Like the idea, but I'm confused how companies like:
* Primer - Reach your leads everywhere
* Andium - Digitizing the Oil & Gas Industry
fit into the "problems like climate change and food insecurity" bucket.
* Primer - Reach your leads everywhere
* Andium - Digitizing the Oil & Gas Industry
fit into the "problems like climate change and food insecurity" bucket.
- https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/biden-admins-me...
- https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2021/03/26/environmental-advoc...
You might have a benefit to lowering the CI of each barrel minutely but really at the end of the day you are hurting the other industries that are trying to get a footing. That's why you are getting some negative feedback. Either through lack of knowledge of the history of the industry or intentionally painting a climate tech friendly perspective due to the new found interest at large of the general population / investing population.
- "At Andium, we’re saving companies millions of dollars annually, while increasing safety"
- "we offer an ecosystem of automated products and services that provide the next generation of remote monitoring capabilities"
- "Increasing site visibility while reducing onsite time, manual labor, and human error equates to major cost savings, and saving our clients’ time and money is in our DNA"
- "We've spent countless hours developing our technology and created the first-ever thermal imaging solution for safe, cost-effective tank-level management that has saved our clients millions at scale"
If you're truly in the same bucket as "problems like climate change and food insecurity" problems, you probably want to update your core messaging across your website
The challenge in selling to O&G companies is they don't really care about climate initiatives. They do have concerns but its not their bread and butter there fore you have to package your sell in other ways such as cost efficiency.
Respectfully, this is not the business we are in, but I understand how our current messaging could convey it that way. That being said, there is a strong incentive to build products that both address climate pollution and reduce costs. It's a fine line and one that we think about constantly at the company.
So they have to "put on their Sunday best" or they get shellacked in socially responsible index fund investor calls and press.
Honest question, but doesn't enabling the Oil & Gas industries to reach peak effectiveness have the opposite effect?
What I mean by this, O&G right now is highly ineffective and to fit into regulatory limit they need to downscale operations just to have a "reserve". By allowing them, for example, to monitor the Flare and other things, don't you actually allow them to increase the production because now they have the data and means how to squeeze effectively into the limits?
The short answer is that nobody knows for sure ... yet. Regulatory bodies, NGOs, and ESG-focused activist and impact investors are actively developing frameworks and methodologies for total life cycle GHG accounting. [1] and [2] are a couple of examples in the US from around the time the Paris Climate Agreement was signed. This area is evolving quickly as momentum has built over the last few years for a global approach to getting to net-zero emissions. We keep a close eye on this and continuously evaluate the latest developments in the context of product development ideation.
[1] from 2016: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents...
[2] from 2015: https://www.eia.gov/conference/2015/pdf/presentations/skone....
Andium looks somewhat similar to Rebellion Photonics (recently sold to Honeywell), although the use case is different. Not sure if you’re familiar with their product.
When the oil companies are finally out of the hydrocarbon game, they will have built their platform upon the biggest set of externalised costs in history, and their old assets will still be polluting in new hands.