Since Titusville, the energy industry has been identified as robber barons, polluters and, worse yet, arrogant Texans. Frankly, the industry has done little to change this image. The image in the TV show Dallas simply confirms these perceptions. The industry's PR efforts to date, while well-meaning, have been ineffective at best and ignorant at worst.

We believe that top management in the industry realizes that a negative image, even by association, has an impact on their bottom line. Indeed, energy is considered No. 3 in targets for so-called sin taxes, after tobacco and alcohol. Yet, current PR programs simply do not go far enough. While underwriting Masterpiece Theatre is worthy philanthropy, it should not be confused with PR the next time that gasoline prices jump 10 cents a gallon or, worse yet, when the next spill occurs. The public sees oil as being dirty, especially when it is spilled staining (pun intended) all in the industry by association. Even drilling for something "green" like natural gas is considered a Superfund site just waiting to happen.

Some studies have concluded that the industry cannot physically spend enough money to have any impact on its image. It almost appears that the industry has given up. This project was formed because the founding group rejected this last premise.

In the summer of 1993, concerned and disgusted by the lack of logic over the proposed BTU tax, an informal group worked together to see if the economic community of the energy industry could offer anything to the debate and address The Image Thing. With initial input from about 50 (now over 80) interested individuals, and to no one's surprise, we conclude that:

• The negative image that afflicts the industry directly impacts the bottom line of each firm in terms of high taxes, regulatory constraints and costs, restrictions on where one can do business (i.e., ANWR) and possibly the underlying costs of capital.

• The industry is segmented, parochial and even contradictory in its messages.

• The public has little appreciation or knowledge of the positive contribution the energy industry has made to the economy and the environment.

• The lack of public understanding affects any specific firm's message and the industry's ability to establish any significant governmental policy.

• While current PR efforts address the technical aspects of energy and are promoting the environmental efforts being undertaken by specific firms or segments of the industry, these efforts tend to ignore the economic impact that energy has on American society. In addition, these current efforts seem to target a narrow segment of the public. At any rate, for whatever reason, the public remains less than impressed or proud of our industry.

• Many firms and organizations will want to go to Washington to seek redress of recent regulation or economic conditions, and to promote new agendas. Such activities should not be curtailed; however, we must recognize that they may yield only short-term success. Remember, regardless of the party in power, if it doesn't sell on Main Street, it will not sell inside the Beltway.

• In today's political climate, there appears to have been a swing to a more pro-business environment. We should expect more vocal and just as irrational cries from the newly disenfranchised groups.  Therefore, the energy industry must defend itself much better than it has done in the past, even without environmental accidents, a political disruption, or a price spike.

"Not only do they not understand ... They don't understand that they don't understand, and that is a whole new level of ignorance. " John Carl

• The economic community in the energy industry has not been called upon to contribute ideas that would help in getting fairer treatment by the public. However, we believe that this segment of the industry has a lot to offer.

From these observations, we believe that the balanced approach taken in presenting the 3Es could be an effective part of the industry's PR portfolio. By augmenting existing and proposed PR efforts in the industry as our first priority (that is, do not reinvent the wheel, just make it roll better) and then offering our own programs where necessary, we hope to reach common PR objectives of improving public perception through this unique concept.

However, as one of our initial board members, Ed Capen, reminded us, "If it is such a great idea, how come it hasn't been done before?" Frankly, we couldn't come up with an answer. Therefore, in spite of everything, we have gone ahead with the project, forming a nonprofit corporation and obtaining 501(c)(3) status from the IRS (thanks to pro bono help from Arthur Andersen).

The major risk of undertaking this project is that an informed public may not support some of the specific messages that various segments of our industry may wish to promote. Sometimes ignorance is bliss. However, we feel that this is a risk worth taking. We should also know that an overemphasis in any one area would be a waste of effort and resources.

The Project will operate under the laws and intent of an educational, IRS Section 501(c)(3) entity. It is not an advocacy program (other than regarding free enterprise, motherhood, apple pie and the flag).

