Chevron Pulse Report: July 2008 to December 2009

July 2008 – December 2009 Edition

© 2010 Chevron Corporation

Table of Contents

1. Overview 3 3. Energy and Technology 31
The Energy Conversation 3 Summary 32
Methodology 4 Topics 33
Executive Summary 8 Volume and Net Sentiment 36
The Online Energy Conversation Volume 10 Volume of Online Conversations 37
Timeline of the Energy Conversation 11 Net Sentiment and Sentiment Volume 38
Volume and Net Sentiment 12 Sentiment Trends 39
Sentiment Trends 13 Energy Efficiency 40
Online Conversation Platforms Volume 14 Technology and Innovation 42
Growth of the Twitter Conversation 15 Alternatives and Renewables 44
Influencers 46

2. Energy Resources 16 4. Energy and Environment 47
Summary 17 Summary 48
Topics 18 Topics 49
Volume and Net Sentiment 20 Volume and Net Sentiment 51
Volume of Online Conversations 21 Volume of Online Conversations 52
Net Sentiment and Sentiment Volume 22 Net Sentiment and Sentiment Volume 53
Sentiment Trends 23 Sentiment Trends 54
Access 24 Environment, Resources and Policy 55
Energy Reserves 26 Climate Change 57
Energy Security 28 Influencers 59
Influencers 30
5. Join the Online Conversation 60

The Chevron Pulse Report(TM) is © 2010 Chevron Corporation. All rights reserved. Chevron hereby grants to any person a royalty-free license to copy the Report in whole or in part.
Your license is conditioned upon providing attribution to Chevron (e.g. “Source: Chevron Pulse Report, Q1 2010 Edition”).

Chevron Pulse Report - July 2008 - December 2009 Edition | Prepared by Edelman © 2010 Chevron Corporation | 2

Overview
The Energy Conversation
Energy is one of the most important issues of our time. It is Chevron has been using the information to stay informed
the engine for our economy and the inspiration for innovative about energy topics that are important to people in the online
new technologies. It shapes the world we live in today and community.
the future that we will share. It is debated in the halls of
government, in the comments of blogs and in videos on After looking at this data for the past 18 months, Chevron
YouTube. started to realize there was a lot of information that would
probably interest other people as well. As a result, together,
The online conversation about energy is robust, diverse, Edelman and Chevron compiled this information into The
passionate and dynamic, evolving alongside the medium Chevron Pulse Report: The State of Online Conversation
itself. In the fall of 2008, there were 100 million people on about Energy Issues.
Facebook and only 3 million on Twitter, but there were 5 million
posts* about energy. Over the last 18 months, Facebook has This first report is a way to understand and articulate how the
eclipsed 450 million users and Twitter has grown to 75 million; online conversation about energy has evolved from July 2008
there were also 25.7 million posts about energy-related issues. to December 2009. Edelman placed a lot of emphasis on
charts that translate the conversation into simple visuals,
In the summer of 2008, Chevron partnered with Edelman to understanding that it is nearly impossible to represent 25.7
gain a better understanding of the online conversation about million conversations in a handful of words.
energy topics. Together, Chevron and Edelman identified
more than 50 key energy issues and conversation topics. Chevron and Edelman are excited to share this report and
Working with Alterian’s SM2 social media monitoring tool, we hope you find the information interesting and helpful.
began analyzing the focus, volume and sentiment of the online
conversation about these issues across blogs, discussion
forums and social networks, including sites such as Twitter,
Facebook, YouTube, Vimeo and Flickr.

* The term “posts” is used generically to represent a piece of online content, such as a blog post, tweet, photo, video or discussion comment.


Overview
Methodology: Scope
Scope

Edelman conducted a quantitative and qualitative Within these eight issues, we examined 74 subtopics,
analysis of the volume and sentiment of the global, ranging in size from a few hundred posts to more than
English-speaking online conversation about energy a million.
issues from July 1, 2008, through December 31, 2009,
focusing on eight major issues within three broad The analysis was conducted on a quarterly basis. There
categories: were six quarters during the18-month period, beginning
with 3Q08 (July through September 2008) and ending with
 Energy Resources – Access; Energy Reserves; 4Q09 (October through December 2009). Edelman
Energy Security examined changes in volume and sentiment for each
 Energy and Technology – Energy Efficiency; subtopic for each quarter.
Technology and Innovation; Alternatives and
Renewables
 Energy and Environment – Environment, Resources
and Policy; Climate Change
These three categories were chosen because they were
the broadest terms that applied to the most relevant
conversations about energy.


Overview
Methodology: Quantitative Analysis
Quantitative Analysis of the Conversation Volume

The amount of online conversation about energy is vast, Edelman utilized Google’s Advanced Search
and there is no objective way of measuring precisely how features to catalogue blogs, social networks (e.g.,
many posts there are, over time or for a given period. Facebook, MySpace) and social media sites (e.g.,
Google has indexed billions of Web pages, but even they YouTube, Flickr, Revver, Vimeo), as well as
could not tell you how many pages, posts or comments Boardreader for discussion forums. Note: Only public
have been missed. Each search engine and social media Facebook pages were indexed, in accordance with the
monitoring tool collects posts a little bit differently. site’s Terms of Service.

