webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

noble energy

tlab raises astro in colo in FF ceo hearing, chev ceo says we did not own then?

bernhardt

desmog David Bernhardt — A long-time oil lobbyist, Bernhardt replaced Ryan Zinke as Trump’s Secretary of the Interior in April 2019. “It’s not so much who has he helped. It’s who hasn’t he helped in industry so far,” Bobby McEnaney, a Natural Resources Defense Council analyst, told The Guardian in 2018 during Bernhardt’s nomination hearings.

In 2019, Bernhardt told Congress he hadn’t “lost any sleep” over rising greenhouse gas levels on his watch. He also shrank the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in southern Utah to allow drilling and mining (a move later reversed by Pres. Biden), called in National Park Service police to tear-gas peaceful civil rights protesters at Washington, DC’s Lafayette Square, undercut protections for endangered species — and much more.

In 2021, Bernhardt returned to Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, the same law firm where he’d worked for oil industry clients before joining the Trump administration. His past lobbying clients include the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the Freeport LNG Expansion, Targa Resources, Noble Energy, Halliburton, and a host of other fossil fuel industry companies. Bernhardt is rumored to be a candidate for a “senior post” in the incoming Trump administration, according to E&E News.

-=-=

https://www.desmog.com/2022/09/14/house-committee-pr-climate-disinformation/

On September 14, a congressional committee probed the history that PR firms have played in creating and spreading climate disinformation in order to block climate policy and promote fossil fuel interests.

The hearing, held by the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee Oversight & Investigations, invited several firms, including Singer Associates, Story Partners, and Pac/West Communications. None of them showed up.

Instead, the hearing heard from several witnesses, including experts in the PR industry. One of them was Christine Arena, a former VP at Edelman who now researches and exposes greenwashing and industry obfuscation. Arena laid out three overarching campaign strategies that PR firms use on behalf of their fossil fuel clients, citing a study from Brown University researchers Robert Brulle and Carter Werthman. Those strategies are corporate image promotion, third-party mobilization (astroturf groups), and delegitimization of the opposition.

“The U.S. oil and gas sector has always pushed for policies that allow for new fossil fuel expansion, and against policies that would reduce demand,” Arena said in a prepared testimony. “But what has changed recently is the intensity of the industry’s pursuits, and the vast resources it deploys through public relations and lobbying efforts meant to crush potential regulatory obstacles in its path.”

The oil industry and its hired PR hands continue to deploy these strategies. A recent example Arena cited was the oil industry’s effort to opportunistically seize on Russia’s war in Ukraine to promote long-standing policy wishes, while misleading the public by blaming climate policy for causing higher energy prices.

These tactics are especially aggressive at the state and local level, where “brute financial force” is used to kill off climate initiatives, Arena added.

That power imbalance was on vivid display in Colorado in 2018 when grassroots activists succeeded in getting a ballot initiative put to voters that would have imposed greater setback distances on fracking operations, limiting how close to homes and schools new oil and gas wells could be drilled. A year earlier, two deadly oil and gas infrastructure explosions had rocked Firestone, Colorado.

The industry poured money into that election, outspending community and environmental groups by a factor of more than thirty to one. Noble Energy,a large fracking company (now owned by Chevron), hired DC-based PR firm Story Partners, to help defeat the measure. Story Partners created two astroturf campaigns, based on the firm’s research that showed that support for setback distances declined when voters heard about the “devastating consequences” that it would have on the state’s economy. The campaign ran ads to promote “clean” natural gas, warn of damage to Colorado’s economy, and positioned Noble Energy as a responsible partner. Story Partners still displays its campaign to defeat the ballot initiative on its website as a successful “case study” of how it protected its client’s assets.

The House committee also heard from Anne Lee Foster, who held an unpaid position in 2018 for Colorado Rising, a grassroots group supporting the ballot measure to establish drilling setback distances. She spoke about the multiple instances in which people would harass her and her colleagues as they tried to gather signatures.

Around that time, Colorado Public Radio reported that an internal Anadarko Petroleum document, leaked to Colorado Rising, asked employees to report the locations of signature gatherers via a phone texting system. Once the location was identified, counter-protesters appeared at a moment’s notice, shouting and harassing the signature gatherers and passersby who considered signing on to the ballot initiative effort.   

According to a report produced by the House committee, oil companies including Anadarko Petroleum, Noble Energy, and Chevron, had set up two front groups, “Protecting Colorado’s Environment, Economy and Energy Independence” (Protect Colorado), and “Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development” (CRED). Those two groups then funneled most of their proceeds to an Oregon-based PR firm called PAC/West. The two front groups offered a “buffer” between the oil drillers and the PR campaign, the committee report said.

Although it was later deleted from its website, PAC/West described how it was paid by Anadarko Petroleum and Noble Energy to “lead a statewide education campaign” to defeat the ballot measure. Ultimately, the ballot measure was narrowly defeated at the polls in 2018.

“I personally suffered from what I feel is stalking or harassment in a number of other circumstances throughout this campaign,” Anne Lee Foster told the committee on Wednesday in her prepared testimony.

That was one small example of a web of influence between a handful of PR firms and the oil and gas industry. “Let me be clear: There is nothing standard or ethical about these practices. They are deceptive communications practices that mislead our citizenry and undermine our democracy,” Arena said.

The work that PR firms do goes far beyond simply promoting the image of their clients, according to Melissa Aronczyk, an associate professor at Rutgers University’s School of Communications & Information, another witness at the congressional hearing. 

“Public relations firms often present themselves and their work in terms of facilitating or amplifying ideas or information. In fact, public relations is not only communicating ideas and information but coming up with those ideas and creating that information,” Aronczyk said in her testimony. PR firms provide long-term strategic planning, set up front groups, manufacture the illusion of support, and monitor and target opponents. She said the work goes back many decades.

PR firms also operate a broad network of influence out of public view, sharing information among multiple clients and trade groups, which allows companies to “minimize the reputational and financial risk of speaking out against climate action,” Aronczyk said.

“Because this coordinated infrastructure of anti-environmental action is operating behind the scenes, members of the public and lawmakers have no way of knowing if the campaigns operating on behalf of fossil fuels are real or manufactured,” she added.

But the growing pressure on the PR industry is having an effect. Clean Creatives, a climate campaign targeting the advertising industry, says that nearly 400 PR firms have signed a pledge to not work with coal, oil, and gas companies.

“We’re seeing the beginning of a transformation of the PR and Advertising industry when it comes to climate,” Duncan Meisel, executive director of the Clean Creatives campaign, said in a statement. “Oil and gas companies used to be seen as prestige clients, now agencies are embarrassed to admit that they work for them. But this dirty work is still going on in the shadows, making the spotlight of this House hearing and investigation all the more important. The future of creativity is clean and it’s time for agencies to step into the light.”

One PR firm was not at Wednesday’s hearing: FTI Consulting. The House committee is investigating FTI, which has refused to turn over documents requested by the congressional investigators.

“We initiated the subpoena process for FTI Consulting, which has one of the worst reputations in the business. The negotiations are ongoing. The trajectory is sadly not good,” Rep. Katie Porter said in her closing comments on Wednesday. “What are they trying to hide? Is it their creation of fake grassroots groups for their clients to hide behind? Was it the creation of fake social media profiles to track plans of activist groups? Or is there something worse? The harder FTI Consulting fights, the more it appears that they have a lot to lose by having their tactics exposed through oversight.”

She added: “We are just getting started.”

