I had already begun thinking about the topic for this month’s column, handling criticism, when I walked onto a golf course in California a couple of weeks ago. I was traveling with my wife (who doesn’t play), so I had signed into the clubhouse as a single and was grouped with some local gentlemen. As usual, the topic of work quickly arose and, when I replied that I was a publisher of a magazine covering the oil, chemical and other processing industries, one of my playing partners asked the follow-up question, “Whose side are you on?”

For a fleeting moment, I was struck mute by the seeming absurdity of the question. I really didn’t understand what he could be asking. I surmised quickly that he might be inquiring as to whether I was pro-industry/pro-business or not. He was from old money, Californian and a bit full of himself. Considering his tone, I figured it probable that he was one on the far left who thinks that the oil companies are evil enemies of the United States. I decided to try and deflect his criticism instead of becoming confrontational. I replied to him, “The United States of America.”

The smiles of the others in our group indicated they were pleased with the response, but my questioner pressed on, “Yes, but does your publication promote the oil business, or are you against it?”

“I do promote the energy business widely,” was my response, “but I meant what I said. I am on America’s side. I am like most Americans: we as a nation love cheap energy. It just so happens that oil and gas is some of the cheapest.”

He retorted, “Yeah, but I’m paying $3.50, almost $4 for gasoline out here in California.”

“Yes you are,” I said, “and if prices go up another $3 or $4, America’s going to be in danger of not having the lowest gas prices in the world! I’m not going to apologize for that.”

Now he softened a bit, “What about alternatives and renewables?”

“I’d be one of the first ones to drive a solar-powered or canola oil car if it were less expensive than the gasoline and diesel models,” I said, “but it isn’t yet. Maybe some day it will be.

“Listen,” I continued, “like I said, I am on America’s side. As I see it, the biggest issue for the oil and gas industry isn’t the pricing at the pump, it’s the fact that we import so much of it from other countries, especially from countries that don’t really like us. It is a matter that affects national security at the foremost and our GDP secondarily. We should spend R&D money to develop new American energy sources, mainly to create more jobs in our country and so that we don’t have to be reliant on the Middle East.”

No one wanted to dispute that. The fledgling debate was over. I told the guys about the new commercial cellulosic ethanol plant being built in Georgia (see news release in this issue of BIC). We went on to discuss the status and potential of various alternative energy sources, but that was pretty much the end of a potential conflict over misdirected criticism of the oil business.

Dan Borné of the Louisiana Chemical Association contributes a column to BIC; this month Mr. Borné happens to address some of the prevalent unwarranted criticism of our industry and factual responses thereto. (I wish I had an opportunity to review this prior to my golf outing.)

Criticism is sometimes a requirement for healthy change, but sometimes it is simply unwarranted, as either flat-out wrong or perhaps because the changes intended to be invoked by the criticism are already underway. It is the duty of the American energy industry to institute positive change for the pragmatic reason of survival as well as for higher ethical motivations. We have an article in this issue contributed by Whitney Strickland titled “Change or Die” that expounds on just this point.

Many years ago, one of my first projects upon arrival at BIC Alliance from Exxon was calling many former clients and current clients soliciting their input as to what would make our services stronger and more meaningful to them. This constructive criticism wasn’t always pleasant to hear, but it was relevant and well intended. The Bible teaches that no discipline seems pleasant at the time but painful. In time, however, the discipline will produce a harvest for those who have been trained by it. Guided by this principle, we initiated several programs based on that feedback we solicited, and BIC has grown consistently every year since then.

BIC Alliance has continued to institute changes based on improving the content of the publication and services we offer. We are celebrating the one-year anniversary of changing our format to all glossy. This has proved a beneficial change to both our readers and our advertisers. Also, just this year, we launched a new Web site, which includes the entire content of BIC’s print publication, some online-only content and several built-in mechanisms for generating Web traffic.

This has positioned us for another change just underway. BIC is on the side of the United States of America, and as such we would like to see more of our energy come from domestic and friendly resources. We feel that given equal economic considerations, it would be in our nation’s best interest to produce its energy from America-friendly sources. Homegrown alternative fuels are likely decades away from sustaining our energy needs, therefore we will need to produce more domestically or continue to import more.

Canada, with 179 billion barrels of oil reserves (including oilsands), ranks second only to Saudi Arabia in global reserves. Canada is already the largest supplier of energy to the United States. Most of our current Canadian energy imports is natural gas, but because of new technologies, oilsand production is expected to triple or quadruple in the next 10 years.

Recently, my partner, Earl Heard, traveled to Canada to meet with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and the U.S. Consulate to determine what changes need to occur to improve the U.S. position to leverage these reserves. Although the United States is a great market for Canada, other countries, like China and Korea, are competing with the United States to meet their energy demands.

I believe that second to opening more U.S. land to exploration and production, Canada may provide the best near- to medium-term opportunity source for sating our energy needs from an America-friendly source. In addition, Canada appears to be ripe for opportunity for the oil service industry itself. Many American firms have expanded there recently or have plans to do so.

This issue of BIC has several articles on Canadian developments, and we will continue to explore ways to help expand this coverage and opportunity. BIC will continue to publish regular features about mining and production in Alberta’s oilsands, as well as interviews with industry and association professionals who will share their knowledge and insights. We will also work toward our vision for BIC magazine to expand from the largest multi-industry, multidepartmental energy publication in the United States to that for all of North America by building a solid readership in Canada.

In addition to the articles mentioned above, this issue of BIC also features an article on a blueprint for the U.S. energy future from industry CEOs and a spotlight on Sunoco Chemicals’ award-winning Houston Operations.

Next month, Earl will be back in this spot. Meanwhile, we hope that you will refer your friends and colleagues to www.bicmagazine.com, where BIC magazine is being read in its entirety worldwide.

To contact Thomas, you can e-mail him at tbrinsko@bicalliance.com.