Edelman captured and analyzed enough of the online Searches were run in triplicate to ensure data integrity.
conversation in order to make confident and reasonable The volume was also manually cross-referenced with
assertions about the volume and sentiment of the results pulled by Alterian’s SM2* social media monitoring
discussion. Edelman worked with developers to construct tool to determine whether there were inconsistencies in
a series of Julian date searches that pulled information the relative volume of subtopics in relation to each other.
on the number of posts about specific topics over a given For example, if there were one million posts in Google
period of time. The searches were built on Boolean about a topic, but only 500 posts in SM2, this would
taxonomies, which were developed and tested for each signal a likely data query error. In such instances,
of the 74 subtopics, in order to reduce or eliminate false queries would be reconstructed and redeployed.
positives in the search results.
Using this methodology, 25.7 million posts about
Energy Resources, Energy and Technology and
Energy and Environment were identified from July
2008 through December 2009.

*SM2 is a social media monitoring and analysis tool that tracks and measures online conversations across blogs, forums and social media platforms based on volume, sentiment and influence.


Overview
Methodology: Qualitative Analysis
Qualitative Analysis of the Conversation Sentiment

While the Julian date searches on Google and The items were selected based on topical relevance.
Boardreader provide reasonable assurance of the volume They were weighted according to the predominance of
of conversations about the issues we examined, neither subtopics in relation to one another so that the sample
platform offers the ability to evaluate the sentiment of said reflected the volumes identified in the quantitative
conversations. Because we were examining such a analysis. For example, if the subtopic Biofuels made
sizable conversation, it would be untenable to manually up 20 percent of the quantitative sample for the
rate the tone and sentiment of each of these posts. The discussion for the topic Alternatives and Renewables,
semantic engine of Alterian’s SM2 social media then 20 percent of the qualitative sample for this topic
monitoring tool was used to evaluate the sentiment focused on Biofuels. Additionally, the samples were
of the online conversation about each issue. weighted by date to reflect individual conversation
trends where possible.
Edelman is confident in the tool’s native capabilities, but
wanted to provide additional assurance that the tool was More than 5,000 posts were pulled to make up the
properly rating issue-oriented conversations. These types sample used in the 2008 survey. A team of 10
of conversations can differ in sentiment and tone from conversation analysts manually reviewed the posts
consumer- or product-oriented discussions. and scored them on a 5-point Likert Scale for overall
sentiment as well as sentiment on specific issues,
In August 2008, Edelman conducted a quantitative survey where:
of the online conversation about energy issues. This
established the relative volume of conversation about 1 = Very unfavorable
energy issues over a seven-month period, from January 1 2 = Unfavorable
through July 31, 2008. We drew a randomized qualitative 3 = Neutral
sample of posts from the larger quantitative pool in order
to gain insight into the tone and trends in the conversation 4 = Favorable
about these topics. 5 = Very favorable


Overview
Methodology: Qualitative Analysis, continued
For example, a post that was very favorable about For the purposes of the Pulse Report, SM2 scored
Alternatives and Renewables but very unfavorable about 7.2 million posts across 74 subtopics over six
Wave Power would be scored “5” for Alternatives, “1” for quarters in an 18-month period. Comparing this
Wave Power and “4” overall. The overall score was based analysis with other evaluations of the online conversation
on the general tone of the article; it was not merely an about specific issues, Edelman is confident that this
average of the individual scores. Further, net sentiment examination represents one of the most comprehensive
was calculated based on a weighted average of positive analyses of online conversation available.
and negative sentiment.

The analysts also developed a detailed taxonomy of
trigger words that signaled why the post was positive or
negative in sentiment. This dictionary of more than 1,000
words was combined with SM2’s existing semantic
dictionary in order to provide heightened assurance that
the semantic engine was properly scoring conversations.
Edelman reviewed a sample of the conversations scored
by SM2 and is confident in its semantic scoring. This
methodology was applied to the evaluation of six previous
quarterly reviews of the online conversation about energy
issues.


Overview
Executive Summary

 There were 25.7 million posts about Energy  There were significant changes in the volume and
Resources, Energy and Technology and Energy sentiment of the overall conversation during the
and Environment from July 1, 2008, through 18-month period.
December 31, 2009.
 While Energy Resources experienced a major
 Using Alterian’s SM2 social media monitoring tool, swell in conversation in the summer of 2008,
Edelman analyzed the sentiment of 7.2 million posts. Energy and Environment became the most
The average sentiment of this sample was prominent of the major issues in online
neutral: 3.04 on a 5-point Likert scale. discussion during the last quarter of 2009.

