They are straightforward about the realities of demand outstripping supply. In their "population" section, they write:
At 6.4 billion and climbing, the world’s population is expected to exceed 9 billion by 2050. Yet our known fossil fuel reserves are in decline, and alternative energy sources are not expanding rapidly enough to meet future demand.
Under "demand," they explain:
By 2020, some experts predict the world’s energy consumption will be 40% higher than it is today. Efficiency, improvements, and conservation are part of the solution, but will not, in themselves, meet the need for more energy.I have to admit the cynic in me is wondering "what's the catch? Is there another agenda?" It may be the inference we can make from the "geopolitics" section. They write:
...It is in the interests of all stakeholders—energy producers, industrial users, governments and consumers—to make the energy sources we have go as far as they can go.
So my question is how do they expect this to be maintained? Is this the justification for military invasion and occupation--to allegedly provide stability?
Meeting the energy demands of the world continues to be a tremendous ongoing challenge. Oil and gas are located in complex geopolitical environments.
...Maintaining a stable and open business environment will be a key factor in attracting the kinds of long-term investments that are necessary.
...A stable social, political and business environment is essential for attracting long-term investments. That means a reliable legal framework that recognizes the rule of law and respects contracts—which in turn leads to predictability and security. Revenue transparency is necessary to reduce the occurrence of corruption and abuse. And the basic needs of the local people must be met to provide a reliable work force, supply chain and market for products.
Nevertheless, my hat is off to Chevron for its commitment to raising awareness about the issues and inviting open discussion about them. As of this writing they had eight replies, and at least one of them was directly critical of their policies. I encourage you to join the discussion.
Thanks, Derek, for the link!