==

9 22

https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2022.09.14%20Hearing%20Report_PR%20Firms%20Preventing%20Action%20on%20Climate%20Change.pdf

2. Third-Party Mobilization

The general public is less likely to be convinced by a narrative that appears only to serve a special

interest, especially one with significant reputational liabilities, such as the oil and gas industry. PR

firms consequently work to make the industry’s positions seem widely supported by a range of

ostensibly unrelated groups, manufacturing the appearance of representing the broader public

interest.32 This tactic can take the form of third-party spokespersons, “generating favorable media

coverage, attributing advertisements to [a] third-party group instead of to the organization, creating

supportive social media, and mobilizing “astroturf” groupsof public supporters.”33 Oil and gas

companies have also created and funded nonprofit entities, which they used to organize opposition

to climate policies.

34 Through these front groups, the industry has funneled tens of millions of

dollars to public relations firms to manage media campaigns.35

A prominent example of such an approach is the successful defeat of a 2016 effort to put on the

Colorado ballot two initiatives that would have altered Colorado’s constitution to (1) give local

municipalities the ability to ban fracking, and (2) prevent oil and gas development within a 2,500-

foot buffer zone from occupied buildings and parks, waterways, playgrounds, and other “areas of

special concern.”36 Seeing an existential threat to its “license to operate,” Noble Energy, a major

natural gas company operating in Colorado (later bought by Chevron), hired PR firm Story

Partners to help it prevent these safeguards from becoming law.

The Committee has obtained documents that reveal, in the PR firm’s own words, howStory

Partners successfully designed and executed its multipronged plan to defeat the initiatives at the

signature-gathering stage (Appendix 5). Story Partners achieved this through tactics including

astroturfing and careful analysis of which kind of message was most likely to persuade people that

the ballot measure would economically harm not onlyNoble Energyand “the industry at large,”

but the general public as well.37 This campaign and its techniques are discussed in greater detail in

the final section of this memorandum.

Third-party mobilization can also directly reach policymakers and their staff. Following the

Russian invasion of Ukraine, House Natural Resources Committee staff received a series of seven

...p 11

Staff from “HBW Resources” sent the emails and identified themselves as representatives of CEA,

describing it as “a nationwide grassroots organization that supports energy policies ensuring

abundant, affordable, reliable, and sustainable domestic energy supplies.”CEA claims to have

more than 550,000 individual members and to represent “a broad list of organizations that include

farmers, academia, conservation groups, truck drivers, laborers, trades-people, energy producers,

manufacturers, business owners to so much more.”51

Watchdog organization Energy and Policy Institute calls CEA an industry front group, and its

positions align closely with fossil fuel interests. CEA has been accused of engaging in astroturfing

on behalf of the major extractive energy industries.52 The organization received a score of “E-”

from LobbyMap (on an “A+” to “F” scale) on their climate policy’s alignment with the goals of

the Paris Agreement, reflecting CEA’s work to obstruct climate policy and energy transition at the

state and national level.53

HBW Resources, a self-described “government affairs, advocacy, public relations, and

communications firm,”54 appears to run CEA.The organization is run out of HBW’s Houston-based office.

55 IRS forms indicate that CEA has no paid staff and its chief officers include HBW

employees, such asCEA President and Director—David Holt—and Vice President—Michael

Whatley.

56 Since 2010,HBW Resourceshas been CEA’s highest paid contract by far.Over this

time, 53% of all of CEA’s expenses were paid to HBW, totaling nearly $17 million.57

 Large sums

were also paid to two PR firms currently under investigation by this Committee, FTI Consulting

and Story Partners.58

p 12

The source of CEA’s funding is unclear. Since 2010, CEA has reported revenues of over $34.7 million made up almost entirely of contributions and grants.59 As a registered 501(c)(4) organization, CEA is not required to disclose its donors. 60 However, CEA’s members include major oil corporations such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell USA.61

3. Delegitimization of OppositionDelegitimizing competing narratives is the final major strategy PR firms use to shore up the fossil fuel industry’s messages.62 PR firms use a range of tactics to undermine other narratives and their messengers, from disputing the facts to attacking individuals and organizations’ “reliability and reputations.”63 The following case study illustrates the extreme and unethical methods some PR firms use. Industry Defeat of Colorado Anti-Fracking Ballot Measures

...

P 14

...reaffirmedNoble Energyas a strong partner in the community.”74 Meanwhile, print and digital

advertisements “creatively told the story of the unintended consequences of the proposed ballot

measures,” and “informed voters of the products and services dependent on oil and natural gas,

both from a funding point of view and from a resources perspective.”75 These narratives position

Noble as a socially responsible member of the community, while eliding the full environmental

and public health burden the fossil fuel industry creates in Colorado.

These advertisements against proposed fracking restrictions ran “under the brand of the South

Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce (SMDC),” and “concurrently under the banner of the

Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA),” creating the illusion of third-party mobilization.

76 Notably,

“guerilla marketing teams attended dozens of Colorado events and engaged hundreds of thousands

of citizens.”77Story Partners’ budget for this campaign is not public information, but CEA’s tax

filings show that the organization paid the PR firm $535,442 in 2016 for “communications,”

presumably for this effort.

78

Story Partners called the campaign a “huge success,” and “an enormous, measurable achievement

for Noble Energy.”79 The PR firm noted that a survey, “after just two months of campaign activity,

indicated that support for the specific ballot measures dropped to its lowest point in our research,

and opposition to the measures had increased. For the first time, support for the measures was

under 51 percent, and it was clear the campaign messages were working and recalled.”80 The PR

campaign had successfully stopped climate legislation.

Two years later, there was an effort to revive the buffer zone ballot measure. Proposition 112(aka

initiative 97) was a 2018 Colorado ballot initiative designed to mandate that new oil and gas

development, including fracking, be sited a minimum distance of 2,500 feet from occupied

buildings such as homes, schools, hospitals, and other areas designated as vulnerable.The measure

was brought by grassroots environmental group Colorado Rising.81

Industry pushback was coordinated, sophisticated, and heavily funded. Oil and gas firms funneled

millions of dollars into coordinated PR campaigns to defeat Proposition 112.82 Oil and gas industry

[CRED protect colo]

P18

attempted to end their contract while demanding additional payments.96,97 When Colorado Rising

contracted with another signature-gathering firm, the firm broke the contract several days later. In

a recorded conversation shared with the Committee, a subcontractor admitted to taking a bribe of

“a lot” of money to stop working with Colorado Rising. He also stated the people who paid him

off had asked him to give them the signatures he had gathered for Proposition 112, but he did not

confirm or deny that the request came fromProtect Colorado, the Pac/West front group.(Appendix

7(a))

98

Volunteers for Colorado Rising also experienced harassment in their volunteer and personal

capacities. Members of the opposition attempted to infiltrate their campaign trainings, showed up

repeatedly at their press conferences and outside their campaign office to monitor them, and

monitored the campaign’s delivery of signatures to the Secretary of State’s office. In her personal

life, the witness was followed around town by unidentified men – who also showed up to record

Colorado Rising press conferences – and received unsolicited texts from one of the people who

attempted to infiltrate their campaign (Appendix 7(b)).

99 Another lead volunteer received

harassing mail at her home address (Appendix 7(c)).[gun in waitband?]