 The majority of the online conversation evaluated  Similarly, there was significant variation in the tone of
over the 18-month period was generated on blogs, online conversation about specific issues (e.g., the
followed by discussion forums, videos sites, social Copenhagen climate summit).
networks and Twitter.
 From July 2008 through December 2009, political
 The volume of online conversation grew steadily from discourse and the economy remained at the heart
3 million posts in the last quarter of 2008 to more of the online discussion pertaining to Energy
than 5.3 million posts in the last quarter of 2009. Resources, Energy and Technology and Energy
The rapid growth of social media platforms and Environment. This conversation was driven by
contributed to this increase in discussion. major news events, landmark legislation (e.g., the
Waxman-Markey climate bill) and the insights and
priorities of a diverse community of online influencers.


Overview
Executive Summary, continued

 Energy and Technology made up the largest  One of the most notable swells in online
segment of the online conversation from July 2008 conversation volume about Energy Resources
through September 2009; however, the volume of occurred in the third quarter of 2008, when access to
conversation about Energy and Environment was domestic energy resources gained significant attention
slightly larger in the last quarter of 2009 as climate among the online community. This discussion was
and environmental policy dominated the online propelled by pro-drilling campaigns and the impending
energy conversation. 2008 presidential election.

 Energy and Technology was the most positive of  Energy and Environment was the most negative of
the three major issue areas for the entirety of the 18- the three major issue areas for 15 of the 18 months. The
month period. Technology was looked upon by many sole exception was the first quarter of 2009, when online
online influencers as the key to obtaining energy conversations about Energy Resources were slightly
independence, harnessing the development of energy more negative than Energy and Environment.
resources (e.g., nuclear power or algae-based fuels)
and boosting the economy with innovative  Following the election of President Barack Obama in late
employment opportunities. 2008, a shift in the online energy conversation
emerged, as discussions about Alternatives and
Renewables, Sustainability and Energy Efficiency began
to generate additional interest among people talking
about energy online.


Overview
The Online Energy Conversation Volume

There were 25.7 million online posts about Energy Resources, Energy and Technology, and Energy and Environment
from July 2008 through December 2009.

Chart 1.1


Overview
Timeline of the Energy Conversation

Chart 1.2


Overview
Volume and Net Sentiment of Online Conversations About Energy
Online conversation about Climate Change was the greatest in volume and most negative in sentiment. Energy
Efficiency was the most positive of all the key topics.
High Volume/ July 1, 2008 – December 31, 2009 High Volume/
Negative Sentiment Positive Sentiment
7,000,000
Climate Change
6,000,000
Alternatives and Renewables
5,000,000
Technology and Innovation
Environment, Energy and Policy
4,000,000
Volume of Online
Conversations
3,000,000
Energy Efficiency

2,000,000
Energy Reserves

1,000,000
Access Energy Security
0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Chart 1.3 Low Volume/ Low Volume/
Sentiment of Online Conversations

Overview
Sentiment Trends of Online Conversations About Energy
Sentiment about the eight issue areas was generally mixed over the 18-month period. There was a notable improvement
in sentiment during the first quarter of 2009; however, the sentiment fell for most issues in the last quarter of 2009.
July 1, 2008 – December 31, 2009

8 Issue Areas 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09

Environment , Energy 3.08 3.09 3.32 3.19 3.30 3.10
and Policy

Climate Change 2.48 2.39 2.68 2.54 2.46 2.33

Alternatives and 3.28 2.95 3.31 3.39 3.42 3.32
Renewables

Energy Efficiency 3.61 3.30 3.53 3.58 3.70 3.60

Technology and 3.34 3.30 3.59 3.60 3.33 3.46
Innovation

Access 2.46 2.41 2.66 2.64 2.72 2.66

Energy Reserves 2.52 2.58 2.72 2.80 2.75 2.54

Energy Security 3.08 3.35 2.79 2.88 2.79 2.61

Sentiment Trends of Online Conversations Legend: Positive (3.10–5.00) >.10 Change: Positive
Neutral (2.90–3.09) Negative
Chart 1.4 Negative (1.00–2.89)


Overview
Online Conversation Platforms Volume About Energy
Blogs generated the largest share of online energy conversation over the 18-month period, followed by discussion forums.

*Boardreader; **Facebook, MySpace, Friendster, Digg; ***YouTube, Revver, Vimeo, Qik, Flickr

Chart 1.5


Overview
Growth of the Twitter Conversation About Energy
The conversation about energy on Twitter spiked in 2009, mirroring the growth of the platform.

