oversight & investigations sen
hmmn generic eg budget comm
==
see FF CEO greenwash
see phase 4 delayism // methane net zero BS
see exxon 4 darren wood
see clean coal ccs
SEE EOR enhanced oil recovery
includes natural processes
see kemper cty, Southern co defunct
bak 4 24
===
===
5 24
algae pgm cancelled 2023
randall davis methane
representative Jamie Raskin, left, and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, right, speak in a video played during today’s hearing, Denial, Disinformation, and Doublespeak: Big Oil’s Evolving Efforts to Avoid Accountability for Climate Change.
A congressional investigation into Big Oil’s ongoing climate deception was revived yesterday with the release of thousands of documents and a joint report by the House and Senate members that further exposed the industry’s campaigns of “deception, disinformation, and doublespeak.”
In a Senate Budget Committee hearing chaired by Sheldon Whitehouse, witnesses drew parallels between Big Oil and Big Tobacco, lawmakers demanded accountability for the fossil fuel industry, and a former U.S. Department of Justice attorney suggested the agency could bring legal action against Big Oil.
“Fossil fuel companies publicly claim to be partners, if not leaders, in fashioning climate solutions, but our investigation exposed that as a fraud,” said House Oversight and Accountability Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin, who co-released the latest congressional findings and was the lead witness at today’s hearing. “Big Oil is not addressing the climate crisis, but profiting from it.”
The newly released documents reveal a lengthy pattern of oil companies publicly pledging their commitment to climate solutions while privately dismissing any intention to follow through.
One 2017 email from a BP executive ruminating on whether the U.S. might stay in the Paris Agreement offers a glimpse into the company’s view of participation in actions to address the climate crisis.
“All the benefits and few of the risks… no one is committed to anything, other than to stay in the game,” wrote global head of Sustainability and Climate Policy, Partnerships, and Stakeholder Relations Paul Jefferiss.
That same attitude was present in the companies’ own tactic of handling climate pledges. In an internal discussion two years later on how to respond to a press request for comment, Jefferiss said that “it goes a bit too far to state or imply support for net zero by 2050, because that would require policy likely to put some existing assets at risk, and we haven’t discussed that internally.” Still, he noted, “we need to stand by our public support for the Paris goals and the achievement of net zero.”
The evidence was first obtained after the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, the American Petroleum Institute, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce after launching that investigation in 2021, adding to a growing arsenal of proof that the companies and trade associations worked to minimize the dangers they knew fossil fuels would cause.
 |
“Talk green, act dirty”
The latest release of documents show oil companies using partnerships in academia to launder their greenwashing of fossil fuel products as climate solutions under the guise of university credibility — despite the companies’ internal knowledge of those products’ harm. One 2018 draft presentation from BP marked “Confidential” lays out a plan by the company to “advance and protect the role of gas — and BP — in the energy transition,” and recommends that BP fund Princeton University and Imperial College white papers that would posit “the role of gas as a friend to renewables.”
But BP knew that “Gas doesn’t support climate goals when you take methane emissions into account,” as stated by the title of another slide in that same presentation, featuring articles tying methane emissions from gas to climate change.
The committee’s probe is already having an impact. After E&E questioned Stanford about pre-publication access to research the university offered the American Petroleum Institute in 2017, as revealed in one of the committee’s unearthed documents, Stanford said it would begin an investigation into that research program.
The report also detailed the companies’ promotion of “pie in the sky technologies,” as Raskin put it this morning, like carbon capture and storage (CCS) and algae biofuels.
ExxonMobil spent upwards of $175 million dollars advertising their research into algae as a climate fix — almost half the $350 million it spent on actual research and development — even while admitting internally that the technology was “still decades away from the scale we need,” according to documents previously released through Congress’s investigation. After years of campaigns to promote algae and, in so doing, distract from the company’s growing investments in fossil fuels, the company dropped its funding of algae research projects last year.
New documents show Exxon employees hedging over algae advertisements they knew were misleading. “Need to be mindful that we’re not suggesting it’s ready to go large scale demo,” one employee emailed in a thread on a TV ad on algae that CEO Darren Woods had already “endorsed.”
“They were careful about the words to make sure it is indicating we hope to one day get there,” another employee responded. “The challenge is that the images have to be visually stimulating to get the audience engaged… it tested very well.”
Other documents spotlight Exxon’s CCS advertising campaigns that both feature and target young people through a “Kids series.”
“Kids is an over-performer in terms of our content. It humanizes ExxonMobil and is in an unexpected format,” said the company’s Digital and Social Media Manager, Jayme Meyer, in a 2019 email chain with Exxon’s Public and Government Affairs group.
“De-emphasize concept that catching carbon is difficult or hard,” Meyer writes in a summary of the group’s feedback. The solution provided in the email: end cards that say “Carbon capture and storage: Making a difference for future generations.”
As ExxonKnews and The Leverreported last week, Exxon is one of many oil and gas companies pushing to scale back new safety rules for carbon dioxide pipelines as the industry races for IRA tax credits from experimental CCS projects. Previous documents obtained by Congress show the companies internally admitting that though CCS is “complex, costly, and will require additional power,” it will “enable the use of petroleum and natural gas” for years to come.
“As a scholar of disinformation, I do not use the word ‘lie’ lightly, but no other word adequately describes the oil industry’s brazen efforts to mislead the public,” said Geoffrey Supran, a scholar of climate disinformation and director of Climate Accountability Lab at University of Miami, told Senators this morning during testimony.
The investigation further revealed how oil companies internally viewed the crisis their products were causing while they touted their ambitions to fight climate change. “The Challenge of Climate Change,” according to one 2016 presentation created by a Princeton researcher funded through BP’s Climate Mitigation Initiative, is the risk it posed to BP’s “core business” through a transition to cleaner sources of energy. That’s because “effective climate policies can emerge that discourage fossil fuel consumption… and that subsidize or otherwise promote efficiency and low carbon energy.”
BP, along with the other major oil companies, would use trade associations to lobby “against pro-climate legislation and regulations that they publicly claimed to support,” according to the House and Senate committees’ report. During a prior Congressional hearing in 2021, CEOs from all six entities refused to stop spending money to oppose climate action.
It’s “greenwashing 101,” said Supran: “talk green, act dirty.”
As payoff for its efforts to keep Americans hooked on a fossil fuel economy, the industry now reaps $750 billion in subsidies each year, Senator Whitehouse said in his opening remarks.
“What is protecting the massive fossil fuel subsidies? And what is preventing policies to reduce danger? It’s the same thing: the fossil fuel industry itself,” Whitehouse said.
All six entities obstructed the investigation, redacting thousands of documents unnecessarily and completely withholding many more, Whitehouse said.
The case for DOJ to step in
Sharon Eubanks, the former lead counsel for the Department of Justice who won the agency’s historic lawsuit against Big Tobacco, said during her testimony today that she observed “striking similarit[ies]” between the actions of the tobacco industry and those of the oil industry today — including the funneling of money into promoting “fake science,” and lying to the public and regulators “about what they knew about the harms of their products and when they knew it.”
Following the new revelations, Eubanks said there was “solid evidentiary basis to support more information being gathered on these companies, just as the Department of Justice investigated the tobacco industry and ultimately filed a civil racketeering case.”
“Complaints against the industry have similarities in the fraudulent acts and the government was successful in the tobacco case, so there is certainly an adequate legal foundation for litigation against this industry,” she said.
Last year, nearly two dozen House and Senate members wrote letters to Attorney General Merrick Garland urging the Department of Justice to either sue or investigate Big Oil for potential violations of federal law. In January, Representative Ted Lieu toldExxonKnews that new evidence of Shell’s early knowledge of climate change “provide additional evidence and make our calls for an investigation even more urgent.”
The mounting evidence released by Congress could provides even more fuel behind those requests.
As Raskin pointed out, holding the tobacco industry accountable in court had major implications for public health and safety. “The companies were ordered to cease and desist their propaganda and to start telling the truth,” he said. “Just insisting upon the truth has saved millions of lives.”
New lawsuits have been filed against Big Oil since Congress began its investigation — and some of those complaints cite documents obtained through congressional subpoenas, including by the City of Chicago, Pennsylvania’s Bucks County, Puerto Rico municipalities, and the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe.
Patrick Parenteau, a law professor at Vermont Law School, said the latest evidence could play a role in the lawsuits and eventually be considered at trial. “The case for recovery of damages is getting stronger all the time,” he said.
===
co2 pipeline leak 4 24 zombies
===
ymail 4 24
In 2021, Congressional Democrats subpoenaed Big Oil for internal documents detailing the industry’s role in worsening the climate crisis.
Some of the documents have already been released. But today, we got some more.
The internal materials are from Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Chamber of Commerce. They’re being released today as part of the Senate Budget Committee’s upcoming hearing on Wednesday morning, titled “Denial, Disinformation, and Doublespeak: Big Oil’s Evolving Efforts to Avoid Accountability for Climate Change.”
Source: X
Both the hearing and the documents mark the revival of the House Oversight Committee’s two-year investigation into the fossil fuel industry, and its role in misleading Americans about climate change. That investigation was put on ice when Republicans won back control of the chamber in late 2022.
Democrats say their new findings provide “a rare glimpse into the extensive efforts undertaken by fossil fuel companies to deceive the public and investors about their knowledge of the effects of their products on climate change and to undermine efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.”
HEATED got a chance to review the new documents prior to their publication today. And while we don’t think the revelations are necessarily all that “rare,” here are five things we found notable.
1. BP really, really loves Princeton
To influence academia, fossil fuel companies have spent at least $700 million on partnerships with U.S. universities. The longest-running of these partnerships is between BP and Princeton.
The new documents provide some insight into why: because Princeton gives BP unprecedented access to discussions about research. In 2016 emails, BP officials discussed cutting funding to Harvard and Tufts and boosting it for Princeton, because research discussions at Harvard and Tufts “are directed by the universities and much less relevant to BP.” They said “personality and structural issues” at Harvard and Tufts made it “difficult to achieve the same BP focus.”
Achieving a “BP focus” meant two things: pushing research about the benefits of carbon capture and methane gas. And that’s what Princeton’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative did.
In 2018, an internal BP presentation marked “confidential” recommended Princeton CMI director Stephen Pacala as a preferred expert in defending methane gas as a climate solution. And in a 2020 email, BP officials discussed an upcoming call with Pacala, in which BP would recommend developing a net zero plan “with emphasis on CCUS [carbon capture utilization and storage] — building ‘backbone’ of pipelines to transport carbon from emitters to the Permian and Gulf Coast sites.”
CMI did eventually develop a net zero study with an emphasis on carbon capture. BP officials celebrated, writing, “Princeton’s net zero study is expected to be a guide for the Biden Administration.”
Today, sure enough, the Biden Administration is making massive investments in carbon capture—just as BP’s vice president of U.S. policy and regulatory affairs predicted. In a 2020 email, he said BP’s relationship with Princeton was “becoming increasingly synergistic.” If Biden won, the VP said, “I would not be surprised to see some of our friends in senior government policymaking roles, as well!”
2. Oil companies know they can’t meet their public climate goals
While they publicly tout their efforts to fight climate change, oil companies privately say they don’t believe the world could ever reach a safe, livable climate.
For example: Exxon first publicly supported the Paris Agreement in 2015, but internally the company revealed that it did not believe the climate treaty’s goals were realistic. “We don’t yet see the world even approaching a 2°C pathway … let alone a 1.5°C pathway,” Exxon’s former manager of environmental policy and planning Peter Trelenberg wrote in a 2018 email. “Both 2°C and 1.5°C would require unprecedented changes to the global energy system and economy, at a rate and scale never before demonstrated, and with technologies not yet available and affordable.”...
ref
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This joint staff report on Big Oil’s decades-long deception campaign is the culmination of a nearly three year-long investigation by the Democratic staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability (House Oversight), which has worked with Democratic staff of the Senate Budget Committee staff during the 118th Congress.
The investigation, focused on ExxonMobil Corporation (Exxon), Chevron Corporation (Chevron), Shell USA Inc. (Shell), BP America Inc. (BP), the American Petroleum Institute (AI), and the Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber), provides a rare glimpse into the extensive efforts undertaken by fossil fuel companies to deceive the public and investors about their knowledge of the effects of their products on climate change and to undermine efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
This final joint staff report builds on the House Oversight Committee’s earlier hearings, public memoranda, and document releases, and it presents new findings from the investigation.
The key findings include: Documents demonstrate for the first time that fossil fuel companies internally do not dispute that they have understood since at least the 1960s that burning fossil fuels causes climate change and then worked for decades to undermine public understanding of this fact and to deny the underlying science.
In fall 2015, blockbuster reporting by Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times revealed that Big Oil companies such as Exxon knew that burning fossil fuels was a major contributor to climate change. Companies publicly rejected the reporting at the time, but new documents corroborate the reporting and show that fossil fuel companies internally did not dispute the findings but tried to dismiss them as “hyperbolic” and “journalistic malpractice.” Big Oil’s deception campaign evolved from explicit denial of the basic science underlying climate change to deception, disinformation, and doublespeak.
The fossil fuel industry evolved from denying climate science to spreading disinformation and perpetuating doublespeak about the safety of natural gas and its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
New documents demonstrate that Big Oil companies: seek to position natural gas as a “bridge fuel” between coal and cleaner, renewable energy, while enmeshing natural gas in the U.S. energy economy for the long-term; seek to portray natural gas as a green, climate-friendly fuel, while internally acknowledging that there is significant scientific evidence that the lifecycle emissions from gas are as bad as coal and are incompatible with scientific emissions reduction targets;
make public pledges to support the Paris Agreement and to achieve net zero emissions while internally recognizing that they could not achieve those goals or referring to them as outside of their business plans;
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
privately lobby—either directly or through their trade associations— against pro-climate legislation and regulations that they publicly claimed to support;
publicly celebrate carbon capture technologies to help reduce harmful emissions while privately acknowledging that the technology is expensive and claiming that it cannot be scaled without federal government investment;
and publicly promoted algae-based biofuels as an innovative low-carbon technology while investing little in its research and development and then cancelling the programs entirely.
The fossil fuel industry relies on trade associations to spread confusing and misleading narratives and to lobby against climate action. Fossil fuel companies use trade associations, think tanks, and other nonprofits to influence public policy proposals and messaging, including API and the Chamber, as well as the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, Natural Gas Supply Association, and Western States Petroleum Association.
New emails between fossil fuel executives and these groups demonstrate how the companies influenced and leveraged the associations and other organizations to control their messaging and use them to lobby for unpopular proposals that they do not want to be associated with.
The fossil fuel industry strategically partners with universities to lend an aura of credibility to its deception campaigns while also silencing opposition voices. Fossil fuel companies establish funded partnerships with academic institutions to enhance their credibility, shape academic research programs to provide studies supportive of a prolonged life for oil and gas, leverage the resulting research to their advantage, and bolster access to policymakers.
New documents reveal previously unknown funding levels and show how companies condition their funding on academics’ cooperation and alignment with companies’ business needs.
Additional documents demonstrate that companies actively tracked individuals and organizations critical of the industry and monitored their social media. All six entities—Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, API, and the Chamber—obstructed and delayed the Committees’ investigation.
Despite valid subpoenas, the entities refused to fully comply with the investigation, making baseless legal arguments and flouting longstanding congressional practices and norms for investigations.
The companies further obstructed the investigation by significantly redacting or entirely withholding more than 4,000 documents without any valid basis...
:{:{II. THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE’S INVESTIGATION}:
On October 23, 2019, in view of the risks posed by climate change and public reporting about the role the fossil fuel industry has played in suppressing scientific evidence, the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the House Oversight Committee held the first congressional hearing about climate denialism, “Examining the Oil Industry’s Efforts to Suppress the Truth About Climate Change.” At this hearing, former Exxon scientists confirmed that Exxon knew the reality of climate change as early as the 1970s but concealed that reality from the public. Dr. Martin Hoffert, a former Exxon consultant, testified that Exxon’s actions were “immoral” and “greatly set back efforts to address climate change.”10 }:
Two years later, on September 16, 2021, the House Oversight Committee launched an investigation into the fossil fuel industry’s decades-long deception campaign.11 The House Oversight Committee sent investigative letters to ExxonMobil (Exxon), BP America Inc. (BP), Shell Oil Company (Shell), Chevron Corporation (Chevron), the American Petroleum Institute (API), and the Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber). None of the entities met the deadline for responding to the Committee’s requests for information and documents, and each eventually ...
:{:{made only a limited production primarily containing non-substantive, trivial and publicly available materials such as press clippings, regulatory filings, and pages from the entities’ own websites. On October 21, 2021, the House Oversight Committee sent additional letters to all six entities, extending the production due date to October 25, 2021. Still, none of the entities made substantial productions of the key documents the House Oversight Committee requested.12 As a result of their initial obstruction, on November 2, 2021, the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed all six entities. 13 The subpoenas required the six entities to produce all documents dating from November 30, 2015, that (1) were sent, received, or created by board members and executives and related to climate change and clean energy, including documents addressing industry marketing and advertising on those topics; (2) were sufficient to demonstrate the amount and itemization of all direct or indirect funding to employees and external contractors related to climate change and clean energy; and (3) related to the entities’ plans to reduce greenhouse gases.14}:
:{:{ Even after receiving these subpoenas, the entities failed to comply fully— or, in some cases, at all—as discussed in Chapter 6 of this staff report. As part of its investigation, the House Oversight Committee also held hearings demonstrating the ways that Big Oil was fueling the climate crisis. At the first hearing, titled “Fueling the Climate Crisis: Exposing Big Oil’s Disinformation Campaign to Prevent Climate Action,” CEOs from Exxon, BP, Chevron, Shell, API, and the Chamber testified. House Oversight Committee Members questioned the CEOs about their organizations’ roles in the fossil fuel industry’s “long-running, industry-wide campaign to spread disinformation about the role of fossil fuels in causing global warming.”15}:
At the second hearing, titled “Fueling the Climate Crisis: Examining Big Oil’s Climate Pledges,” climate and environmental experts testified about “the urgent need for fossil fuel companies to fundamentally alter their operations and reduce emissions, and assess[ed] whether the companies’ climate pledges will meet that goal, or are instead just the latest example of climate disinformation.”16 At the final hearing, titled “Fueling the Climate Crisis: Examining Big Oil’s Prices, Profits, and Pledges,” individuals directly affected by the climate crisis offered firsthand accounts about surviving climate change-induced severe weather events. In a second panel,}:}:
...
:{:{experts on economic, environmental, and energy policy examined Exxon’s, Chevron’s, BP’s, and Shell’s record-breaking profits and the inadequacy of their climate pledges.17 In September 2022, in connection with that third hearing, and again in December 2022, the House Oversight Committee released memoranda and documents obtained by the Committee. These memoranda and documents showed that fossil fuel companies had misled the public and investors about their supposed commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and had continued to obstruct the House Oversight Committee’s investigation despite being subpoenaed. 18}:
Alongside this joint staff report, the House Oversight Committee’s Democratic staff, at the direction of Ranking Member Jamie Raskin, is releasing additional documents obtained through the investigation commenced during the 117th Congress. These documents further demonstrate that fossil fuel companies—directly and through their trade associations—worked in concert to deceive the public and investors and to undermine efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions}:
---
doublespk ch
:{:{...B. Emissions Reductions Policies}:
Beyond methane, companies contradicted their public positions supporting emissions reduction by directly lobbying against climate legislation and regulations or by funding candidates who opposed them. One series of documents highlights BP’s strategy to oppose climate policies. A document from 2016 states that its Communications and External Affairs (C&EA) “team exists entirely to protect BP’s license to operate in the U.S., help BP businesses achieve their objectives in the United States and protect the company’s reputation.”
The document instructs that those goals can be achieved by “develop[ing] and wag[ing] strategic campaigns that favorably influence legislative, regulatory and public opinion outcomes,” mitigating “the potentially harmful impact of ... detrimental policy and political developments,” and expanding “the company’s capacity to influence regulators on key climate-related initiatives.”137 A similar 2016 document emphasizes that BP’s primary goal was to remain “a trusted voice for those who can influence BP’s ability to operate in the U.S.,” including by “preventing harmful legislation or regulation (examples include climate, ozone, RFS, Dodd Frank, exports, and taxes.)”138 }:
In Alaska, BP’s C&EA team aimed to “support passage of LNG [liquid natural gas—or methane gas] project enabling legislation in 2016 and voter approval of a constitutional amendment on the November 2016 ballot.”139
A 2020 draft email shows BP mobilized its employees and retirees to elect preferred candidates in Texas who would oppose climate regulations. BP encouraged employees to contribute to BP’s employee PAC (BPEPAC). The email states that “BPEPAC is used to advance the interests of BP in America by making political contributions to candidates or organizations who share our philosophy on energy advancement and climate.
Contributions are approved by the BPEPAC Board to candidates based on recommendations from several stakeholders, including our government and public affairs team.”140 The draft email argues that “Texas [was] shifting politically,” meaning that:...
---
CHAPTER 4: FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY COLLABORATION
Fossil fuel companies rely on trade associations, think tanks, and other nonprofits to spread misleading narratives to the public, without having to put their names directly on advertisements, lobbying, or PR campaigns.186 They work together to ensure that their messaging and financial contributions to these third-party groups are consistent. Several documents uncovered in the course of the House Oversight Committee’s investigation showcase the collaboration between fossil fuel companies and their trade associations and other industry groups.
I. FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY TRADE ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS An armada of trade associations, organizations, and coalitions works with and for fossil fuel companies to perpetuate deceptive and misleading industry narratives; API and the Chamber
:{:{were direct subjects of the House Oversight Committee’s investigation. Documents also shed light on other organizations the fossil fuel companies coordinate with—or take advantage of—to obstruct climate progress. A. American Petroleum Institute API is the nation’s leading oil and gas trade organization. Its membership includes 600 oil and gas companies, including major corporations in upstream, midstream, and downstream operations such as BP, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell.187 Through initiatives like API Energy Excellence and the Climate Committee, API portrays itself as engaging in environmental and safety progress by encouraging the development of new technologies and transparent reporting.188}:
However, API’s Climate Action Framework, purportedly aimed at accelerating low-carbon technologies and innovation, mitigating emissions, and advocating for government carbon pricing policies, has been criticized for a “lack of specifics.”189 Its focus on carbon pricing was belied by an Exxon lobbyist “caught on camera ... saying that a carbon tax will never happen and that support for the measure was a public relations ploy intended to stall more serious measures.”190
API serves as a hub for industry coordination against climate progress. In 2018, Exxon CEO Darren Woods assumed the role of chairman of API’s board of directors. He emailed other board members, including representatives from Shell, BP, Chevron, Enbridge, Anadarko, Noble, Marathon, Phillips66, and Conoco, and noted that API’s upcoming Executive Committee meeting would include a “strategic alignment” segment to focus on “WHAT gaps we have vs. WHY we have them (i.e. no finger pointing/blame games).”
He described that the meeting’s objective was to “put together an assessment of API’s strengths, opportunities and ideas for potential improvements,” including “above and beyond advocacy priorities,” based on “an ExxonMobil view.” 191 This email illustrates that fossil fuel companies directly determine API’s strategy to undermine and oppose climate legislation and regulations.}:
...
B. United States Chamber of Commerce
The Chamber has long played an organizing and convening role for the fossil fuel industry, opposing climate action and preserving business as usual. In 2007, for example, the Chamber ran television advertisements against climate legislation claiming that it would prevent people from heating their homes and driving to work. The Chamber publicly opposed significant climate legislation including the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill that died in the Senate in 2010.192 In 2014, the Chamber convened “about 30 corporate lawyers, coal lobbyists and Republican political strategists” to devise “a legal strategy for dismantling the climate change regulations” they expected to be promulgated by the Obama Administration.193
The Chamber has repeatedly been labeled one of the most powerful political opponents to climate progress in the United States.194 Last year, independent researchers at InfluenceMap released renewed evidence of the Chamber’s persistent lobbying against climate policies. According to InfluenceMap, the Chamber has “continued opposition to meaningful legislation and regulation introduced by the federal government” while simultaneously issuing “positive PR […] to create the impression of reform for climate-conscious investors and corporate members.”195 As Politico explained, the InfluenceMap analysis demonstrated that the Chamber’s “positions on climate policies mostly reflect the views of its fossil fuel members.”196 Notably, the Chamber has refused to disclose, even to its members, the extent of its funding from fossil fuel interests.
:{:{The Chamber has opposed various legislative climate efforts.197 In 2022, the Chamber sought to block the Inflation Reduction Act, the most significant climate bill Congress has ever passed. It funded ads specifically aimed at pressuring the U.S. senators from Arizona to vote against the bill.198 On the regulatory side, the Chamber opposes the EPA’s recent “Power Plant Rule,” a proposed rule that would protect public health and reduce harmful pollutants while delivering up to $85 billion in climate and health benefits over the next two decades.199}:
The Chamber opposes EPA’s recent proposed rules for vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles.200 The Chamber opposed the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) proposed climate disclosure rules, writing that they “exceed the SEC’s lawful authority and are vast and unprecedented in their scope, complexity, rigidity and prescriptive particularity.”201 In courtrooms, as a litigant and as an amicus curiae, the Chamber has a long history of opposing climate rules and laws, and supporting deregulatory theories propounded by polluting industries to fetter people’s ability to protect themselves from pollution and climate harms.202}:
C. Oil and Gas Climate Initiative
:{:{OGCI is a CEO-led effort that claims to assist the oil and gas industry in curtailing its greenhouse gas emissions, primarily by advocating for CCUS and methane emissions reduction initiatives. Comprised of 12 of the world’s largest energy companies, OGCI members collectively account for approximately one-third of the global oil and gas supply.203}:
While OGCI attempts to}:
:{:{“promote a climate-friendly image,” its stated goal to reach net zero emissions omits Scope 3 emissions,—i.e., the emissions produced by the burning of fossil fuels for energy—which “make up the vast majority of an oil company’s total carbon footprint.”204 Members include BP, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell. Exxon and Chevron were initially hesitant about joining OGCI at its outset but ultimately became members in 2018.205 Documents demonstrate that Exxon hesitated because of concerns that the group was “very disorganized, its overarching propose [sic] / objective was generally unclear and that the governance was basically undefined.”206}:
Exxon revisited the matter in 2015 after Shell and BP had joined but still believed that the initiative was “more about ‘window dressing’ in preparation for COP21 [the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference] than trying to achieve lasting results.”207 Once Exxon did join the group, it provided “critical edits” for OGCI announcements, statements, and its annual report, with which Chevron was “generally aligned.” Some of these edits included removing references to the Paris Agreement and language that “potentially commits members to enhanced climate-related governance, strategy, risk management, and performance metrics and targets.”208 These memoranda demonstrate the collaboration among [no gfx]}:
:{:{fossil fuel companies to control messaging of organizations of which they are members to avoid additional commitments regarding climate.}:
D. Natural Gas Supply Association
The Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA) is the sole domestic trade association focusing on producer-marketer issues within the natural gas industry.209 NGSA’s membership includes nine of the largest natural gas suppliers in the country, including BP, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell.210 The association is a partner organization of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, which advocates for the interests of the LNG industry.211 Publicly, NGSA expresses support for achieving economy-wide net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, in alignment with the Paris Agreement goals. 212 }:
But NGSA opposes certain “inappropriate” regulations that hinder its members’ ability to provide “affordable and reliable” natural gas—an objective that often conflicts with reducing greenhouse gas emissions.213 In June 2021, NGSA emailed its “Business Leadership Committee” asking for feedback from its members in crafting a response to Department of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, who was quoted as saying that natural gas should only be considered clean in a Clean Energy Standard if combined with CCS. BP internally expressed concern that the “Administration [was] moving towards squeezing out gas” and asked, “what we need to be doing with Administration (besides pushing f
[no gfx]
...
E. Western States Petroleum Association
The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) is one of the oldest oil and gas trade associations in the United States. BP, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell are members, among others. InfluenceMap describes the organization as “actively engaged on climate policy with strongly negative positions, particularly on state-level policy in California, Washington, and Oregon.”215 WSPA has lobbied against bills designed to reduce emissions, including by working to establish a network of “citizen activist” groups in western states.216
Two key documents obtained by the House Oversight Committee reveal BP’s comprehensive campaign in Washington, in collaboration with WSPA, to oppose state and local policies that would have cut climate-warming emissions. After a Washington county proposed an ordinance that would require one of BP’s refineries to reduce its carbon emissions and make it more difficult to obtain permits to expand or upgrade refineries, BP launched a statewide campaign to oppose it. In an internal memorandum, BP outlined a planned “$300,000 advocacy campaign to build opposition to the proposal in its current form and persuade local officials to amend, postpone or give up on the plan.”217
The document noted that WSPA would “also run a coordinated $200,000 grassroots voter activation campaign on behalf of its membership.”218 In the memorandum, BP explained that, “given the opposition to our industry in this area of the United States[,] ... we are also developing a comprehensive Washington State strategy” for “managing business and reputational risk from our West Coast operations” in the long-term.219 A document from a few months after the memorandum shows how BP’s statewide strategy evolved. 220
In the document, BP identified a handful of key actions and investments to exert its influence in the region. BP planned to enhance “external education, community engagement, political influence and advocacy [that] can change the narrative, stem the flow of bad policy and create opportunities for business growth.”221 The team asked for a “significant increase in C&EA funding” as well as $2.5 million to construct a salmon hatchery that, officials believed, “would change the dynamic of how the public and elected officials view the refinery.” The team requested between $2.5 and $4.5 million for “hard persuasion” tactics, such as television advertising, and $300,000 for “soft persuasion” to be invested in the community and grow support that “will be helpful with elected officials.”222 BP believed that its Washington strategy was necessary because they feared that their reputation would “only get worse unless we change the public's perception of us and the elected official’s lack of respect for our business.”223
II. ABUSE OF THE NATIONAL PETROLEUM COUNCIL
The National Petroleum Council (NPC) serves as a domestic advisory committee representing oil and gas industry views to the Secretary of Energy. Housed within the Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, NPC consists of approximately 200 individuals appointed by the Secretary. According to the agency, these members serve without compensation as representatives of industry or associated interests collectively, not as delegates of specific companies or affiliations.224
NPC members currently include David Lawler, Chairman and President of BP America Inc.; Michael Wirth, Chairman of the Board and CEO of Chevron Corporation; Darren Woods, Chairman, President, and CEO of ExxonMobil Corporation; and Gretchen Watkins, President of Shell USA Inc.225
Despite the agency’s assertion that members act independently, it is clear that the direct involvement of top fossil fuel executives has allowed them to influence NPC’s work in a way that benefits their companies’ interests.
For example, Exxon produced NPC’s Topic Paper #1, Role of Natural Gas in a Low Carbon Economy. In one of the later versions of this document, edits sent around by Southwestern Energy, a fossil fuel company, removed all references to natural gas’s “potential greater use to displace higher carbon intensive fossil fuels,” such as coal and oil, despite industry claims that natural gas is a bridge fuel between these more carbon intensive fossil fuels and a clean energy future.226 }:
:{:{NPC’s most recent report, released in 2019, focused on the expansion of carbon capture deployment domestically.227 Meeting minutes show that the report was led by BP America and included ExxonMobil, Total, and Occidental Oil and Gas Corporation among others, as part of the Coordinating Subcommittee (CSC) for the study. The meeting minutes show that McKinsey & Company would provide support to the study, including interviews with companies on the NPC study.228}:
:{:{CSC “agreed to work language to reduce reputation risk” for the fossil fuel companies involved.229 NPC’s report sought to describe a “roadmap” to scaling up carbon capture deployment in the energy and industrial sectors as a fossil fuel-friendly climate “solution.” The report did not mention that industry investment was inadequate to employ carbon capture technology at a scale necessary to meet ambitious climate targets. However, the cost should not have been any surprise to the companies. As far back as 2007, then-CEO of ExxonMobil and Chairman of NPC Lee Raymond acknowledged that carbon capture is “a huge, huge undertaking ... and the cost is going to be very, very significant.”230}:
Companies did not invest sufficiently in the technology, leading the IEA to characterize the fossil fuel industry’s reliance on carbon capture to reduce emissions as “an illusion.”231 Fossil fuel companies not only fail to invest in carbon capture technologies at scale but also then use the mere existence of the technologies to justify new oil and gas projects.}:}:
CHAPTER 5: TARGETING UNIVERSITIES, THE PRESS, AND CRITICS
I. CULTIVATING RELATIONSHIPS WITH ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS
The oil and gas industry cultivates partnerships with academic institutions as a way to influence climate research toward an energy transition that favors maintaining fossil fuels for as long as possible; bolster its ability to claim expertise on climate science; and gain access to thought leaders.232 In the words of one BP official, the academics’ research was to be “informed by the business challenges we need solved.”233
Although the existence of relationships between industry and academia has long been known, documents released by the House Oversight Committee (1) reveal for the first time previously unknown funding amounts and (2) shed light on how companies condition grants on cooperation from academics and their perception of the relationship’s business value.
