Kristen Whitman, left, and Jeffrey Jacoby yell while protesting before the start of the Exxon Mobil shareholders meeting in downtown Dallas. Photo by LM Otero: AP

As my previous post indicated, we in the U.S. have a pretty low energy IQ. One of the reasons is that energy stories are often reported in a very biased or uninformed manner, which tends to distort public viewpoints. For instance, you may think those evil oil companies are wrecking the world. You are entitled to your opinion, and admittedly the oil industry has done plenty to help forge those sorts of views.

However, in the U.S. we take an especially negative view of the oil industry relative to the rest of the world. Why? Odds are that your opinion has been shaped by stories like the examples in this essay. Make no mistake: Your views are carefully nurtured and cultured by various groups with agendas, often by publishing stories full of misinformation. (Full disclosure: I am attempting to influence your viewpoint here, but I am going to do so by pointing out shenanigans).

Here is a perfect example of a story in which words and examples were carefully chosen to convey a very specific (negative) viewpoint:

Big oil companies, little investment in renewable energy

The Center for American Progress released a new report analyzing 2008 oil company profits and lack of investment in renewable energy, even while the companies spend millions of dollars on ad campaigns touting their emphasis on renewable energy.

Note the wording. There was a "lack of investment" in renewable energy, while they spent "millions of dollars" on ad campaigns. The problem with that line - as you will see - is that the "lack of investment" is in the billions, which dwarfs the millions spent on the ad campaigns. But I suppose "billions spent on renewable energy and millions spent on ad campaigns" doesn't convey the desired negative impression as does "4% spent on renewable energy and millions on ad campaigns." The first phrase would likely elicit a response of "Uh, OK." The second one on the other hand? "Why that's outrageous! Those misers!"

These kinds of stories also inevitably fail to note that the 'miserly' oil companies paid several hundred billion dollars in taxes as a result of those profits (if the stories mention taxes at all, it's that the oil companies aren't paying their 'fair share'). According to the Tax Foundation, oil companies have paid out some $2.2 trillion in taxes over the past 25 years - far more than they earned over that time period. But such a misleading picture tends to get painted, that many may think this MoveOn.org petition is rational:

Stop subsidies for Big Oil

Think oil companies should pay their fair share of taxes? So does President Obama. In his budget, the President has proposed cutting billions of dollars in special subsidies and tax loopholes for oil and gas companies.

Just what is a fair share? Will it only be a fair share when oil companies are funding the entire U.S. government? But back to the initial article:

It should come as no surprise that last year’s record high oil prices also led to near record profits for big oil companies.

No, we were bombarded with headlines about it all the time. It should come as no surprise at all. So someone should tell this guy, who thinks it is a secret:

Obama braces for big oil backlash

Little known fact: While most every other industry was falling to pieces last year, the oil industry posted record profits. ExxonMobil alone made $45 billion. So Obama, in his attempt to bolster the sinking U.S. economy, is likely not feeling too much sympathy for the industry as he goes after the clearly unnecessary tax credits the industry currently enjoys.

Another example of a highly misleading article (which actually led me to the MoveOn.org petition). Important to note once again that while other industries were falling to pieces and requiring multi-billion dollar bailouts, the oil industry was making big profits and paying big taxes; taxes in part which enabled those bailouts. But let's continue to dissect the initial article:

Despite their soaring earnings, the big five companies were very stingy with investments in renewable and low-carbon energy technologies and fuels that would reduce oil dependence.

Media tracking group TNS Media Intelligence reported that $52.5 million was spent in the first quarter of 2008 along by the oil industry on greenwashing advertisements that boast about investments in wind and solar power or efficiency.

In fact, a CAP analysis of their investments reveals that the big five oil companies invested just an average of 4 percent of their total 2008 profits in renewable and alternative energy ventures.

So, let's have fun with math. According to the story, 4 percent of total 2008 profits was spent on renewable and alternative energy. That amounts to $4 billion, which the writer considers "very stingy." $52.5 million spent on advertising - which is only 0.0525% of 2008 profits - amounts to a "smokescreen PR campaign." Just once I would like to see one of these articles stick in a line like "In fairness, spending on their tax bills amounted to 250% of total 2008 profits."

What planet do these people live on? Oh, right. The planet where oil companies are run by psychotic madmen and profits go to a select few executives and insiders who conspire in smoke-filled rooms. The planet where novices 'know' that the industry should invest their profits into ventures that aren't their core business, and which would likely cause their profits to vanish (potentially leading to a bailout scenario!) These people live in a cartoon world, but the problem is that most of the population lives there.