The vision that we have gained out of this preliminary effort is that an informed public will make better-reasoned decisions regarding the energy industry if it can see a balanced discussion of the 3Es. In that the goal is to see a cultural change in society regarding its perception of the energy industry, we believe that this effort must be very basic. The message needs to discuss the energy E from the perspective of the consumer's desire for BTUs, the economy E from the perspective of the consumer's own wallet, and the environmental E from the perspective of the consumer's quality of life that he is willing to pay for. With such a base of knowledge, current PR programs should have a much more fertile ground in which to plant their message.

The Project has no intention of competing with current programs. Rather, it expects to be a resource for the creation of some basic concepts that would then be fleshed out by professionals. These programs would then be made available to, or designed in conjunction with, current industry groups and firms to use in their efforts and augment their messages.

The public has had a fairly consistently low opinion of the industry at least as far back as Titusville, over 135 years ago. Therefore, there is no real sense of urgency to work on this issue. However, as we are all pleasantly aware, it seems that nearly every organization is now hot to do something about "public perception." The good news is that this should be an opportunity to have our concept considered as among the vehicles with which to address this problem. The bad news is that all of these efforts are once again demonstrating how segmented our industry really is. If "it's not invented here," or it smacks of a threat to a specific agenda, we will have a real uphill battle.

It should be noted that when this project was discussed with the SPE in '95, the immediate reaction was that we would be promoting the competition by discussing only BTUs. However, they quickly saw that we will be a hydrocarbon society with a significant role for oil and gas for a long time to come. Therefore, if this program is successful, a rising tide will lift all boats and do it in a low-profile, non-promotional manner.

The main thing at this time is demonstrating to the industry that a balanced, long-term and broad-based informational program is required in order to effect a cultural change in society. Our limited study suggests that anything less in scope will be a waste of time and money.

The energy industry does not speak with one voice. There is no trade association for BTUs. Current efforts do not appear to go far enough. In addition to the baggage (identified in API studies) associated with any program coming directly from the industry or trade associations, the messages tend to be unbalanced and somewhat self-serving in the eyes of the public.

However, the entire industry should have a common interest in getting the public to understand where each segment of the industry is coming from. This interest should be based on basic literacy in the 3Es. The total project could be looked on as Energy Literacy 101, and the pre-requisite course for Domestic Oil, 327. In this manner the student (the public) will be prepared for the more complex, specific messages from various segments of the industry or any of the 3Es.

In researching successful educational programs, the National Geographic Society (NGS) was contacted regarding its Geographic Education Program. This program, which is aimed at improving geographic literacy in the nation's school systems, spends about $10 million per year on education efforts. This contact with the NGS has led to the premiere program the project is initiating.

The literacy program envisioned by the Project will require continual re-enforcement and support in order to keep the public's interest and attention on the merits of the energy industry. Therefore, the implementation effort will be a multi-year, multimillion-dollar program.

The Project believes that investment in all phases of the Project should be looked on as just that: a core investment. The Project should not be viewed as a PR expense or even as simply the funding of a noble cause. Rather, such an investment should expect a return to be found on the industry’s bottom line. However, as with many so-called wildcat projects in the energy industry, there is a high likelihood of failure (including the inability to identify what precise benefits the Project's programs have brought to the bottom line). At any rate, any payout will not be seen for a long time.

• Target of Taxation

• Market Value

• Restrictions on Where Business May Be Conducted

• Regulatory Costs

• Desirability of the Product

• Efficiency of Specific PR Programs

• Efficiency of Specific Advertising Programs

In May of 1996, our industry was once again accused of collusion and obscene profits because of the recent run-up in gasoline prices. This was followed by the swing of the price pendulum to lows not seen since '86 and gasoline prices below $1/gal. Now, at this writing, energy prices, and specifically gasoline, have rebounded to levels seen in '97, with the accompanying public outrage. Many industry spokesmen explained in the media the reasons for these prices. However, all the logical and well-based economic reasoning, after the fact, does very little for the public perception problem.

As an industry, we must take the blame for this perception, because we have ignored the opportunity to let the public know just what a good job we have done in keeping their tanks full of the cheap and abundant energy that truly does fuel (all puns intended) our economy and the public's own chosen life style. We should be continually reminding the public how gasoline prices are cheaper now in today's dollars than they have been in the past 20 years.

It is this sort of message that the 3Es can bring to the table.