story partners

<div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div style="font-size: medium;">=</div><div style="font-size: medium;">https://www.desmog.com/2022/09/14/house-committee-pr-climate-disinformation/</div><div style="font-size: medium;">
</div><div style="font-size: medium;">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 <a href="https://naturalresources.house.gov/hearings/hybrid-oandi-oversight-hearing_september-14-2022" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">hearing</a>, 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 <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-021-03244-4" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">study</a> 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 <a href="https://www.desmog.com/2022/05/24/oil-gas-industry-ukraine-climate-policy-influencemap/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">seize</a> 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, <a href="https://www.desmog.com/2017/05/26/anadarko-depressed-stock-colorado-explosion/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">two deadly oil and gas infrastructure explosions</a> had rocked Firestone, Colorado.The industry poured money into that election, outspending community and environmental groups by a factor of more than <a href="https://publicintegrity.org/politics/state-politics/six-environmental-ballot-measures-attract-massive-out-of-state-and-industry-cash/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">thirty to one</a>. 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 <a href="https://storypartnersdc.com/case-study-noble-energy/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">website</a> 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 <a href="https://www.cpr.org/2018/07/26/protests-to-slow-signature-efforts-another-front-in-colorados-oil-and-gas-ballot-battle/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">reported</a> 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 <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20181201180329/https:/pacwestcom.com/portfolio/energy-natural-resources/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">described</a> 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 <a href="https://cleancreatives.org/agency-signers" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">signed</a> 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: <a href="https://www.desmog.com/fti-consulting/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">FTI Consulting</a>. The House committee is <a href="https://www.desmog.com/2022/08/26/fti-consulting-fossil-fuels-work-climate-disinformation-house-natural-resources-subpoena/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">investigating</a> 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.”</div><div style="font-size: medium;"></div></div><div style="font-size: small;"><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> 9 22</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2022.09.14%20Hearing%20Report_PR%20Firms%20Preventing%20Action%20on%20Climate%20Change.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2022.09.14%20Hearing%20Report_PR%20Firms%20Preventing%20Action%20on%20Climate%20Change.pdf</a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style=""><div style="">2. Third-Party MobilizationThe general public is less likely to be convinced by a narrative that appears only to serve a specialinterest, especially one with significant reputational liabilities, such as the oil and gas industry. PRfirms consequently work to make the industry’s positions seem widely supported by a range ofostensibly unrelated groups, manufacturing the appearance of representing the broader publicinterest.32 This tactic can take the form of third-party spokespersons, “generating favorable mediacoverage, attributing advertisements to [a] third-party group instead of to the organization, creatingsupportive social media, and mobilizing “astroturf” groups of public supporters.”33 Oil and gascompanies have also created and funded nonprofit entities, which they used to organize oppositionto climate policies.34 Through these front groups, the industry has funneled tens of millions ofdollars to public relations firms to manage media campaigns.35A prominent example of such an approach is the successful defeat of a 2016 effort to put on theColorado ballot two initiatives that would have altered Colorado’s constitution to (1) give localmunicipalities 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 ofspecial concern.”36 Seeing an existential threat to its “license to operate,” Noble Energy, a majornatural gas company operating in Colorado (later bought by Chevron), hired PR firm StoryPartners to help it prevent these safeguards from becoming law.The Committee has obtained documents that reveal, in the PR firm’s own words, how StoryPartners successfully designed and executed its multipronged plan to defeat the initiatives at thesignature-gathering stage (Appendix 5). Story Partners achieved this through tactics includingastroturfing and careful analysis of which kind of message was most likely to persuade people thatthe ballot measure would economically harm not only Noble Energy and “the industry at large,”but the general public as well.37 This campaign and its techniques are discussed in greater detail inthe final section of this memorandum.Third-party mobilization can also directly reach policymakers and their staff. Following theRussian invasion of Ukraine, House Natural Resources Committee staff received a series of seven
