Maintaining and Sustaining Non-Renewable Resources: A Management Report

Chevron Corporation
Maintaining and Sustaining Non-Renewable Resources: A Management Report


Prepared by: Energy of the Future, Inc.







Course Title
Professor
University
Department


Date:





Table of Contents
Introduction……………………………………………3 - 4
How Chevron Positions Itself…………………………4
Chevron’s Impact on the Environment……………….6
Problems in Ecuador……………………………6
True or False: Commitment to Renewable Energy…...6
What They Say………………………………….6
What They Do…………………………………..7
The Fracking and Natural Gas Controversy.………… 8
Problems in Romania…………………………...9
Reflection and Conclusion…………………………9 – 10
Reference List……………………………………..11 - 12
Appendix A……………………………………………13
Appendix B……………………………………………13
Appendix C……………………………………………14
Appendix D…………………………………………...14

Introduction
Overview of Sustainability of Non-Renewable Resources:
The problem of sustainability as related to non-renewable resources is a complex one. On one hand, production needs to meet ever expanding consumption, on the other, with limited information as to supplies and usage, it becomes impossible to predict a timeline for just how long even known supplies of resources will last. Continually seeking new sources may be a partial answer, but it is certainly not the ultimate one, since even these new sources have life limits and will ultimately give out one day. The prospect of finding new sources ad infinitum is not only remote but naïve.
As (Hayward, Fowler & Headman 2000) point out in their study on sustainability, there is an issue in predicting what needs are extant far down the road. As example, they give a resource planner in 1900, that, because new energy sources were not known at the time, would probably be seeking to preserve sources of ”kerosene and firewood for heating, copper for telegraph wires, rock salt for refrigeration,”(2000), and so on.
To this point, efforts to preserve, say, wood supplies are fairly recent, and its use both as energy source and other uses have diminished significantly through the mid-twentieth century (Fig 1). Generally, the concept behind protecting wood supplies is directly related to wood as a sustainable resource. That perhaps today we give lip service to the importance of preserving non-renewable energy sources does not belie the fact that we continue to use these resources with apparent disregard for the urgent nature of the problem while continuing to seek out further new supplies.
To consider any non-renewable resource as sustainable then is an oxymoron, since by definition resources in that category cannot be replaced once used and thus are not technically sustainable? Hayward et al (2000) agree, “…each unit of a non-renewal resource used is one less unit from a finite pool.”
A more optimistic view of sustainability as a concept comes from Nooten (2007), who states that “the idea of sustainable development in the context of non-renewable resources, in particular mineral resources, may seem a contradiction if a one-dimensional view is taken” (35). Nooten (2007) further argues that given sustainability is relevant to economic, social and environmental considerations “It is not always self-evident that our present modern technological society requires an ongoing supply of materials”(35). For our purposes we will, as do most, agree that resources are limited and that their sustainability is of the essence to our progress as humans.
Because the issue has significant ramifications both within the energy industry and for society as a whole, it behoves companies dealing within that industry to forward policies that protect reserves in the interests of future generations, which may find them in future scrambling to come up with new methods of providing energy without benefit of these reserves. Many companies today “are finding this not only possible, but profitable, to reduce material usage and pollution, and they have embarked on ambitious programs to reduce material use and pollution without the prod of legal mandates” (Hayward et al 2000).
This report examines current Chevron Corporation’s environmental policies toward sustainability of non-renewable resources vis a vis the (Nooten 2007) definition of same as: “a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations” (36).
How Chevron Positions Itself
As with most large energy conglomerates, Chevron presents itself as being in the forefront of methods, technologies and business philosophies that support preservation of the environment and sustainability of non-renewable resources by “safely provide[ing]energy products vital to sustainable economic progress and human development throughout the world” (The Chevron Way 2014). It is noteworthy that Chevron chooses to use the term “sustainable” coupled with economic progress, two concepts as we shall see in further sections which do not necessarily complement each other. The Chevron site also states that the company places “the highest priority on the health and safety of our workforce and protection of our assets and the environment” (2014); these latter two in the past and in various situations have also proven to be incongruous.
Chevron prides itself on its stewardship of sites, claiming that when any resource site is closed it is remediated for environmental effects, and that the company searches for ways to recycle the area to benefit communities…in its words, “Reduce our environmental footprint. We identify and manage risks to the environment and reduce potential environmental impacts throughout the life of our operations” (Chevron Human Energy 2013). These actions are obviously viewed as protecting sustainable resources, in this case, the land on which their operations are based, certainly not the non-renewable resources that have been taken in the process of their tenure. Again, considering Nooten 2007, one must ask if this activity suits the overall inclusive definition of sustainability (36). In short, Chevron’s claim is significantly focused upon lessening environmental and human impact, while assurances of sustainability of actual resources gleaned is mentioned far less frequently almost as an aside (Chevron Human Energy 2013).
Regarding big oil in general, figures show put expenditures on new technology in perspective as “$71 billion figure touted by the API went toward making oil companies’ existing fossil-fuel business more environmentally friendly. Only $9 billion went toward renewable energy investment…” (Willis 2012), by any reasonable standard a small percentage. This again in my opinion shows less commitment to sustainability of non-renewables and more of an emphasis on continuing to over farm them using methods that may or may not be safer for the overall environment.