100

CONCLUSION

For decades, the oil and gas industry denied or downplayed climate change and its role in causing

it. Now that fossil fuel companies and trade groups can no longer get away with outright denial,

they pay millions to PR firms to wage sophisticated and varied campaigns that go far beyond mere

marketing. These efforts include falsely depicting industry as joining the fight against climate

change, engineering astroturf “citizen” groups to advocate for industry interests and defeat

legislative proposals, and using unscrupulous tactics to sabotage genuine policy solutions and

attack community advocates. These modern techniques are arguably far more insidious than the

denialism of the past, thanks to the pivotal involvement of PR firms.[long appendix rich st'd CEA, threat ltr]

2017

Protestors from NYU Divest have temporarily halted their occupation of the NYU’s Administrative Elevator upon news that the University has divested its direct holdings in Anadarko Petroleum and Noble Energy

https://moneytrails.org/noble-energy/

Noble Energy Is A Multinational Oil Conglomerate

Noble Energy Is A Publicly-Traded Oil Company Based In Texas

Noble Energy Is A Houston, Texas-Based Multinational Oil Conglomerate With 1,929 Million Barrels In Proved Oil Reserves.:{“Noble Energy, Inc., an independent energy company, engages in the acquisition, exploration, development, and production of crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids worldwide. The company owns, operates, develops, and acquires domestic midstream infrastructure assets in the DJ and Delaware Basins. Its principal assets are located in the US onshore unconventional basins and various global offshore conventional basins in the Eastern Mediterranean and off the west coast of Africa. As of December 31, 2018, the company had 1,929 million barrels oil equivalent of total proved reserves. Noble Energy, Inc. was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.” Yahoo Finance,:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:[:{accessed:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}: :{09/18/19:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}::{]}:

Noble Energy’s Chairman And CEO Is David Stover, A Longtime Oil Executive Who Has Worked At BP, And ARCO Oil And Gas.:{“David (Dave) Stover brings nearly 40 years of oil and gas industry experience to his current role as chairman and chief executive officer of Noble Energy – a member of the S&P 500 and one of the nation’s leading independent energy companies. He was appointed chairman of the board in April 2015, CEO in October 2014 and elected to the board of directors in April 2014. Prior to his current role, he served as president and chief operating officer, along with other executive positions. Before joining Noble Energy in 2002, Dave served as BP’s vice president and business unit leader for the Gulf of Mexico Shelf from 2000 to 2002. From 1994 to 2000, he held various onshore and offshore management positions at Vastar Resources. Earlier in his career, he held a number of engineering, operations and management positions at ARCO Oil and Gas Company.” Noble Energy,:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:[:{accessed:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}: :{09/18/19:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}::{]}:

Noble Energy Is A Major Funder Of Anti-Public Lands Front Groups

Noble Energy FundsColoradans For Responsible Energy Development (CRED) AndProtecting Colorado’s Environment, Economy, and Energy Independence (PCEEEI), Pro-Fracking Industry Front Groups

Noble Energy And Anadarko Were The Funders Of Coloradans For Responsible Energy, A Campaign To Beat Back Ballot Initiatives That Could Restrict Fracking.“Noble officials also elaborated on a publicity campaign the company is waging in Colorado in partnership with Anadarko Petroleum Corp., based in The Woodlands. The campaign, called Coloradans for Responsible Energy, is trying to beat back potential ballot proposals in the state that could restrict the well completion process called hydraulic fracturing. Fracturing – injecting fluids and sand into a well under pressure to release oil and gas from tight formations – has contributed to a surge in U.S. production. Opponents say it may contaminate water and cause other environmental damage. ‘I think we’re prepared for a full communication effort,’ Davidson said. ‘It’s going to be a lengthy summer, and we’ll see. There’s a lot of political dynamics that are happening here, and it changes daily.’” [Houston Chronicle, 4/25/14]

PCEEEI Is A Noble Energy-Funded Political Action Committee That Uses Millions Of Dollars Oil Companies To Fight Citizen-Led Initiatives To Regulate Colorado’s Oil Industry.

PCEEEI Is A Political Action Committee That Fights Regulations On Colorado’s Oil And Gas Industry.:{Protecting Colorado’s Environment, Economy, And Energy Independence (PCEEEI) is a political committee whose purpose is “to support state and local ballot initiatives that promote a vibrant colorado economy and oppose those measures that seek to harm Colorado’s economy and way of life.” Colorado Secretary of State, accessed:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:[:{07/26/19:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}::{]}:

PCEEEI, Also Called “Protecting Colorado” For Short, Was Established With Money From Anadarko Petroleum And Noble Energy.:{“…At least four other Front Range municipalities pushing anti-fracking ballot initiatives in 2013 and Polis arguing for a statewide initiative for further restrictions, top energy producers in the state crafted plans to fight back. :(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:*Denver Post*:{,:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:[:{07/16/17:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}::{]}:

PCEEEI Was Formed To Protect Oil and Gas Industry Profits.:{“A good example is the oil and gas industry front group Protecting Colorado’s Environment, Economy, and Energy Independence (Protect Colorado), which was formed specifically to fight against any citizen initiative that could hinder oil and gas industry profits. Among its activities are pushing industry-spawned initiatives that make it harder for citizens to get measures on the ballot along with other political activity like directing campaign contributions to pro-oil candidates, even at the city council level. CRED’s own director of operations and coalitions, Mark Truax, has referred to Protect Colorado as, ‘kinda the political arm we work with.’ And it’s a very short arm.” :(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:*Boulder Weekly*:{,:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:[:{06/07/18:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}::{]}:

Between 2012 And 2017, PCEEEI Spent $30 Million Fighting What It Calls An “Onslaught” Of Citizen-Led Fracking Regulations In Colorado.:{“Anadarko Petroleum and Noble Energy, the top energy producers in the state, lead the way. Their campaign-finance records and political activity reports shows that since 2012, the companies are responsible for two-thirds of the money given to an industry political issue committee known as Protect Colorado, which has spent $30 million since 2013 on ballot initiatives and issues. A public relations front group founded by the two companies in 2013 — Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development — also received more than $30 million in donations in its first three years of existence, according to its tax returns. :(style="background-color:#faf8f5ff;box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:*Denver Post*:{,:(style="background-color:#faf8f5ff;box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:[:{07/16/17:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}::{]}:

PCEEEI Is Closely Affiliated WithCitizens For Responsible Energy Development, A Dark Money Astroturf Group For Anadarko And Noble Energy

PCEEEI Is “Organized” By Citizens For Responsible Energy Development, A Nonprofit Which Is Also Funded By Anadarko And Noble Energy.:{“The oversized glossy mailers and robocalls came in waves over the course of weeks to residents of this small Front Range city, asking them to protect their children, property and low tax rates by voting against a proposed city moratorium on the oil-and-gas extraction method known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The group behind the campaign calls itself ‘Protect Colorado,’ short for ‘Protecting Colorado’s Environment, Economy and Energy Independence.’ It’s a politics issue committee organized by a public-relations group called Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development, or CRED, which is funded by the two most active Front Range oil-and-gas companies, Anadarko Petroleum and Noble Energy.” :(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:*The Colorado Independent*:{,:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:[:{07/07/14:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}::{]}:

PCEEEI, CRED, And Anadarko Appear To Have A Coordinated Communications Team:{. “Olson, when contacted on Wednesday, referred a reporter to John Christiansen, vice president of corporate communications for Anadarko. A message left for Christiansen soon triggered a reply from Karen Crummy, spokeswoman for Protect Colorado, the political arm of Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development, which received initial funding from Anadarko and Noble Energy.” :(style="background-color:#faf8f5ff;box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:*Daily Camera*:{,:(style="background-color:#faf8f5ff;box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:[:{08/01/18:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}::{]}:

PCEEEI And CRED Shared A Spokesperson In 2017.:{“‘Scaring people is easy and cheap. Providing factual information on a complex subject is difficult and expensive,’ CRED and Protect Colorado spokeswoman Karen Crummy said in a prepared statement. CRED was created as an ‘education effort to present the public with the science and facts on fracking, she said. Crummy added that ‘Protect Colorado was formed when the energy industry was facing an onslaught of ballot measures and the very deep pockets of one Colorado Congressman who had hundreds of millions of dollars. These measures had the potential to put the industry out of business so we had to fight back.’” :(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:*Denver Post*:{,:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:[:{07/16/17:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}::{]}:

About Half Of PCEEEI’s Nearly $68 Million Has Come From Anadarko Petroleum And Noble Energy

Since It was Established, PCEEEI Has Received A Total Of $67,532,853.73 In Contributions– Nearly all of which is from the Oil and Gas Industry.Its largest contributors by far are Anadarko Petroleum and Noble Energy, which have given $17,786,736 and $16,326,236 respectively. A list of companies giving PCEEEI over $1 million in a single election cycle in one year includes the following:

Noble Energy Also FundsVital For Colorado,A “Coalition Of Leading Business And Civic Organizations” That Formed To Fight What They Call The “Anti Energy Movement”

Vital For Colorado Announced Its Formation In March 2014.:{On March 5, 2014, Vital For Colorado announced its launch in a press release: “A coalition of the leading business and civic organizations across the state of Colorado, calling itself Vital for Colorado, has formed to advocate for a responsible oil and gas policy, it was announced today. The group’s launch comes amid various attempts by environmental activists to make it easier for local governments to ban energy development.” Vital For Colorado Press Release,:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:[:{03/05/14:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}::{]}:

Vital For Colorado Formed To Oppose What They Saw As An “Anti Energy Movement” In Colorado.:{“The Vital group formed last year after several businesses grew concerned with the increasing ‘anti’ energy movement growing in Colorado. Several Denver business leaders were on a trade mission to Houston, where they heard from executives in oil companies.” :(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:*Greeley Tribune*:{,:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:[:{08/03/14:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}::{]}:

Noble Energy Gave $157,988 To Vital In 2016.:{Noble Energy also gave big to Vital for Colorado in 2016, contributing $157,988, according to the company’s filings on its website.” :(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:*Greely Tribune*:{,:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:[:{11/04/17:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}::{]}:

Noble Energy Gave Nearly $358,000 To Vital For Colorado From 2016 Through 2018.:{Noble Energy gave nearly $358,000 to Vital from 2016 through 2018, based on past political activity reports.” :(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:*Colorado Sun*:{,:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:[:{04/25/19:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}::{]}:

Noble Gave $160,000 To Vital In 2016.:{“Noble Energy gave $5.6 million to the PCEEEI and $160,000 to Vital for Colorado in 2016.” :(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:*Westword*:{,:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:[:{05/01/19:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}::{]}::{}:

Noble Energy Has A Bad Environmental Record

Since 2000, Noble Energy Has Had To Pay Over $79 Million In Penalties For Environmental And Safety Violations

Noble Energy Has Paid $79,375,270 In Federal Penalties Since 2000.:{Noble Energy and its subsidiaries have paid nearly $80 million in violations the EPA, OSHA, BSEE, PHMSA, and FERC. The majority of this is from 25 environmental violations totalling $74,937,608. Violation Tracker,:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:[:{accessed:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}: :{10/05/19:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}::{]}:

Noble Energy Had To Pay $73 Million When It Violated The Clean Air Act By Leaking Noxious Gasses In Colorado’s Air.:{“Noble Energy announced a settlement Wednesday with sate and federal regulators to resolve outstanding allegations of Clean Air Act violations in Northern Colorado’s DJ Basin. The Houston-based oil and gas operator agreed to spend $73.45 million on system upgrades, projects aimed at reducing air pollution in Colorado and a civil penalty. Noble Energy reached the settlement with The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Justice and State of Colorado. The settlement resolves claims that Noble Energy failed to adequately design, size, operate and maintain vapor control systems on its controlled condensate storage tanks. That failure resulted in emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in Colorado’s DJ Basin. :(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:*The Coloradoan*:{,:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:[:{04/22/15:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}::{]}:

After It Was Caught Leaking Poisonous Gas From 78 Wells In Colorado, State Regulators Ordered Noble Energy To Pay $50,000 To Create A “Hydrogen Sulfide Awareness Program.”:{“In 2011, toxic hydrogen sulfide gas was found in 78 oil wells surrounding the northern Weld County town of Grover. The company operating the wells, Noble Energy, waited nearly eight months to make a required report about the hydrogen sulfide to the state. Just a few breaths of hydrogen sulfide in high concentrations can be fatal, but in lower concentrations, the gas can cause vomiting, dizziness and eye damage. Instead of being fined, Noble, which did not respond to requests for comment, was rewarded for cooperating with the commission, which required the company to create a $50,000 hydrogen sulfide awareness program.” Associated Press,:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:[:{04/08/13:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}::{]}:

Noble Energy Is Responsible For Over A Thousand Oil Spills In Colorado

Since January 1, 2000, Noble Energy Has Reported 1,003 Oil Spills In Colorado.:{Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission,:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:[:{accessed:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}: :{10/15/19:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}::{]}:

A 2015 Study Found That Noble Energy Had More Oil Spills Than Any Other Company Between 2009 and 2013.:{“Noble Energy caused 358 spills in Colorado between 2009 and 2013—more than any other operator. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission issued only 19 NOAVS to Noble Energy from 2009 to 2013. However, the Commission’s database includes records for 358 spills by Noble Energy in the same time period. Of those 358 incidents, 89 impacted groundwater and 11 impacted surface water. Only 78 incident reports detailed the surface area of the spills, making it difficult to determine relative severity.” NRDC Issue Paper,:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:[:{April:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}: :{2015:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}::{]}:

Noble Energy Gives Millions To Fund Astroturf Campaigns

Noble Energy Funnelled Over $7 Million Into An Astroturf Group To Oppose An Initiated Measure That Would Regulate Fracking On Public Lands In Colorado.:{“In a last-ditch attempt to defeat one of the most far-reaching environmental measures on the 2018 ballot, a fossil-fuel giant is blanketing Colorado television with election-focused political ads that it now claims are outside the purview of all state campaign-finance laws. The maneuver — which pioneers a novel way for corporations to circumvent disclosure statutes and inject money directly into elections — has been blessed by the office of Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams, who has led a Republican political group bankrolled by the same fossil-fuel corporation that is airing the ads. At issue is Proposition 112, a landmark measure that would force fossil-fuel companies to set their drilling and fracking operations further away from hospitals, schools, child-care centers and residential neighborhoods. Natural gas colossus Noble Energy and its subsidiaries have been among the most prominent opponents of the initiative, disclosing $7.1 million in contributions to Protect Colorado, the issue committee opposing the initiative.” :(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:*Westword*:{,:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat"):}:[:{10/18/18:(style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px 0px 0px -0.225em;padding:0px 0.15em;border-style:solid;border-width:0px;background-repeat:no-repeat;position:relative;display:inline-block;z-index:9"):}::{]}:

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/Colorado-Targeted-by-Fossil-Fuel-Industry-Disinformation-Playbook.pdf

40 pp

Colorado Targeted by

Fossil Fuel Industry’s

Disinformation

Playbook

Climate Deception Harms Communities’ Health

and Safety

www.ucsusa.org/resources/colorado-fossil-fuel-industry-disinformation

https://doi.org/10.47923/2021.14291

CONTENTS

Chapter 1 Deceiving the Public: The Disinformation Playbook 4

The Disinformation Playbook and Colorado Oil and Gas Operations 5

Chapter 2 Disinformation Tactic: The Fix 7

Lobbying to Weaken Public Health and Safety Protections and Enhance Fossil Fuel Profits 8

Overwhelming Public Voices to Thwart Ballot Initiatives 9

Table 1. An Example of How Industry Spending Overwhelms Health and Safety 10

Pitting Local Leaders Against the Health and Safety of Their Constituents 11

Influencing Public Policy Positions from Inside and Out 11

Using Proxy Groups to Confuse the Public and Undermine Support for Climate

Accountability Lawsuits 12

Chapter 3 Disinformation Tactic: The Diversion 13

Elevating Industry Interests Above Community Voices 13

Fabricating the Appearance of Local Support 14

Figure 1. Colorado’s Climate Disinformation Complex 15

Greenwashing Your Screens 16

Chapter 4 Disinformation Tactic: The Screen 18

Building Credibility by Hiding Behind Trusted State Institutions 18

Burnishing Industry’s Reputation through Association with Respected Nonprofits 19

