geologist points identifies a well location, and the company drills a well at that spot, and then 2 years later there's a discharge that puts 100 gallons into a trout stream nearby. Does the geologist carry moral responsibility for the fish that die? Is it hypocritical for that geologist to donate to Trout Unlimited, or call himself a conservationist?

Edited by - YellowSkyBlueSun on 06/21/2021 08:53:33

Page: 1  2   Last Page (2) 

Hangout Network Help

View All Topics  |  View Categories

0.328125