Google Says It Will Not Build Custom AI for Oil and Gas Extraction (medium.com) 105
After a year of weathering criticism from tech workers, politicians, and activists over its oil industry contracts, Google has stated that it will not create new custom A.I. or machine learning algorithms that would help the oil and gas industry enhance its ability to extract fossil fuels. From a report: "We will not ... build custom A.I./ML algorithms to facilitate upstream extraction in the oil and gas industry," a Google spokesperson said in a statement provided to OneZero. The declaration comes in response to a new Greenpeace report that details 14 separate contracts between three of the biggest tech companies -- Google, Amazon, and Microsoft -- and major oil firms. Over the last two years, Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure, and Amazon Web Services have inked deals with firms like Exxon, Chevron, and Total to use A.I. and automation to accelerate fossil fuel exploration and extraction, linking the last generation of the world's richest, most powerful companies with the newest. Microsoft, Google, and Amazon have built web portals to entice oil and gas clients, and each company has set up divisions aimed at winning business from the oil industry. With a surfeit of disorganized, backlogged data, tapering production rates, and deep financial reserves, major oil corporations are attractive clients to cloud service providers.
Talk about winning a battle but losing a war! (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is that oil nd gas use will continue for quite some time, even as the use of renewables inevitably climbs.
So why would you not want to make the process of oil and gas extraction as efficient and safe as possible? That's what producing things like more advanced tools or AI analysis would provide, cleaner and safer extraction of oil and gas.
So congratulations Google employees on personally worsening the worlds pollution levels.
Re: (Score:1)
Because stupid little pussy beta male Democrats
Re: (Score:2)
Karenophobia Alert (Score:2)
Bias, racism, get it here...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What is about Democrats, that they must constantly talk about other people's penises, even in public?
Re:Talk about winning a battle but losing a war! (Score:4, Insightful)
Because making it easier also means making it more economical. The only thing that works is putting economic pressure on those industries.
Re:Talk about winning a battle but losing a war! (Score:5, Insightful)
Making it more economical means millions of people facing high unemployment and uncertainty about where they next paycheck is coming from get cheaper fuel to stay warm in the winter, and drive to job interviews etc.
Honestly anyone WANTS energy to cost more (even dirty energy) especially right now is either unthinking or a dirtbag that cares more about their image as a progressive futurists or whatever than about people. Want renewables to succeed find ways to deliver energy cheaper than the oil guys can do it by doing cheaper not by making oil more expensive and therefore other peoples lives WORSE.
Re: (Score:2)
Making it more economical means fewer jobs. The transition to renewables is one of the biggest source of new jobs we have. Lots of construction and engineering required, and then on-going maintenance for distributed generation.
Boosting gas is just destroying new jobs that could have been created if it were a little more expensive.
Re: Talk about winning a battle but losing a war! (Score:2)
If you want to create useless jobs that's easy; just hire half pd those people to dig holes, and the other half to fill them in.
Re: (Score:2)
Building new, cheap renewable energy to displace polluting, CO2 emitting sources is hardly "useless". In fact it's essential.
Re: Talk about winning a battle but losing a war! (Score:2)
Your argument was that we need it because it creates more jobs. Once I pointed out why that was stupid, you switched to "well we need it for the environment". Pick one. If you're gonna go with "it's good for the environment" then we should be looking to find ways for it to generate fewer jobs so that it can be cheap and efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
We need it for both jobs and the environment. I didn't switch, I expanded. It will do both.
It's not like we don't have alternatives (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you just rip off a quote from a Star Trek movie?
Re: (Score:2)
“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Captain Kirk answers, “Or the one.”
Whether or not Google's plausibly well-intentioned stance makes a difference remains to be seen. They are likely others ready to fill any tech void that has been created by their proclamation.
