CDN NEWS | 
US NEWS 
Time to hone those inquiry skills.
By Geoffrey Cann
A quick trial of ChatGPT reveals its considerable strengths and its worrisome weaknesses in generating energy talking points.
One of my many contacts asked me a rather simple question earlier this week, a kind of talking point about energy:
Why does Greenpeace not like LNG?
My contact is from Germany, and presumably has lots of family members and friends there who have been living through Germany’s recent natural gas energy angst. Although my contact lives in North America, he’s likely much more exposed to the on-the-ground realities of energy security in Germany, which as a country, presents a number vexing challenges:
- A country rich in high cost, low quality, but emissions intense coal resources
- A strong social reaction to the two modern nuclear reactor disasters, Chernobyl and Fukushima, that provoked a thorough abandonment of nuclear power from the energy mix
- A globally leading industrial economy that discovered itself to be highly reliant on an inexpensive natural gas supply
- A formerly cozy relationship with Russia as their pipeline gas supplier, now revealed to have been a highly flawed arrangement because of the war in Ukraine
- The rapid construction of a new LNG import terminal built in record time and plans to construct several others before next heating season
Germany presents a great contradiction — a robust, green-oriented political, social and economic system that finds itself reluctantly embracing fossil fuels. Why would Greenpeace not get on board and be more supportive of the German situation?
I distilled my years of exposure to the environmental particulars of natural gas development and the green movement’s general public positioning, with the following snappy reply:
Visceral opposition to fossil fuels regardless of the logic. Same reason they don’t go for nuclear.
As a thought experiment, however, I wondered how a modern digital solution like ChatGPT might answer the same question, so I asked it:
Why does Greenpeace oppose LNG?
ChatGPT — Uber Mansplainer
ChatGPT did not disappoint, but neither did it impress. Here’s the response to the question:
Greenpeace, an environmental organization, opposes liquefied natural gas (LNG) because of its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and the negative impact it has on the environment.
LNG is a fossil fuel that is extracted through fracking and transported through pipelines to terminals where it is liquefied and shipped around the world. The process of extracting, transporting, and using LNG releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. Methane has a warming effect 86 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 20-year time frame. Therefore, LNG is considered a significant contributor to climate change.
Additionally, the process of fracking used to extract natural gas has been linked to groundwater contamination, air pollution, and other environmental and health risks. LNG infrastructure, such as pipelines, terminals, and storage tanks, also poses risks to the environment, including the risk of spills, explosions, and fires.
Greenpeace advocates for a transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, as well as the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. They believe that LNG is not a solution to the climate crisis and that its continued use will only worsen the environmental and health impacts associated with fossil fuels.
It took 5 seconds or so to generate a seemingly good reply to a complicated question. I can get why educators are alarmed that ChatGPT becomes a substitute for student’s work.
The Positives
As I watched ChatGPT briefly toil away, it was hard not to be enamoured with its capabilities:
Perfect prose. As a professional writer and speaker, I find it remarkable that this tool cranks out such perfect prose. I have to back track 3-4 times per sentence just to correct my typing mistakes. I read and re-read everything multiple times to play with the words.
Speed. ChatGPT generates its responses substantially faster than a human can speak, making ChatGPT an ideal engine for delivery of human dialogue. ChatGPT will likely show up anywhere a voice interface could be useful.
Accuracy. The response to the simple question is an accurate reflection of the Greenpeace position, which is fine if that was the goal. The question was the question.
The Negatives
Despite ChatGPT’s impressiveness, its responses bothered me in a few areas:
Lengthy replies. Each time you ask a question, you get about a 200 word response. Humans speak English at the rate of about 100 words per minute, so dealing with ChatGPT is like talking to a know-it-all (or an expert).
Not opinion, but opinion nonetheless. ChatGPT reminds you that it is fact-based and harbours no opinions, but in this instance it merely parrots the Greenpeace talking points, which are a mix of facts, incorrect statements, and opinions. Disputable facts are still presented as truth, and various inconvenient facts are left out.
For example, Greenpeace does not flag how fossil fuels saved the whales from extinction by replacing whale oil as our primary fuel. Nor does Greenpeace highlight how much of humanity has been lifted out of poverty through the use of machines to replace human labour (those machines largely using fossil fuels), as these facts get in the way of Greenpeace’s mission.