*Source: http://themetricsystem.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/cumulativeusers.jpg
**Update 05/06/2010: Data mislabeled, chart has been corrected
Chart 1.6**


The Online Conversation About:

ENERGY RESOURCES


Energy Resources
Summary of the Online Conversation

 There were 2.6 million online  The online conversation about Energy
conversations about Energy Resources was slightly negative
Resources from July 2008 through overall, with a Likert rating of 2.73 out
December 2009. of 5.00 during the 18-month period.
 Discussions of Energy Reserves,
including Energy Supply, made up  There were also approximately 582,000
about 60 percent of the Energy conversations about Access and
Resources conversation. 468,000 regarding Energy Security.

 Of the three key topics about Energy KEY ENERGY RESOURCES TOPICS EXAMINED:
Resources that we examined–Access, • Access
Energy Reserves and Energy Security–
• Energy Reserves
the discussion of Energy Security
• Energy Security
was neutral (2.97), whereas Access
and Energy Reserves were both
negative in sentiment.


Energy Resources
Topics Explored in the Online Conversation

Access Energy Reserves
 Outer Continental Shelf (OCS): Oil or drilling in the  Energy Reserves: Reserves of energy resources,
OCS, offshore areas that lie between the jurisdiction including natural gas and oil. A reserve is the amount
of individual U.S. states and the federal government, of commercially recoverable energy still remaining at
generally three miles to 200 miles off the coast. a location.
 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Oil or  Peak Oil: Defined as the point in time when the
drilling in the ANWR, a 19-million-acre area that lies maximum rate of extraction of the world’s petroleum
in the northeast corner of Alaska, a portion of which supply is met and subsequently followed by the
could be designated for oil and natural gas terminal decline of production.
exploration.
 Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR): America’s
 U.S. Domestic Access: Access to or exploration of storage of oil maintained by the U.S. Department of
U.S. energy resources. Energy for future emergency situations involving U.S.
 Oil Shale: An organic-rich sedimentary rock that can energy supply.
be used to produce liquid hydrocarbons or converted  Capacity: The level of production for individual
into various forms of oil. refineries as well as total production for all refineries.
 Oil Sands: Unconventional oil that comprises a  Refineries: Oil refineries or the oil refining process.
natural mixture of sand, water and a form of
 Energy Supply: The supply of energy resources,
petroleum called bitumen.
such as oil or natural gas.
 Natural Gas: Natural gas supply in the United States.


Energy Resources
Topics Explored in the Online Conversation, continued

Energy Security
 Energy Security: The issue of U.S. national security
involving energy, such as rising costs or limited
supplies.
 Energy Independence: Energy independence or
energy dependence refers to whether a country can
rely on its own resources for energy production, or
turns to other countries for energy supplies.
 “Foreign” Oil: Supplies of oil from non-U.S. sources.


Energy Resources
Volume and Net Sentiment of Online Conversations
The online conversation about Energy Resources was negative in sentiment overall. Energy Reserves was the largest
driver of online discussion.

1,800,000

1,600,000 Energy Reserves

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000
Volume of Online
Conversations
800,000

600,000 Access
Energy Security
400,000

200,000

0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Chart 2.1
Low Volume/ Sentiment of Online Conversations Low Volume/

Energy Resources
Volume of Online Conversations

Capacity was the largest share of conversation, followed by Energy Reserves and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

10 of 15 Energy Resources Subtopics
4Q09 Volume of Conversation July 1, 2008 – December 31, 2009
(Percentage of 5,869,000Total)
OCS* 11.71%

U.S. Domestic Access 1.38%

Oil Shale 0.78%

Oil Sands 3.25%

Energy Reserves 12.86%

Peak Oil 9.67%

Capacity 25.98%

Energy Security 7.57%

Energy Independence 5.56%

"Foreign" Oil 4.59%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

*
Percentage of Online Conversations About Energy Resources – 2.6 Million Total

*Outer Continental Shelf

Chart 2.2


Energy Resources
Net Sentiment and Sentiment Volume of Online Conversations

Energy Security was the most favorable conversation, with a net sentiment of 3.19.

10 of 15 Energy Resources Subtopics
July 1, 2008 – December 31, 2009

Category OCS** U.S. Oil Shale Oil Sands Energy Peak Oil Capacity Energy Energy “Foreign”
Domestic Reserves Security Independence Oil
Net Access
Sentiment 2.75 2.78 2.47 2.51 2.49 2.38 3.04 3.19 3.15 2.28

15,000
11,304
Sentiment Volume*

10,000 7,277
Negative Positive

3,855 1,875 3,961 1,924 3,702
5,000 686 290 1,872

0
– 486
-5,000 – 948 – 3,413 – 2,869
– 5,216 – 4,557 – 4,839
– 5,246
-10,000 – 8,461
– 9,830
-15,000

Neutral
Volume 75,758 12,328 7,756 21,820 112,039 32,652 207,300 94,565 35,444 28,867

*Number of positive, negative and neutral posts rated by the SM2 social media monitoring tool
Chart 2.3 **Outer Continental Shelf


Energy Resources
Sentiment Trends of Online Conversations
Energy Security and Energy Independence were the only two subtopics where the online conversation was neutral to
positive throughout the 18-month period.
July 1, 2008 – December 31, 2009

