→ London

April 1, 2012 by Samantha Catalyst

London Epilogue: It was in the manner of visualizing the forest through the trees that I came face-to-face, this evening, with economist from Ukraine, Svetlana L. I snapped a beautiful photograph of Svetlana inside the bar at the Lanesborough where we met for sparkling water. Of that image, we can only make public at this time fragments of the surroundings, in respect to her wishes, or rather, to her demurring over whether she wants to make an official appearance on the P-E blog.

It remains to be seen whether we will be able publish the image in full, but we will be content with the remains of what we have, in the absence of the full photo, around its perimeter, a maternal painting over the fire place, a fuddy duddy having spent his own life his own way …. and a blazing red lampshade …

Responding to Svetlana’s request of an accounting of my procedure, how I do what I do, in detail, I walked through one particular project, the recent Fulbright US-Norwegian Application, more details on that later…. What eventually came out, so to speak, one might say in the final moments of our discussion, and upon departure, as the bill was paid, and when I took up my overcoat — was whether my project was something more than simply a project, for example: is there any greatness in what I actively set my sights out to do?

But what is greatness other than stamina and tenacity and to allow reviewers (if there are such persons) to have the last word.

4/4: I will talk about the images below. I have great notes, and had a great couple meetings with energy consultants in London. I will need to change their names and the names of their organizations, and even, I will need to homogenize the information, so that if the images are recognized, what I speak about does not have direct details. Nothing too sensitive here. But I always say that, and then someone will call me, who I blog on and be discouraged. So I have to take a different approach. But I will come back to these images shortly. I am going to dinner on my last evening in London.

[post-script: written on 4/24]: Returning to these images, I effectively merge two consultants into one person who I will call Patterson Michael, who runs a shop in London near the Metropolitan University of London. We met at the Energy Institute’s workshop on surfing the internet for energy industry issues but also in Moscow at the Oil and Gas Petroleum Congress. When I mentioned that I worked in the Arctic, Patterson immediately noted that his group, Firmware Consultants, had recently created an Arctic map depicting current developments. I invited myself over to his office the next day to pick up a free copy of the map and have a little tete-a-tete over how he does what he does.

Actually, we had a great conversation and I learned quite a bit about how one product, a map, is produced and circulated. Before I go into the discussion of the map, I should first mention a few things about Firmware Consultants (name changed). It is a smaller firm with about 50 persons. They focus on “project flow” in particular, tracking off-shore installations to decommission. But they also do a wider range of things regarding intelligence gathering and activities depends upon the nature of the retainer they have with their client, as well as the personal relationship with the client.

In fact, I got the sense that all relationships between consultants and clients are personal, and that often times, a client, working in industry may just have a hunch or and idea about something that consultants at Firmware can hunt down and develop an answer around. And in this, I was quite reminded of the lobbyists I use to work with on Capitol Hill in the Office of the Alaska Governor. When we had a particular issue that required political intel, we (Office staff for Governor) would call one of our lobbyists to discuss the issue and then they would typically go out and get an answer.

Patterson suggests that his main competitors are the big firms, such as Douglas Westwood, Woodmackenzie and IHS. Smaller firms specialize, and offer boutique products, like the Arctic Map I discuss below. Patterson daily gets information from a variety of sources, mentioning as a priority the trade press, including Oil and Gas International, Barents Observer, EnergyPedia, Rigzone, Eye on Arctic (environmental).

But he also attends to major contractors’ websites, for information on installation in their own fields.

Well now to the map. First of all, there is the costing of the map itself which has to be born by some group at the outset, and this is typically accomplished by way of placing advertisement space on the map itself, which is purchased by industry.

As it was explained to me…
Companies like to know that they are appearing in an office, hanging on someone’s wall.

But there is the need to advertise that these advertisements are available, and for this, Patterson has a sales person in the office. They also give copies of the completed map at exhibitions. The first publication run was about 2000 but the maps are also available on-line and on DVD. One of the reasons why this particular map is important is that when there is “news of a discovery”, as an industry participant, you want to know where it is located, and you can turn to this map that hangs on your wall.

Now, constructing the map is somewhat different. There is a need to map the offshore blocks, which requires obtaining from country of origin information about who owns what and what is divested. Gathering this kind of intel requires one person doing a “blitz” on all blocks to find out who owns them. For most parts of the Arctic, this can be carried out in English (“Norwegian, no problem”), but Patterson does have a Russian speaker in the Office to handle Russia.

I wanted to know how long this map would be “useful” — to which he replied 5 years. And in fact, the internet site-map is updated all the time.

Finally, I wanted to know whether the information found on such a map is sent out for review, like in Academia before a publication. To this, Patterson mentioned that they conduct an in-house review, largely because no one in industry has the time to review such a project, and also, because most of the Arctic is well documented.