Chevron Corporation’s Impact on the Environment
Despite Chevron’s claims in its various references to sustainability efforts, Cherry and Sneirson (2012) in their legal opinion present a quite different view of the company and its environmental claims as a “greenwash,” citing its “faux” corporate sense of responsibility,” pointing to its We Agree section of the report as nothing more than “false advertising” and quite likely subject to legal action by consumers (133-138). Referred to in the Cherry and Sneirson paper are Chevron’s “claims in its advertisements to care deeply about the environment…even as it faces an $18 billion judgment for polluting the Ecuadorean Amazon and injuring its people” (133). It should be noted that the damage to the environment and its inhabitants did occur pre-Chevron’s purchasing of Texaco Oil in the 1990s, which company was responsible for the environmental catastrophe that followed. Chevron inherited seventy percent of its clean-up. (138)
While the horrendous details of the environmental nightmare left behind by Texaco is too long and detailed to go in to in this report, the fact that Chevron has whitewashed the issue and has thus far refused to take full responsibility for clean-up, including leaching waste pits (Fig 2 & 3) and the oil buried there that “continues to ooze to the surface of closed pits, and has sickened animals as well as people” (Chevron/Toxico 2014).

True or False: Commitment to Renewable Energy
What They Say: Investment in renewable energy is generally considered a progressive economic tactic and one that contributes to the sustainability of non-renewable resources, hypothetically by limiting the amount of non-renewables needed. Eventually the hope of environmentalists is that renewables will replace their counterparts and, in eliminating greenhouse gases, in the process provide a cleaner air quality environment. Chevron gives lip service to this practice on its sites, and indeed the company does invest in renewable alternative energy programs, although as stated before in Willis (2012).
Chevron on its own Emerging Energy website states, “The skills we have honed during more than 130 years of finding, producing and delivering energy are essential as we work toward development of commercial-scale renewable resources. This sounds a very positive statement indeed. The site goes on… “Our efforts are focused on research and development of renewable energy technologies that are scalable, sustainable and profitable,” with the caveat that “crude oil and natural gas will remain the world’s predominant sources of energy for decades to come,” and that they [Chevron] “…believe[s] the most immediate and cost-effective sources of energy come from energy efficiency and conservation” (Chevron Emerging Energy, 2013).
In reading between the lines we see hints of the company’s overall attitude when it comes to sustaining non-renewable sources, first in its prediction that non-renewables such as crude oil and gas will provide energy far into the future as reflected in predictions to 2030 (Fig 4), a contention dismissed by Hayward et al as impossible to predict given “the paradoxical problem of having a sufficiently long time horizon” and the subsequent reality that “our technological and resource utilization mix is certain to continue changing as rapidly” (2000). Also, Chevron maintains that the best way to handle all of this is through “energy efficiency and conservation” (Chevron Emerging Energy, 2013). Their prediction that the use of fossil fuel will decrease significantly then is belied by (Fig 4), which we have already seen shows an increase in fossil fuel production relative to its investment in renewables.
None of this bodes well for serious programs designed to phase out the use of non-renewable resources in favour of alternative energy. Also the incorporation of the words “profitable” and “scalable” seem to offset “sustainable” as a secondary consideration (Chevron Emerging Energy, 2013), since renewable energy resources are generally not considered unsustainable.
What They Do:
Chevron may point to projects which at first glance appear to put the company on the forefront of renewable energy sources. “Chevron recently opened a 29-megawatt thermal solar-to-steam facility at one of its oldest oil fields in California’s San Joaquin Valley, which will increase crude oil production at the site” (Willis 2012). The last phrase speaks volumes about the company’s purported dedication to renewables for reasons other than a serious commitment to scaling back its production of non-renewable sources. Willis goes on to contend that Big Oil's relationship to renewables is far more complex than the bold taglines and mission statements might imply” (2012).