The real question is not whether the earth's bevy of fossil fuels will continue to be extracted, but where, and by who. Exxon and Chevron are truly major western producers, and as such, very likely to face more stringent environmental regulations than say, many cash-strapped OPEC+ members. Curtailing their ability to e
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And liberals hate cheap oil and gas with passion. I mean, they made far-fetched plans for the green economy under the Obama administration. But progress has been underwhelming considering petrol costing less than 2.50 a gallon for the last 10 years in most parts of the country, cheap natural gas, and cheap electricity.
Re: (Score:1)
What's the magic number that gas should be at?
The price that convinces soccer moms to stop buying Ford Expeditions.
Maybe about $10 per gallon.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the value of all the various tax breaks and other subsidies received by the fossil fuel industry? Best eliminate those.
What would it cost to actually *clean up* the environmental disasters, rather than moving on as soon as the news cycle starts ignoring them? Or better yet(and probably cheaper), run it safely enough that they don't happen in the first place? Why are we letting them externalize those costs on society while they privatize the profits?
What have all the wars in the middle east cost us
Re: (Score:2)
What is the value of all the various tax breaks and other subsidies received by the fossil fuel industry? Best eliminate those.
Care to enumerate the "various tax breaks and other subsidies received by the fossil fuel industry?"
If you choose to eliminate them, defend maintaining those exact same "tax breaks and subsidies" for every other industry...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gas doesn't really cost $2.50/gallon, it's just that you only pay a fraction of the price and the rest is externalized on to other people, some of them not even born yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Because making it easier also means making it more economical.
The AI techniques will make it more economical for a few producers, mostly "swing" producers extracting from shale. This will mean cheaper oil, and actually hurt most of the industry.
High-cost producers, such as Russia, will be forced out of the market.
Low-cost producers, such as Saudi Arabia, will see their margins erode.
The big winners will be American frackers who will increase their market share.
The only thing that works is putting economic pressure on those industries.
Nope. High prices help the oil industry.
The only thing that works is putting economic pressure on consumers
Win-win-win (Score:1)
No one will drop a tear, I'm sure...
Excellent!
That'd be Ok too.
Which is good for America. For decades US politicians were talking about the need for "energy independence" in general and blasted our "dependence on foreign oil" [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Mono or poly solar panels? I keep hearing conflicting information about those two types. There's also the rigid vs flexible debate but I'm guessing your panels are for a home setup and therefore are rigid panels.
Re: (Score:2)
Mono or poly solar panels?
To be honest, I have no idea. I just looked at the price and the warranty (80% capacity after 25 years) and went with the installer who offered the best deal with the fastest pay-back.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? There's very little that's higher cost than American shale. Russia and Saudi Arabia ignore frackers for a while, then, when they get thick enough to be annoying, kill them off.
I don't think most of the conventional oil producers really do much exploration, and wouldn't benefit much from any Google AI (provided the Google AI was actually useful). Unconventional sources, like American shale, would be the ones who stood to benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? There's very little that's higher cost than American shale.
Offshore oil is higher cost.
So is arctic oil. Shale oil has killed off all arctic oil exploration.
Russian oil is cheaper to pump out of the ground from pre-existing wells, but it is not cheaper for the Russians to drill new wells. As their older wells run dry, the Russian economy will be in deep trouble.
Unconventional sources, like American shale, would be the ones who stood to benefit.
Certainly.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a bit of reality. The harder those sources are to find, the harder they are to extract. If they were easy to find, they would be large and easy to extract, the elements of them being easy to extract and easy to find are much the same.
There is no fucking money in it no more, the frackers are already at deaths door, the great fracking ponzi scheme, where they were trying to hide the rapid fall off in production of each well, way faster than they claimed, by borrowing more money and drilling more wells
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But think how righteous they feel for "sticking it to the man"!
False (Score:1)
The truth is that rape and murder will continue for quite some time, even as distaste for it grows.
Actually not true, in the U.S. rape/murder rates have declined dramatically over the years..
In fact you can probably correlate the reduction to more efficient extraction of gas and oil. So Google's refusal to help improve eficianecy of the oil industry means there will be more rapes and murders - which then lands squarely on you.