10 of 15 Energy 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09
Resources Subtopics

Outer Continental Shelf 2.48 2.69 2.70 2.76 3.05 2.96

U.S. Domestic Access 2.54 2.61 2.82 3.00 2.93 2.78

Oil Shale 2.24 1.64 2.26 2.35 2.46 3.34

Oil Sands 2.75 2.21 2.66 2.53 2.36 2.52

Energy Reserves 2.55 2.43 2.69 2.68 2.49 2.44

Peak Oil 2.44 2.72 2.48 2.33 2.39 2.27

Capacity 2.63 2.88 3.32 3.20 3.21 3.01

Energy Security 3.15 3.63 3.16 3.16 3.15 3.07

Energy Independence 2.97 3.08 3.23 3.31 3.18 2.91

“Foreign “Oil 2.36 2.36 2.23 2.40 2.20 2.19

Chart 2.4
Neutral (2.90–3.09) Negative
Negative (1.00–2.89)

Energy Resources
Access: Volume and Net Sentiment of Online Conversations
All subtopics about Access were negative in sentiment. Conversation about Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) generated a
markedly higher level of online conversation volume than the other subtopics.
350,000

OCS**
300,000

250,000

200,000
Volume of Online
Conversations
150,000

100,000
Oil Sands
ANWR* Natural Gas
50,000
U.S. Domestic Access
Oil Shale
0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Low Volume/ Low Volume/
Chart 2.5 Negative Sentiment Positive Sentiment
*Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
**Outer Continental Shelf

Energy Resources
Access: Volume Trend of Online Conversations
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) saw the greatest change in online conversation volume over the 18-month period.

Access*
100,000

90,000

80,000
Online Conversation Volume

70,000

60,000 OCS***
ANWR**
50,000
U.S. Domestic Access
40,000 Oil Sands
Natural Gas
30,000

20,000

10,000

0
3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09
Chart 2.6 *Five of six subtopics about Access
**Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
***Outer Continental Shelf

Energy Resources
Energy Reserves: Volume and Net Sentiment of Online Conversations
Capacity was the only positive, high-volume subtopic of conversation about Energy Reserves.
800,000

700,000 Capacity

600,000

500,000

Volume of Online
400,000
Conversations
Energy Reserves
300,000
Peak Oil
200,000
Refineries
Energy Supply
100,000

SPR*
0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
*Strategic Petroleum Reserve


Energy Resources
Energy Reserves: Volume Trend of Online Conversations
The volume of conversation about Capacity decreased significantly from the start of 2009; however, the volume of
conversation about other Energy Reserves subtopics decreased and then rose again.
Energy Reserves*
160,000
150,000
140,000
130,000
120,000

110,000
100,000
Energy Reserves
90,000
Peak Oil
80,000
Capacity
70,000
Refineries
60,000
Energy Supply
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Chart 2.8 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09
*Five of six subtopics about Energy Reserves

Energy Resources
Energy Security: Volume and Net Sentiment of Online Conversations
Conversation about “Foreign” Oil was low in volume and negative in sentiment. Energy Security and Energy Independence
were both at high levels of volume, with positive sentiment.
250,000

200,000 Energy Security

150,000 Energy Independence
Volume of Online
Conversations “Foreign” Oil
100,000

50,000

0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0


Energy Resources
Energy Security: Volume Trend of Online Conversations
Energy Security conversations experienced a considerable drop in volume during the last two quarters of 2008.
Energy Security
150,000
140,000
130,000
120,000

110,000
100,000
90,000
80,000 Energy Security
70,000 Energy Independence
60,000 "Foreign" Oil
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09
Chart 2.10


Energy Resources
Sample of Influencers Active in the Online Conversation

Blog Link Description
BNet.com's Energy blog provides analysis on a wide range of issues
involving the energy sector including energy policy, green business,
BNET/Energy http://industry.bnet.com/energy energy research and technologies.
The Energy Bulletin provides information about peak oil, energy
Energy Bulletin http://www.energybulletin.net/ production and implications of peak oil.
Energy and Capital features insights on energy investment strategies and
insights, as well as perspectives on the latest energy issues and energy
Energy & Capital http://www.energyandcapital.com/ economy.

The Energy Outlook shares insights, information and discussion
Energy Outlook http://energyoutlook.blogspot.com surrounding a spectrum of issues related to the energy industry.
The Houston Chronicle's NewsWatch: Energy Blog is a source for news,
analysis and conversation about developments and issues pertaining to
NewsWatch: Energy http://blogs.chron.com/newswatchenergy/ the energy industry.
Peak Oil News distributes analysis and information exploring the
Peak Oil News http://peakoil.com prospective depletion of the world's oil supply

The R-Squared Energy blog aims to foster objective discussions about
R-Squared Energy Blog http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com energy and sustainability and alternative solutions.
The Energy Blog covers a range of energy issues from fossil fuels to
renewable energy. The site is focused on an "Energy Revolution,"
characterized as the growing need to supplement fossil fuels with
The Energy Blog http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/ alternative energy resources.
The Energy Collective is a collaborative blog where a number of
contributing energy experts weigh-in on relevant energy news, resources,
The Energy Collective http://www.theenergycollective.com/ technologies, policy and more.
The Oil Drum is an online destination for conversation about peak oil and
The Oil Drum http://www.theoildrum.com/ relevant topics pertaining to the current and future energy supply.