...p 11Staff from “HBW Resources” sent the emails and identified themselves as representatives of CEA,describing it as “a nationwide grassroots organization that supports energy policies ensuringabundant, affordable, reliable, and sustainable domestic energy supplies.” CEA claims to havemore than 550,000 individual members and to represent “a broad list of organizations that includefarmers, 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 itspositions align closely with fossil fuel interests. CEA has been accused of engaging in astroturfingon 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 ofthe Paris Agreement, reflecting CEA’s work to obstruct climate policy and energy transition at thestate and national level.53HBW Resources, a self-described “government affairs, advocacy, public relations, andcommunications 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 HBWemployees, such as CEA President and Director—David Holt—and Vice President—MichaelWhatley.56 Since 2010, HBW Resources has been CEA’s highest paid contract by far. Over thistime, 53% of all of CEA’s expenses were paid to HBW, totaling nearly $17 million.57 Large sumswere also paid to two PR firms currently under investigation by this Committee, FTI Consultingand Story Partners.58p 12The 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 Opposition Delegitimizing 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...reaffirmed Noble Energy as a strong partner in the community.”74 Meanwhile, print and digitaladvertisements “creatively told the story of the unintended consequences of the proposed ballotmeasures,” 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 positionNoble as a socially responsible member of the community, while eliding the full environmentaland public health burden the fossil fuel industry creates in Colorado.These advertisements against proposed fracking restrictions ran “under the brand of the SouthMetro Denver Chamber of Commerce (SMDC),” and “concurrently under the banner of theConsumer Energy Alliance (CEA),” creating the illusion of third-party mobilization.76 Notably,“guerilla marketing teams attended dozens of Colorado events and engaged hundreds of thousandsof citizens.”77 Story Partners’ budget for this campaign is not public information, but CEA’s taxfilings show that the organization paid the PR firm $535,442 in 2016 for “communications,”presumably for this effort.78Story Partners called the campaign a “huge success,” and “an enormous, measurable achievementfor 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 wasunder 51 percent, and it was clear the campaign messages were working and recalled.”80 The PRcampaign had successfully stopped climate legislation.Two years later, there was an effort to revive the buffer zone ballot measure. Proposition 112 (akainitiative 97) was a 2018 Colorado ballot initiative designed to mandate that new oil and gasdevelopment, including fracking, be sited a minimum distance of 2,500 feet from occupiedbuildings such as homes, schools, hospitals, and other areas designated as vulnerable. The measurewas brought by grassroots environmental group Colorado Rising.81Industry pushback was coordinated, sophisticated, and heavily funded. Oil and gas firms funneledmillions of dollars into coordinated PR campaigns to defeat Proposition 112.82 Oil and gas industry[CRED protect colo]P18attempted to end their contract while demanding additional payments.96,97 When Colorado Risingcontracted with another signature-gathering firm, the firm broke the contract several days later. Ina 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 himoff had asked him to give them the signatures he had gathered for Proposition 112, but he did notconfirm or deny that the request came from Protect Colorado, the Pac/West front group. (Appendix7(a))98Volunteers for Colorado Rising also experienced harassment in their volunteer and personalcapacities. Members of the opposition attempted to infiltrate their campaign trainings, showed uprepeatedly at their press conferences and outside their campaign office to monitor them, andmonitored the campaign’s delivery of signatures to the Secretary of State’s office. In her personallife, the witness was followed around town by unidentified men – who also showed up to recordColorado Rising press conferences – and received unsolicited texts from one of the people whoattempted to infiltrate their campaign (Appendix 7(b)).99 Another lead volunteer receivedharassing mail at her home address (Appendix 7(c)).[gun in waitband?]100CONCLUSIONFor decades, the oil and gas industry denied or downplayed climate change and its role in causingit. 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 meremarketing. These efforts include falsely depicting industry as joining the fight against climatechange, engineering astroturf “citizen” groups to advocate for industry interests and defeatlegislative proposals, and using unscrupulous tactics to sabotage genuine policy solutions andattack community advocates. These modern techniques are arguably far more insidious than thedenialism of the past, thanks to the pivotal involvement of PR firms.