Chapter 5 Disinformation Tactic: The Fake 21

Chapter 6 A Litany of Harms: Health and Safety 23

Cancer-Causing and Other Dangerous Chemicals in the Air and Water 24

Poor Air Quality 24

New Research Identifies Even More Dangerous Ozone Problems 25

Figure 2. Fossil Fuel Industry Emissions are Higher in High Racial-Minority Census

Tracts 26

Dangerous Inactive Wells 26

Climate Change Impacts 27

Chapter 7 A Litany of Harms: Economic 28

Bogus Complaints about High Taxes 28

Inflated Jobs Claims 28

Union of Concerned Scientists | 3

Figure 3. Oil and Gas Extraction’s Boom-and-Bust Contribution to the Colorado

Economy 29

Other Harms, Some Difficult To Monetize 29

Chapter 8 Recommendations 31

Acknowledgments 32

...For more than a decade, Colorado oil and gas exploration and development have intensified, often putting dangerous and polluting industrial activities in close proximity to homes, schools, playgrounds, and other public spaces. This report exposes how the fossil fuel industry positions itself as the backbone of the state economy, often framing any community opposition to this industry’s dangerous operations as a fight against local interest in the form of tax revenue, school funding, and jobs. The industry largely glosses over evidence it causes health, economic, or environmental damage, and its clout enables oil and gas extraction and expansion to continue with little regard for those facing the adverse health and economic impacts. In Colorado, the oil and gas industry is comprised of powerful transnational corporations, including ExxonMobil and Chevron, along with companies such as Noble Energy (now owned by Chevron), Anadarko (now owned by Occidental Petroleum), and Suncor (a large Canadian tar-sands operation with close ties to ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell).

The industry’s interests are represented by heavyweight national lobbying outfits like the American Petroleum Institute (API), as well as local trade associations, like the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA). A proliferation of industry-created and backed front groups includes several with ties to the private multinational conglomerate Koch Industries.They often all work together to run the same Disinformation Playbook. Of course, the fossil fuel industry uses similar tactics and wields considerable political clout in other oil- and gas-producing states and at the federal level. Consider its success in stalling any meaningful climate action for more than two decades and its ability to despoil public and Native lands and waters with drilling and pipelines. Or consider the API’s nationwide TV and digital ad campaign, launched ahead of the 2020 elections and targeting not only Colorado, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and other key oil- and gas-producing states but also Wisconsin, Michigan, and other political swing states (API 2020a; API 2020b)....

Lobbying to Weaken Public Health and Safety Protections and Enhance Fossil Fuel Profits

In the early years of fracking in Colorado, API and its local division, the Colorado Petroleum Council (CPC), pushed the state legislature to enact the little-known ad valorem tax credit, which allows oil and gas companies to deduct local property taxes from the severance tax that fossil fuel companies must pay to the state. As local property taxes have increased, particularly for oil and gas operations, the state’s pool of severance taxes, based on production and profits, has shrunk—even though severance-tax revenues are needed to remediate abandoned and orphaned wells. Such wells are often underground pathways through which toxic fluids and gases migrate upward into air, water, and homes. These wells are also a significant source of leaked methane, a heat-trapping pollutant that has 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide during the first 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere (Bushkin-Bedient et al. 2020).

Thanks to the ad valorem tax credit, some oil and gas operations have paid nothing to the state in recent years, leaving old wells unremediated and dangerous to residents (Eason 2020; Legislative Council Staff, n.d.; Silbaugh 2020). In April 2017, a house in Firestone, Colorado blew up, killing two residents and seriously injuring a third. The explosion was traced to gas leaking from an old well that had not been disconnected from the wellhead or properly capped (Markus 2018; Osher 2017; Svaldi and Finley 2017).In direct response to the explosion, the legislature took up a science-based bill to require regulators to map oil and gas pipelines throughout the state; a filibuster in the Republican-controlled state Senate killed the proposal.Lobbying disclosure reports and campaign-finance records showed that Anadarko and Noble Energy, both of which opposed the bill, spent significantly in support of Senate Republican candidates in the 2016 election as well as to directly lobby against the bill(Osher 2017; Sirota 2017).

Also in April 2017, the legislature considered a bill mandating that new oil and gas facilities be set back a certain distance from school property. Such a policy is intended to reduce children’s exposure to toxic releases by keeping them a safer distance from potential explosions. By a one-vote margin along party lines, a Senate committee killed the bill to establish a buffer zone separating oil and gas wells and associated facilities from occupied buildings and property lines. COGA, CPC, and other industry representatives led the opposition, arguing that “energy is the cornerstone of [the state’s] prosperity” (Glick and Ray 2017)—overstating the industry’s economic importance while ignoring the value of keeping children safe. An investigative report put oil and gas industry clout into some perspective: “Most of the people who testified in favor of the school setback bill were residents. . . . Virtually all who opposed it were paid lobbyists, most from industry associations” (Glick and Ray 2017).

With the passage of Senate Bill 181 in 2019, the state got serious about tightening health and safety controls on the oil and gas industry. The industry, which aggressively opposed the bill, lobbied successfully for a late language change that weakened the ability of local governments to protect public health and safety. At the behest of industry lobbyists, the terms “necessary Union of Concerned Scientists | 9 and reasonable” were added as qualifiers to the bill’s text, potentially limiting the ability of cities and counties to require new protective measures(Bloom 2019)....

Overwhelming Public Voices to Thwart Ballot Initiatives

In 2016, aggressive campaigns by Protect Colorado and Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development (CRED)—front groups funded by API, CPC, Noble Energy, and Occidental Petroleum—prevented two grassroots-driven ballot measures from getting in front of voters (Dyer 2016a). One measure would have increased local control over oil and gas expansion, with the aim of putting science at the forefront of decision-making on siting, reporting, and safety requirements designed to protect the communities.

The other measure would have improved community health and safety by requiring fracking operations be set back 2,500 feet from any occupied structure (homes, schools, businesses) or “areas of concern” (drinking water sources, lakes, parks). The current scientific consensus is that a setback of 2,000 to 2,500 feet is needed to protect health and safety, especially that of children (Lewis, Greiner, and Union of Concerned Scientists | 10 Brown 2018; Milton et al. 2014; McKenzie et al. 2012). The setback would have reduced exposure to air and water pollution, lessened noise pollution, and kept children further from potential explosions. Opponents outraised proponents by a ratio of 24–1, with 99.9 percent of the opponents’ nearly $17 million total coming from energy industry companies or front groups; their campaign drowned out the public health and safety arguments at the heart of initiative(Table 1) (Blake 2016; Claypool 2016)....

,,,Protect Colorado repeated the play again two years later, in 2018, spending almost $40 million to oppose Proposition 112 (Sirota and Woodruff 2018b), which would have required new oil and gas development projects to be set back 2,500 feet from occupied buildings and other areas of concern. In addition to donating millions of dollars to Protect Colorado PAC to oppose Proposition 112, Noble Energy directly funded spots on at least 12 TV stations in the month before the election(Sirota and Woodruff 2018b). One ad explicitly told voters: “When you vote, we need your support to stop Proposition 112, so we can continue producing the natural gas and oil that power our daily lives.”

This ad ignored the initiative’s health and safety intent, instead advancing a bogus economic argument that stronger protective measures would put the industry out of business (Sirota and Woodruff 2018a). In 2020, the industry poured money into ad campaigns even with no initiatives on the ballot or legislation in the works. Protect Colorado spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a statewide online and TV ad campaign aimed at Governor Polis and the COGCC, threatening to challenge any new regulations, particularly on siting setbacks, that the industry deemed unreasonable(Bunch 2020). The industry promoted 500-foot setbacks—about one-fourth the distance that scientists say is best to protect communities, especially vulnerable populations (Lewis, Greiner, and Brown 2018; Milton et al. 2014)....

[rev dr]

Using Proxy Groups to Confuse the Public and Undermine Support for Climate Accountability Lawsuits

In 2018, Boulder and San Miguel counties and the city of Boulder sued ExxonMobil and Suncor, arguing that the companies violated state law by deceiving the public about the dangers of their fossil fuel products. These local governments are demanding that the companies pay their fair share of remediating climate damages accruing in their communities(Boulder County, n.d.; City of Boulder, n.d.; EarthRights International, n.d.; San Miguel County, n.d.).

Almost immediately, ExxonMobil and Suncor launched a counteroffensive, using proxy groups to distort the public’s understanding of the case.The defendants, falsely suggesting that the local governments were seeking a back-door path to achieve legislative goals, attempted to redirect attention away from the on-the-ground reality that communities face budget-busting expenses due to climate change-related fires, flooding, bad air quality, and extreme heat.Industry PR companies, particularly Western Wire (an ExxonMobil executive serves on its board of directors) and Energy In Depth(a project of the Independent Petroleum Association of America), ramped up their substantial media buys to discredit the legal strategy (EarthRights International 2018).

Industry groups also attacked and attempted to discredit a public forum at the University of Colorado Law School on holding fossil fuel companies liable for climate change harms in the state (MAP 2019; University of Colorado Law School 2019). Further, their representatives posed as journalists to try to interview plaintiff’s attorneys outside of appropriate court channels (EarthRights International 2018; EarthRights International 2019). For more than three years, the defendants have used procedural tactics to keep this case—like other recent climate accountability complaints against fossil fuel companies—from being considered on its merits....

Chapter 3 Disinformation Tactic:

The Diversion Manufacture uncertainty about science (including economics) and facts where little or no uncertainty exists

In an infamous 1969 memorandum, a tobacco executive captured the Diversion tactic well: “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public” (Mulvey and Shulman 2015).

To create doubt, undermine science, influence public opinion, and gain access to policymakers while maintaining the illusion of independence, fossil fuel companies in Colorado have deployed trade associations, front groups with innocuous-sounding names, and “greenwashing” advertising campaigns that paint oil and gas as sources of clean energy and central to climate solutions. Corporate interests even create, fund, and control so-called “astroturf” groups that falsely portray themselves as grassroots.

To rig the system in its favor, Colorado’s fossil fuel industry uses “The Diversion” to exert political power over crucial legislative, regulatory, and grassroots-led initiatives, commonly engaging in a variety of activities, including: • Elevating industry interests above community voices; • Fabricating the appearance of local support; and • Greenwashing your screens. Elevating Industry Interests Above Community Voices

At least three oil and gas industry trade associations operate aggressively in Colorado: the American Petroleum Institute, the Colorado Petroleum Council (the API’s local affiliate), and the Colorado Oil and Gas Association. Also active are the Colorado Petroleum Association, the Western Energy Alliance, the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), and the CO-WYO Petroleum Marketers Association.

Wielding its wealth and political power, the industry is able to supercharge its advocacy and drown out community voices. Sometimes visibly and sometimes behind the scenes, these trade associations engage in extensive Union of Concerned Scientists | 14 legislative and regulatory lobbying and pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into campaigns to sway public opinion, especially investing in large-scale TV, radio, and social-media advertising. Fossil fuel trade associations use their clout to spread disinformation. For example, their lobbyists routinely exaggerate the industry’s economic benefits while downplaying the health and safety risks to community members. In 2017 testimony to a state Senate committee hearing on the proposed legislation on setbacks from school properties, COGA’s president claimed that protective setback extensions would undermine oil and gas as “the cornerstone of prosperity” in the state (Glick and Ray 2017).

The industry has peddled that exaggeration for years, even though the oil and gas sector is a notoriously unstable, “boom and bust” enterprise that accounts for roughly 1 percent of Colorado jobs. At the same time, it offloads onto the state and its communities innumerable externalities, such as air pollution, fouled waters, and abandoned mines (PwC 2017; API 2017; BEA, n.d.b). The industry also downplays, even denies, the health risks from contaminants released during oil and gas exploration and extraction. During the 2017 setback hearing, CPC’s executive director told the press that the idea of protecting school children “was based on the presumption that being near oil and gas facilities is dangerous,” adding that CPC “absolutely rejects that notion” (Glick and Ray 2017).

Yet current oil and gas production releases a host of dangerous chemicals into the air and water—including those that cause cancer and disrupt the endocrine system—and it creates significant noise and light pollution. Science shows that children are particularly sensitive to those dangerous chemicals (Bushkin-Bedient et al. 2020, 60, 86; Glick and Ray 2017, McKenzie et al. 2017). An API TV ad opposing a 2019 package of oil and gas reforms in the legislature is another example of how industry advertising spreads falsehoods and misrepresentations. The ad claimed that the measures would “shut down energy production in Colorado”—a claim with no economic basis (API 2019). The ad suggested that lawmakers, acting in bad faith, had snuck the bill out of committee “in the middle of the night.”

In reality, the relevant committee voted at 2:00 a.m. only after hearing more than 12 hours of testimony from both supporters and opponents (Woodruff 2019).

Fabricating the Appearance of Local Support

A plethora of oil and gas industry front groups litters the political landscape in Colorado, often with ambiguous or purposely confusing names, sometimes using dirty-trick tactics, and rarely disclosing ties to the industry (Yowell 2018). To conceal its lobbying activities, the industry hides behind astroturf organizations, created to falsely appear as grassroots in their opposition to forward-looking climate and energy policy ( see Figure 1)....

In 2019, the industry ran an aggressive and misleading campaign in opposition to Senate Bill 181. In addition to TV and radio ads, it invested in social-media advertising. Using the Facebook Ad Library, an investigative reporter identified “dozens of sponsored posts from astroturf groups like ‘Energy Citizens’ and ‘Energy Nation’ opposing SB181,” paid for with tens of thousands of dollars from the API. The ads recorded millions of impressions (Woodruff 2019; Davies 2011).

Perhaps the most ubiquitous of the front groups is Coloradoans for Responsible Energy Development. Created and generously funded by Anadarko Petroleum and Noble Energy, CRED describes itself as an educational organization, yet it engages deeply in overt political activities. Mark Truax,in his presentation to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission in 2015, described these activities. As CRED’s director of operations and coalitions, he also boasted about the vast amount of money the organization invested in those activities (Dyer 2016a; Glick and Ray 2016).

The trade associations and front groups create astroturf groups that are industry-funded and led by industry representatives and political operatives. CRED created its political arm, Protect Colorado, for the purpose of defeating grassroots-led anti-fracking ballot initiatives Union of Concerned Scientists | 16 (Protect Colorado, n.d.). For example, to defeat the 2016 setback and local control initiatives, Protect Colorado initiated a “decline to sign” campaign, discouraging Coloradans from signing a petition to get the initiatives on the ballot; it used various grassroots organizing techniques funded with nearly $17 million by CRED, Anadarko Petroleum,Noble Energy,and several other oil and gas companies (Blake 2016; Claypool 2016).

As tracked byPublic Citizen,“The widest disparity between spending by corporate-backed groups and their mostly noncorporate opposition was found in the race for Colorado’s Mandatory Setback from Oil and Gas Development Amendment” (Claypool 2016). Also as part of 2016 efforts to keep setback and local-control initiatives off the statewide ballot, Protect Colorado hired people to carry signs saying “decline to sign #75 and #78” (Evans 2016; Glick and Ray 2016; KGNU 2016).

Protect Colorado was similarly behind efforts to harass signature gatherers and petition signers. Protesters followed a Denver mom out gathering signatures, screaming in her face, “You’re taking our jobs!” No one answered when she asked her harassers questions about the “jobs” they had in the industry (Glick and Ray 2016). These dirty tricks continued and even expanded in 2018. The industry again hired protesters who followed petition-signature gatherers, sometimes harassing and threatening them, in an effort to keep the setback initiative off the ballot(Yowell, 2018). An undisclosed pro-industry group paid a signature-gathering firm to stop its work on the initiative; the contractor admitted on tape to initiative organizers: “Nobody threatened me. You know what they’re doing. They’re going around and buying people” (Olabi 2018). The industry also created new astroturf organizations with names strikingly similar to those of initiative supporters, apparently attempting to confuse voters about who was behind the campaigns (Yowell 2018).

==

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07032018/shareholder-resolutions-climate-change-2-degrees-methane-lobbying-trump-administration

When a group of investors asked Noble Energy, Inc., to report on the risks climate change poses to its business, the company's response put on display how the Trump administration's pro-fossil-fuel stance is swaying the perennial debate.

Similar resolutions brought by concerned shareholders have won increasing investor support since the 2015 Paris climate agreement, and grudging acceptance by some in the industry.

Not Noble. The Houston-based oil and gas company urged its shareholders to vote down the resolution, and then it described its vision of an unfettered regulatory future under the Trump administration.

"The current administration and the Republican Congress have adopted policies aimed at increasing the production of domestic oil and natural gas resources and repealed or amended certain executive orders and regulatory policies that have restricted or adversely impacted development," the company wrote. "In sum, the proposal calls for a report that would be principally based on speculative assumptions about a legislative and regulatory environment that is inherently unpredictable."

Nearly three dozen shareholder resolutions related to climate change risk have been filed this year with publicly traded oil and gas companies and electric utilities, to be voted on by their shareholders at annual meetings spread throughout the spring. Executives often urge shareholders to vote down such resolutions, and there are concerns this year that the administration's positions could lead to even more complacency, by both companies and their investors.

Perhaps the most susceptible to ripples of the administration's assault on climate and environment policies this year are the nearly two dozen resolutions focused on methane emissions and on the impact of measures limiting global temperature rise caused by burning fossil fuels.

Limiting Methane Emissions – or Not

At least six oil, gas and electric utility companies, including Chevron, are facing shareholder resolutions calling on executives to explain the steps they're taking to minimize emissions of methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases.

While investor groups raise concerns, however, the Trump administration has embarked on a mission—cheered on by organizations like the American Petroleum Institute—to roll back most of the Obama-era requirements for reducing emissions of methane from oil and gas drilling on federal land.

Companies that might be tempted to see the current administration's behavior as an excuse to delay acting on climate risks should be cautious—administrations change, and the oil and gas industry in particular is built on investments that require weighting risks decades into the future, said Danielle Fugere, president of As You Sow, a non-profit shareholder advocacy organization. 

"Investors today are becoming more and more sophisticated when they think about a company's sustainable future and what that means to their investments," said Fugere, whose group released a report on Thursday with Sustainable Investments Institute and Proxy Impact tracking this year's climate-related shareholder resolutions. 

"Investments will be made with companies that have a plan for the future; a plan that accounts for a decarbonizing economy where companies are making adjustments to remain competitive," she said.

Assessing Risk in a 2-Degree World

A block of shareholders led by the Presbyterian Church filed the resolution asking Noblefor an assessment of the impact its portfolios would face from policies and technologies that keep warming under 2 degrees Celsius.

It's one of at least 18 shareholder resolutions this year calling on oil, gas and electric utility companies to conduct a 2-degree scenario analysis.

"A 2-degree scenario analysis of Noble Energy's future plans will generate a more complete picture of current and future risks and opportunities than business-as-usual planning," the church's resolution states. "This report will help Noble identify both vulnerabilities and opportunities for its business and reassure investors that Noble is poised to manage and take advantage of future regulatory, technological and market changes."

It would be shortsighted of Noble to make decisions based on the Trump Administration's devotion to fossil fuels, said Rob Fohr, director of Faith-Based Investing and Corporate Engagementfor the Presbyterian Church.

"In the short term, I can see where the company has a lot to be excited about," Fohr said. "But for the long term, it's not prudent to make plans based on the activities of one administration."

...

==

Texas-based Noble Energy said it is set to begin developing Israel’s massive offshore Leviathan gas field.

The first phase of the project will begin immediately, the company said in a statement issued on Feb. 23. Noble Energy said it expects the first gas to flow in 2019.

==

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/11/13173/fracking-special-interests-spent-big-2016-elections

Corporations that profit from fracking funneled millions to PACs for "independent expenditures" in the 2016 election cycle, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

For example, the fracking giant Devon Energy gave $500,000 to the "Congressional Leadership Fund," a Super PAC "exclusively dedicated to protecting and strengthening the Republican Majority in the House of Representatives." Devon is notorious for helping to bankroll the fight against citizens in Denton, Texas, who won a bid to ban fracking in 2014 . The Denton ban passed with 59% of the vote, but Texas state legislators and members of the American Legislative Exchange Council nullified that local initiative andpre-empted. Devon spent $195,000 in disclosed spending in the local battle and has spent an untold sum to influence the results local and in the state capitol.

Another corporation with a big interest in fracking gave an additional $500,000 to the Congressional Leadership Fund. That half million dollar donation came from Hushang Ansary, the Chairman of Stewart & Stevenson, a manufacturer and distributor of well-stimulation equipmentlike fracking blenders, fracking pumps, and chemical additive units.

Fracking special interests also gave at least $3.35 million to the "Senate Leadership Fund," a Super PAC with "one goal: to protect and expand the Republican Senate Majority." That sum includes $250,000 from Continental Resources, a self-described "leader" in fracking and a $250,000 check from Hushang Ansary, the Chairman of Stewart & Stevenson.

The outside spending equivalents that support Democrats--the House Majority PAC and Senate Majority PAC--received no comparable reported donations from the fracking industry.

Fracking companies also gave overwhelmingly to the GOP through corporate PACs that include donations from executives and other employees.

For example, according to Open Secrets, the Devon Energy PAC directly contributed $263,625 this election cycle to 44 federal candidates, 43 of whom were Republican. Continental Resources' PAC gave $118,400 to 31 federal candidates, 27 of whom were Republican. Meanwhile, global oil corporations like ExxonMobil, which now invests significantly in fracking, gave $1,555,000 to candidates, with 90% going to Republicans.

When the 115th Congress convenes in January 2017, fracking interests will be well-positioned toplay with federal legislation after spending so much to help Members of Congress elected. The Republican Party is firmly in the hands of fossil fuel interests including the fracking industry.

(There is no reported figure for how much such corporations spent on groups that are registered as 501(c)(4) non-profit organizations that do not disclose donors and which have grown dramatically since the Citizens United decision. Unlike Super PACs, so-called social welfare organizations like Karl Rove's "One Nation" do not disclose their donors but sometimes play an influential role in the elections. It is not known how much money they may have received from fracking interests but they have received such funding in the past, according to the limited information available.)

Fracking Interests Buy the States

The fracking industry also played big in 2016 in state elections, particularly in states that have shale gas formations and tight oil deposits.

In Pennsylvania, where the bulk of the Marcellus Shale formation lies, fracking interests contributed at least $700,000 this election cycle. Amongst those interests was Chesapeake Energy, a company that spent $111,800 this cycle. Its former CEO, Aubrey McClendon, once wrote a contribution check to then-Governor Corbett that "arguably changed not just the history but also the political direction of the state."

The second largest overall spender in state's 2016 elections was the Senate Republican Campaign Committee of PA. State filings show the committee was financially supported by Consol Energy, Range Resources, Southwestern Energy Company, and Marathon Petroleum Corporation, all of whom are major players in the fracking industry.

In North Dakota, the home of the Bakken Formation, fracking interests like Continental Resourcescontributed roughly $100,000, a significant amount in a small state.

In Texas, a state with colossal shale gas and shale oil reserves, fracking interests contributed $1.22 million, with all the usual suspects writing checks: Devon Energy, Chesapeake, Pioneer Natural Resources, and Exxon.

These numbers are by no means a final tally. There are simply too many campaign spending vehicles to account for, from the "dark money" groups to national organizations like the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) that funnel corporate money into state races.

The RSLC, for example, received at least $200,000 from Devon Energy, $201,000 from Marathon Petroleum, and $150,000 from Noble Energy–all of whom operate fracking wells–yet state campaign finance filings only show the Republican State Leadership Committee's name when the committee makes a disbursement, if the name is mentioned at all.

Fracking Interests Fight Democracy

There is a reason why fracking special interests sometimes hide their election activities: the fracking process is so intrusive and damaging, it is leading to popular revolt through local democratic initiatives by Americans affected by the process.

Communities that have been fracked are torn apart – physically, metaphorically, ideologically–in a process that shakes them to their core.

Although it is particularly salient with fracking, this "popular revolt" phenomenon extends to a host of public policy issues. Repressive workplace conditions, hazardous levels of gun violence, and the unjust deportation of migrant workers have led many municipalities to democratically take action by raising the minimum wage, establishing gun safety measures, and enacting sanctuary city policies.

Local governments can right these wrongs, and can ban invasive and harmful practices like fracking, which is why local democracy is seen by corporate interests as a threat. As CMD has documented, ALEC corporations, including fracking operators, have worked through ALEC and state legislatures to try to supplant local democracy and preempt/prevent cities from regulating corporate activities.

ALEC legislators who are members of the GOP have spearheaded state efforts to preempt local democracy. November 8th's election results will likely worsen the situation. The GOP did not just win Washington D.C. on election night; thanks in part to a deluge of corporate-funded outside spending, the party made gains in statehouses across the country.

As a result, half of all U.S. states will be under Republican trifectas in 2017, with GOP control of governorships and both houses of state legislatures (including the unicameral Nebraska).

For example, in Iowa, a state that just elected a GOP trifecta to office, local bans on fracking sand mining operations could be targeted for preempting by ALEC state lawmakers. The Democrats lost majority control of the state senate in November.

Yet not all legislative bodies are willing to preempt local democracy, which is why, as CMDdocumented, after a flurry of anti-fracking measures nearly missed being placed on the November ballot in Colorado, fossil fuel interests funded Amendment 71, a ballot initiative designed to make it harder for Coloradans to petition their government and amend the state Constitution.

Amendment 71's primary financial support came from the "Protecting Colorado's Environment, Economy, and Energy Independence" PAC, which received $5.38 million from Noble Energy, a fracking operator responsible for 358 oil spills between 2009 and 2011, the most of any oil company operating in the state. It received an additional $6.7 million from Anadarko Petroleum, a fracking company that spent 2016 sending "brand ambassadors" to high schools to speak on the benefits of fracking.

In the end, Amendment 71–a ballot initiative which on its face dealt only with governing process and not energy policy–passed with 55% of the vote after the fracking industry poured millions into the campaign.

Which is why Amendment 71 serves as a perfect symbol of the 2016 elections. As Michael Klare predicted, in order to frack the nation, Big Oil must first buy it.

Klare has detailed what he calls the fossil fuel-funded "third-worldification" of the United States.

Klare warned that the "resource curse" theory, which had been used by academics to describe the political conditions of far-off locales like Nigeria, was coming home to the U.S. with the fracking revolution, and that as a consequence, "the rights and wellbeing of local citizens will be trampled underfoot."

That political transition would not, however, be self-enacting. Klare proposed that to succeed, "Big Oil will have to overcome a host of regulatory and environmental obstacles. It will, in other words, have to use its version of deep-pocket persuasion to convert the United States into the functional equivalent of a Third World petro-state."

The 2016 election was a concrete example of how, as Klare predicted, fracking interests have invested in the state in order to minimize it.

Has American democracy been bought by the frackers? Maybe. At the least, fracking interests appear to be renting it for 2017, and with the prospect of Trump in the White House it remains to be seen what national parks or other resources the regularly bankrupt businessman will seek to sell off to a fracking industry intent on currying favor with him.

==

Rick Berman - SourceWatch

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Rick_Berman

:{:(style="border-color:rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px !important;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

  1. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Zs2Pp31a-9EJ:www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Rick_Berman+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
  2. https://www.google.com/search?biw=1600&bih=770&q=related:www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Rick_Berman+%22noble+energy+%22+sourcewatch+right+wing&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix9vf80KnSAhWIOCYKHRxtAXEQHwgeMAA

by RBR Berman - ‎Related articles

Aug 18, 2015 -This article is part of the Tobacco portal on Sourcewatch funded from 2006 .... "In a recent Washington Post op-ed, right-wing lobbyists Rick Berman and ... Halliburton Company, ExxonMobil, Devon Energy, and Noble Energy.

Syria, Turkey, Israel and a Greater Middle East Energy War, by F ...

www.voltairenet.org/article176200.html

:{:(style="border-color:rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px !important;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

  1. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h-5RGxVhUvQJ:www.voltairenet.org/article176200.html+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
  2. https://www.google.com/search?biw=1600&bih=770&q=related:www.voltairenet.org/article176200.html+%22noble+energy+%22+sourcewatch+right+wing&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix9vf80KnSAhWIOCYKHRxtAXEQHwgnMAE

:{Oct 12, 2012 -Iskenderum is also the seat of the Free Syrian Army, the armed wing of ... by Israel's :{right:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:-:{wing:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Netanyahu regime, curiously enough follows to .... Then, just a year after Tamar, the same consortium led by :{Noble Energy:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: struck the largest gas find in .... September 5, 2004; see also :{Source Watch:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, Haim Saban.:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

Fracking Special Interests Spent Big in 2016 Elections | PR Watch

www.prwatch.org/news/2016/11/.../fracking-special-interests-spent-big-2016-election...

:{:(style="border-color:rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px !important;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

  1. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:o86-EGNHr0MJ:www.prwatch.org/news/2016/11/13173/fracking-special-interests-spent-big-2016-elections+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

:{Nov 21, 2016 -The :{Republican:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Party is firmly in the hands of fossil fuel interests ... PAC, which received $5.38 million from :{Noble Energy:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, a fracking operator ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

Hudson Institute 1 | DeSmogBlog

www.desmogblog.com/tags/hudson-institute

:{:(style="border-color:rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px !important;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

  1. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:F6wk2507_ugJ:www.desmogblog.com/tags/hudson-institute+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

:{When :{Republican:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Party presidential campaign front-runner Donald Trump named ... natural gas reserves for drilling in the Mediterranean Sea for :{Noble Energy:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:. ... an economic consulting firm :{SourceWatch:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:identifies as the entity that published ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

Local control of oil and gas in Colorado (2 letters) - Denver Post Blogs

blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2014/05/12/local-control-oil-gas-colorado.../30641/

:{:(style="border-color:rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px !important;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

  1. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QQGm1XOTeOsJ:blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2014/05/12/local-control-oil-gas-colorado-2-letters/30641/+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

:{May 12, 2014 -Right. So if local control wins, Weld County is still free to invite in oil and gas ... scheduled fracking by Anadarko and :{Noble Energy:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, (the owners of CRED and the ... http://www.:{sourcewatch:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:.org/index.php/Colorado_and_fracking ..... fueled :{right wing:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, a U.S. District Court judge has upheld Colorado's RES.:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

Daily Kos: Steve Horn

www.dailykos.com/blog/Steve%20Horn

:{:(style="border-color:rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px !important;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

  1. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:J5HQh2SGasoJ:www.dailykos.com/blog/Steve%2520Horn+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

:{Nov 6, 2016 -On August 19, North Dakota :{Republican:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Governor Jack Dalrymple ..... and Devon, and for offshore drilling in Israel on behalf of :{Noble Energy:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:.:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

==