...
no gfx]
:{:{University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs; $140,000 to Stanford University; and $50,000 to the University of Massachusetts Amherst.248}:
Similarly, Chevron has partnered with major universities for workforce development and facility upgrades, including the Colorado School of Mines; Louisiana State University; MIT; Stanford University; Texas A&M University; UC Berkeley; UC Davis; the University of Texas, Austin; Tuskegee University; North Carolina A&T State University; Prairie View A&M University; and Florida International University.249}:
:{:{It does not appear that Chevron produced relevant documents on this subject, even though the scope of the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena covered these documents. B. Conditioning Grants on Cooperation from Researchers Fossil fuel companies conditioned their funding to academic institutions on the extent of their cooperation and sensitivity to industry business needs.}:
A 2016 internal document marked “confidential” reveals that BP officials recommended cutting the budget for Harvard and Tufts research partnerships because it was finding it difficult to “obtain more value” as compared to the perceived success of BP’s partnership with Princeton, explaining that the “CMI discussions are directly relevant to BP whereas the Harvard/Tufts discussions” were not. Accordingly, the official recommended cutting funding to Harvard in favor of “a tighter focus limited to climate policy and geopolitics,” which “should enable a more integrated approach between the policy work at Harvard/Tufts and the scientific work at CMI.”}:
The official recommended marginalizing researchers with whom BP worked less well and propping up those who were more favorable to BP. His final recommendation was to renew the Harvard grant at a “[m]aximum of $400k,” preferring “zero for geopolitics but understand[ing] it may need to be $50–$100k if necessary to manage the relationship
...
BP reduced funding for the Harvard and Tufts programs by around 40%. Harvard’s grant decreased from $700,000 annually to $400,000, and Tufts grant decreased from $215,000 to $200,000.251
C. Studying the Disruption of Climate Change to Core Business
:{:{Other documents show that, through their academic partnerships, the companies had clear knowledge of the effect of climate change on their business. A slide presentation prepared by a Princeton researcher funded through BP’s CMI titled “The Challenge of Climate Change” reveals BP’s understanding of the threats to BP’s core business posed by a shift from fossil fuel consumption to lower carbon alternatives: “the climate problem has the potential to disrupt BP’s core business” because “effective climate policies can emerge that discourage fossil fuel consumption ... and that subsidize or otherwise promote efficiency and low carbon energy.”}:
The presentation identifies incremental changes for BP to address climate change, such as reining in flaring and methane leaks, and supplanting coal usage in Asia with natural gas. 252 In a separate email, a BP official applauded the Princeton researcher’s perspective that shifting toward natural gas, in part through increased LNG exports, would cut overall global emissions. 253 }:
The email described the CMI-funded researcher as a “big advocate of this as part of our case for gas.”254 D. Using Academic Programs to Bolster Access to Policymakers Fossil fuel companies sought to gain access to policymakers and influential thought leaders by funding academic research programs. One internal BP email describes the Tufts program as “the policy complement to our longstanding Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) climate science program with Princeton,” noting that it benefits BP because “many of their faculty are former senior government officials with deep insight, credibility and influence with US and global policymakers.”255
Similarly, a “confidential” document from around 2018 describes the benefit of the BP partnership with Harvard and Tufts as “access to unparalleled expertise at the forefront of research in the areas of climate change science, technology and policy,” which helps BP “provide a business perspective to help shape international policy.”256 In a 2020 email, BP coordinated with Princeton officials on the Net Zero America study, which maps different pathways by which the United States could decarbonize its economy
...
:{:{BP provided “just under $2 m[illion]” to fund the Net Zero America study, which the company viewed as important because the study had some alignment with the Biden-Harris Administration’s climate policy agenda. Specifically, the BP official noted that the study “clearly plays to Biden’s green agenda” and that principal researchers were “already advising Biden’s transition team.”}:
As a result, BP could “leverage the study with the USG [United States government].”258 As the 2020 presidential elections approached and it appeared that President Biden would win, BP’s Vice President of U.S. Policy and Regulatory Affairs pointed out that BP’s relationship with Princeton was “becoming increasingly synergistic.” BP admitted that, “[i]f the Presidential elections go the way it looks now, I would not be surprised to see some of our friends in senior government policymaking roles, as well!”259}:
II. TRACKING CRITICS AND PRESSURING NEWS OUTLETS
Documents obtained by the House Oversight Committee reveal that the fossil fuel industry actively tracks individuals, organizations, and news outlets critical of the industry. One particularly disturbing email demonstrates that Exxon’s chief security officer was tasked with tracking a specific activist, noting that he “has been very active in his communications of late. We are monitoring his location (now living in Vermont) and his social media.”260
The activist in question, a retired petroleum and industrial engineer who used to work for Exxon, provided testimony to the Vermont state legislature on fossil fuel infrastructure and had written op-eds concerning presidential climate plans, among other advocacy activities. }:
:{:{A Shell email similarly demonstrated that climate activist activity is shared internally. The email, from May 2020, acknowledges that the coronavirus pandemic limited the ability of activist groups to protest, but that there was, in turn, a “sharp spike—43% more than average in social media ad spending.”}:
This caused concern that the activists “are not sitting on their hands—they are adapting and we expect that they will raise more than $1 billion this year to build their army of boots-on-the-ground supporters with the goal of killing off the fossil fuel industry.”261 Other documents show that fossil fuel companies tracked outside advocacy efforts related to emissions reductions and environmental accountability. A BP official expressed concern about an “uptick in citizen suits” due to the “wide availability of high-tech monitoring devices” that citizens can use to measure pollution from hazardous chemicals in their local environments.}:
....
He worried that “NGOs will have more info” than what industry is required to report to the EPA.262 Documents produced by BP include numerous “Weekly Activist Report[s]” that track global critics and protest activity focused on the fossil fuel industry’s role in climate change. One Weekly Activist Report identified specific activism, such as “Protests in Washington as part of ‘Green New Deal’” and “Sunrise Movement occupies office of US Representative in Washington, DC.”263
API also tracked activities of climate activist groups via an email from an outside consulting group, which promised to contact API “if there is any concerning or threatening content related to API.”264 The fossil fuel industry tracks critical social media content.
One email from API to its internal Communications email list, titled “API Media Monitoring,” appears to be part of a regular mass email blast that tracks critics of the industry. A 2017 email describes social media conversations on climate change following damaging snowstorms and wildfires throughout the country.265 Another shows Exxon tracking social media content, including public posts on Facebook and Twitter discussing ExxonMobil and climate change, including “a review of tweets that use the hashtags #ExxonKnew and #EnergyLiesHere.”266}:
Internal documents show companies pressuring news outlets pursuing stories that the companies believed were instigated by activists. In a 2016 email, an Exxon Media Relations Manager reacted angrily to questions from a Reuters journalist on Exxon’s relationship with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a nonprofit organization that has frequently undertaken political advocacy activities that appear to violate Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules governing its tax-exempt status.267
:{:{Providing a statement that could be used “if Reuters is taking this crap seriously,” the official responded “how tone deaf are these guys for asking the IRS to investigate ALEC – an organization made up of more than 2000 conservative state lawmakers – after the IRS scandal last year? Of course anything passes for news when you slap the ‘climate denier’ label on it.” When the journalist responded, “I hear you,” the Exxon media relations manager replied, “Don’t hear me. Kill the story.”268}:
CHAPTER 6: OBSTRUCTION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION
:{:{As documented in the House Oversight Committee’s memorandum dated December 9, 2022, Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, API, and the Chamber refused to fully cooperate with the House Oversight Committee’s investigation, even after then-Chairwoman Maloney issued subpoenas to each company. Their obstruction is evident in many of the documents reviewed by the House Oversight Committee and released today.}:
I. ATTEMPTING TO UNDERMINE CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION LEGAL FRAMEWORKS AND NORMS
A. Power and Scope of Congressional Investigative Authority There is a clear legal framework supporting Congress’s broad latitude to conduct investigations and requiring private sector entities to comply fully with congressional subpoenas. The Supreme Court has long recognized Congress’s power conduct investigations, a power inherent in the legislative process, holding as early as 1927 that “[t]he power of inquiry—with process to enforce it—is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function .... A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information.”269
The Supreme Court has also made clear that such power is broad: “[The] power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes.”270 Indeed, the “scope of the power of inquiry ... is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.”271 Courts defer to Congress’s “broad power” to seek information “when the purpose asserted is supported by references to specific problems which in the past have been or which in the future could be the subjects of appropriate legislation.}:}:}:
...
Congress also has a long history of investigating the activities of companies and corporations.273 The fact that such entities are not governmental is irrelevant, as “[i]t is unquestionably the duty of all citizens to cooperate with the Congress in its efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action. It is their unremitting obligation to respond to subpoenas, to respect the dignity of the Congress and its committees, and to testify fully with respect to matters within the province of proper investigations.”274 The companies here have failed to respect these well-established judicial interpretations and resulting practices. B.
Baseless First Amendment and Privilege Arguments
Some companies claimed that the First Amendment or undefined “privilege” protected them from the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena. Exxon argued that the subpoena appeared “designed to intrude on ExxonMobil’s First Amendment activities, including its constitutionally protected right to petition the government.275 Neither the First Amendment nor the petitioning clause permits the categorical withholding of documents from Congress.276 Indeed, recent case law has affirmed Congress’s right to conduct investigations into activities and subpoena documents that have been claimed to be protected by the First Amendment.277
In effect, the fossil fuel industry proposes a novel theory of “privilege” in which the people’s power of investigation through their Congress evaporates whenever the subject is a matter of public debate or legislative lobbying, and without even the customary requirements in courts of a privilege log identifying the documents withheld and the specific privilege asserted.
C. Disregard for Longstanding Congressional Practice and Norms
The companies’ positions would upend longstanding House Oversight Committee and congressional practice. In 2006, the then-House Committee on Government Reform sought records and communications relating to Jack Abramoff’s lobbying of White House officials via his lobbying firm Greenberg Traurig LLP. After issuing a subpoena to the firm, the House Oversight Committee obtained more than 14,000 pages of responsive documents.278
More recently, as part of a long-running investigation into the pharmaceutical industry, the House Oversight Committee requested—and received through voluntary compliance—internal communications and documents from several pharmaceutical companies related to lobbying activities, including through their trade association.279
II. SIGNIFICANTLY REDACTING OR WITHHOLDING DOCUMENTS
Despite the clear legal framework upholding Congress’s broad latitude to conduct investigations and requiring private sector entities to comply with congressional subpoenas, companies heavily redacted or entirely withheld documents despite repeated objections by House Oversight Committee staff. Of the six recipients of subpoenas, the Chamber obstructed the investigation most significantly. The Chamber produced only 5,503 documents in total—less than 9% of the average number of documents provided by the other companies under investigation. Of those 5,503 documents, only 24 were within scope.
:{:{The Chamber was also the only entity that failed to produce any internal communications. Given the significant public information available about the Chamber’s lobbying efforts on climate policies, the Chamber’s failure to produce documents is not because the documents do not exist, but because the Chamber willfully failed to comply with the subpoena. More broadly, the investigation identified 4,180 documents that were significantly redacted.280}:
These documents include board minutes, communication plans, and emails and contracts about advertising. BP’s production made up the vast majority of the redacted documents, with at least 3,733 documents with significant redactions—90% of the total number of significantly redacted documents and nearly 8% of the total documents produced by BP. In one example, BP redacted all content from an email except “Sent from my iPhone” and the sender’s email signature from an email thread between senior officials in BP’s C&EA team with the subject “Conference: Climate Change Implementation.”...}:
[many redected doc egs]
CONCLUSION
The investigation and this report have set out new evidence about the extent of the fossil fuel industry’s evolving efforts to avoid accountability for climate change. As previously understood, fossil fuel companies first approached climate change by branding it a “hoax” and denying outright that the burning of fossil fuels contributed to a warming planet. But as the science about climate change became too overwhelming to continue to deny its existence, Big Oil needed to pivot.
Accordingly, as new documents set out in this report demonstrate, the fossil fuel industry engaged in an elaborate campaign of deception and doublespeak—supported by its armada of trade associations—marked by public claims to support climate action and significant private steps to avoid it as well as disinformation about the climate safety of natural gas and its role as a bridge fuel to a fossil-free future. For more than half a century, Big Oil has misled the American public about its role in the climate crisis, doing everything in its power to keep the United States and the world dependent on its polluting products. It is long past time to hold Big Oil accountable for its deception campaign and to take action to undo the harms it has perpetrated.
===
===
4 24 yahoo
carbon dioxide pipeline rupture in the small village of Satartia, Mississippi, sent nearly 50 people to the hospital with “zombie”-like conditions in 2020, and now another major leak from a pipeline in Sulphur, Louisiana, has once again exposed the risks carbon dioxide pipelines pose to communities in their path.
Soon, pipelines like this could be coming to cities and towns throughout the country. Spurred by federal tax incentives from the Biden Administration, the fossil fuel industry is planning to build tens of thousands of miles of carbon dioxide (CO2) pipelines across the United States for experimental carbon capture and storage — a process aimed at sequestering carbon emissions from power plants, sending it through pipelines, and injecting it underground.
While regulators are working to craft updated safety rules for these pipelines, major fossil fuel companies and their trade groups — including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Liquid Energy Pipeline Association — have launched a lobbying blitz to scale back regulations and target the regulators themselves so they can construct new pipelines as quickly as possible.
Carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant. Upon entering the atmosphere during a pipeline leak or rupture, it can travel long distances, shut down vehicles, and sicken, suffocate, or even kill people and wildlife.
Only about 5,000 miles of carbon dioxide pipelines currently exist across the country, largely operating in states across the Midwest and Gulf Coast. Many communities, landowners,and environmental and public health groups have staunchly opposed and, in some cases, successfully prevented their build-out, such as eliminating the proposed 1,300-mile Navigator pipeline that would have crossed through five Midwestern states.
But now, this pipeline network could be greatly expanded. According to the U.S. Department of Energy and financial industry estimates, it could take up to 96,000 miles of new carbon dioxide pipelines — enough to wrap around the earth four times — to transport just 15 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the federal agency tasked with pipeline safety, announced in 2022 that it would update rules for carbon dioxide pipelines.
The agency, which is overseen by Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and was implicated in the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, is itself up for reauthorization, meaning Congress will reconsider its lawmaking mandates and funding. Now the pipeline industry, represented by its main lobbying group, the Liquid Energy Pipeline Association, is using both the rule-making and reauthorization processes to push its agenda forward.
“There is no need for adding a host of punitive provisions on the pipeline industry,” reads written January testimony from Andrew Black, the lobbying group’s president and CEO, to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has proposed a bill on the pipeline safety agency’s reauthorization. “The data just does not support those who wish to impose harsh new mandates or penalties on pipeline operators.”
On March 6, the Liquid Energy Pipeline Association arranged a meeting with the White House Office of Management and Budget, which is currently reviewing the draft carbon dioxide safety rules. Also present at the meeting were representatives from ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Marathon, TC Energy, Kinder Morgan, Phillips 66, and Valero, along with representatives from the Department of Transportation.
“THE ADMINSTRATION [sic] SHOULD AVOID AN OVERLY BROAD OR UNSUBSTANTIATED CO2 PIPELINES RULEMAKING THAT RISKS DELAY AND IMPERILS FINALIZATION,” reads the all-caps intro to the lobbying group’s talking points for that meeting.