Juhaz found that stated commitments to renewable energy projects were overblown and that investments by companies such as BP never exceeded 6 percent, with Chevron and Shell spending highs of only 2.5 percent of all expenditures on average. Quoting Douglas Cogan, vice president of investment firm MSCIESG Research, Juhaz writes, "The bottom line is that oil companies only invested a drop in the bucket [in alternatives] even in the 'heyday' of the early 1980s… Most of the largest [oil company] investors have dropped out in recent years, following the precedent that Exxon set 30 years ago" (Juhaz 2013).
The Fracking and Natural Gas Controversy
A relatively new drilling technology to get at natural gas reserves in shale rock, called fracking, has become the focus of a new non-renewable energy source. The process, however, has unleashed storms of protest from local communities and experts, many of whom contend that the process is not environmentally safe, and among other unsafe results threatens ground water supplies with pollution from chemicals used in the process. Hydraulic fracturing uses sand, water, and chemicals injected at high pressures to blast open shale rock and release the trapped gas.
Chevron production predictions for natural gas rely heavily on the mining of shale (Fig 5), which even its own CEO admits may be well founded and that the industry needs to adopt stricter standards for drilling (Snyder 2013). In terms of Chevron’s commitment to sustainability, the process and thrust of its new fracking industry does little to support the position, since fracking by process depletes natural gas reserves in shale, which Hayward et al point out is hardly “finite” (2000). A current controversy in Romania involving Chevron’s fracking operation highlights environmental issues and legal ones as well. Protests allege Chevron’s collusion with local governments to force its fracking operations on communities which oppose them (Besliu 2013).
Reflection and Conclusion
Given the evidence and opinions shown, it is difficult to declare Chevron as an entity seriously interested in the sustainability of nature resources and those non-renewable. While the company does give a degree of lip service to developing new forms of energy, and indeed it is doing that, looking at the rather low research and development figures in relationship to others in its 2012 Annual Report, it is hard to take its claims of being committed to the development of new energy sources seriously. While the company along with others seems to be doing its part in researching and developing new technologies and renewable sources, it appears the amount allotted, in my judgment, is done so to protect bottom line, one bolstered more by its production of non-renewable sources (Chevron Annual Report 2012). This is not to say the company has no regard for environmental concerns. It does, but again, it appears those concerns often take a back seat to Chevron’s determination to increase its coffers and limit extraneous expenses (of which serious research and development seems one). Its rhetoric, if read between the lines, seems to indicate this, and the use of the term sustainability seems more a buzzword inserted for effect to mask the true focus of its programs: continued exploitation of non-renewable energy sources worldwide as the only sensible path. For me, the fracking controversy alone speaks volumes regarding their intent to exploit yet another non-renewable energy source that cannot in future be sustained. Its CEO’s call for more stringent regulation may be honestly intended, but who knows that even that might be simply a ploy to keep smaller industries out of the fracking business, leaving its enormous potential for profit to Chevron and big oil. When it comes to sustainability versus exploitation for profit, the latter, for Chevron, will always supersede the former.
Reference List
Besliu, R. (2013). Pungesti: Romania’s Battlefield Against Chevron at:
Cherry, M.A., Sneirson, J.F. (2012). Chevron, Greenwashing, and the Myth of “Green Oil
Chevron Corporation Annual Report (2012). Available at:
Chevron Emerging Energy (2013). Available at:
Chevron Human Energy (2013). Available at:

Chevron/Toxico: The Campaign for Justice in Ecuador (2014) Available at:
Hayward, S., Fowler, E. and Steadman, L. (2000). Sustainability and Non-Renewable
Juhaz, A. (2013). Big Oil’s Big Lies About Alternative Energy at:
Nooten, G.A. (2007) Sustainable Development and Non-Renewable Resources—A Multilateral
Snyder, J. (2013). Chevron CEO Says Industry Must Deal with Fracking Concern at:
(Accessed 06 March 2014).
Willis, P. (2012). Is Big Oil Really Serious About Renewables? at:

















Appendix A
Figures and Charts
Appendix B
Fig. 2/Fig. 3 Source: Chevron/Toxico. The Campaign for Justice in Ecuador. 2014




Appendix C
Fig 4. Source: Chevron Corporation's (NYSE: CVX) Annual Analyst Meeting Charts

Appendix D
Fig 5. Source: Chevron Corporation's (NYSE: CVX) Annual Analyst Meeting Charts