Exxon & Chevrons's climate risk reports leave 4 q's unanswered
(too old to reply)
2018-05-09 17:30:03 UTC

2°C or not 2°C? Unanswered Questions in ExxonMobil's and Chevron's
Climate Risk Reports

Kathy Mulvey
09 May 2018 9:57 am EDT

Heading into their annual meetings at the end of this month, both
ExxonMobil and Chevron have published reports in response to investor
demands that they disclose their plans for a world in which global
temperature increase is kept well below 2 degrees Celsius (2°C)
above pre-industrial levels-the target set in the Paris Climate
Agreement. Mounting mainstream expectations for better corporate
climate risk disclosure have been reflected in shareholder resolutions
and the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial
Disclosure (TCFD).

Should ExxonMobil and Chevron shareholders be satisfied with these
reports? No -- and there are indications that some are not. I took a
look at these reports, consulted with other UCS experts, and
identified 4 big questions left unanswered.

1) When will they get serious about the Paris Climate Agreement
temperature targets?

Both ExxonMobil and Chevron seem to bet against the world achieving
the Paris Climate Agreement goal of keeping global temperature
increase well below 2°C over pre-industrial times-and striving to
limit warming to 1.5°C.

A former ExxonMobil executive recently criticized the reports for
"assum[ing] that govts won't succeed in meeting their Paris
Agreement commitments, resulting in financial outlooks that leave them
free to sell all their fossil fuel assets."

ExxonMobil admits that the emissions trajectory of its Outlook for
Energy (which does not extend to 2100) "closely approximates in shape"
an emissions profile of the Intergovtal Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) that "would result in an average global temperature increase of
approximately 2.4 °C by 2100 from the industrial age."

ExxonMobil's "2018 Energy and Carbon Summary: Positioning for a
Lower-Carbon Energy Future" presents a false choice between curbing
climate change and solving other pressing problems, warning that
"Inefficient approaches to address the risks of climate change can
divert resources and detract from society's ability to address other
important priorities" such as poverty, education, health, and security.

Like ExxonMobil, Chevron also emphasizes potential conflicts rather
than synergies between climate solutions and other societal goals: "As
we work to address climate change, we must create solutions that
balance environmental objectives with global economic growth and our
aspirations for a better quality of life for people across the world."

Under new CEO Michael Wirth, Chevron seems to be sticking with the
same old business plan. Its report, "Climate Change Resilience - A
Framework for Decision Making," states that "Chevron's views on the
future energy mix are generally aligned with prominent third-party
projections like the IEA's [International Energy Agency's] NPS [New
Policies Scenario]." The NPS takes into account Nationally Determined
Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement-with modifications such
as the announced US withdrawal-commitments that are acknowledged to
fall far short of what is needed to meet the agreement's global
temperature goals.

Does Chevron urge greater ambition to keep global warming well below
2°C and transform our energy system? Um, no. Far from it. Instead, the
company dismisses the notion of a peak in oil demand as unlikely on
the basis that "a series of critical demand-reducing factors would
need to occur simultaneously, apply across the entire slate of oil
products and move at an unprecedented pace. Such a confluence of
events in the next 2 decades would represent a historic and
unprecedented revolution." Wasn't the Paris Agreement intended to
spark just such a revolution?

2) Why do they bank on burning like there's no tomorrow?

In UCS's 2016 Climate Accountability Scorecard, both ExxonMobil and
Chevron scored "poor" in the area of Planning for a World Free From
Carbon Pollution. Look for a Scorecard update later this year.

If fossil fuel companies support achieving net-zero carbon emissions
by shortly after mid-century, they should commit to reaching net-zero
with their own emissions, right?

Wrong. Neither ExxonMobil nor Chevron seems to envision much
disruption to the business of extracting, refining, and marketing
fossil fuels.

In response to a 2018 shareholder proposal, Chevron goes so far as to
"... disagree with the premise# that future diversification of energy
sources requires all energy producers to curtail production of fossil
fuel resources and/or to diversify their portfolios proportionately. A
decrease in overall fossil fuel emissions is not inconsistent with
continued or increased fossil fuel production by the most efficient
producers. We believe Chevron is a capable and efficient energy
producer, well positioned to participate in meeting future energy
demand regardless of other energy sources that may become
competitive." (Unfortunately for Chevron, its competitors seem to have
a similar "Survivor: Fossil Fuel Industry" mentality about 2°C
scenario planning.)

Meanwhile, ExxonMobil anticipates that over 90% of its year-end
2016 proved reserves will have been produced by 2040, and believes
"these reserves face little risk." The company expects to sink
substantial cash into developing the remaining 10% over the
next couple of decades, such that "the production of these reserves
will likely remain economic" even under a 2°C scenario.

Still, both ExxonMobil and Chevron admit that some of their assets may
not be profitable to develop in a world where temperature increase is
kept well below 2°C:

ExxonMobil allows that "some higher-cost assets, which could be
impacted by many factors including future climate policy, may not be
developed," but estimates that these assets account for less than 5
percent of the company's total property value.

In a sidebar headlined "The `stranded assets' theory," Chevron
acknowledges the possibility that not all oil and gas assets will get
produced. In a discussion of stress-testing its portfolio against the
IEA's Sustainable Development Scenario, Chevron tacitly admits that
several of its projects may not be profitable in a low-price
environment, noting that they will generate cash but not necessarily earnings.

3) How about transparency we can use?

Both ExxonMobil and Chevron talk a good game about transparency in
these reports. ExxonMobil shares more information about its energy
forecasts; Chevron focuses more on strategy and includes some
asset-level disclosure.

However, it is difficult to extract and compare the assumptions
underlying both reports. For example, although ExxonMobil and Chevron
are both defendants in lawsuits by a dozen communities seeking to hold
them accountable for climate damages and adaptation, ExxonMobil's
report fails to acknowledge the rise of climate liability litigation
as a potential risk to its business. (Chevron acknowledges the
lawsuits but dismisses them as "factually and legally without merit").

Greater transparency on metrics such as emissions along the supply
chain, internal use of carbon prices, and investments in low-carbon
technology research and development is necessary in order to make
meaningful comparisons among different fossil fuel companies' 2°C
scenario plans, and to assess each company's progress toward its
stated commitments. (Read my colleague Jeremy Martin's blog about why
improved transparency along the oil and gas supply chain matters).

As issuing 2°C reports becomes the norm for companies across the oil
and gas sector, investors must demand comprehensive, consistent, and
comparable disclosures. Standard-setters like Task Force on
Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), CDP (formerly Carbon
Disclosure Project), and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board
(SASB) have a role to play-and so do regulators like the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC).

4) What's behind the PR Fanfare about Low-Carbon Investments?

Both ExxonMobil and Chevron fail to set targets for reducing
heat-trapping emissions-a glaring omission in any fossil fuel
company's consideration of its plans for a low-carbon world. They also
fail to identify opportunities to play a leading part in the clean
energy economy.

Chevron emphasizes "flexible investment strategies" and claims that
"setting targets, such as investing a predetermined percentage of
renewables within our asset base, could limit our ability to select
the most profitable energy development opportunities."

ExxonMobil is laughably lacking in ambition with regard to renewables,
highlighting its role as a supplier of lubricants for wind
turbines. As my colleague John Rogers (no stranger to wind turbines) observed,

While lubrication is important, in the context of ExxonMobil's
anti-climate activities, this seems akin to taking credit for a
skyscraper project because you supplied the signs for the restroom
doors... while simultaneously taking a jackhammer to the building's
foundations under cover of night.

Both companies tout their investments in low-carbon research and
development-sums that are a pittance in comparison with their spending
on oil and gas exploration and infrastructure. For example (thanks to
my colleague Nicole Pinko for number-crunching):

ExxonMobil reports spending more than $8 bn since 2000 to develop
and deploy higher-efficiency and lower-emission energy solutions
across its operations-less than 2% of its capital and
exploration expenditures during the same timeframe.

Chevron says it has invested more than $75 mn in carbon capture
and storage (CCS) research and development over the past decade-well
under 1% of its capital and exploration spending during that
time. The company also reports $1.1 bn of investment in two
projects-Quest in Canada and Gorgon in Australia-that include
CCS. Impressive? Not compared with Chevron's $20+ bn annually in
capital and exploration spending over the past couple of decades.

ExxonMobil's and Chevron's climate risk reports illuminate the
far-reaching risks of these companies' reliance on ever-increasing
sales of fossil fuel products. Now is the time for consumers,
investors, public prosecutors, policy makers, and others to demand
answers to the above questions, and insist that major fossil energy
producers use their enormous resources and technical capacity to make
real plans for a 2°C world.

UCS will be at the ExxonMobil and Chevron annual meetings at the end
of May, highlighting these gaps and following up on these outstanding
questions. Look for upcoming blogs delving further into major fossil
fuel companies' reporting and disclosures, incorporating insights from
several of my UCS colleagues.


Murray-Darling royal commission says it won't investigate water thefts
* 'Real risk' Murray-Darling Basin Plan is unlawful, commissioner warns
* What is the Murray-Darling Basin Plan again?
* SA launches royal commission into Murray-Darling Basin 'water theft'
ABC News, 9 May 2018 7:26am
South Australia's royal commission into the Murray-Darling river system has
confirmed it will not investigate water theft cases or New South Wales
bureaucrats already under investigation or prosecution by other bodies such
as the New South Wales ICAC.
The former Weatherill govt launched the royal commission last year, in
the wake of allegations of upstream water theft first aired on Four Corners.

Stormy Daniels' lawyer alleges Russian oligarch made payments to
Trump's attorney
ABC News, 09 May 2018 00:06Z

CBA and ASIC agree $25m settlement in rate-rigging case
ABC News, 09 May 2018 00:17Z
Commonwealth Bank agrees to pay $25 mn to settle an interest rate
rigging case brought by ASIC.

Russia Tried to Undermine Confidence in Voting Systems, Senators Say
New York Times, 09 May 2018 00:23Z

The UK, Germany, and France will continue to uphold the Iran deal even
though the US is pulling out
Business Insider, 09 May 2018 00:26Z

NSW drivers to be fined $300 for getting too close to cyclists
ABC News, 09 May 2018 00:30Z
Drivers in New South Wales who travel too close to cyclists will be fined
$300 and lose 2 demerit points under new laws being introduced by the
State Government.

Unique Subtropical Cyclone Forms of [sic] the Chilean Coast
Wunderground.com, 09 May 2018 00:40Z

EPA Emails Shed Light on Pruitt's Plan to Debate Climate Change
New York Times, 09 May 2018 01:13Z

China's move on the Arctic is a threat to the West
Climate change is shifting politics in the Arctic "as surely as it is
shifting ice", writes Roger Boyes, diplomatic editor for the
Times. "The meltdown will make the extraction of rare earth metals
that much easier", he explains, "moreover, as the Arctic warms up so
does the racing certainty that China will want to exploit the northern
sea route to ship goods quickly from Asia into Europe." China views
Greenland "as an opportunity", he says. Greenlanders could decide to
"exchange the Danish yoke for a no-political-strings-attached
commercial relationship with Beijing". Boyes concludes that it's time
for the West "to pay attention..new partnerships are being formed and
their aim ultimately will be to weaken the clout and coherence of the
Atlantic alliance, to splinter and confound.". -- Roger Boyes, The Times

US talks to oil producers about increasing output
Sam Fleming and Ed Crooks, Financial Times

Investors Want Green Solutions Even if Trump Doesn't
Mathew Carr, Bloomberg

What the massive trove of new documents reveals about Scott Pruitt
Rebecca Leber, Grist

Hitachi's UK nuclear project to get guarantees from govt
Staff, Reuters

Despite Trump, more Republicans grasp that climate change is our fault
Kate Yoder, Grist

Trump officials seek ideas on coal 'power plants of the future'
Miranda Green, The Hill

Towing icebergs to Cape Town is a poor way to halt water crisis
Olive Heffernan, New Scientist

Renewable Energy Now Employs 10.3 Million People Globally
Yale Environment 360

Russian Leverage Over Trump Isn't a Theory. It's Now a Fact.
New York Magazine, 09 May 2018 03:37Z

Impact of a Warming Climate on the Sierra Nevada and California's Water
News Deeply, 09 May 2018 07:50Z

New ultra-capacitor tech could drastically boost battery EV range
Autocar, 09 May 2018 07:54Z

Listen to Google's freaky new AI pass as a human who just wants a table
ABC News, 09 May 2018
Google's new Duplex artificial intelligence is able to book a table over the
phone and pass for a human - within specific "closed domains".

BBC Weather forecast: UK set to be hit by ANOTHER sweltering heatwave NEXT WEEK
Express.co.uk, 09 May 2018 10:48Z

Snowball Earth due to plate tectonics?
EarthSky, 09 May 2018 11:52Z

Trump again threatens govt action against reporters
Los Angeles Times, 09 May 2018 14:46Z

Montana Floods Force Mandatory Evacuations of 60 Missoula Homes
The Weather Channel, 09 May 2018 14:47Z

China's ZTE stops major operations following US export ban
ABC News, 09 May 2018 15:53Z

Chevron Corporation
NYSE: CVX - 9 May 1:07 pm GMT-4
129.28 USD +2.71 (2.15%) *** up 2.2% ***
12m high: 133.60 on 12 Jan 2018
12m low: 103.19 on 05 Jun 2017

Exxon Mobil Corporation
NYSE: XOM - 9 May 12:07 pm GMT-4
79.62 USD +1.53 (1.95%) *** up 2% ***
5y low: 72.83 on 28 Mar 2018

Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation
NYSE: COG - 9 May 12:08 pm GMT-4
23.29 USD -0.060 (0.26%) down

American Outdoor Brands Corp
NASDAQ: AOBC - 9 May 12:08 pm GMT-4
10.69 USD -0.10 (0.93%) down

Ford Motor Company
NYSE: F - 9 May 12:07 pm GMT-4
11.06 USD -0.21 (1.86%) *** down 1.9% ***
5y low: 10.29 on 01 Mar 2018
2018-05-09 19:44:02 UTC
...temperature increase is kept well below 2 degrees Celsius (2°C)
above pre-industrial levels-the target set in the Paris Climate ....

You are insane.
You yourself rate climate impact by quantity of human emissions. An insane idea developed in 2009 just before the Copenhagen conference. And perfected for the fraud of Paris.

You calculate climate impact soley on quantity. Therefore you assign a value of temperature restriction for amount of rate reduction. You assholes get these values by calculation of total human emmisions in direct relation to your account of temperature increase since industrialization.

Whatever it is ,1.1 trillion tons for each deg.

So numbnuts. If 2.1 trillion tons equates to 2C, you must stop the rate completly to limit the quantity. Reduction in rate only lengthens the time until same quantity and DOOMSDAY SCENARIO.

that is why Obama and the idiots of climatology only say limiting emissions and completely lie and FALSIFY to say that world and China's emmisions are stabilized.

These values were used by Obama, the CLIMATE MEISTER, to garner the pledges at the Paris, 'Save the Climate' telethon.

Absolutely stupid and fraudulent.

Who gives a fuck what the lawyers of Exxon etc think or say.
You fucking queers should be in valid and real courtroom where there's some accounting for sheer stupidity and fraud.
2018-05-09 20:31:40 UTC
Oh, and that '2C or not 2C', you stole from me, NO MATH PUNK.

Some say,,, it is better 2C 2C, but than to not 2C 2C.

'Carbon oh carbon...what have you done to inspire the ire of those who wish 2C 2C...

...it is for the smarty pants in Paris,,,to decide that our future with carbon is not 2B...

As the glaciers crumble 2 the C.....

Dont use phrases you dont understand, like 'limiting human imact to under 2C...

You look really dumb. But the greenie code is if all the parrots in the pet shop can repeat the same phrase, there must be credibilty when they put on the straight face and talk.
2018-05-14 17:13:09 UTC
No response from mr. 'piss in his own Post Toasties'?

The Paris Accord is based on a quantity to temperature calibration, in which the estimate of total emmisions from humans which have occured, is directly correlated to estimated temperature increase since industrialization began.

This idea was first developed in 2009 just before Copenhagen with a submission that was published and given credibility by the editors of Nature journal.

The original value of I think 1.1 trillion tons per each degC was probably even modified to make it more pertinent and valuable to the FRAUD of the Paris Climate Accord, as hosted and coordinated by the great greenie vicar of the poor abused planet that must be saved for the grandchildren, Barrack Obama, the CLIMATE MEISTER.

By the calibration of pledged 'emissions' cuts, thd sum of these adds to a value in temperature control.

How stupid. So if he value is 1deg C for each 500 billion tons, to cut emissions by 50 billion a year will not stop temperature impact 0.!deg C.

At 100 billion tons per yr for 5 yrs = 500 billion
AT 50 billion tons per yr for 10 yrs = 500 billion


Show me any errors in these statemwnts.

Obama gave a speech when he arrived in Paris, and one just before he left. The fundamentals of the conference can be gleaned from these.

Especially the direct LIE AND FRAUD that China's and world INCREASING emissions rate have stabilized, the lie which is required to make the absurdity even slightly palatable that the cuts proposed can have any effect on quantities or rates or increasing rates.

China itself is increasing their emission rate each yr by at least 500-750 million tons or about doubling US emision rate every 8-10 yrs. No reduction in Increasing emissions rate.

Chumps like you can ignore these facts and continue with your UNWARRWNTED AND HOSTILE aggression against humanity, but time and history will record your INSANITY.
JTEM is right
2018-05-14 18:13:22 UTC
Post by k***@gmail.com
This idea was first developed in 2009 just before Copenhagen with a submission that was published and given credibility by the editors of Nature journal.
It was already old in the 1980s, and the
TV series "After the Warming," hosted by
James Burke, detailed a scheme where the
planet set a maximum amount of carbon that
every nation could use, based on population,
and that the industrialized countries would
"Buy" or "Trade" the unused credits from
the third world nations.

-- --

2018-05-14 22:33:23 UTC
But even this fantasy scenario recognizes the simple math of finite quantities.

The Paris Climate Accord and Obama's plan is that emission rate cuts are quantities that translate to reduction in temperature in a direct proporŕion. With no need to consider atmospheric concentrations or how these emissions affect atmospheric concentrations.

Or the fact that reduction of rate only lengthens time until same quantity.

By the valid statistics, there is no way to stop the freight train of human emmisions and the GROWTH.

This is why the basic statistics are presently hidden and forged to keep the greenie movemennt and the BLATANT CRIMINAL FRAUD of the Paris Accord alive.

This is so stupid and wrong, that it must be carefully explained to rational and ordinary people for them to understand the reality of this farce.
JTEM is right
2018-05-15 02:01:22 UTC
Post by k***@gmail.com
The Paris Climate Accord and Obama's plan is that emission rate cuts are quantities that translate to reduction in temperature in a direct proporŕion. With no need to consider atmospheric concentrations or how these emissions affect atmospheric concentrations.
Like I said, all of the "Global Warming" solutions
map to an energy crisis -- a fuel shortage -- and
not heating.
Post by k***@gmail.com
Or the fact that reduction of rate only lengthens time until same quantity.
Yup. If everything they say about CO2 is true, the
only "Solution" is genocide. Conservation only
postpones the inevitable a little.
Post by k***@gmail.com
By the valid statistics, there is no way to stop the freight train of human emmisions and the GROWTH.
Post by k***@gmail.com
This is why the basic statistics are presently hidden and forged to keep the greenie movemennt and the BLATANT CRIMINAL FRAUD of the Paris Accord alive.
It's all about oil. The planet doesn't have an
abundance of oil now, even with the U.S.
producing more than Saudi Arabia was as a "Reward"
for Bush invading Iraq.
Post by k***@gmail.com
This is so stupid and wrong, that it must be carefully explained to rational and ordinary people for them to understand the reality of this farce.
"We are inside of an ice age. Why would we worry
about it getting a little warmer?"

Only kidding. These freaks want it to get colder
during an ice age...

-- --

2018-05-15 12:36:09 UTC
Loading Image...

These are basic statistics from Wikipedia.
Close this window to see world statistics.
China surpassed the US in emmisions in 2005-2006



2018-05-16 19:20:57 UTC
Loading Image...

This is clear PROOF of ths fraud of the Paris Climate Accord.

This is from CRU E Anglia, the principal editor and contributor to the IPCC. It is the elaboration of the fundamentals of the Paris Accord.