ENERGY AND TECHNOLOGY


Energy and Technology
Summary of the Online Conversation

 There were 12.8 million posts about  However, changes in the sentiment
Energy and Technology that surfaced occurred over the course of the 18-
online from July 2008 through month period, with the most positive
December 2009. Edelman examined 4 sentiment occurring during spring
million of these posts to gain insights 2009.
about the conversation’s sentiment and
volume, as well as the key topics driving  The conversation volume also changed
this discussion online. over time, with the highest level of
conversation happening in late
 Overall, the tone of the online summer 2008 and again at the end
conversation about Energy and of 2009.
Technology was quite positive, with a
sentiment of 3.45 on a 5-point Likert KEY ENERGY AND TECHNOLOGY TOPICS EXAMINED:
scale. • Energy Efficiency
• Technology and Innovation
• Alternatives and Renewables


Topics Explored in the Online Conversation
Energy Efficiency Technology and Innovation
 Energy Efficiency: Reducing the amount of energy  Deepwater: Exploring and producing oil and gas off
needed to perform a process, from heating a home to the coastline in water depths of1,000 ft or more.
powering a factory.  Energy Technologies: Technological processes or
 Fuel Efficiency: Efficiency of a particular vehicle innovations associated with producing energy.
measured by its total output (e.g., mileage) in  Fuel Cell: An electrochemical cell that combines a
comparison to amount of input (e.g., fuel). Also fuel source (e.g., hydrogen) with an oxidant (e.g.,
related to fuel economy indicated by miles per gallon water) to produce an electrical current, commonly
(mpg) or kilometers per liter (km/L). used to power vehicles.
 Energy Conservation: Reduction of energy  Directional Drilling: Drilling nonvertical wells that
consumption. can extract oil and natural gas from a single point
 Energy Efficiency Policy: Local, state and national across a vast territory.
policies designed to reduce the amount of energy  Gas-to-Liquids (GTL): Converting gaseous
used through incentives, tax credits and other policy compounds into hydrocarbon-based liquids such as
mechanisms. gasoline.
 Fuel Efficiency Policy: Regulations and legislation  Intercropping: Energy industry’s adoption of the
at the local, state and national levels, such as agricultural practice of growing one crop between
emissions performance standards, that are used to the rows of another crop of a separate source;
set new thresholds in emission control technology. commonly used to harvest biomass.
 Steamflooding: Enhanced oil recovery process of
injecting steam into heavy-oil reservoirs to heat the
crude oil underground, reducing its viscosity and
allowing its extraction through wells.



Technology and Innovation, continued
 Energy Innovation: Advancements made in the  Cleantech: Energy products and services that
development of energy sources. increase efficiency while reducing costs, energy
consumption and environmental impact.
 Gasification: Producing gas from coal in order to
convert it into transportation fuels like gasoline or  Hydraulic fracturing: Recovery of natural gas and
diesel. oil from rock formations deep below the earth’s
surface through the injection of fluid pressure into
 Solar-to-Steam: Generation of steam from captured
targeted fractures in the rock. This creates a path
sunlight to carry out heavy oil extraction.
between the reservoir to the well, increasing the
 Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG): Liquid form of natural amount of oil and natural gas that can be recovered.
gas for easier storage and/or transportation of natural
 Seismic Imaging/Visualization: 3-D imaging of
gas to markets.
subsurface geology that helps petroleum engineers
 Exploration and Development: Exploratory identify possible oil– and gas–bearing formations.
ventures and developments of energy resources. The images show a reservoir at different stages of
 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): Family of depletion, allowing engineers to improve recovery
technologies that provide capture and storage of and produce resources more efficiently.
carbon dioxide emissions in deep geological  Enhanced Oil Recovery: Technologies such as
formations. thermal recovery or gas injection that can be used to
 Carbon Capture: Capturing and compressing of increase the amount of oil that can be extracted from
carbon dioxide in the CCS process. an oil field.

 Carbon Sequestration: Geo-engineering technique
used for the long-term storage of carbon dioxide.