In response to a request for comment, Liquid Energy Pipeline Association’s president and CEO Andy Black offered several reasons “why we think a measured approach to pipeline safety legislation is appropriate.” According to Black, federal data shows “the number of CO2 pipeline incidents is flat over the last 5 years,” and “Federal regulation imposes dozens of safety requirements on interstate CO2 pipelines on everything from design and construction to inspection, maintenance, and emergency response.”
Robin Rorick, one of the American Petroleum Institute's vice presidents, said in an email, “The safe use and development of CO2 pipelines will be critical as our industry and the nation as a whole advances its emissions reduction efforts. API will continue to work with [Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration] and industry experts to safely accelerate the widescale, responsible deployment of CO2 pipelines while protecting the environment and communities where we live and work.”
An Invisible Menace
The urgency of this issue reemerged this month after a carbon dioxide leak from a pipeline in Sulphur, Louisiana, co-owned by ExxonMobil and Denbury, a carbon capture developer that owns the country's largest carbon dioxide pipeline network.
Residents within a quarter mile of the leak received a phone notification to shelter in place. But others only received the news from a Facebook post by local officials, citing a “bust” in Exxon’s high-pressure carbon dioxide pipeline in Sulphur and warning residents to shut their doors and windows, turn off any ventilation, and wait.
While the proper procedure is to evacuate, local fire chief Todd Parker said changing winds near the leak made that impossible. “For the homes that were affected, they had to drive through the release to be able to get out, so we couldn’t evacuate them,” Parker explained. He said it took more than two hours for pipeline operators to stop the leak, which was called in by a resident who reported seeing “white clouds” coming from the pipeline.
In the meantime, Roishetta Ozane, a Sulphur resident and local environmental justice organizer, began fielding calls from panicked residents.
“People were reaching out asking me about what CO2 is,” Ozane said. But as a mom of six children, she was also scared and confused. “We know that this is colorless and odorless, so I just kept my children inside and made sure they were OK,” said Ozane. “Pipelines leak, CO2 leaks, and you don’t know it’s happened until tragedy has struck.”
She remembered the incident in Satartia, where another Denbury carbon dioxide pipeline rupture caused mass asphyxiation, turning people into dazed and unresponsive “zombies,” with some losing consciousness. As hundreds rushed to evacuate, vehicles became paralyzed, since cars need oxygen to burn fuel. Some residents still face serious health issues years later.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration slapped Denbury with the second-largest fine in its history after the Satartia disaster for neglecting to address hazards to its pipeline system and notify emergency responders of the leak or train them to address such an accident before it happened.
The leak in Sulphur is “a very sobering introduction to how the companies will probably try to handle similar incidents,” said journalist Dan Zegart, who reported in depth on the Satartia disaster. “I say ‘similar incidents’ not even really knowing what [kind of leak] we’re talking about here, which is a perfect example of what we’re worried about in the future.”
No injuries have been reported so far in Sulphur — regulators are still investigating the leak and the local municipality said it did not have records to provide — but the bewildering incident highlights the uncertain future for residents in the path of the carbon dioxide pipeline build-out.
“It is alarming that we have been organizing, educating the community, educating ourselves, and trying to get answers from the government on [carbon capture and storage] in Louisiana for three years now, and we still did not have the information or frankly relationships necessary to get real-time information on what was happening [in Sulphur],” said Jane Patton, a campaign manager at the nonprofit advocacy group, the Center for International Environmental Law.
“[The Liquid Energy Pipeline Association] supports Congress mandating and [Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration] imposing new safety requirements on CO2 pipelines reflecting the lessons learned from the Satartia, MS pipeline incident,” said Black, the lobbying group’s president, in his email to The Lever. He added that the organization “looks forward to the results of Sulphur, LA pipeline incident review and any recommendations it produces for how to improve CO2 pipeline safety further.”
A Carbon Capture Future?
ExxonMobil — which purchased Denbury last year — is planning to build carbon capture infrastructure throughout Louisiana, where about a third of the nation’s carbon capture projects have been proposed.
Exxon did not respond to requests for comment.
“We’ve got plans to grow our carbon capture business and really focus on emitters all along that Denbury pipeline,” Exxon CEO Darren Woods told Louisiana newspaperThe Advocatein February. “What we’re doing is taking advantage of the ability to pump carbon dioxide back into the ground, and store it very safely. It’s isolated from the rest of the community.”
Patton says that such statements are just “another lie that we're being sold” by the fossil fuel industry.
“Louisiana is magic, and I want to be able to pass this magic onto the next generation behind me,” she said. “We deserve a future here and that future is not in carbon capture.”
Scientists have been sounding the alarm that carbon capture and sequestration is not an effective way to reduce emissions and is most often used for enhanced oil recovery, which means accessing more fossil fuels to be burned. The Department of Energy just announced it would invest $23 million in two projects to evaluate the potential for enhanced oil recovery using captured carbon dioxide.
In internal company documents, the oil and gas industry has privately admitted that though CCS is “complex, costly, and will require additional power,” it will “enable the use of petroleum and natural gas” well into the future.
But thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, which ratcheted up tax credits available for carbon capture technology, the race is on to build out carbon dioxide pipelines.
Meanwhile, advocates say their concerns are being ignored. “You’ve got communities, NGOs on pipeline safety, governmental experts on pipeline safety all raising alarm about the hazards of what is being planned,” said Monique Harden, director of Law and Policy at the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice. “What you don’t have is the response of protection or response that validates those concerns. Instead, what you have is silence.”
Last week, U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary Brad Crabtree told the Illinois newspaper The Springfield State-Journal Register, “I would argue that our electric transmission and distribution infrastructure, it’s essential to modern life, but it also results in injuries and fatalities… But as a result of those risks, we do not have people saying we shouldn’t have electric transmission and distribution… CO2 pipelines are no different in that regard.”
Many of the proposed pipeline projects would run through communities like Sulphur — low-income communities of color already burdened by polluting petrochemical and fossil fuel facilities. These communities often have minimal resources to respond to worsening extreme weather events, like a tornado that destroyed the office of Ozane’s disaster-relief and environmental justice nonprofit not far from Sulphur just days after the leak.
“On top of the fact that this is taking public money, it is essentially a program where the federal government pays the oil and gas industry to deal with its own waste product in a way that burdens communities and makes us demonstrably less safe,” said Patton. “Accidents that happen along CO2 pipeline routes are going to become more common and much more dangerous if this program is allowed to move forward.”
While significant public resources are being deployed to develop this technology, understanding of carbon dioxide pipeline leaks — how they happen, the extent of their damage, and how they should be addressed — lags far behind.
“Often you need the knowledge gaps to be filled before you can fully fill the regulatory gaps,” said Bill Caram, executive director of Pipeline Safety Trust, an organization that advocates for stronger regulations on pipeline safety. “Right now, CO2 pipelines are relatively rare and relatively rural, and we’re moving toward building a lot more CO2 pipelines closer to communities. I don't think we are ready to do that safely.”
Current carbon dioxide pipelines are largely located in small communities with underpaid or volunteer fire departments, many of which lack equipment to respond to and monitor for carbon dioxide leaks. In Sulphur’s case, the fire chief said he had not seen an emergency response protocol from the company until after the leak occurred.
Environmental and public health groups are pushing federal regulators for additional pipeline safety provisions, including updated “dispersion modeling” requirements, which show how carbon dioxide moves and would help emergency personnel respond to accidents, and adding odorants to the carbon dioxide to warn community members of a leak.
Groups are also advocating for new limits on contaminants in the pipelines that can lead to corrosion; mandates for training and coordination between pipeline operators and first responders; and additional rules for transporting gaseous and liquid carbon dioxide, which are currently unregulated.
Pipeline Pushback
But companies, and the lobbying groups that represent them, are pushing back. Since the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration announced its intention to make new rules on carbon dioxide pipelines in 2022, records show that Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Enbridge, Marathon, Shell, and Targa, along with trade associations like Liquid Energy Pipeline Association, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, have been lobbying the agency on pipeline infrastructure, rule-making, and safety, and/or lobbying on the agency’s reauthorization, among other issues.
During their March meeting at the White House Office of Management and Budget, fossil fuel interests appeared to push for rulemaking that prioritizes secrecy and expediency over safety and transparency.
“Any emergency response requirements should ensure the protection of sensitive information and be aligned with industry current best practices,” reads API’s talking points from the meeting. “The rule must be technically feasible and set realistic timelines for implementation to ensure it supports rather than hinders the build-out of this additional CO2 pipeline infrastructure.”
Maggie Coulter, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, said advocacy groups are particularly concerned about the industry’s attempts to keep data about potential pipeline leaks hidden from the public. One of the bills being considered for Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s safety reauthorization, which has received broad support from industry trade groups, contains a provision for the “protection of sensitive information in responding to a public request for information regarding carbon dioxide dispersion modeling.”
“There’s an additional cost in doing things safely, and increased public scrutiny when you’re affirmatively tasked with informing first responders and members of the public,” said Coulter. “Right now we just have to trust the company.”
Black, president of the Liquid Energy Pipeline Association, said in his comment to The Lever that his organization “supports operators sharing the results of pipeline modeling with state and local emergency planning officials and first responders,” but advocates for “limiting general public sharing of security sensitive information, as is the current approach for crude oil pipelines, to prevent bad actors from misusing this information to harm surrounding communities.”
Black did not respond directly to questions about evidence showing that pipeline operators have failed to communicate with first responders ahead of and properly respond to CO2 pipeline disasters in the past.
Caram of Pipeline Safety Trust said that given the risks that carbon dioxide pipelines pose to communities across the country, the companies involved shouldn’t be allowed to dictate their own safety standards.
“It's like the difference between a speed limit of 55 MPH as opposed to a sign saying ‘please drive safely,’” Caram said. “We need something specific to hold them to.”
---
exxonknewS
y mail 12 23
no lnx see exxon 4
exxon crashes COP28 to “fight for its life”
ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods is on a mission to defend fossil fuels and deny science during his debut at the UN climate conference.
EXXONKNEWS
DEC 6
Emily Sanders is the Center for Climate Integrity’s editorial lead.
:{:{Will COP28 be a climate denial superspreader event, or the death knell for Big Oil? The fossil fuel industry is doing all it can to ensure the former and prevent the latter. At least 2,456 fossil fuel lobbyists were granted access to the conference — nearly four times more than any previous year.}:
COP President and Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) CEO Sultan Al Jaber proclaimed that there is “no science” to back up the need to phase out fossil fuels in order to keep warming within the 1.5 degree threshold, accused his interviewer (Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland) of lying about ADNOC’s increasing investments in oil, and insisted that ending fossil fuels would “take the world back into caves.” He then launched yet another “net zero” emissions commitment, joined by about 50 major oil companies, which the UN secretary-general swiftly condemned as greenwashing.}:
https://twitter.com/PriceofOil/status/1731025554789318713
All in all, it’s shaping up to be the worst takeover of COP by fossil fuel interests yet, with oil and gas representatives boring like hungry termites into policy discussions concerning their companies’ profits — just the kind of thing ExxonMobil wouldn’t miss for the world.
A debut of desperation
This year is Exxon’s CEO Darren Woods’ first at COP, and he has been on quite the press tour. Woods’ mission is like those of other major oil company representatives at the conference: to defend the continued expansion of fossil fuel production against the irrefutable scientific consensus calling for its end.
“This is a desperate attempt to prolong his company’s destructive, fossil fuel-dependent business model,” said Kathy Mulvey, accountability campaign director for the Climate & Energy Team at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
“The unprecedented nature of an Exxon CEO’s appearance at a U.N. climate talk seems consistent with the unprecedented nature of this year’s talks themselves,” said Geoffrey Supran, a Professor of Environmental Science & Policy at University of Miami and researcher of Exxon’s disinformation campaigns.
This particular COP is a “potential watershed moment, where Big Oil’s products finally become the target of international climate policy. That’s got to have oil executives up at night,” he said.
In conversations with multiple major media outlets, the oil executive said that policymakers were focusing too much on reducing fossil fuels and not enough on their emissions.
The talks in Dubai have “put way too much emphasis on getting rid of fossil fuels, oil and gas, and not . . . on dealing with the emissions associated with them,” Woods told the Financial Times in one interview.
“I actually think that part of the thing that has slowed us down is this focus on making a step change and getting out of our existing energy system and starting something brand new,” he told CNBC in another. “I think what society ought to focus on is the true problem here, which is emissions.”
Woods’ approach “appears to be an attempt to delay the urgent phase out of fossil fuels,” said William J. Ripple, a Distinguished Professor of Ecology at the University of Oregon and Director of the Alliance of World Scientists. Ripple was lead author on a report signed by more than 15,000 scientists last month that concluded that “the significance of immediately curbing fossil fuel use and preventing every further 0.1°C increase in future global heating cannot be overstated.”
International scientific bodies agree. “The uncomfortable truth that the industry needs to come to terms with is that successful clean energy transitions require much lower demand for oil and gas, which means scaling back oil and gas operations over time – not expanding them,” International Energy Agency executive director Fatih Birol wrote in the foreword to a report the agency published just before COP.
As has been its pattern for decades, Exxon is well aware of the science demanding the phase-out of its products — it’s just doing everything in its power to stop that science from leading to action, critics say.
“This is what they do: confuse and corrupt, deny and delay,” said Supran.
Confuse and corrupt, deny and delay
https://twitter.com/ClimateUCS/status/1731723555207876633
“The idea of taking advice on climate action from an oil boss is like inviting an unrepentant con artist to lead a fraud protection bureau,” said Mulvey, of UCS.
Woods, who just sealed a $60 billion deal to acquire Pioneer Natural Resources and produce more oil — a merger that is now being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission — has no plans to transition away from fossil fuels. Exxon was one of the 50 oil companies to sign on to Sultan Al Jaber’s voluntary emissions reduction pledge, called the “Oil and Gas Decarbonisation Charter,” which critics say rehashes old commitments and would do nothing to curb fossil fuel production. A letter from more than 300 advocacy groups called the pledge a “smokescreen to hide the reality that we need to phase out oil, gas and coal.”
“Oil and gas companies are under pressure, desperately trying to preserve their social license through recycled pledges,” said David Tong, Global Industry Campaign Manager at Oil Change International, which last year published a report finding that Exxon’s climate commitments are “grossly insufficient” to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Woods and his fellow oil company representatives are also using COP to push for unproven technologies that will prolong the lifespan of climate-wrecking fossil fuels. In an interview with Bloomberg at COP, Woods said the energy transition would require an assortment of “solutions” — including hydrogen and carbon capture — and “we need big companies to help with that.”
Woods rejected the IEA’s recent assessment of carbon capture as an “illusion,” telling Reuters that “you could say that about electric vehicles, about wind, about solar.” But according to the IEA, “The key actions required to bend the emissions curve sharply downwards by 2030 are well understood, most often cost effective and are taking place at an accelerating rate. The scaling up of clean energy is the main factor behind a decline of fossil fuel demand of over 25% this decade.”
Yet unlike the billions it invests in carbon capture, Exxon is spending almost nothing on renewable sources of energy, while lobbying against the transition away from its core products.
“It’s no surprise that Exxon is pushing for the continued use of fossil fuels,” said Jessica Green, Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto. “Exxon is in a fight for its life. Real progress on climate change isn’t about more carbon markets or net zero pledges, it’s about putting the oil and gas industry out of business.”
A larger strategy
Woods’ deflections at COP are part of a larger strategy of “corporate issues management,” said Supran, which “the fossil fuel industry has been pioneering for decades.”
“It means having your fingers in all the pies, anticipating future threats to your business and neutralizing them through decades of 360-degree public affairs strategies,” he said.
Exxon has been working to shift the narrative outside of COP, too. “On November 30, the first day of COP 28, The New York Times included a full-page greenwashing ad from ExxonMobil,” Brad Johnson documented in Hill Heat on Monday. “Reuters coverage of Al Gore’s criticism of ExxonMobil’s presence at COP 28 was smothered by greenwashing ads from ExxonMobil. The Punchbowl News political newsletter today is Presented by ExxonMobil.” Yesterday’s Power Switch newsletter from Politico was Presented by ExxonMobil, too.