[long appendix rich st'd CEA, threat ltr]</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div></div></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.desmog.com/2022/08/26/fti-consulting-fossil-fuels-work-climate-disinformation-house-natural-resources-subpoena/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://www.desmog.com/2022/08/26/fti-consulting-fossil-fuels-work-climate-disinformation-house-natural-resources-subpoena/</a></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="font-size: small;">a powerful Washington, D.C., consulting and PR firm, with a long history of waging influence campaigns for fossil fuel corporations, is under scrutiny by a congressional committee as part of a broader investigation into the decades-long efforts by the oil industry and its allies to block action on the climate crisis.<a href="https://www.desmog.com/fti-consulting/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">FTI Consulting</a>, a billion-dollar firm that has a global presence, is not a household name. But it has been instrumental in an array of oil industry campaigns meant to <a href="https://www.desmog.com/2022/02/07/fti-consulting-fossil-fuels-pr-energy-in-depth/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">sow doubt about climate change</a>, attack climate scientists, and play up the benefits of fossil fuels.  Last year, a House committee<a href="https://khanna.house.gov/media/in-the-news/house-committee-schedules-2nd-hearing-oil-and-gas-industrys-role-climate" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;"> held hearings</a> in which members of Congress questioned oil executives on their role in peddling climate disinformation. But in June of this year, a separate committee, the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, sent<a href="https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2022.06.12%20Grijalva%20Porter%20letters%20to%20PR%20firms_combined.pdf" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0); text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;"> letters</a> to five PR firms — Story Partners, DDC Advocacy, Blue Advertising, Singer Associates, and FTI Consulting — requesting all documents related to their work running influence or marketing campaigns for oil, gas, and coal companies and their trade groups. The PR industry has been a critical but often overlooked player in the history of climate denial, as DeSmog has<a href="https://www.desmog.com/2021/11/30/pr-industry-major-overlooked-influence-climate-politics-brulle/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;"> reported</a>. “For decades, fossil fuel companies and associations have engaged in public relations campaigns to downplay the threat of climate change and the central role fossil fuels have played in causing it,” the committee’s June letter stated. “Fossil fuel companies and trade groups have partnered with PR firms to use a variety of questionable tactics to undermine legislative and regulatory environmental initiatives.”Two months after the request, FTI still had not turned over documents. The Committee grew impatient with the stonewalling, and on August 17, it fired off another<a href="https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2022-08-17%20RG%20&%20KP%20to%20FTI%20re%20warning%20subpoena.pdf" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; box-shadow: none;"> letter</a>, stating that “FTI has not wavered in its blanket refusal to provide even the most basic information about its clients or descriptions of the grounds for its refusal beyond the vaguest assertions of confidentiality and privileges.”It then went on to warn: “FTI has provided no indication that this obstruction of congressional oversight will come to an end voluntarily. Unless FTI Consulting produces all responsive documents by 5:00 PM on August 24, 2022, the Committee will be forced to consider all of its options for obtaining this information, including, but not limited to, authorizing and issuing a subpoena.”“Through its past client work and present refusal to cooperate with an ongoing congressional investigation, FTI Consulting is engaging in climate obstruction,” Christine Arena, a former VP at Edelman, who has tried to expose the PR industry’s role working on behalf of its fossil fuel clients, said in a statement to DeSmog. “Refusing to cooperate with the House Natural Resources Committee suggests that FTI knows it has something to hide, yet believes it is beyond reproach. Its flagrant disregard for the negative consequences of disinformation undermines the reputation of the PR and ad industry as a whole.”<h2 id="h-a-permanent-campaign-strategy" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; line-height: 1.2;">A “Permanent Campaign Strategy”</h2>FTI’s work for its fossil fuel clients goes far beyond creating billboards, online ads, or TV commercials, as a run-of-the-mill PR firm might do.“You only hire a PR company when you have a problem to solve. And you hire an FTI when you’ve got real problems. You need dirty tricks. This is not just like selling a hamburger,” Kert Davies, founder and director of Climate Investigations Center, told DeSmog. “This is designing an influence campaign. It’s like designing a whole intelligence operation.”The head of FTI’s Strategic Communications for the Americas is a man named Brian Kennedy, who was the communications strategist for drilling contractor Transocean, which owned the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig that exploded in 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico. Kennedy, who “is best known for his expertise in crisis management,” as his<a href="https://www.fticonsulting.com/experts/brian-kennedy" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;"> bio</a> on the FTI website says, headed up Transocean’s PR work during the disaster and in the litigation that followed. The campaigns waged by FTI for its fossil fuel clients are extensive and wide-ranging. As the New York Times<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/11/climate/fti-consulting.html" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;"> reported</a> in 2020, FTI helped set up regional astroturf websites for its oil industry clients, such as Texans for Natural Gas, New Mexicans for Economic Prosperity, Citizens to Protect PA Jobs, Western Wire, and the Arctic Energy Center. The websites artificially created the appearance of grassroots political energy, and shared misleading “news” that downplayed environmental damage from fracking while simultaneously promoting the benefits of pro-drilling policies.<figure class="wp-block-pullquote" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 3em 0px; text-align: center; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box;">“FTI remains a major, major contractor to the fossil fuel industry. They run front groups, fake news channels, they pose as reporters, they write reports about activists.”– Kert Davies</blockquote></figure>The most high-profile climate denial project FTI is involved in is <a href="https://www.desmog.com/energy-in-depth/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">Energy In Depth</a> (EID), a pro-fracking constellation of websites that spreads industry talking points. Ostensibly a project linked to the Independent Petroleum Association of America, EID — which promotes fracking, attacks climate scientists and environmental activists, and plays up the benefits of fossil fuels — was jointly launched with FTI back in 2009.The website wasn’t just a project of small and medium-sized independent oil producers. In 2011, DeSmog<a href="https://www.desmog.com/2011/02/17/energy-depth-was-created-major-oil-and-gas-companies-according-industry-memo/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;"> revealed</a> that Energy In Depth had the early backing of some of the largest oil companies, including BP, Anadarko, Halliburton, Chevron, Shell, XTO Energy (owned by ExxonMobil), and several other oil companies and trade associations. Without that financial backing from major oil companies, the project “would not be possible,” according to a 2009<a href="https://www.desmog.com/wp-content/uploads/files/HFUnderFire.pdf" data-wpel-link="internal" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;"> memo</a> DeSmog found.In 2019, Huffington Post<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/climate-denial-energy-in-depth_n_5df7eff6e4b0ae01a1e59371" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; box-shadow: none;"> reported</a> that the Independent Petroleum Association of America spent close to $2 million annually on Energy In Depth. That amounts to roughly a<a href="https://climateinvestigations.org/exxon-and-friends-still-funding-climate-denial-and-obstruction-through-ipaa-fti-energy-in-depth/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; box-shadow: none;"> fifth</a> of the trade group’s budget.“We know some of the contracts FTI has with various trade associations,” Davies said. “But the truth is, we don’t know the half of it.”Earlier this year, DeSmog published <a href="https://www.desmog.com/2022/02/07/fti-consulting-fossil-fuels-pr-energy-in-depth/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">a 2015 FTI presentation</a> in which the firm bragged about its deep connections with the oil industry and trumpeted its work on behalf of its fossil fuel clients. FTI’s presentation highlighted its work, through Energy In Depth, at “debunking” peer-reviewed studies that link fracking to water contamination, as well as providing “facts” to media about how methane emissions from oil and gas were in decline.<figure class="wp-block-image size-full" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em;"><figcaption style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 1em;">A screenshot from FTI Consulting’s 2015 presentation.]</figcaption></figure>Energy In Depth acts as “a public-facing clearinghouse” and a “permanent campaign strategy” for the oil industry, Melissa Aronczyk, a professor of journalism and media studies at Rutgers University, told DeSmog in an email. “FTI works for oil and gas clients by trying to shut down the conversation about climate-related problems before they happen – or especially, before they become a problem for their clients,” Aronczyk said.The firm took the lessons learned with Energy In Depth around the world. FTI<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190920025421/https:/www.fticonsulting.com/_{/media/Files/us-files/insights/reports/managing-aboveground-risks-experience-from-the-united-states.pdf}" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;"> boasted</a> at an industry conference in Brazil in 2014 that Energy In Depth had the ability “to say, do and write things that individual company employees cannot and should not.”  In another instance that has not previously been reported, FTI gave a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22267372-fti-consulting-corporate-overview" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; box-shadow: none;">presentation</a> at a 2012 industry conference in Canada, in which it shared its experience “generating pro-gas news” in the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, and how the firm intended to do the same in Quebec. At the time, the gas industry was facing public<a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/industry-aims-to-win-support-for-quebec-shale-gas/article4180268/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; box-shadow: none;"> opposition</a> to fracking in the Canadian province, and FTI, via Energy In Depth, wanted to shift public opinion in the industry’s favor. That included proactively creating pro-gas news in the media, as well as a sponsored trip for Quebec farmers to travel to fossil fuel-rich Alberta to learn about how shale gas is produced. <figure class="wp-block-image size-full" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em;"><figcaption style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 1em;">A screenshot of a 2016 Earth Day message from Energy In Depth, a fracking industry project of FTI Consulting and the Independent Petroleum Association of America.]