Subtle fact framing. Since Greenpeace is a little loose with the facts, so is ChatGPT. For example, LNG is not a fossil fuel per se—it is the liquefied form of natural gas. LNG cannot be used as a fuel until it has been turned back into a gas. LNG is not shipped via pipeline because it’s a super chilled liquid and movement creates friction that warms up the liquid, turning it into a gas. Natural gases like methane originate from many sources, and not all natural gas is extracted through fracking, facts I confirmed with ChatGPT when I asked if cows produce methane (they do, along with goats and sheep, according to ChatGPT. ChatGPT did not mention the role of human sewage and farting in methane production, however).
The statement ‘using LNG releases methane to the atmosphere’ is subtly incorrect. If LNG is warmed up to a gas state in a safe and controlled way, and the methane is used as intended, it’s not released to the atmosphere. CO2 is released when methane is burned. The production of natural gas, from well head to the LNG plant, may unintentionally release methane to the atmosphere, a fact ChatGPT confirmed in a follow up.
Relativeism. ChatGPT’s statement that LNG infrastructure faces dire risks of spills, explosions, and fires suggests the risks are high, when in fact the risks are exceptionally low. Consider spills. The vast majority of LNG is manufactured in industrial tidal sites, loaded on ships, and ferried to markets. Spills are exceptionally rare, and as LNG converts back into a gas, it rapidly dissipates. Considering the risk of spills, LNG is far superior to oil, but by not including the probability, ChatGPT subtlety equates the risks.
Flawed logic. ChatGPT presented three of Greenpeace’s facts to make the case that LNG is bad. Two are science facts and not disputed— methane lasts a long time in the atmosphere and methane is more harmful as a green house gas than CO2—but the third even ChatGPT does not support (using LNG does not dump methane into the atmosphere, but poorly maintained equipment may release methane into the atmosphere anywhere throughout the natural gas industry).
Socially inept. My friend could have easily visited Greenpeace’s website to get the answer to his question. So why was he asking? ChatGPT did not bother to find out the context behind the question. ChatGPT has no self-awareness, is unconcerned about its relationship with others, and failed to detect my furrowed quizzical brow and heavy eye rolling at its responses.
If you lacked the inquisitive skills to challenge ChatGPT’s narrative, you might easily conclude that the LNG industry is bad for the environment and bad for humanity. But a different set of questions reveals a different set of facts through which ChatGPT is made to contradict itself.
Using ChatGPT for Energy Talking Points
I would be cautious relying on ChatGPT to help with understanding the complex world of energy security. This little episode is a fine illustration of the perils of this kind of technology at this early stage of its life:
- ChatGPT’s grasp of the technical facts around LNG, a 60 year old technology, is weak. That does not bode well for its understanding of more modern and complicated technologies.
- ChatGPT’s responses are quickly generated, which is value, but we need to be very sure we are asking the right questions, and we take the time to quiz the responses to see if interesting and relevant contradictory information is being unintentionally withheld.
- Many in society lack the patience, the skepticism, and the inquiry skills to push back on the narratives produced by generative AI. Fortunately, that’s not the oil and gas industry. We’re a skeptical bunch.
What Should You Do
Hundreds of new services and solutions have already been launched based on ChatGPT and other similar generative AI engines. These tools are not going away and we need to become comfortable engaging with them. For now, here’s my advice:
- Be ever more skeptical of what you read, see, and hear. It’s one thing that a human might try to persuade you with words, images, and sound, but it’s quite another when it’s a machine, divorced from any sense of accountability.
- Hone your inquiry skills. By changing just one word in the question , I got a completely different, and much better answer (see below).
- Keep an eye out for absolutisms and challenge them, especially those not presented in absolute terms (to wit, ‘LNG is extracted by fracking’ is both an absolute and incorrect).
- Look for logical inconsistencies. For example, ChatGPT presents Greenpeace as both opposed to mining, and in favour of sustainable manufacturing. It’s impossible to make a wind turbine without some mining going on somewhere.
- Beware of possibilities presented without probabilities, which lead you to think that certain remote outcomes are somehow highly likely.
Conclusions
Next time, my friend will ask ‘should Greenpeace oppose LNG’, because the answer is far more nuanced. Here it is:
There may be differing opinions within Greenpeace and other environmental organizations regarding the use of LNG. Some may argue that it could be a transitional fuel to bridge the gap towards renewable energy sources, while others may see it as a distraction from the urgent need to rapidly transition to a zero-carbon energy system. Ultimately, the position of Greenpeace on LNG will depend on their specific environmental and climate goals and the context in which LNG is being used.
No kidding.
Artwork courtesy of Geoffrey Cann
Geoffrey Cann writes about, speaks to and teaches the energy industry about digital innovation. For more about Geoffrey Cann, click here.
Digital Oil and Gas is published every Monday morning and is read by energy industry professionals and digital entrepreneurs. Subscribe here
Share This:
