Environmentalist stridency is hardly news. The us-versus-them world of energy and the environment is a staple of popular news outlets, which mostly seem to prefer argument over agreement.
It's easy to see why. Apparently, argument attracts more newspaper readers and TV viewers than, say, an elegant synthesis of ideas agreeable to both sides.
About such a synthesis the popular media need not worry. When you look at how words are being used in discussion about energy and the environment, it's easy to despair at the prospects of agreement.
Take the word "massive," for example.
The World Wildlife Federation (WWF) states that "The Arctic is a frontier region, and oil and gas development will require the building of massive infrastructure through ecologically intact areas. Infrastructure has direct impacts, such as habitat destruction, fragmentation of migration routes, erosion, gravel mining for pads, harbors and roads, and draining freshwater resources for ice roads."
Well, that certainly sounds like a lot of infrastructure. But is it? Not according to James Mulva, president and chief executive officer (CEO) of ConocoPhillips. In a presentation to the US-Norway Oil & Gas Summit in Houston last year, he said, "To start with, we have to think small. This may sound like a contradiction in a place as vast as, say, the North Slope, which covers 88,000 sq miles (227,919 sq km). But we're all well aware of the importance of minimizing the industry's footprint in an area that is so sensitive to environmental disturbance.
"Our Alpine development is a showcase for the successful application of some of the industry's best exploration and development innovations.
"For example, thanks to extended reach drilling, we are able to produce this 40,000-acre field from a pad area encompassing just 97 acres. With extended reach, we're hitting targets 3 miles (4.8 km) away from the well site, while contacting more of the reservoir at the same time.
"The construction of ice roads is another example of the 'think small - minimal impact' approach to operating in the Arctic. Temporary ice roads, although expensive, have proven to be a viable option to gravel roads. Equipment can be moved in and out of drilling and production sites during the winter and by the spring thaw, there's no evidence they were ever there."
Let's see. A 40,000-acre field is produced from a pad that is 0.0024% of the field's area, with access by temporary ice roads that disappear in the summer. In the larger scheme of things, the pad is 0.0000017% of the North Slope's acreage. How many similar developments would add up to "massive" infrastructure in the view of a reasonable person?
The WWF almost certainly knows better.
This is tap dancing around the point. The debate is about nature all right, but in this case, it's the nature of risk and reward. It's simple: the WWF wants no risk and hence no reward. The industry wants to take a small risk for a large reward - a meaningful contribution to stable energy supplies for the United States.
The environment should have strong advocates. The industry's ideas should always be rigorously tested. Reasonable people can also disagree. But arrival at an agreement on any aspect of the Great Debate will speeded by adherence to the real terms of it and not by red herrings like massive infrastructure. Serious people are capable of doing this. Environmental mystics are not.