</figcaption></figure>“FTI remains a major, major contractor to the fossil fuel industry. They run front groups, fake news channels, they pose as reporters, they write reports about activists,” Davies said. “They do all manner of strategic communications work to defend the honor of fossil fuel companies and trade associations.” The House Committee has also sent a letter to a separate PR firm called Story Partners. Established in January 2010 by well-known PR executive Gloria Dittus, Story Partners has also run multiple influence campaigns for the fossil fuel industry in recent years. The firm led the <a href="https://www.desmog.com/american-petroleum-institute/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">American Petroleum Institute</a>’s <a href="https://storypartnersdc.com/case-study-american-petroleum-institute/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">Vote for Energy campaign</a>, which sought to equate drilling for oil and gas with jobs. Story Partners also ran campaigns for <a href="https://storypartnersdc.com/portfolio-item/case-study-venture-global/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">Venture Global LNG</a>, a Gulf Coast LNG export company. And it also helped Noble Energy <a href="https://storypartnersdc.com/case-study-noble-energy/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">defeat </a>a ballot measure in Colorado that would have increased setback distances between fracking operations and homes and businesses, a measure that would have encroached upon Noble Energy’s assets. As it happens, Gloria Dittus previously founded Dittus Communications, which was acquired by FTI in 2005. In 2009, the Energy In Depth website was registered by “FD Dittus Communications,” a unit of FTI, according to the <a href="https://www.desmog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/WHOIS-History-Report-energyindepth.org_.pdf" data-wpel-link="internal" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">website’s registration</a>. According to a Story Partners spokesperson, “Gloria Dittus left FTI Consulting in early 2009 after the 2005 sale of Dittus Communications was finalized to Financial Dynamics (FD) and fully integrated into FTI Consulting at the end of 2008. Any Energy in Depth work was outside her tenure and likely launched following her leave from FTI.”  Story Partners did not respond to questions from DeSmog about their role running climate disinformation campaigns for fossil fuel companies.   Arena said that FTI is among a small group of “pariah” PR firms that “do not represent the majority of the PR and ad industry, but they are our industry’s biggest reputational liability.” <figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-twitter wp-block-embed-twitter" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative;"><div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; max-width: 550px; width: 550px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;" /></div></figure>[twt ca]"But the bigger point here is that these are deceptive practices that no ethical marketing firm should engage in, for any client. They muddy public understanding and suppress the truth by design and should therefore be repudiated by the PR and ad industry at large,” she added. “The silver lining here is that this moment of reckoning has the potential to change the communications industry for the better.”Ultimately, FTI’s mission has been “to preserve the reputation of the fossil fuel industry as it has come under pressure around climate change,” Davies said. Referring to FTI’s direct involvement in spreading climate disinformation, he added: “In doing so, you are now part of the effort to hide the truth.”In a statement to DeSmog, Matthew E. Bashalany, a spokesperson for FTI Consulting, said: “Our company takes the Subcommittee’s request very seriously.  We continue to be in regular contact with subcommittee staff as we progress our efforts to be responsive to the chair’s request in a manner consistent with our legal obligations to preserve our clients’ confidentiality and privileges. FTI Consulting is called upon by clients in dozens of industries globally, including those involved in traditional, renewable and alternative energy development, and we are committed to ensuring that all professional services we deliver align with our firmwide position to support action to address climate change.” It is unclear what will happen next, but the House Committee could subpoena documents or have executives appear before the congressional panel. The August 24 deadline came and went, and now the firm faces a potential subpoena. In an email to DeSmog on August 25, a day after the deadline, a spokesperson for the Committee said: “The Committee has not yet gotten an adequate response from FTI.”Another spokesperson for the Committee told DeSmog, “stay tuned.” </div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">===</div>