The emissions of China are falsified to show lesser of a gradient so that the claim can be construed that China has stabilized emissions. China was not at 6 billion tons in 2000.

No mention is mwde of what world emmisions are today which is around 50 billion tons per yr. Omission of pertinent material facts needed to promote the fraud.


They use fraudulent math.
If the increase for China is roughly steady at 5 billion tons every 8 yrs., this percentage of the total emmisions goes down as total world emmisions increase. The emission rate INCREASE for China is the same. World total emission rate is increasing. IT IS NOT STABILIZED OR DECREASING.

If the rate of increase is 5 per yr, when the total rate is 30 pr yr, then the rate is increasing by 17% of the total during this yr.

As overall rate increases to perhaps 50 pr yr,
The 5 per yr INCREASE becomes 10% of total rate in this yr.

The rate is increasing by 5 each yr.
That the percentage of this rate increase to the total rate goes down from 17% to 10% in no way means the rate increase is slowing or STABILIZED.

This fraud is blantant. It affects people's lives and the carbon regulation programs would be devastating and deadly to many.

This fraud which is done with intent, is a capital crime as put forth by Obama and the Paris Accord akin to high treason which is punishable by DEATH.
2018-05-17 01:03:35 UTC
If China were only increasing it's emissions by 500 million tons per yr, and the US was steady at 5 billion tons per yr, than China would increase it's output by that of the entire US output in 10 yrs.

The fact is 8 yrs.

If rate is considered 1 at time 1,then 'quantity' is the simple function of, rate squared divided by 2, for the uniform acceleration or increasing rate.

So if US puts out a quantity in 10 yrs.
China increases it's rate to equal and double US in 10 yrs.

China's increase from zero to 1, (this the quantity from the steady emission rate of US over ten yrs) in 10 yrs,
It will produce the quantity of 1/2 of the 10 yr quantity for 10 yrs.

So the combined quantity after 10yrs is 1.5 the quantity for the steady rate of the US IN 10 yrs.

If the US emissions were completly halted today, when would this value of the quantity of 1.5 be reached without US contribution at all, and just with China's growth, which is to equal and double every 10 yrs.

Reverse is,
2 × y square root.

1.5 x 2 is 3, square root is 1.7

So if US output was 5 billion per yr and were completely eliminated, and China's growth rate were only 500 million tons per yr for 10 yrs.

The value of 1.5 (quantity) would be reached in 17 yrs.
The US output quantity with the Chinese quantity of their increasing was 1.5 in 10 yrs.

Complete elimination of US output, in this very simplified correlation with only China, would only save 7 yrs in 17 yrs.

If the real statistics of emission rate and emission rate increase are done, the numbers become much worse. And delay until same quantity with elimination of US output can be considered in months until the same quantity occurs.

And according to Obama and the Paris Accord, quantity to deg, reckoning,
The DOOMSDAY SCENARIO of the anthropogenic co2 emissions occur.

Sheer insanity.
JTEM is right
2018-05-17 22:27:44 UTC

China is already producing TWICE AS MUCH
CO2 as the United States, but the had to
exclude prime industrial locations in
order to make the number THAT low.

...the 2-to-1 emissions doesn't count
anything from the hyper industrialized &
way over crowded Hong Kong area, amongst

AND NOW we find out that there's serious
cheating on international agreements
covering the ozone-destroying CFCs...

You can't trust any self reports.

-- --

2018-05-18 13:25:04 UTC
Your whining is futile...
2018-05-18 13:51:39 UTC
Obama's statement at the Paris Conference in that 'China's and world emmisions have stabilized', is perhaps the greatest lie and fraud of all time and about the stupidest statement a human has ever made.

A lie absolutely needed to perpetrate the crime against humanity of combating the use of carbon fuels which can have no possible benifit to the environment or global warming.

To convince policy makers to the agreement, this lie is needed to make them have any belief that reductions of carbon use, without stopping the increase in emmisions can be effective at all in mitigating or slowing either rates of emissions or quantities.

So glad ole meister BONEHEAD doesn't havs his podium any longer to spew his regurrrgited bullshit into the intelecctual environment, with his pretense of valid 'SETTLED SCIENCE' and concern for the environment or people.