While the oil giant’s greenwashing may have ramped up around COP, it’s also a years-long affair — aided in large part by many of the same media outlets interviewing Woods at the conference. A major analysis of Big Oil’s advertising between October 2020 and October 2023 found that “many of the world’s most trusted English-language news publications help fossil fuel companies mislead readers about topics like the promise of carbon capture, the potential of ‘renewable biogas,’ and how much the industry contributes to the energy transition,” according to Amy Westervelt and Matthew Green.
The analysis, published by Drilled and DeSmog this week, found that Bloomberg Media Studios last year created a video for Exxon promoting carbon capture and hydrogen; Politico organized 37 e-mail campaigns for Exxon; and Exxon sponsored more than 100 editions of Washington Post newsletters in 2022 alone, as just a few examples.:}:
Ultimately, it’s up to the media, policymakers, and other major institutions to determine whether the oil companies still responsible for fueling climate catastrophe are allowed to have a platform to stand on — or whether, like Big Tobacco, their time to influence the debate about their products’ harm is finally up.
ICYMI: If you want to learn more about the language being used by oil companies at COP this year, here’s a helpful guide from NPR.
---
---
Carbon removal looks more promising by the day. Is methane next?
BY Chelsea Harvey | 10/19/2023
---
8 23 y mail
Tell Your Legislators to support public safety—not CCS!
Both the White House and state legislators are placing their bets on Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) to rescue us from the climate crisis. The Biden Administration has invested massive amounts of money in this technology, and states are eager to cash in. But CCS will not solve the climate crisis: it will make it worse.
Tell the Administration to declare a moratorium on rolling out CCS infrastructure until, at a minimum, the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has issued regulations governing pipeline safety.
Please email the White House:https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Congress members Omar and Garcia have drafted a letter to President Biden requesting such a moratorium and are asking other Congress members to join them. Tell your member of Congress to sign the letter!
Find your House Member Here:
https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
Find your Senator Here:
https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm
Thank you for emailing the White House
Why CCS Is a Bad Idea
The Fossil Fuel Industry is pitching CCS as a way to “solve the climate crisis” AND keep the industry in business.
A critical component of CCS requires building millions of pipelines across the U.S. to carry carbon dioxide (C02) under pressure to sites where it is supposed to be stored underground permanently. It is massively expensive, requires new and special technology, will take years to roll out, and has never worked as advertised. Many CCS projects have been abandoned because they were both ineffective and too costly. See https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/the-carbon-capture-scam/.
CCS Pipelines Are Dangerous
CCS pipelines and transport are also potentially very dangerous and a public health risk. Carbon dioxide is colorless, odorless and tasteless. It is heavier than air and if leaked will displace oxygen in the atmosphere, causing people on the ground to suffocate. A CCS pipeline leak has already happened: In February of 2020, a pipeline carrying CO2 ruptured in the small rural community of Satartia, MS. Because carbon dioxide displaces oxygen, gasoline-powered vehicles like ambulances become stalled, making it nearly impossible for emergency personnel to respond. Luckily no one was killed in Satartia, though some were severely injured. See https://www.npr.org/2023/05/21/1172679786/carbon-capture-carbon-dioxide-pipeline.
Learn More About How CCS May Impact California!
JOIN OUR LEGISLATIVE MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 10th at 3:00 PM
Victoria Bogdan Tejeda, Staff Attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, will talk about the proposed Contra Costa and Solano Montezuma Carbon Capture and Storage project that proposes to collect CO2 from four Bay Area refineries (Chevron, Valero, PBF and Marathon), two hydrogen plants, and four fossil gas-fueled power plants, and run the compressed carbon dioxide (CO2) via barges and pipeline under Suisun Bay to the injection site under the 3,200 acre Montezuma wetlands.
Victoria works as part of the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute to fight false climate solutions such as carbon capture and storage, as well as polluting industries involved with petrochemicals and biomass energy. In addition to her work on the Montezuma project, she is a participant in the lawsuit against Contra Costa County for approving the EIRs for the Phillips 66 and Marathon refineries conversion to biofuel production.
---
https://www.desmog.com/2023/02/13/exxon-shell-bp-api-concerns-carbon-capture/
Last February, ExxonMobil announced it would further expand its only active carbon capture and storage (CCS) operation in the United States, located at a gas processing facility in LaBarge, Wyoming. Shute Creek is the world’s largest CCS project and has been operational for over 30 years. Although the oil giant publicly touts carbon capture as a “proven” climate solution, its own early foray reveals just how flimsy of a fix the technology really is — and how expensive, both for taxpayers and the climate.
For starters, at Exxon’s Shute Creek, nearly all of the CO2 separated from the extracted fossil gas either has been sold, for a profit, to other drillers to use for squeezing out hard-to-recover oil elsewhere (a process called enhanced oil recovery) or vented back into the atmosphere. Only 3 percent of the Wyoming project’s CO2 has been geologically stored in the same formation from which the original gas was extracted, according to estimates from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).
While Exxon has already spent millions on this project — and plans to invest up to $400 million more to expand it — Shute Creek has consistently fallen short of its carbon capture goals. Still, the company plans to double-down on CCS, making the underperforming technology an essential part of its billion-dollar blue hydrogen plans, which rely on fossil gas. Yet American taxpayers have been subsidizing the oil company’s purported climate endeavors through a federal tax credit for CCS, to the tune of perhaps $240 million claimed already. And as a trove of industry documents reveals, Exxon is far from the only fossil fuel company selling carbon capture as its golden ticket to continue pumping its products, despite internal concerns about the technology’s feasibility.
[twt]
During a landmark congressional
in October 2021, Democratic Rep. Mondaire Jones called out the Shute Creek project in questions posed to ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods. “Exxon and others are using captured CO2 to extract more oil and calling this a climate mitigation strategy,” Jones said. The hearing, which featured testimony from the CEOs of ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Chevron, and the American Petroleum Institute, was part of the U.S. House Oversight Committee’s “historic” investigation into Big Oil and climate disinformation. The Democrat-led committee wrapped up the investigation in December, before Republicans took control of the House, and concluded, based on hearings and subpoenaed documents, that the oil and gas industry is continuing to mislead the public about its climate commitments. A central part of the industry’s strategy to portray itself as an essential partner in climate action, it seems, is to go all in on carbon capture and storage.
CCS and the related carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS), are a set of technologies designed to trap some of the carbon pollution produced from industrial facilities. The carbon dioxide then is compressed and transported to sites where it is either stored underground, injected into oil and gas deposits for enhanced oil recovery, or used for a limited number of other applications such as beverage carbonation. ...
==
EJ
https://www.desmog.com/2023/02/03/rio-grande-lng-carbon-capture-greenwash-brownsville-texas-nextdecade/
---
ff ceo memo, not just br fuel
...examples.”57
API’s publicly released Climate Action Framework does not state that it is intended to promote natural gas.
API’s inconsistent internal and external messaging is common in the oil and gas industry, which advocates for government financial support for carbon capture technologies as a climate mitigation initiative—without public acknowledgement that the support entrenches reliance on fossil fuels, thereby directly benefiting the companies’ business-as-usual operation and delaying the transition to clean energy.58 An October 9, 2018, letter to members of the National Petroleum Council (NPC) from John Mingé, BP America President and Chairman of the NPC Committee on Carbon Capture, Use, and Storage (CCUS), highlights the disconnect between the industry’s public and private rhetoric.
The letter highlights an NPC carbon capture study finding that incorporating CCUS into “U.S. energy and environment plans would deliver benefits,” including “[i]ncreased usage of existing US fossil fuel resources, protecting state and federal revenue sources and supporting the license to operate.”59 Those self-interested benefits to the fossil fuel industry are only noted internally to work group members, and are not mentioned in the NPC’s 2019 public report.Instead, the public report is presented as an altruistic effort to help the world provide “affordable, reliable energy.”60 Other internal documents refer to industry’s need for financial help from the government to develop a carbon capture industry in support of the license to continue to pump fossil fuels.61
B. Presenting Natural Gas as a Bridge Fuel to Secure its Future as a Destination Fuel
In 2021, natural gas contributed to 34% of U.S. energy-related emissions and 22% of emissions globally. 62 Documents obtained by the Committee show fossil fuel companies and lobbying groups seek to publicly position natural gas as a clean source of energy and part of the transition to renewables, even as the industry is privately planning for expanded natural gas production over the long term. In November 2017, a group of major oil companies, including Exxon, Shell, and BP, announced “Methane Guiding Principles.” The group acknowledged, “Since natural gas consists mainly of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, its part in the transition to a low-carbon future will be influenced by the extent to which the oil and gas industry reduces it methane emissions.” 63 Yet internal Shell documents suggest that the companies initially intended this document to serve as a defense of the long-term use of natural gas well beyond a mere “transition.”
In a September 29, 2017, email, Dick Francis, Manager of Regulatory Policy for Shell Exploration & Production Company, distributed the first draft of the Guiding Principles document to his Shell colleagues, writing: Also included in the document is an important preamble that clearly makes the case for natural gas and identifies the need to address methane emissions. Linking the natural gas preamble to the principles is an important element. Because supporting the principles will also signal acknowledgment of natural gas’s place in a low carbon future. Internal BP documents from 2017 and 2018 reveal that the company engaged a public relations firm—the Brunswick Group—to develop an advocacy campaign for gas and methane.64
A PowerPoint presentation prepared by Phil Drew, a Partner at the Brunswick Group, was presented to Robert Stout,BP’s Vice President & Head of Regulatory Affairs, and Mary Streett, BP’s Senior Vice President, U.S. Communications and External Affairs, describing the campaign that the Brunswick Group developed for BP. The overall goal of the campaign was to “Advance and protect the role of gas—and BP—in the future of energy conversation.”
62 Energy Information Administration, Where Greenhouse Gases Come From (online at www.eia.gov/energyexplained/energy-and-the-environment/where-greenhouse-gases-come-from.php) (accessed Nov. 9, 2022).
63 Climate and Clean Air Coalition, Reducing Methane Emissions Across the Natural Gas Value Chain – Guiding Principles (Nov. 2017) (online at www.ccacoalition.org/en/resources/reducing-methane-emissions-acrossnatural-gas-value-chain-guiding-principles). 64 BPA_HCOR_000246
---
---
https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/ahead-of-hearing-committee-releases-memo-showing-fossil-fuel-industry-is
Ahead of Hearing, Committee Releases Memo Showing Fossil Fuel Industry is Misleading the Public About Commitment to Reduce Emissions
Sep 14, 2022
Press Release
Documents Show Big Oil Is Devoted to a Long-Term Fossil Fuel Future and ‘Greenwashing’ Its Record Through Deceptive Advertising and Climate Pledges
Washington, D.C. (Sept. 14, 2022)—Today, Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, the Chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and Rep. Ro Khanna, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, released a new memo of initial findings of the Committee’s year-long investigation into the fossil fuel industry’s campaign to mislead the American people about the industry’s role in climate change. The findings come ahead of tomorrow’s full Committee hearing at 9:30 a.m. ET, to hear firsthand accounts from survivors of severe weather events fueled by the climate crisis, and examine fossil fuel industry profits and the adequacy of their climate pledges.
“As we face more deadly, extreme weather around the globe, fossil fuel companies are reaping record profits and ramping up their misleading PR tacticsto distract from their central role in fueling the climate crisis,” said Chairwoman Maloney. “My Committee’s investigation leaves no doubt that, in the words of one company official, Big Oil is ‘gaslighting’ the public. These companies claim they are part of the solution to climate change, but internal documents reveal that they are continuing with business as usual. I call on the big fossil fuel companies to stop their deception and cut their emissions now—before it is too late.”
“The documents I released today as part of my investigation into Big Oil’s efforts to deceive the American public about the climate crisis are explosive,” said Subcommittee Chair Khanna. “Internal emails and messaging guidance show that Big Oil’s climate pledges rely on unproven technology, accounting gimmicks and misleading language to hide the reality. The documents also show a culture of intense disrespect towards leading climate activists like Bill McKibben and influential climate groups like the Sunrise Movement. Big Oil executives are laughing at the people trying to protect our planet while they knowingly work to destroy it.”
The Committee’s memo found:
- Contrary to their pledges, fossil fuel companies have not organized their businesses around becoming low-emissions, renewable energy companies. They are devoted to a long-term fossil fuel future.
- Despite BP previously rebranding itself as “Beyond Petroleum,” internal documents highlighted how carbon capture and storage (CCS), one of the energy technologies touted by the company, could “enable the full use of fossil fuels across the energy transition and beyond.”
- An internal Shell email discussingcarbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) warned an executive, “We want to be careful to not talk about CCUS as prolonging the life of oil, gas or fossil fuels writ large.”
- Chevron pays lip service to a “just transition” to cleaner fuels but provided talking points to an executive asserting that “[o]il and gas” are the “lower carbon solutions that ensures a just transition.”
- Big Oil’s climate pledges and green advertising focus on unproven technologies the companies admit are decades away from implementation.
- Although Exxon spent at least $68 million advertising its research into algae-based biofuels, notes from an investor presentation obtained by the Committee show this technology is “[s]till decades away from the scale we need.”
- One Exxon public affairs manager warned that implying in an advertisement that algae can be deployed on a mass scale would be misleading, and “might create some angst with the research folks who know that.”
- Oil and gas companies have tried to create the impression that they are taking ambitious steps to reduce emissions—without actually doing so.
- Internal documents show that Exxon and Chevron sought to water down statements by the industry-led Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) to “remove language that potentially commits members to enhanced climate-related governance, strategy, risk management, and performance metrics and targets” and to avoid any “explicit commitment for OGCI companies to align their advocacy with their climate related positions”—including advocacy for the Paris Agreement.
- Shell has touted its “Sky scenario” as an ambitious path to achieve net-zero emissions, but internal emails emphasize this is “not a Shell business plan” and has “nothing to do with our business plans.”
- Internal Shell messaging guidance—which was developed to “insulate Shell” from lawsuits about “greenwashing” and “misleading investors” on climate change—calls on employees to emphasize that net-zero emissions is “a collective ambition for the world” rather than a “Shell goal or target.” The guidance urges Shell employees, “Please do not give the impression that Shell is willing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to levels that do not make business sense.”
- Big Oil relies on accounting gimmicks, tricky language, and delay tactics to claim the mantle of climate leadership while continuing to be a primary cause of an ongoing climate catastrophe.
- Internal documents show that in 2019, Exxon scrubbed a public statement about an executive’s speech at a private conference to remove a reference to a plan to increase production in the Permian basin by “1000% within 5 years.”
- After Shell posted on Twitter asking others what they would do to reduce emissions, a communications executive wrote privately that he agreed this could be seen as “gaslighting” the public, explaining: “We are, after all, in a tweet like this implying others need to sacrifice without focusing on ourselves.”
Click here to read the Committee memo.
Click here to read selected investigation documents.
Click here to watch the Committee hearing tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. ET.
---
---
much on greenwash ccs and algae
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2022.09.14%20FINAL%20COR%20Supplemental%20Memo.pdf
p 13
[CCS] underperformed or failed.48Exxon recently announced ten potential new facilities around the
world. 49
Exxon spent $86 million in 2010 to expand its carbon capture facility in Wyoming and
plans to spend another $400 million on a further expansion of the facility. 50 Exxon claimed $240
million in carbon capture tax credits over the last decade of the facility’s use. However, experts
estimate that Exxon may only be capturing less than 1% of its total emissions through carbon
capture technology.51
In a May 2018 email exchange, Exxon CEO Darren Woods and Exxon’s Vice President
of Corporate Strategic Planning, Mr. Wojnar, discussed “emissions avoided” through carbon
capture technology. Mr. Wojnar wrote to Mr. Woods that he was “[c]oming back on your
question on GHG emissions avoided,” including through carbon capture technology, and
provided “options for how to respond to a query” on this topic. Mr. Wojnar suggested that Mr.
Woods say that “over the last decade, ExxonMobil has taken action to reduce GHG emissions by
approximately 75 million tons.”52 In reality, nearly all the carbon dioxide Exxon has captured
through CCS has been sold to other fossil fuel companies to inject into their depleted oil fields to
help extract even more oil. As a result, the carbon captured by Exxon through CCS technology
likely has not meaningfully reduced total carbon emissions.53
Exxon has heavily advertised its efforts to develop carbon capture technology. Three
carbon capture television ads from 2016 through 2019 aired 9,058 times nationally, generated 4.1
billion impressions, and are estimated to have cost Exxon over $68 million to run. 54 Draft ...