Voters have been conditioned to hate Big Oil, as Robert Bryce points out in:

Exxon, Big Oil Profits Evil Only Until You Weigh Their Tax Bills

Bryce notes:

While it's unlikely that the general public's attitude toward Big Oil will ever be changed, the public should recognize that Exxon's profits have come along with an enormous tax bill and that those tax payments are helping governments all over the world stay solvent. According to the company's income statement, the amount of taxes it paid in 2008 was 2.5 times as much as its net profit.

In 2008, Exxon's tax bill averaged about $318 million per day. And it paid those taxes at the very same time that the whiz kids on Wall Street, the geniuses at AIG, and the mavens at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, were begging Uncle Sam for multibillion-dollar life preservers in order to prevent financial chaos. Exxon made huge profits—and paid record taxes—at the very same time that the U.S. financial system was undergoing near-fatal convulsions brought about by excessive speculation, uncontained greed, and a basic failure to provide goods and services needed by the overall economy. How many Americans really need credit default swaps or collateralized debt obligations? Now compare that number with the tens of millions of Americans who absolutely must have gasoline every day.

What about the original article at the Center for American Progress (CAP)? Funny story on CAP. I was invited to D.C. a few years ago for an energy conference, and I happened to be acquainted with the Director of Environmental Policy at CAP (which is a liberal think tank). I was invited to drop by and talk to CAP about the oil industry. Even though I expected a hostile audience, I was looking forward to it, because I thought I might be able to address some gross misconceptions. But at the last moment, my company decided that it wasn't a good idea for me to make the trip as oil prices were at all time highs and they were worried that I might find myself in an awkward situation with the media. But, back to the original CAP article:

Big Oil Misers

That certainly looks like a balanced title from an organization that describes itself as "non-partisan." The strategy in the article is the same as the earlier article: Use a percentage to downplay the multi-billion dollar investments in renewable energy, and then quote the advertising money in "millions" to make it appear that more was spent on advertising than on renewable energy. But why must a truly non-partisan organization spin like this? Shouldn't a balanced article mention the monumental tax bill that has been used in part to bail out other industries?

Worse, there are blatant falsehoods in the article itself. After noting that the American Petroleum Institute claimed that "most people support putting more of America’s oil and natural gas to work", the CAP article claims:

And API’s assertion that “most people” support more oil and gas drilling is misleading at best. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll asked “When it comes to addressing our energy problems, which one of the following do you think should receive the most emphasis?” (italics used for emphasis). Six of 10 respondents favored “developing alternative energy sources.”

Misleading at best? Hmm. Let's have a look at the poll, shall we? On Page 26, we see Question 35:

I'm going to read you several steps that could be taken to ease America's energy problems. For each one, tell me whether you think this is a step in the right direction, a step in the wrong direction, or if you do not have an opinion either way. And do you think this will accomplish a great deal or just a little in dealing with America's energy needs?

How did people answer? While 92% felt that developing alternative energy sources would either accomplish a great deal or at least a little, 63% said the same about expanding areas for drilling for oil off the coast of the United States. Where I come from, 63% is "most people" and there is nothing misleading about the API making that claim. It is quite disingenuous, though, for CAP to suggest that API's statement was misleading. CAP is either spinning or they didn't read the survey very carefully. They have interpreted the question "Do you support this?" - which is the question API commented upon - as "Do you support this as your number 1 priority?" The 'misleading at best' charge aptly applies to CAP in this case.

I wish there wasn't such an antagonistic relationship between the oil industry and Democrats. There is too much at stake. Historically, Republicans are more supportive of the oil industry, and in turn the oil industry overwhelmingly supports Republican candidates. (Or it may be the other way around; the oil industry supports Republicans who in turn support the industry). On the other hand Democrats (except for those in oil-producing areas) are generally hostile to the oil industry, which ensures that not much money from the oil industry will go to support the Democratic party (although Diane Feinstein has reportedly received $100,000 from the oil industry in the past decade).

My view that Big Oil and Democrats should find common ground has nothing to do with wanting to make nice with a new administration. My views are based on the belief that any intermediate success at achieving some level of energy independence must involve a large contribution from oil and gas. I think it goes without saying that oil and gas provide the overwhelming majority of our transportation fuel, and that they are forecast to provide the overwhelming majority for decades to come.

The problem is of course that some naively think they can marginalize the oil industry with punitive taxes, and alternatives will step up and fill the void. (To be clear, I also don't subscribe to Newt Gingrich's viewpoint that encouraging the development of shale oil will lead to energy independence). What will happen in reality is that punitive measures will discourage domestic production, which will quicken the pace of shifting our supply to imports. It is ironic that Steven Chu doesn't seem to feel the need to work with our domestic oil industry, but warns OPEC not to cut production, and then is pleased when they don't. I believe the blind spot in the present administration over the need to support our domestic producers will simply mean that future energy secretaries are even more beholden to OPEC.

This might change if we could have a more balanced discussion on our energy policy. However, I am keeping expectations pretty low. I have learned to do this when the topic is energy.