 Biofuels: Fuels produced from renewable biological  Ocean: Energy generation through the movement of
resources, including vegetable oil– and animal fat– ocean surface waves.
based diesel fuels.  Algae: Use of the photosynthetic organism algae to
 Ethanol: Flammable, colorless liquid that can be create a biofuel by converting carbon dioxide and
used as a fuel or fuel additive. sunlight into oxygen and biomass.
 Alternatives and Renewables: Nontraditional  Cellulosic Ethanol: Biofuel produced from wood,
sources of energy and those that can be produced grasses or nonedible plant parts.
from naturally replenishing resources, such as solar,  Corn-Based Ethanol: Form of ethanol produced
wind or wave power. from corn through industrial fermentation and
 Geothermal: A source of energy that is generated by distillation.
extracting heat from the earth.  Nonfood Biofuels: Ethanol produced from nonfood
 Solar: Generation of electricity from sunlight. crops for waste biomass, such as the stalks of wheat
and wood.
 Wind: Power of wind converted into a usable form of
energy that can be harnessed to produce electricity.  Biohydrocarbons: Fuel source produced by mixing
biomass feedstock of plants with hydrogen and
 Hydrogen: Generating power from hydrogen and fuel
another chemical catalyst.
cells, which are electrochemical cells that generate
electricity through the reactions between hydrogen  Clean Energy: Energy sources that do not pollute
and water. when used.
 Nuclear: Energy produced from controlled nuclear
reactions.


Volume and Net Sentiment of Online Conversations
The Alternatives and Renewables conversation had the highest volume of conversation among the key Energy and
Technology topics. Energy Efficiency was the most positive in sentiment.
6,000,000

5,000,000
Technology and Innovation

4,000,000

Volume of Online
Conversations 3,000,000
Energy Efficiency

2,000,000

1,000,000

0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Chart 3.1 Low Volume/ Sentiment of Online Conversations Low Volume/

Volume of Online Conversations

Energy Technologies was the largest conversation, followed by Solar and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).

10 of 39 Energy and Technology Subtopics
July 1, 2008 – December 31, 2009

Biofuels 2.74%

Solar 7.81%

Wind 6.28%

Nuclear 5.80%

Energy Efficiency 4.42%

Energy Conservation 5.91%

Deepwater 0.27%

Energy Technologies 13.11%

Liquefied Natural Gas 7.30%

Carbon Capture 0.45%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%

Percentage of Online Conversations About Energy and Technology – 12.8 Million Total

Chart 3.2


Net Sentiment and Sentiment Volume of Online Conversations

Energy Efficiency was the most favorable conversation, followed by Solar and Wind. Nuclear was the most negative.

10 of 39 Energy and Technology Subtopics
July 1, 2008 – December 31, 2009

Category Biofuels Solar Wind Nuclear Energy Conservation Deepwater Energy Liquefied Carbon
Efficiency Technologies Natural Gas Capture
Net
Sentiment
3.39 3.68 3.45 2.59 3.96 2.68 3.79 3.18 3.20 3.38

50,000 40,681
35,016
40,000 32,832
Sentiment Volume*

Negative Positive

30,000 20,903 21,754
20,000 10,971 4,904 10,053
847
10,000 355
0
-10,000 – 104 – 511
– 6,097 – 7,831 – 7,795
-20,000 – 13,607 – 7,408
– 15,505
-30,000 – 17,529
-40,000
-50,000 – 37,806

Neutral
159,819 314,486 334,650 269,874 269,166 81,722 6,512 336,253 89,458 10,113
Volume

*Number of positive, negative and neutral posts rated by the SM2 social media monitoring tool
Chart 3.3


Sentiment Trends of Online Conversations
The online conversation about Energy Technologies was mostly positive, with the exception of Nuclear and Energy
Conservation being negative.
July 1, 2008 – December 31, 2009

10 of 39 Energy and 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09
Technology Subtopics

Biofuels 3.19 3.33 3.54 3.43 3.48 3.35

Solar 3.72 3.76 3.66 3.83 3.87 3.53

Wind 3.34 3.66 3.42 3.78 3.47 3.04

Nuclear 2.42 2.47 2.30 2.82 2.85 2.45

Energy Efficiency 4.08 3.52 4.03 4.01 4.05 4.05

Energy Conservation 2.60 2.49 2.83 2.62 2.72 2.72

Deepwater 3.88 3.60 4.05 3.79 3.92 3.58

Energy Technologies 3.29 2.96 3.33 3.38 3.28 3.08

Liquefied Natural Gas 2.69 3.13 3.08 3.12 2.91 3.38

Carbon Capture 2.91 3.23 2.92 3.34 3.16 3.54

Chart 3.4 Neutral (2.90–3.09) Negative
Negative (1.00–2.89)

Energy Efficiency: Volume and Net Sentiment of Online Conversations

Online conversations around Fuel Efficiency and Energy Efficiency were high in volume and positive in sentiment.