Chevron’s and Exxon’s Attempt to Use OGCI to Greenwash Big Oil
The Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) is a voluntary organization co-led by
members from the oil and gas industry and environmental groups. Its stated intent is “to deliver
tangible, transparent and integrated contributions to climate change solutions.”76
Documents obtained by the Committee show that in 2019, employees from Exxon and
Chevron edited a messaging document from OGCI ahead of the annual Conference of Parties to
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The document was meant to
“serve as the basis for communication & press release as well as talking points for the CEO
event.” The documents suggest that despite several attempts to weaken the language, OGCI
pushed back, saying that Exxon’s and Chevron’s CEOs already committed to the stronger
language. The edits from Exxon and Chevron attempted to weaken OGCI’s ambition on targets
for achieving net-zero emissions, methane emissions, carbon intensity, carbon capture
implementation, among other things. 77
In particular, a memorandum from Peter Trelenberg, Exxon’s Manager of Environmental
Policy & Planning, to CEO Darren Woods highlighted “critical edits” proposed by Exxon and
noted that “Chevron has expressed that they are generally aligned with these edits.” Among
other issues, the memo to Exxon’s CEO addresses the following:
• Avoiding a commitment to advocate for the Paris Agreement. Regarding OGCI’s
“Statement on responding to the climate challenge,” Mr. Trelenberg wrote:
“Need to remove reference to Paris Agreement as support for the Paris
Agreement goals and member company advocacy are separate concepts and not
directly related. Creating a tie between our advocacy/engagements and the Paris
Agreement could create a potential commitment to advocate on the Paris
Agreement goals.”
• Avoiding a commitment to advocate for climate policies that Exxon and Chevron
claim to support. The memo raised a concern that one OGCI annual report
“includes explicit commitment for OGCI companies to align their advocacy with
their climate related positions. We have raised concerns with this linkage
through previous comments.”
• Refusing to commit to enhanced climate-related governance.The memo
continued, “Need to remove language that potentially commits members to
enhanced climate-related governance, strategy, risk management, and
performance metrics and targets.” ESG?!
• Concern about a commitment to reduce downstream emissions. Discussing an
OGCI “September Announcement package,” the memo states: “The carbon
...
---
---
caller energy eg
carbon dioxide removal is the process of removing carbon pollution from the atmosphere via natural and technological methods, and will be an important tool for restoring a safe climate — once we’ve pretty much stopped sending more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
:{:{}:
}:
Carbon capture and storage/sequestration (CCS), on the other hand, refers to scrubbing the carbon dioxide out of the emissions from fossil fuel plants, and is essentially a pipe dream that the fossil fuel industry invokes to pretend its continued existence is compatible with a stable climate, which it’s not. CCS is also a major part of the policy platforms of conservatives who want you to think they care about climate change (but not enough to actually reduce fossil fuel extraction or pollution).
Late last year, the Government Accountability Office published a report showing the $1.1 billion spent on CCS by the Department of Energy since 2009 was largely wasted. That money was for 11 projects, of which only three were built (the other eight were cancelled). And because managers at the DOE waived some cost controls, the government spent an additional and unnecessary $300 million on four of the unbuilt CCS projects. The single CCS project at a coal-fired plant that actually got built was the US’s only real CCS facility — and it shut down in May of 2020.
“Federal investments for CCS are greenwashing – they are simply fossil fuel subsidies by another name,” Grassroots Global Justice Alliance policy director Adrien Salazar told The Verge.
Nevertheless, CCS still enjoys ample support from conservatives who want to pretend like they care about climate change, and Democratic coal barons like Joe Manchin (D-ALEC).
In response to the GAO report detailing how the conservative-loved program is rife with government waste, the Carbon Capture Coalition tried to do some damage control, and apparently sent out a press release the conservative Washington Examiner ran with, about how they’re trying to “correct the record” and insist the technology is still worthwhile.
Over at the Daily Caller, though, Energy and Environment reporter Thomas Catenacci apparently hasn’t gotten the full memo on CCS being the climate policy conservatives pretend to support, and instead just covered last month’s GAO report just this week, with a frame of government waste for trying to reduce carbon emissions!
Now to be fair, the government should be investing tons of money in viable climate solutions as well as risky ones the private sector won’t yet risk investment in (Hi, Solyndra, we haven’t forgotten you!) because government support for emerging technologies can yield massive benefits. But when things like CCS fail, as they have over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, that should be a sign to stop burning coal mine dump trucks full of money chasing them.
Those billions of dollars, instead of getting wasted on unbuilt CCS plants meant to keep coal hobbling along, could have paid for something like 50,000 home solar systems, which tend to be much more costly than utility-scale renewables. And on that, for example, Biden’s DOE in 2021 announced just $128 million in funding to cut the cost of solar by 60%. Think of what ten times that much money could accomplish!
For another comparison, in 2020, a billion dollar deal got BP a 50% stake in two offshore wind projects big enough to power two million homes — a much better deal than getting a bunch of failed projects that (had they not failed) would have just continued to allow coal plants to pollute anyway.
A billion dollars is also how much MidAmerican Energy planned to spend in Iowa to replace old wind turbines and add a thousand new ones, adding up with the rest of their fleet to generate enough clean energy to power 95% of MidAmerican Energy customers’ needs.
Unfortunately, the bipartisan infrastructure package passed last year shells out another $3.5 billion on even more carbon capture demonstration projects.
CCS has had plenty of time for demonstration projects, and all they’ve demonstrated is how to waste billions of dollars on useless technology.
But yay, bipartisanship, right?
---
---
huge ccs shut down last yr? (kemper cty, Southern co?]
ENERGY
Exxon plans to build nation’s largest carbon capture project in Baytown
Shelby Webb Staff writer
March 1, 2022
Exxon Mobil will build one of the world’s largest carbon capture and storage projects, as well as a new hydrogen production plant, at its refining and petrochemical site in Baytown.
The company made the announcement Tuesday, though key details are still unkown, such as a timeline and cost. Officials also are still deciding where they will inject the carbon dioxide into geologic formations beneath the Texas coast, said Ed Graham, vice president of ventures for Exxon Mobil Low Carbon Solutions.
The goal is for the project to transport and store up to 10 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year, which would make it the largest project of its type in the United States, according to business data company Statista.
BIG MONEY: Exxon posts $23B profit last year, highest since 2014
The hydrogen plant, meanwhile, would produce up to 1 billion cubic feet a day of hydrogen by using natural gas as a feed stock. That hydrogen would be used in Exxon’s olefins plant in Baytown, reducing on-site emissions by up to 30 percent.
“It will be a game-changer for Houston to help kickstart both the hydrogen and (carbon capture and storage) industries,” Graham said. “This will help us more broadly decarbonize our businesses across Houston.”
Houston companies and local officials have pitched Houston as the ideal proving ground for the hydrogen industry. The city is already the largest hydrogen producer in the country, producing one-third of the annual U.S. output. There are 48 hydrogen production plants across the region and more than 900 miles of pipelines designed specifically for hydrogen — about one-third of all hydrogen pipelines globally.
In late January, Texas Sen. John Cornyn pitched a bipartisan Hydrogen Infrastructure Initiative. If passed, it would create grant programs to encourage construction of hydrogen infrastructure at ports and heavy-industry facilities and provide financing to support hydrogen transport infrastructure.
The Exxon Mobil plant would use natural gas [METHANE?!] to produce what’s known as blue hydrogen. Graham said the carbon dioxide produced from turning the natural gas into hydrogen would be captured and sequestered as part of the new carbon capture project.
Exxon Mobil’s plans to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions from its operations by 2050 relies heavily on carbon capture and sequestration. Last spring, executives said they were looking to build a $100 billion carbon capture project along the Ship Channel [HURRICANES] . Also last year, Exxon’s low-carbon solutions venture said it would invest $3 billion in a portfolio of 20 carbon capture projects.
Graham said Exxon already injects more carbon dioxide into the earth than any other company. He said the projects are part of “world-scale efforts.”
“Houston and Baytown are important to us as a company, and it's important that we help lead the way and to help Houston and its efforts to be a leader in the energy transition,” Graham said. “And we think these (carbon capture) technologies and hydrogen are really critical to make that happen.”
shelby.webb@chron.com
---
axios
hOUSTON — CEOs of multinational oil-and-gas giants Exxon and TotalEnergies gave remarks at a major industry gathering here that underscore Big Oil's differing diversification strategies across the Atlantic.
What they're saying: Exxon CEO Darren Woods touted Exxon's emphasis on carbon capture, hydrogen and biofuels.
- "We are a company that has a real long history in frankly, manipulating hydrocarbon molecules to make products that the world needs," Woods said at the CERAWeek by S&P Global conference.
- "Andif you think about the technology that we have been using and will use in this space, it's is continuing to manage hydrocarbon molecules and leveraging the skills that we've developed over the years," he said.
The other side: Patrick Pouyanné cited TotalEnergies' moves into areas including renewable power, electricity services, batteries and EV charging that TotalEnergies and other European majors like BP and Shell are increasingly pursuing.
- "The transition is a matter of two types of new products: new molecules, on which obviously an oil-and-gas company, some DNA, it's biofuels, biogas, hydrogen, and the strategic move we have decided that we will become an electricity and renewable producer and supplier," he said.
Of note: Traditional fossil fuels remain the dominant business lines of all the majors.=
---
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610211008101
Abstract
Production of natural gas from theLaBarge field in southwest Wyoming began in 1986.This gas contains high concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), and from the very beginning, ExxonMobil has successfully implemented several technologies and approaches to effectively manage the substantial volumes of CO2 associated with its production. Many of the technologies and approaches used for managing CO2 at LaBarge are examples of technologies and approaches being proposed for use in carbon capture and storage (CCS) by other industries.
The Shute Creek Treating Facility (SCTF) processes the gas produced from the LaBarge field. The SCTF handles the lowest hydrocarbon content natural gas commercially produced in the world. The gas composition entering Shute Creek is 65% CO2, 21% methane, 7% nitrogen, 5% hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and 0.6% helium. The SCTF separates CO2, methane, and helium for sale and removes hydrogen sulfide for disposal.
Most of the CO2 captured at Shute Creek is used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). EOR is consistently cited as one of the most viable early opportunities for large scale implementation of CCS. ExxonMobil’s LaBarge operation is the largest deployment of this approach to CCS in the world today. Currently ExxonMobil provides 4 to 5 million tonnes per year of CO2 for EOR. Ongoing facility expansion will increase this capacity to over 7 million tonnes per year in 2010.
A concentrated acid gas stream of about 60% hydrogen sulfide and 40% CO2 is injected into a carefully selected section of the same reservoir from which it was produced, safely disposing of the hydrogen sulfide along with approximately 400,000 tonnes of CO2 per year. Other technologies and approaches that have reduced CO2 emissions include the ExxonMobil patented low BTU fuel co-generation system that substantially reduces CO2 emissions when compared to emissions from purchased power.
Cumulatively, through the application of these technologies at LaBarge, ExxonMobil will have the capacity to capture and manage over 75% of the CO2 produced from the LaBarge field.
Additionally, new technologies are being developed that may provide additional reductions in emissions, either at this site or at others with similarly challenged production streams. Construction of a commercial demonstration facility for ExxonMobil’s Controlled Freeze ZoneTM (CFZ) gas treatment technology has been completed at Shute Creek and operations are about to begin. The CFZTM technology allows the single step separation of CO2 and other contaminants from a natural gas stream without the use of solvents or absorbents. Its successful commercial demonstration would enable the development of increasingly sour gas resources around the world by substantially reducing gas treatment and geo-sequestration costs from these sources
---
---
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09032022/carbon-capture-and-storage-fossil-fuels-climate-change/
no lnx many grfx
Fossil Fuels
Carbon Capture Takes Center Stage, But Is Its Promise an Illusion?
The oil industry, Biden administration and even some environmentalists see sucking carbon dioxide from smokestacks and the atmosphere as critical to solving the climate crisis. But the IPCC says relying on it presents a “major risk.”
By Nicholas Kusnetz
March 9, 2022
[Related
Fossil Fuel Companies Stand to Make Billions From Tax Break in Democrats’ Build Back Better Bill]
Biggest “Direct Air Capture” Plant Starts Pulling in Carbon, But Involves a Fraction of the Gas in the Atmosphere
Fossil Fuel Companies Are Quietly Scoring Big Money for Their Preferred Climate Solution: Carbon Capture and Storage
]
Equipment installed as part of the Petra Nova Carbon Capture Project stands at the NRG Energy Inc. WA Parish generating station in Thompsons, Texas, on Thursday, Feb. 16, 2017. The project has since ceased operations indefinitely. ]
Pipe Dreams: First of a continuing series on whether capturing carbon is a climate solution or a dangerous distraction.
With his climate agenda stalled in Congress, President Joe Biden has managed to win billions in federal spending for one pillar of his platform that is gaining increased attention globally: carbon capture.
In a major win for oil, coal, utilities and other industries, the federal government is poised to make its largest investment ever—more than $12 billion from last year’s infrastructure bill—in technologies that capture carbon dioxide from smokestack emissions or straight from the air.
ExxonMobil, Southern Company and other oil fossil fuel giants have promoted carbon capture and storage as a tool for cutting emissions for more than a decade, with little to show for it.
Still, carbon capture is gaining traction with politicians in both parties, policy experts, scientists and even some environmentalists who say that the threat of climate change is so dire that it requires every possible solution.
Supporters including Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat and one of the Senate’s most outspoken champions of climate action, point to modeling by academics and others that show the technologies could play a critical role in curbing emissions, particularly from hard-to-tackle sectors like heavy industry and shipping.
Their arguments have won unprecedented spending on carbon capture over the past year, with governments in Europe, Canada and Australia also committing billions in subsidies. Proponents say all this funding could prove transformative and, within a decade, could help cut hundreds of millions of metric tons of pollution annually.
But many progressive climate groups like Greenpeace and 350.org say oil companies are promoting the technologies as a distraction to avoid phasing out their products. At best, they argue, carbon capture and removal will play a marginal role in limiting emissions. At worst, they warn, subsidies for the technologies will prolong demand for fossil fuels, squandering money that would be better spent on replacing coal, oil and gas altogether.
While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2018 that carbon capture and removal technologies may be critical to limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), it also said that carbon removal in particular remains unproven and that relying on it posed “a major risk” to meeting climate targets. Carbon capture prevents emissions, by pulling them out of smokestacks, while carbon removal refers to processes that suck the gas from the atmosphere.
In 2020, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totalled nearly 6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, including other pollutants like methane. Even optimistic projections say that carbon capture and removal technologies will be able to cut only about 250 million metric tons annually by 2035, or about4 percent of 2020 emissions.
“The Biden administration is really doubling down on the fossil economy and the false solutions that are entrenching that fossil economy in the name of addressing the climate crisis,” saidCarroll Muffett, chief executive of the Center for International Environmental Law, a nonprofit advocacy group. “I think that is a really significant failure of vision and failure of leadership.”
The infrastructure bill, for example, will direct billions of dollars to producing electricity and hydrogen from fossil fuels paired with carbon capture and storage. Yet Muffett and others point out that wind and solar are already cheaper sources of electricity than fossil fuels, even without the added expense of operating carbon capture equipment.
The White House declined to comment for this article, but a spokesperson for its Council on Environmental Quality pointed to a report it issued last year, which said that in order to reach net-zero emissions by mid-century, “the United States will likely have to capture, transport, and permanently sequester significant quantities of carbon dioxide.”
Big Money for Carbon Capture and Removal
Last month, the council attempted to square carbon capture with another pillar of Biden’s climate plan, environmental justice, issuing guidance that recommended including community input during the planning and approval of all carbon capture projects.
Environmental justice advocates have been among the harshest critics of carbon capture, saying it won’t address the many other forms of toxic pollution from producing and burning fossil fuels. The White House’s own Environmental Justice Advisory Council included carbon capture and carbon removal in a list of the kinds of projects that would not benefit communities at all.
With the first batches of federal spending set to start flowing this year, these competing arguments are about to see their biggest tests yet.