Re: Talk about winning a battle but losing a war! (Score:1)
You're creating a false dichotomy. If you equate more efficient and less wasteful energy production to rape and murder, why would you support solar or wind?
More accurately you could say this about war and making war more efficient does help reduce civilian and soldier death and long term issues related to injury. Nobody wants war but it's the best solution sometimes to restore freedom and improve life in general.
Re: Talk about winning a battle but losing a war! (Score:2)
Re: Talk about winning a battle but losing a war! (Score:2)
I've got better things to do than deal with life's failures like you all day who can't comprehend even the most simple of logical comparisons.
Yes, your half-dozen longwinded comments make it very obvious that you have a lot of very important things to do. How fortunate that you were able to find some time to share your ignorance with us.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the primary reason many people choose not to go with Google for cloud solutions as well. If you can't be trusted not to meddle in the politics that a particular organization may be involved with, why trust them with your data.
If you're a University, well you do animal research, don't trust Google, they might kick you off because some petulant child they hired which is also a community organizer for PETA. If you're a government, you do war and surveillance and the politics change to something they do
Re: (Score:1)
The truth is that oil nd gas use will continue for quite some time, even as the use of renewables inevitably climbs.
So why would you not want to make the process of oil and gas extraction as efficient and safe as possible?
You are missing a few critical pieces of the picture. No surprise, but here are some: These investments are long-term. They are about getting out more, not making the process safer. Making fossiles even only somewhat better has a negative impact on renewables. Some idiots (look in the mirror) would start to claim fossiles are not that bad after all and should be used even longer. Making a stand does matter.
Re: Talk about winning a battle but losing a war! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just a variant on Broken Window Theory.
We want renewables to "win" so sabotage non-renewables to make renewables look better? And here I though they were just better and don't need to be artificially assisted.
Re: (Score:2)
And here I though they were just better and don't need to be artificially assisted.
Much of what makes renewables "better" is that they reduce CO2 emissions. That is a public good [wikipedia.org] that is not reflected in the price.
Re: Talk about winning a battle but losing a war! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Could be seen as adding the environmental cost that the competition has been getting for free for so long.
Re: (Score:2)
And here I though they were just better and don't need to be artificially assisted.
The great lie of the greens: nuclear energy is more expensive than other forms... (silently) ...after we add twenty years of litigation and any form of legal and illegal protest we can think of.
Nuclear energy is the on form of energy that can save our environment _and_ maintain our standard of living.
Re: (Score:2)
And here I though they were just better and don't need to be artificially assisted.
The great lie of the greens: nuclear energy is more expensive than other forms...
It is only a "lie" for people that cannot do even basic math. You probably qualify. If you even looked and are not just stupidly repeat something you heard somewhere.
The actual reality is that nuclear energy is horrendously expensive, even if you disregard the risk-cost and the cost of long-term storage of the waste.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you suppose you could learn to argue without questioning the mental abilities of your discussion partner? It's uncivilized and tiresome, and it raises the suspicion that your point cannot stand on its own merits.
My argument is simple: the only form of energy that both provides enough capacity to replace our current energy needs, and that can provide base load, is nuclear. All other options are either relying on finite and heavily polluting resources such as oil and coal, or unable to provide even a fract
Re: (Score:2)
Do you suppose you could learn to argue without questioning the mental abilities of your discussion partner?
Nope. I can already do that and hence cannot learn it. But when the mental abilities of the other side are clearly seriously deficient, I like to point that out. Yes the truth is often impolite and hurts.
Looking at your "arguments", you are either very new to this and very naive, or cannot actually do Math. It seems you also do not understand Physics and Engineering. Now, I have been following the global nuclear mafia and its misadventures and accidents for about 3 and a half decades and all they ever have
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you're one of _those_ people. Well, best of luck in your life then. I hope we won't meet again.
I hope for you that you will at some point in your life grow to understand that such an abrasive, absolutist attitude to life is a very shitty way to live, and that you may find love someday.
Re: (Score:2)
So why would you not want to make the process of oil and gas extraction as efficient and safe as possible?