Epilogue: These are two persons I merged, but in fact, they were very different individuals. One firm, for example, wanted to separate the more meta narrative analysis from the data collection side, and in fact, has begun to farm out the data collection side to a firm in India, who they are training to do just what the London office has done for eons. It was in this latter conversation, that I received a less pragmatic view of the industry aims and purpose with intelligence, and in fact, got a sense that what I was doing, whatever that is, makes a great deal of sense in terms of touching on the various locations across the social field, examining how knowledge is cobbled together. More to come.

Here are my notes by the way, one last glance at how I collect data, before throwing them away. I have another blog post in here somewhere that documents how I do not keep things in a notebook, and here is just one more example…

4/03: Meeting with Francis Gugen at the Lanesborough:

Lucky to have a meeting this morning with Francis Gugen, former CEO of Amerada Hess UK. We had met in January, also at the Lanesborough, and he was good enough to spend time going over my project.

Here, I refer to Francis by his real name, because he is a mentor on my project and also, the issues we discuss are well within the framework of an open discussion.

We spent one hour going over how I would set up the initial stage of the project if I get continued funding from NSF, deciding on a 2 day get together in London, where my partners hammer out deliverables on the first day, and on second day, we invite mentors, like Francis, to see if we are on track. Only until we have a clear sense of moving forward, do we then meet again in London, with a wider range of groups, to present the project for feedback. A two day format, and then some time later a 3 day format.

Within this discussion Francis and I covered a lot of information, referring for example, to the condition of information rich versus knowledge poor environments — for which we are now moving into concerning energy debates.

What this means, and I have cited this previously in the context of comments by Jonathan Stern, that the Blogosphere is quite capable at framing terms of debate in energy decision making.

By placing everything on the internet, and co-creating in large groups, assessing risk is taking on dimensions that are quite different from when I originally theorized the rise of intermediary groups.

Here Francis was adept in touching on a variety of points, all of which began to make me rethink the level of partners that I will engage with. Questions: In what ways and at what levels do I put the problem of energy out into the community to get feedback to assess how to come up with good solutions on risk assessment. There is the question of What one has to continue to do as decision making the old way, and does that make for better decisions or anarchy.

Here, we are talking all the time of Post Shale Gale and Post Macondo decision making. How has the architecture for the old model (which I created) changed in this new model. The Blogosphere—uninformed and informed actors that are part of the policy and industry, including the Facilitator and the Spoiler.

How do I theorize that portion of the blogosphere that has decided to be involved. To say yes. Or no. Francis here refers to Four circles of influence.

The Policy, the Industry, the Intermediaries and the Spoilers. And all of this conversation is in the context of my creating some kind of graphic so that I can educate my partners or collaborators within a glance, about how the project aims to move forward. Francis continues: Engagement with the new and ever growing circle is haphazard.

Where do you go from there. Does it remain haphazard, are there any rules. Ignore it at your peril. How might one engage – does any body do the engagement well, how does that go, how important is it to have it go well for important policy making. Does it change how you go about interacting with it. Why are not companies using their own staff to create new models of outreach.

Blogosphere, Middle East, the awe of Obama fund raising money. No content, decisions based on awe.

3/31: Yesterday. I had the opportunity to stop by King’s College and listen to a talk by ERG’s very own Richard Norgaard. It was fun. His comments about climate change assessment, the interest of economic discourse and the future of the planet were met with great interest by the audience.
Dick spoke for about 45 minutes, and then we continued speaking for another hour, fielding questions ranging from the will of politicians to economics as a religion.

Dick uses the word “we” which is a no-no in anthropology, and some one in the audience tagged him on this usage, suggesting perhaps it was too empire-like. But having Dick wax poetically about future generations, including his children in the story, in his way, melted even the most cynical of academics, at least for the duration of the Q and A.

I enjoyed myself. The talk was a version that I had heard during ERG PhD seminar, but much improved, more clearly dealing with the difficult and competing interests of scientists, who struggle over definitions of the very practice itself. I left Dick to deal with his throng of admirers and as I walked across Waterloo Bridge, could not help feeling that London is a town of admiration. Every place I looked on the way back to the hotel, there were piles of folks spilling out of pubs, drinking in the streets, riding bikes in packs completely shutting down traffic.

Earlier in the day, I had a chance to catch up with Energy Consultant Bill Samuels (name change). You will notice here now, that I have had to begin the practice of changing the names of my informants. I have lost so many informants on the basis of simply posting a blog on their activities, carrying out the paparazzi ethnographic activity, that I am altering my method slightly, just so slightly, before I run out of participants in my observation of the not-so-famous. A real tragedy in some instances, actually, but that is another story.
3/30: Oof. I have so much work. I have to write my lecture for Cambridge, which is tomorrow, so I have to do that today. There is the workshop in NYC in 12 days for which I have to read 19 book chapters and create two commentaries. A revision article before then has to be written, and then a Norwegian Research Council grant due April 18.

London was spectacular yesterday. Everyone was out lying about as if at the beach. I began the day at the Energy Institute, where I am a committee member for the Institute’s Information for Energy Group (IFEG) which had its committee meeting today. The last meeting was in January, which is when I was elected to the committee. In attendance was Daniel Craven (name changed) who is part of a global consultancy, and with whom I later went for coffee to discuss the potential of spending time with them as a fellow looking at global gas development.