A Flood of Investment
The last year has seen a wave of new carbon capture, storage and removal projects announced, with at least 55 in the United States alone since the beginning of 2021, according to the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group. Some are highly speculative, such as a proposal by Exxon to build a $100 billion carbon capture “hub” in the Houston area.Exxon announced the first proposed project for the hub on Wednesday, a plan to attach carbon capture to its refinery complex in Baytown, Texas, to produce low-emissions hydrogen.
:{:{}:
}:
The company has said the hub can proceed only with substantial government funding and tax incentives worth $100 per ton of carbon dioxide removed, twice the current rate.
In North Dakota, an energy company bought a coal power plant slated for closure and said it would revive it by attaching carbon capture technology.
Other projects are further along, particularly in sectors including ethanol and fertilizer production, where the costs of capturing carbon dioxide are lower because of the emissions’ high concentrations of the greenhouse gas.
In the Midwest, companies want to build a network of carbon dioxide pipelines to connect corn ethanol plants and distribute the gas for injection underground. These proposals are being driven by a federal tax credit that was increased in 2018 and gives companies up to $50 per metric ton for capturing and storing carbon dioxide.
The Biden administration has promised its support. Its roadmap for reaching net-zero emissions by mid-century, released last year, included a significant role for carbon capture and storage. It has also said it wants to further increase the value of the carbon capture tax credit. The Build Back Better legislation would have raised the value to up to $85 per ton for carbon dioxide removed from smokestacks, and up to $180 per ton when the gas is removed directly from the air.
:{:{}:
}:
While the bill failed, the expanded tax credit enjoys support from lawmakers in both parties, includingSen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.), the powerful chairman of the Energy and Natural Resource Committee.
The promise of a bigger payout has helped spur a wave of entrepreneurial activity and corporate investment in carbon removal. Microsoft, Stripe, United Airlines and other companies have announced millions of dollars in investments in carbon removal, and some have even bought carbon offsets from the first commercial “direct air capture” plant, which began operating last year in Iceland. Technology giants—and billionaire executives including Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos—have been pouring money into start-ups. Elon Musk’s foundation is funding a $100 million competition for efforts to pull carbon from the atmosphere, including direct air capture, nature-based and other approaches.
Occidental Petroleum has said it plans to begin construction this year on a direct air capture plant in Texas that will initially pull up to 500,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide from the air. The company could then pump the gas into depleted oil reservoirs to increase their production, a process that can also store most of the carbon dioxide underground.
The International Energy Agency last year said that the most “cost-effective and economically productive pathway” to reaching net-zero emissions by mid-century required not only the rapid phase-out of coal power plants and an end to the sale of gas and diesel cars by 2035, but also substantial amounts of carbon capture and storage, with a more than 40-fold increase in the technology’s capacity by 2030, to nearly 1.7 billion metric tons.
That tremendous leap would still represent less than 5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions in 2021. Direct air capture capacity, it said, would need to reach 90 million metric tons by 2030 from essentially zero today.
“We’re at a point when dealing with climate that we just have to look at all the options now,” said Shannon Heyck-Williams, senior director of climate and energy policy for the National Wildlife Federation. Her organization is part of the Carbon Capture Coalition, which includes fossil fuel producers, utilities and unions and has pressed for more federal funding for the technologies.
John Thompson is the technology and markets director at the Clean Air Task Force, which is also a member of the Carbon Capture Coalition, and he said that while the United States may be closing most of its coal plants, China is building more. Deploying the technology domestically, he said, could help China adopt it on a larger scale.
“If our retrofits in the United States shave five, 10 years off the time China takes to decarbonize, that’s globally significant,” he said. “We can’t bet the planet that those coal plants are going to close.”
Direct air capture is particularly alluring because it could draw carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Such “negative emissions” will be necessary to meet climate targets, scientists say. Restoring natural habitats also pulls carbon from the air, is far cheaper, and has many other benefits. But many scientists say the capacity of that method is limited, and planting new forests will face competing demands for land from agriculture. Storing carbon dioxide underground could also be more durable than storing it in trees, which are vulnerable to fires and droughts.
Supporters of pursuing direct air capture say that, by pulling carbon dioxide from the air, the technology could achieve something that even the most aggressive measures to avoid emissions could not.
“Carbon removal offers a way for those of us who have caused and benefited the most from climate change to clean up our mess, and that’s one of the things that to me makes it particularly attractive,” said David Morrow, director of research at the Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy at American University, though he added that direct air capture is only one of several approaches to removing carbon dioxide from the air. “Emissions abatement can’t do that. We can get to zero and the mess is still there.”
Expensive and Energy-Intensive
If these arguments sound convincing—who wouldn’t want to lock away emissions for good?—many environmental advocates say they gloss over an important detail. Despite decades of research and development, and billions of dollars spent, carbon capture and removal remain extremely expensive and energy-intensive, even as the costs of alternatives have plummeted.
Building new renewable energy projects is cheaper than building new fossil fuel power plants in much of the world, and in some cases is even cheaper than continuing to operate coal or natural gas plants. Adding hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to build and operate a carbon capture system only worsens the math.
A December report by the Government Accountability Office said the Department of Energy gave nearly $684 million to six coal plants for carbon capture projects from 2010 through 2017, but that only one of those projects was built and it ceased operations in 2020, citing high costs.
In the industrial sector, critics say, other technologies such as electrification or the use of hydrogen made with renewable electricity may be more cost effective than carbon capture equipment.
Direct air capture is even more expensive. The only commercial operation captures 4,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year, an insignificant number when it comes to reducing greenhouse gases. It was built in Iceland partly because of access to abundant geothermal, emissions-free energy to run the project.
The technology generally requires large amounts of power, heat or both, so scaling it would consume vast quantities of energy and money. Skeptics argue that it would be cheaper and better to simply feed this carbon-free energy into the grid to electrify the economy.
Large-scale carbon capture would require pipeline networks that would rival the scale of existing oil pipelines. They would come with their own set of safety risks associated with leaks and ruptures—in large volumes, carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant.
Then there is all the other pollution associated with producing, transporting and burning fossil fuels, much of which would remain unaddressed by carbon capture equipment.
“That entire fossil fuel life-cycle pollution remains in place,” said Basav Sen, climate justice project director at the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank. “You are in a sense losing an opportunity to deal with multiple environmental problems in the way you tackle greenhouse gas emissions.”
Just a Down Payment?
Carbon capture has failed to catch on commercially—there are only a few dozen plants operating globally, most of them in the United States. But both supporters and critics say that might be changing, thanks largely to government support.
The funding in the infrastructure bill was the culmination of years of lobbying by industry and unions. One carbon capture bill, which was later included in the infrastructure law,drew lobbying from dozens of corporations and industry groups in the coal, oil and power sectors, as well as from labor unions, according to OpenSecrets, which tracks money in politics. In Exxon’s lobbying disclosures, carbon capture and storage was the only issue tied to the infrastructure law it reported discussing. In fact, Exxon reported lobbying on carbon capture more than on any other issue last year, according to an Inside Climate News analysis.
The result was more than $12 billion dollars that will fund large scale demonstration projects to capture and store carbon dioxide, as well as funding for the pipelines and infrastructure that would tie it all together. The Department of Energy, which will oversee most of the money, is required to fund at least one demonstration project each for coal and natural gas power plants and an industrial application. The bill directed an additional $8 billion to “clean hydrogen” projects. Some of that funding, too, is earmarked for using fossil fuels paired with carbon capture to produce hydrogen. Today, hydrogen is commonly produced from natural gas, but the process emits carbon dioxide.
Thompson, of the Clean Air Task Force, said the funding is important to help demonstrate the technologies at commercial scale in different applications. But he said carbon capture will need far more government support in the form of tax incentives, or a price on carbon emissions, to play a larger role.
“You could see enormous growth, something like 200 million tons of CO2 captured every year in the 2030s” if the tax incentives were increased to the levels included in the Build Back Better Act, he said.
Put another way, $12 billion may be only a down payment.
Nicholas Kusnetz
Reporter, New York City
Nicholas Kusnetz is a reporter for Inside Climate News. Before joining ICN, he worked at the Center for Public Integrity and ProPublica. His work has won numerous awards, including from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Society of American Business Editors and Writers, and has appeared in more than a dozen publications, including The Washington Post, Businessweek, The Nation, Fast Company and The New York Times. You can reach Nicholas at nicholas.kusnetz@insideclimatenews.org and securely at nicholas.kusnetz@protonmail.com.
---
interesting ~ to myth of gubmint scientist paid
https://yyy.theguardian.com/science/2022/mar/21/universities-must-reject-fossil-fuel-cash-for-climate-research-say-academics
no lnx many
Universities must reject fossil fuel cash for climate research, say academics
Open letter from 500 academics likens fossil-energy funding of climate solutions to tobacco industry disinformation
Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, speaks to media before a Climate Emergency Summit in Melbourne
Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, said fossil-fuel funding ‘has been used to compromise leading academic institutions’. Photo]
Fiona Harvey environment correspondent
Mon 21 Mar 2022
Universities must stop accepting funding from fossil fuel companies to conduct climate research, even if the research is aimed at developing green and low-carbon technology, an influential group of distinguished academics has said.
Rowan Williams, the former archbishop of Canterbury, the Nasa data scientist Peter Kalmus, and prominent US climate scientist Michael Mann are among close to 500 academics from the US and the UK who have written an open letter addressed to all university leaders in the two countries, calling on them to reject all funding from fossil fuel companies.
Accepting money from fossil fuel companies represented “an inherent conflict of interest” and could “taint” essential research and “compromise” academic freedom, they wrote. For the companies, it was a chance to “greenwash” their reputations and skew the findings of research in a way favourable to them.
The letter draws a comparison to the tobacco industry and its disinformation campaigns, noting that numerous public heath and research institutions reject tobacco funding for these reasons and calling on fossil fuel cash to be treated similarly.
“Universities and the research they produce are vital to delivering a rapid, just transition away from fossil fuels. However, such efforts are undermined by fossil fuel industry funding. Academics should not be forced to choose between researching climate solutions and inadvertently aiding corporate greenwashing,” the signatories wrote.
Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, told the Guardian: “This sort of funding has been used to compromise leading academic institutions.It’s a two-for for polluters: they purchase the imprimatur of these institutions and their presumed authority and objectivity, while funding research that often translates into advocacy for false solutions and ‘kick the can down the road’ prescriptions likemassive carbon capture, which is unproven at scale, and geoengineering, which is downright dangerous. That is entirely the wrong path forward.”
Genevieve Guenther, founder and director of the End Climate Silence campaign, and an affiliate at the New School university in New York, said: “Funding research enables oil and gas companies to ground their promotional statements in enough truth to give substance to the green shadows in which they hide their most polluting and deadly activities. We must remove fossil-energy interests from our institutions so that our children can have a chance at a liveable future.”
Universities have been under pressure from their students and some academics for several years to divest their investments, such as pension funds and endowments, away from fossil fuels, and many have done so. However, this is the first major call from senior academics for them to go further and cut all research ties with fossil fuel companies.
There is no clear estimate for how much money universities accept from fossil fuel companies, as most do not publish their sources. An investigation for the Observer last year found UK universities alone had taken at least £89m from oil companies in the previous four years.
Some scientists disagree with the letter. James Hansen, former chief scientist at Nasa and one of the first scientists to warn governments of the impending climate crisis, told the Guardian: “It’s the wrong focus, causing young people to waste their energy on unproductive activities, while they actually have the potential to lead a solution.”
Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said it was reasonable for universities to accept funding from fossil fuel companies if those businesses showed genuine commitment to transforming themselves. “Fossil fuel companies that are genuinely committed to the transition [to a low-carbon economy], including net zero emissions, can and should receive help from university researchers, particularly with the development of technologies for carbon capture and storage, renewables and emissions reductions. However, universities should be careful about accepting funding directly or indirectly from oil, gas and coal companies that are not genuinely committed to the clean energy transition and which are attempting to greenwash their reputations.”
A spokesperson for Imperial College London, which the Observer found last year had accepted £54m from oil companies since 2017, said: “Decarbonisation is our top priority when working with energy companies. This goal requires a radical shift in industrial systems, technologies and business models in the energy sector. We are using our influence and expertise to accelerate this transition and actively engage with energy companies to push them to meet the Paris Agreement targets. We will monitor progress and only continue to work with companies who demonstrate commitment and credible action to achieving these targets.”
Some academics argue that fossil fuel funding is needed to develop the technologies necessary for a low-carbon economy, and that if western universities reject such funding it will be accepted in other countries around the world.
Guenther disagreed: “It’s a myth that fossil-energy companies are spending large sums to aid the green transition. According to the IEA’s 2021 World Energy Investment report, a mere 1% of fossil-energy companies’ capital expenditure is devoted to research, development or deployment of technologies that either abate or do not produce greenhouse gas emissions.”
At the end of this month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will publish the third part of its comprehensive review of climate science, examining the potential ways of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This will include technology such as renewable energy and nuclear power, and novel ideas such as sucking carbon dioxide out of the air.
The report will throw the spotlight on the potential technological solutions to the climate crisis, which will require tens or hundreds of billions of pounds in funding to be brought to market and deployed widely around the world.
Jason Hickel, an economic anthropologist who is signatory to the letter, said the funding should come from governments. “The US and UK are among the richest countries on Earth, and their governments enjoy total monetary sovereignty. They have the capacity to finance the necessary research many times over, at the touch of a button. Most of the major innovations and public projects that have changed history over the past century have relied on public funding for research,” said Hickel, who is professor of environmental science at the Autonomous University of Barcelona and a fellow of the LSE.
The letter did not specify whether companies with interests in fossil fuels amid a broader portfolio should be included in the ban. Ilana Cohen, a Harvard student who led the organisation of the letter, said it was directed at the top 200 fossil fuel companies.
Cohen said the organisers had confined the call to US and UK universities for now as these are where many fossil fuel companies are concentrating their funding, but that it could be widened in future to a global effort.
---
no lnx pix
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/12/09/world/exxon-mobil-climate-change-tech/
The Japan Times
Why Exxon Mobil is holding back on technology that could slow climate change
BY KEVIN CROWLEY AND AKSHAT RATHI
BLOOMBERG
Dec 9, 2020
Elk and pronghorn antelope migrate each fall through southern Wyoming, where the sparsely vegetated landscape slowly gives way to the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. Interrupting this serene vista is a dense web of steel pipes, tanks and pumps owned by Exxon Mobil Corp.
The industrial complex provides a clue about what lies beneath: an ancient sea of coral and marine life, petrified by time and pressure into a thick layer of rock. Known as the Madison formation, this geologic structure is kilometers wide and reaches more than 10 Empire State Buildings below the ground. It contains natural gas, helium, and carbon dioxide. Two of these gases are consistently valuable to Exxon’s business. The third is not — and that’s a problem for everyone on the planet.
For three decades, the American oil titan has been pumping up these gases, separating them, selling some, and dumping the remainder into the atmosphere. Exxon produces more carbon dioxide than it can sell or use, so the company lets a lot float away — as much as 300,000 cars’ worth of emissions a year.
Exxon was set to embark on a project to do the reverse: pump the unwanted gas back down where it came from. The plan was technically and strategically straightforward. By capturing carbon dioxide, transporting it to an injection site, and burying it, Exxon would have locked away enough of the planet-warming gas to almost eliminate the climate harm caused by the facility. The captured carbon may not have made much money for Exxon on its own, but a recent change to the U.S. tax code would help overcome that hurdle with lucrative credits for safe storage. The company put the total cost of construction at about $260 million, 1% of its capital budget for 2020.
LaBarge, as the gas operation is known, would have become one of the world’s foremost examples of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), a technology most climate-modeling experts view as essential to slowing down global warming and, eventually, reversing it. The project would also help Exxon clean up its image as one of the foremost corporate climate polluters.
Construction was set to begin over the summer. But in April, Exxon told Wyoming officials that the project would be delayed indefinitely, because of fallout from COVID-19. The company’s share price at one point during the pandemic dropped to an 18-year low, as oil prices cratered, throwing many plans across the industry for this year and beyond into turmoil.
Some traditional oil and gas projects are continuing. In September, for example, Exxon announced plans to expand crude operations off the coast of Guyana at a cost of $9 billion — 35 times the cost of implementing CCS at LaBarge. Guyana is just one of the growth projects that would have fueled a sharp increase in the company’s carbon emissions, according to internal projections from before the pandemic reviewed by Bloomberg Green. If LaBarge had gone ahead, on the other hand, it would have been one of the largest carbon-capture projects operated solely by Exxon, making up almost 20% of the company’s new emission-reduction efforts out to 2025, according to the documents.