This. The alternative to maximising extraction of existing oil sources is to drill for new ones. That has an overall negative impact.
Greenpeace is utterly stupid. It's like how they protesting specifically against BP because BP receive the largest number of government subsidies. Yeah no shit, bio-ethanol, wind power, solar, and all those other things they dabble in as a side gig is all subsidised so they are literally punishing the companies that attempt to align most heavily with government policy *slow co
Of course! (Score:2)
Of course they won't, they just announced they wouldn't.
There's nothing preventing them, however, from building generic A.I. that can then be fine-tuned for oil and gas extraction.
Re: (Score:2)
Great opportunity for Russia or China step in. They've got the brainpower. The US is doing its damnedest to squash Kaspersky and Huawei, but it's not going to happen.
I'm not sure how much capital is required for AI development, but I doubt if it's like mining oil sands or building refineries. When Russia and China tool up, watch the USA rhetoric against these two powers diminish. Or else It will become part of the US national purpose to develop these tools, and Google will reverse and become heroes for step
Re: (Score:2)
they have to steal it first. that's the issue.
it's a favorite field of mine to watch and we are way in front of the computer AI game.
we are behind in the people mind skills for many computer related services but AI nope.
russia math people have a great skill set when it comes to science of the problem but they
don't have the art side of the skill set ( not that far behind but lucky for us )
Google Custom AI for Oil and Gas Extraction (Score:2)
Just my 2 cents
Yeah (Score:2)
Me neither.
There's a huge oversupply of oil and natural gas for the foreseeable future, so the drillers don't need phantom non-existent tech to get more.
Custom MONEY extraction, on the other hand... (Score:2)
If you build a generalized AI engine, it's down to the training as to what kind of AI it becomes.
What's this, like the 4,000th virtue signal Google has announced recently?
Re: (Score:2)
I eagerly await Google's announcement that they will not allow their AI to be used for improving auto safety, since safer cars will only encourage more driving, leading to increased greenhouse gases...
Reasons for signalling virtue (Score:1)
Google is about to be sued for anti-trust violations [wsj.com], and needs to summon all of the public support they can.
Not entirely unlike Harvey Weinstein, who, after (finally!) being taken to task by media, tried donating gobs of money to support women [theconversation.com] and attack the NRA [foxnews.com].
Or like disgraced Cohen attacking Trump [bbc.com] in hopes of getting a lower sentence.
Re: (Score:1)
Since this will only lead to MORE pollution-causing exploration this will backfire.
Neat how they still help the Communist dictatorship in China oppress their citizens.
Doin' No Evil!
So google is in favor of pollution. (Score:2)
misguided (Score:1)
Why does Google want to kill people? (Score:1)
nearly 99% of pharmaceutical feedstocks and reagents are derived from petrochemicals
Without petrochemicals, we will eliminate most of our drug research and production capabilities. Why does Google want to kill us?
Re: (Score:1)
Sarcasm or stupidity? Hard to tell. Care to enlighten me?
Jeff Bezos laughs maniacally until tears start (Score:1)
Jeff Bezos laughs maniacally until tears start to stream down his face. He then picks up piles of $100 bills and wipes the tears with them. Congrats, Google, you've accomplished absolutely nothing, and lost probably a billion dollars on this grandstanding. A billion dollars that your lagging cloud business pretty badly needs.
Re: Jeff Bezos laughs maniacally until tears start (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not before they castrate YouTube because someone is posting unapproved narratives there.
As if google has a monopoly on AI (Score:5, Insightful)
The oil companies will just develop the AI techniques for this in house.
Re: (Score:2)
The oil companies will just develop the AI techniques for this in house.
This. The oil industry isn't helpless in technology. Pretty much every major owns some form of high power supercomputer. E.g. The CHPC owned by BP (if it were leased to the public) would sit in number 13 in the rank of top supercomputers in the world. PANGEA III is owned by French Total and sits in number 11. HPC4 is sitting in number 16 owned by Italian Eni. And those companies who don't own supercomputers work closely with universities which do.