900,000

800,000 Fuel Efficiency
Energy Conservation
700,000

600,000
Energy Efficiency
500,000
Volume of Online
Conversations
400,000 Fuel Efficiency Policy

300,000

200,000 Energy Efficiency Policy

100,000

0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Chart 3.5

Energy Efficiency: Volume Trend of Online Conversations
Conversations about Energy Efficiency peaked in the fourth quarter of 2009, tripling in volume compared with the third
quarter of 2009.
Energy Efficiency
200,000

180,000

160,000

140,000

120,000 Energy Efficiency
Fuel Efficiency
100,000
Energy Conservation
80,000 Energy Efficiency Policy
Fuel Efficiency Policy
60,000

40,000

20,000

0
Chart 3.6
3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09


Technology and Innovation: Volume and Net Sentiment of Online
Conversations
The majority of Technology and Innovation subtopics had a low volume of conversation with a positive sentiment.

1,800,000
Energy Technologies
1,600,000

1,400,000

Volume of Online 1,200,000
Conversations
1,000,000 Exploration and Development
A. Directional Drilling
Liquefied Natural Gas B. Carbon and Sequestration
800,000 C. Solar-to-Steam
D. Carbon Capture
E. Intercropping
600,000 F. Hydraulic Fracturing
Innovation G. Gasification
H. Fuel Cell
400,000 I. Gas-to-Liquids
J. Deepwater
200,000
H M K. Seismic Visual/Imaging
B L. Steamflooding
Hydraulic Fracturing D F GI J K N M. Cleantech
A C E L N. Oil Recovery
0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Chart 3.7

Technology and Innovation: Volume Trend of Online Conversations
Technology and Innovation subtopics had a similar online conversation volume trend throughout the 18-month period,
decreasing in volume at the end of 2008 and then increasing in 2009.
Technology and Innovation*
380,000
360,000
340,000
320,000
300,000

280,000
260,000
240,000
220,000 Energy Technologies
200,000 Innovation
180,000 Fuel Cell
160,000
Liquefied Natural Gas
140,000
120,000 Exploration and Development
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Chart 3.8 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09
*Five of 19 subtopics about Technology and Innovation

Alternatives and Renewables: Volume and Net Sentiment of
Online Conversations
The majority of subtopics had a low volume of conversation with a positive sentiment.
1,200,000

1,000,000 Alternatives and Renewables Solar

800,000 Wind
Nuclear
Volume of Online
Conversations
600,000

Ethanol
400,000
Biofuels Clean Energy

Hydrogen Geothermal
200,000
Ocean Algae Cellulosic Ethanol
Corn-Based
Ethanol Nonfood Biofuels
0 Biohydrocarbons
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Chart 3.9

Alternatives and Renewables: Volume Trend of Online Conversations
Ethanol dropped in online conversation volume from the third quarter of 2008 to the first quarter of 2009 and remained fairly
flat for the remainder of the year.
Alternatives and Renewables*
220,000

200,000

180,000

160,000

140,000
Ethanol
120,000
100,000 Solar
Wind
80,000
Nuclear
60,000

40,000

20,000

0
Chart 3.10
3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09
*Five of 15 subtopics about Alternatives and Renewables

Sample of Influencers Active in the Online Conversation

Blog Link Description
AutoblogGreen is a blog devoted to the discussion of green automotive
AutoblogGreen http://www.autobloggreen.com technology.
Cleantech Blog writes about news and technology relating to energy, the
Cleantech Blog http://www.cleantechblog.com/ environment and climate change.
CleanTechnica is an online destination for conversation about clean
CleanTechnica http://cleantechnica.com/ energy technology.

Earth2Tech is a blog focused on clean technology, automotive, and
Earth2Tech http://www.earth2tech.com environmental-friendly technology policy.

EcoGeek covers issues lying at the cross-section between energy and
EcoGeek http://www.ecogeek.com technology.
Gas 2.0 is dedicated to the sharing of ideas, solutions and information for
Gas 2.0 http://gas2.org/ moving beyond petroleum-based fuels.
GreenTech Media is a site targeting green businesses and entrepreneurs
with "daily news and market analysis about the end-to-end cleantech
GreenTech Media http://www.greentechmedia.com/ market" including solar, smart grid and other emerging energy sectors.
RenewableEnergyWorld supplies insights and information about the
renewable energy industry, with specific interest in products, businesses
Renewable Energy World http://www.renewableenergyworld.com and services.

Sustainablog aims at connecting people, companies, technology, and
Sustainablog www.sustainablog.org ideas around the movement toward a more sustainable future.
The Daily Green offers online visitors daily access to eco-friendly news
and trends, advocating the importance of living green and finding energy-
The Daily Green http://www.thedailygreen.com/ efficient solutions.



ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT


Chevron Pulse Report: July 2008 to December 2009

Chevron Pulse Report: July 2008 to December 2009

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a Chevron Pulse Report: July 2008 to December 2009

Semelhante a Chevron Pulse Report: July 2008 to December 2009 (9)

Mais de Edelman Digital

Mais de Edelman Digital (20)

Último

Último (20)

Chevron Pulse Report: July 2008 to December 2009