In January, when I was visiting the Energy Centre at Skolkovo School of Management, near Moscow, Russia, I was impressed with Tatiana Mitrova‘s explanation of gas modeling, and her conviction that analysts, such as Oxford Energy Institute’s Jonathan Stern were embracing the model form for understanding the future of global gas. In fact, it was at this time as well, that I had access to Deutsche Bank’s 2010 primer on oil and gas, which corresponded to some extent to the conversation with Mitrova.

At any rate, over coffee, Daniel and I discussed where his consultancy was headed in terms of competition with other consultancies and in terms of its recent acquisition of other knowledge firms, to create synergies of strategic knowledge on global gas development. I later sent him my cv for further review.

I then had a chance to sit down with Gareth Parkes for a long overdue conversation about the history and structure of the Energy Institute (EI). In fact, the EI was founded in 1926, and merged in 2003 with the Institute of Petroleum, which was founded in 1913.

Both institutes have a long history in accumulating information about energy development and whose beginnings are enshrined with pre-modern ritual, as seen in these photos on the left, which capture the originary constitution of the institutes.

Gareth and I had a good laugh over these certificates. Upon closer examination, we found the word ARCHAEOPTERYX, which quite frankly, I had never seen before. Apparently, the word refers to an extinct primitive toothed bird of the Jurassic period having a long feathered tail and hollow bones. Today, the EI has 15,000 individual members, and 300 company members, mainly oil and gas related issues (50%) from the Institute of Petroleum days, along side everything else.

We went over oodles of other things, which I will write up elsewhere.

From there, I took a tour of the EI Library under the instruction of Catherine Cosgrove, who has been working as the EI librarian and previously the Institute of Petroleum librarian for 22 years. Certain details I already do not recall, and will have to collect when I return next Tuesday for an informational lunch, but the the library has been at this site since 1958, and the building, since 1777. Ornate ceilings cover all the rooms as seen here in this image of the main library.

After the tour, I headed down to Golden Square to meet with photographer Nick Cobbing. We had met in January at the Frontiers conference in Tromsø, Norway. Nick is covering the Arctic and I mentioned that possibly we could consider a collaboration on an NSF project if it gets funded. He suggested we meet at Nordic cafe.
Great place, great food, great company. We spent some quality time chatting, me explaining what it is that I actually do, in part, preparation for some photographs I asked him to take of me. Nick is headed up to Stockholm in a few days, so that will give us a chance to meet again over drinks at the hotel Nobis, when I get there.

3/29: Just a small note. I want to keep in the habit of writing daily but there are so Many writing projects I have to keep in the same habit of, it is like walking a kennel of dogs. But I arrived in London yesterday, taking the tube to City of Westminster with Dick Norgaard and his daughter Addie Norgaard, chatting the whole way, bending his hear.

Dick is giving a key note address at King’s College on Friday at 5:30 PM and that sounds exciting so I plan to attend. He is also working in China these days, mentioning two global change departments at Beijing Normal University and Tsinghua U. This was surprising to me because when I was in China last week, we did not get a chance to cover the variously new developments in global and climate change study, and my curiosity was peaked.

I left them both at Euston Station and took the circle line to Paddington, where I made my way over to Cleveland Square and the Cleveland Hotel. London is so beautiful in the spring, I just could not believe it. I have never been here when the weather is so fabulous, everyone was out in the street and I was reminded of NYC, so much buzz going on. Made some calls to meet a few folks, headed over for fish and chips, caught a scandal in the news sheets that captured my attention. There is a rage over shifty PM’s-for-hire, but what the journalist mentions is a citation that is relevant for my own work on energy politics, concerning the right to access. He states, in politics “dinner is not just a meal: it is a forum, an institution and political device” — and then goes on to cite Cita Stelzer‘s book Dinner with Churchill, which illustrates the extent to which such meals were at the heart of Winston Churchill‘s statecraft.

Kensington Gardens and by definition, Queen’s Gate were just around the corner so I walked through the park, tons of Londoners basking on the grass, over to the Bulgarian Embassy to see what was going on. Sure enough, they had a cultural gathering in remembrance of Bulgarian movie producer, director, author, and cultural critic, Petar Ouvaliev aka Pierre Rouve. The evening was surprising to me, in the sense that this was a Bulgarian cultural event, but clearly of the London community kind, as P.R. had established his name in the Western Europe and London glamour (producing movies in the 1960s with Peter Sellars and Sophia Loren).

3/27: Okay. I am going already. I am still in bed, reading the newspaper and calling folks over skype. And in general, doing nothing, emailing with Sandra Dovali at ERG who just informed me that ERG’s Richard Norgaard will be on the same plane to London. That means I have to take a shower and shave before leaving. Less time to lounge.

3/25: I placed a few days on either side of the conference on Cambridge.

Itinerary:
Depart SFO — Tues. 27 March 7:35 PM
Arrive Heathrow — Wed. 2:50 PM