The oil industry has always been pushing boundaries in techno
They're damn stupid (Score:1)
Like it or not the world still needs oil extraction. If not for fossil fuels then to create the thousands of other items we use oil and oil by-products for. (like plastics used in ventilators for one)
AI can make this process cleaner and cheaper for all.
But no, they have to play luddite and virtue signal about how ethical a company they are all the while helping China enslave its populace.
Break 'em up.
This wonâ(TM)t put economic pressure (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because some others profit from destroying the eco-system does not make it right if you participate in it. Replace that with "murder", and it becomes even more obvious.
Re: This wonâ(TM)t put economic pressure (Score:2)
That's stupid. Making things more efficient is not destroying the ecosystem. It's the exact opposite. You may as well pile on the inventor of the LED lightbulb for making lighting cheaper / more efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you again. And as expected, you do not get it. Not even one bit.
Re: This wonâ(TM)t put economic pressure (Score:2)
It's true; nothing I do will ever make me sufficiently stupid to understand your thought process.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you think I have forgotten all the invalid stupid things you posted here in the past? I have not.
Here is a hint: You cannot follow though processes far _above_ your own level of insight. Below is easy. That is if you are smart enough to understand the psychology involved...
For example, I pretty much understand _your_ thought processes. But they do not provide insights into reality, just into your mind and are hence of no real interest to me.
Re: This wonâ(TM)t put economic pressure (Score:2)
For example, I pretty much understand _your_ thought processes.
Nah, that's just Dunning-Kruger at work.
Petroleum products are core to modern society (Score:4, Interesting)
they're really drawing a line in the sand, these well-intentioned and self-important tech folks, but standing on principles, admirable as the intentions are, can still be a stupid move
to be led by short-sighted perceptions of victory just to score some environmentalist bandwagon points is by definition 'cutting off your nose to spite your face'
we need petroleum now and perhaps better ways of extracting and using it can help things while can figure out how to lessen our dependence in the meantime
Re: (Score:2)
If we could stop burning it, and throwing it away, then it would be reasonable to keep depending on oil. But if you're a plastics company and you're not working on plant-derived materials, or if you're an oil company not researching biofuels, you aren't planning for the future.
It's true that modern life is in many ways dependent on fossil fuels, but if you're aware of some law of physics that precludes changing that, please let us know.
Re: (Score:2)
start with discarding the strawman companies idea
hypocrites (Score:2)
Total hypocrites.
Re: (Score:2)
Oil & gas is nice when you're freezing and hun (Score:2)
Which means ... (Score:2)
We already built one. ...
We built a generic one you just have to select 'oil baron' during character creation.
Hypocritical scumbags (Score:2)
However, actively creating, maintaining, and growing a business model based ENTIRELY on invading everyone's privacy to put cash in their pockets is totally ok and not evil.
If these google types weren't such hypocritical scum then I'd take them more seriously when do they make noise about something.
But they WILL (Score:5, Insightful)
False morality is still false.
Re: (Score:2)
Well to be fair they are following Greenpeace the biggest proponents of ruining the environment. Thanks to them we will now dig new wells, just like we built out new coal power plants when they had a hard on against nuclear power. Just like how they attack the oil industry in order based on government subsidies received, ignoring that the most government subsides are received by the companies who have the most green projects (biofuel, wind farms, etc). Greenpeace are utter morons.
They're rich, so what? (Score:2)
...the fact is that I don't expect you can run a business catering to the deepest snowflaky convictions of your employees, but they have such deep pockets they can go for a while, I'm sure.
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting (Score:2)
Self-described progressive take more flights and fly more miles per year than self-described Republicans. They also have higher energy use, in many cases, significantly more.
If these folks got on an airplane, and their flight was cancelled because the plane had no fuel, they would be livid.
Which means, they fully expect THEIR transportation choices to have fuel, but they don’t want them to actually procure the fuel.
And these are grown people who have never been told that this does not make sense, and
Re: (Score:1)