LaBarge "remains in our capital plans, and the permitting process and necessary design work continue,” says Exxon spokesman Casey Norton. Spending cuts "have impacted projects across all business lines.” Exxon has said estimates in the planning documents are preliminary and do not include additional measures to cut emissions.
The decision to pause things in Wyoming won’t stop development of CCS, but it will slow down worldwide deployment. There are now 26 large-scale carbon-capture projects, according to the Global CCS Institute. Exxon also has a stake in a large facility in Australia as well as others in Qatar and the Netherlands, and Norton says the company has "expanded our interest in carbon capture significantly” over the past two years.
Taken together, all the world’s existing capture facilities can zero out more than 38 million metric tons of CO2 a year. That number, about 0.1% of all global emissions, would have to rise 100 to 200 times by 2050 to meet climate goals, according to the International Energy Agency.
Most of these carbon-capture projects are run by fossil fuel companies. Big Oil likes to celebrate the technology: By putting carbon back in the ground, the industry can provide consumers with the benefits of fossil fuel without the full climate impact.
"If you’re going to ask somebody to actually do carbon capture, oil companies have all the experience,” says David Use, a former Chevron Corp. engineer who purchased some of the gases from LaBarge for use at the Rangely oil field in Colorado. "They’ve got the pocketbooks and the credentials to do the big projects.”
And therein lies the paradox. As Exxon and its peers look into a carbon-constrained future, CCS seems to offer a golden opportunity. Oil companies could develop a tool considered crucial by no less than the scientists with the United Nations-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But in the absence of strong government support or regulation, the oil industry might not have the will to invest enough. Even if Exxon one day completes its plans in Wyoming, the current delay shows that urgent climate projects can sometimes become expendable in a crunch.
Catch and release
Carbon capture wasn’t created to tackle climate change. Oil and gas deposits typically contain large amounts of carbon dioxide, which must be separated out before the fuel can be sold. In its early days, that’s all the technology was used for — catch and release.
As a result, carbon capture didn’t follow the typical clean-energy pathway. Many technologies move from laboratory to mass scale with help from taxpayer money. Research grants support the early phases, followed by subsidies to encourage deployment. A rule of thumb holds that when a new technology doubles its presence in the wider market, the process becomes more efficient and costs fall. Solar panels, wind turbines, and lithium-ion batteries have all followed this trajectory over the past two decades.
:{:{}:
}:
Carbon capture took a more market-oriented route, even though its earnings potential was always slight. The first real commercial application, in the 1930s, came in equipment maintenance. Then the technology became useful in submarines, to collect the breath exhaled by crewmen and keep it from building up to toxic levels.
By the 1970s, petroleum geologists figured out that injecting CO2 into oil reservoirs did something miraculous: produce more oil. Compressed CO2 acts like soap, pulling crude from the tiny sedimentary pores of large underground reservoirs. The industry calls the process enhanced oil recovery, or EOR. "Even today the overwhelming majority of capture and storage projects are associated with EOR,” says Julio Friedmann, senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.
Fossil fuels were first discovered in the LaBarge field in 1920, but it was only in the 1980s that Exxon first began selling gases from the site. Once separated from carbon dioxide, natural gas is used for heating and cooking in homes and sold to power plants to generate electricity. Helium is prized for research and medical applications, such as operating MRI machines; it’s also useful in producing fiber-optic cables and semiconductors.
But there was more CO2 coming out of LaBarge than Exxon could sell. After oil prices plunged below $100 per barrel in 2014, enhanced oil recovery lost its allure. The shale boom also sent prices for natural gas into free fall. That left Exxon relying on helium, a relatively rare commodity, to shore up profits.
Meanwhile, the demands on Exxon to reduce its emissions got louder, and the company began to think about a long-term solution for its excess carbon dioxide. LaBarge also produced small amounts of toxic hydrogen sulfide, which the company learned to bury back in the field along with some carbon dioxide. What about injecting all of it back into the Earth on a much larger scale? The Madison formation is capped by a thick layer of impermeable rock, so the carbon dioxide wouldn’t be able to escape. The move could deliver a public relations boost. Most important, LaBarge offered an almost painless way to lower emissions without hurting any moneymaking assets.
The big sticking point, according to people familiar with carbon capture at Exxon, is that the LaBarge expansion would have to be profitable enough for the company to take it seriously. A tool that would benefit the planet needed to first show it could drive revenue for Exxon. Would capturing carbon be worth it?
Exciting prospect
The prospect of building one of the world’s biggest carbon-capture facilities generated excitement within Exxon.
LaBarge had the attention of senior management, and there was even a proposal for Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods himself to reveal the project to Wall Street by the end of 2019, according to people familiar with Exxon’s carbon-capture projects. But the big announcement never came. During an investor presentation on March 5, Woods made only a general statement. "ExxonMobil has cumulatively captured more carbon dioxide than any other company, accounting for more than 40% of all carbon dioxide captured in the world,” he said. "We agree with independent experts. Carbon capture is absolutely necessary if society is going to achieve its aspiration of eliminating carbon dioxide emissions.”
He didn’t mention LaBarge. A few weeks later, faced with global cutbacks due to the pandemic, Exxon notified state regulators in Wyoming that the project would be delayed indefinitely.
The decision to put the project on hold came as a blow to those inside the company who wanted carbon capture to succeed. People familiar with Exxon’s CCS projects described it as a significant setback, because LaBarge was in an advanced state, used proven technology and would have made money. It gave these people the sense that carbon capture wasn’t a serious focus and that the technology’s climate potential had been treated like an unwanted addendum at a corporation devoted to oil and gas.
An Exxon gas station. Exxon produces more carbon dioxide than it can sell or use, so the company lets a lot float away — as much as 300,000 cars’ worth of emissions a year. | REUTERS
]
Alex Doukas of the environmental groupOil Change International sees three motivations shaping the approach fossil fuel companies take to carbon capture. First, they want to use CO2 to increase their overall production. Second, they want to prove they can produce "lower-carbon oil” and thus look more responsible. Third, they want CCS projects to help justify ongoing operations and persuade regulators not to intervene. In the industry this is called the social license to operate, and it’s something Exxon clearly considers.
The company keeps careful internal accounts of its current and future emissions, including what it terms "self-help measures” to lower the total, according to planning documents reviewed by Bloomberg Green. Its self-help projects, which include reducing methane leaks and improving energy efficiency, would have amounted to a reduction of 11 million metric tons per year — less than 10% of Exxon’s current direct emissions. If the climate impact of customers burning Exxon’s fuels is considered, the company’s emissions-lowering measures appear far smaller.
"Exxon is employing a CCS strategy that is focused on using it as a public relations tool and as a narrative tool to allow them to continue polluting,” Doukas says. Exxon says, to the contrary, says that it takes carbon capture seriously.
Public messaging
The company spends large sums of money on all advertising — more than $800 million from 2005 through 2015, according to one estimate from Robert Brulle,a professor of environment and society at Brown University. One of Exxon’s more recent Twitter ads was a 36-second video discussing the potential use of fuel cells in carbon capture. The clip ends by celebrating cooperation between an Italian researcher and Tim Barckholtz, a senior scientific adviser at Exxon.
It’s not the only ad to feature Barckholtz’s interest in fuel cells — another ran on Facebook as recently as 2018. Exxon says a pilot project is advancing, but large-scale use of the technology remains years away. Unlike the tried and tested methods proposed at LaBarge.
The sluggish pace of carbon capture’s development is a sign that it’s not yet a strategic fit for the energy industry, especially with oil and gas prices at historic lows. "Most companies see CCS as a dead-weight economic cost,” says Columbia’s Friedmann. "Market adoption will require either large incentives or serious regulations limiting emissions.”
That’s what did the trick in Norway. Starting in 1991, the government adopted a steep carbon tax. The state-owned oil company, now called Equinor ASA, bore the brunt and found it cheaper to bury carbon dioxide than pay taxes on emissions. Norwegian CCS projects built in the 1990s are continuing to pump down, mitigating some of the climate damage from the country’s large oil and gas sector.
It may seem ironic that U.S. President Donald Trump, famous for boosting coal and doubting climate change, supported something similar. A tax program meant to encourage carbon capture had been on the books since 2008, but the credits amounted to less than a fifth of the typical cost of the process. In 2017 a bipartisan group of lawmakers more than doubled the value of the tax credit, known as 45Q, to as much as $50 per metric ton. Trump signed it into law.
:{:{}:
}:
That likely helped persuade Exxon to be more ambitious about LaBarge. The planning documents show that a first phase of the project was estimated to capture a million metric tons of CO2 annually; a second phase would have doubled that. All that carbon could have been buried in exchange for tax credits, guaranteeing revenue even if there were no other buyers.
Use, the former Chevron employee who bought CO2 from LaBarge, blames the delay on a lack of desire among industry leaders to grab climate opportunities. "There are individuals that truly believe that we need to get on with carbon capture,” Use says of the oil sector. "There’s no leadership that seems to have really taken the baton.”
The pandemic has caught Exxon wrong-footed. The company had begun a $210 billion plan to build a new suite of oil, gas, refining, and chemical operations by 2025. This attempt to upgrade its asset base and maintain the dividend has largely been funded by new debt. Given that spending, Wall Street fell out of love with its stock, which was the largest single component of the S&P 500 as recently as 2012. The carnage of COVID-19, which has wrecked demand for oil, saw Exxon removed from the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Like many oil CEOs, Woods has been forced to reverse course on his plans. He cut Exxon’s capital budget by a third, and spending will remain $10 billion a year below prior forecasts through 2025. The moves were necessary to save the company’s fabled dividend, which remains the third-highest in the S&P 500 at a cost of about $15 billion a year.
Woods also shed staff. Exxon will lose 14,000 employees and contractors by 2022, joining Chevron and European peers Royal Dutch Shell PLC and BP PLC in enacting deep layoffs. Unlike Exxon and Chevron, which have said they will stick to their oil and gas expertise, the European majors have used the current crisis to cut dividends and pivot toward renewables.
Net-zero emissions
Whether or not oil companies invest enough in carbon capture, demand for the technology is set to grow. The European Union, China, Japan, South Korea, and the U.K. are all among the major economies that have set firm dates to reach net-zero emissions. By 2050, carbon-reduction projects around the world — including nature-based solutions such as reforestation — could bring in as much as $1.4 trillion annually, according to Vivid Economics Ltd., a strategy consultancy. At that level, the total revenue from sucking carbon out of the air would match those generated by the oil and gas industry today.
Decisions such as Exxon’s have prompted carbon-capture advocates to focus on the cement and steel industries, which require immense amounts of energy that so far can’t be supplied by cheap, clean alternatives.Some are focusing outside the U.S. A Norwegian project to capture carbon from a cement plant is backed by Equinor, Shell, and Total. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced in November government support for CCS. Exxon and Shell are among companies supporting the Netherlands’ Porthos project to bury CO2 in empty gas fields beneath the North Sea.
There’s also a crop of startups developing a new kind of CCS technology: direct-air capture. Rather than collecting emissions from a power plant or refinery’s chimney, these experimental machines would pull the gas from the air. If direct-air-capture technology is run on renewable energy, it’s capable of delivering "negative emissions.”
Swiss company Climeworks AG already has at least three pilot plants demonstrating that direct-air capture works. Carbon Engineering Ltd., based in Canada, is working with Occidental Petroleum Corp. to build its first large-scale plant. And Exxon is partnering in an effort to deploy direct-air capture with Global Thermostat LLC, a U.S. company founded by a former employee. Exxon says it’s expanded research in the field, but so far the joint project has generated advertising without significant deployment.
No one expects carbon capture to sweep the world overnight, least of all Exxon’s CEO. Back in March, as the pandemic spread, Woods warned investors to be patient. "Transitioning a large, complex, capital-intensive global system — that, by the way, plays an incredibly important role in people’s lives — is going to take time,” he said.
REUTERS
KEYWORDS U.S., OIL, EMISSIONS, CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENT, EXXON, CARBON CAPTURE
---
an 720 RIP
...
Even in states long associated with coal production, the plants are closing. At what was once the largest coal powered generating plant in the world, Paradise Steam Plant in western Kentucky, the last of three huge turbines has made the switch to natural gas. That switch means that Paradise will still produce greenhouse gases, but it will no longer generate millions of tons of coal ash for the surrounding communities, or throw out a plume of both mercury and uranium that reaches a thousand miles to the sea.
The declining cost of renewables also means that what coal companies once viewed as the industry’s savior—exported coal—is also in decline. Coal exports were actually down 29% in the first five months of 2020. Companies have actually dropped several of the efforts to build export facilities as overseas markets evaporate even faster than those in the United States.
The industry crash also means that the efforts to save coal through “next generation” plants has completely crumbled. It’s been almost three years since what was supposed to be the nation’s first “clean coal” plant announced that it would not burn coal at all, ending a $6 billion experiment in failure. And on Tuesday, the only remaining commercial scale clean coal project in the United States was cancelled. As Oilprice.com reports, Petra Nova, which was supposed to capture carbon dioxide from a coal-fired power plant near Houston, has been “mothballed.” There is another project out there—North Dakota’s “Project Tundra”—but it exists only on paper and is unlikely to ever move forward.
As with many industries, coal mining employment has fallen sharply during the pandemic, but even before COVID-19 made the news, mining jobs were already in a steep decline.
==
---
https://theconversation.com/the-earth-needs-multiple-methods-for-removing-co2-from-the-air-to-avert-worst-of-climate-change-121479
nice chart columbia u
---
https://theintercept.com/2019/09/20/carbon-capture-technology-unions-labor/
==
icn 320
website comes amid evidence that the clout of Heartland and other groups that have promoted skepticism about climate change may be waning. An increasing number of Republican politicians have sought to distance themselves from climate denial. Last month, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, a Republican, introduced a package of bills to promote carbon capture and sequestration technology. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), in her final year as chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has been attempting to lead a bipartisan effort to pass energy efficiency and technology investment.
---
619 conf
Department of Energy officials came to talk about research.
They touted a plan to spend as much as $100 million on research and development of a new generation of what they call "near-zero" emission coal-fired power plants, designed to be "flexible, innovative, resilient, small and transformative."
They've dubbed that program "Coal FIRST."
"Carbon-free fossil energy is closer than you think," said Lou Hrkman, an assistant secretary for the department.
These small coal-burning plants could be assembled from modular parts that fit on a flatbed trailer and could be turned on and off quickly, meeting intermittent energy demand, and be equipped with carbon capture, he said.
Traci Rodosta, carbon storage technology manager at the Energy Department's National Energy Technology Laboratory, talked about the government's ongoing research path toward safe, underground storage of utility scale carbon dioxide. A slide in her presentation suggested it would not be ready for broad, commercial-scale adoption for 16 more years.
"Smaller, flexible coal plants? We have those. They're called natural gas plants. That's the problem," said Howard Herzog, a senior research engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an interview before the conference.
Herzog ran an industrial consortium on carbon capture and storage at MIT from 2000 to 2016 and is an expert on the technology.
Carbon capture and storage has so far proven to be too expensive for utilities to be willing to invest in it, at least in the United States, without a federal climate policy that would put a price on carbon, he said.
That all leaves the coal industry in a precarious position.
"Coal depends more on research and development technologies now than any time in the past," said Snavely, the Kentucky regulator.
PUBLISHED UNDER:
COAL REGULATION NATURAL GAS AND FRACKING CLEAN ENERGY BUSINESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
CLIMATE CHANGE NERN - SOUTHEAST
==
==
- Soaking Up Floodwaters
Wetlands line coasts in many parts of the world. They act as natural sponges that soak up floodwaters and absorb force from storm surges, protecting communities further inland.
Working with Lloyds of London, UC Santa Cruz researchers Siddharth Narayana and Michael Beck sought to quantify the value of these functions. Using insurance industry storm surge models, they calculated that during Hurricane Sandy in 2012, wetlands along the U.S. Atlantic coast prevented more than $625 million in direct property damage by reducing storm surge. They also estimated that marshes in Barnegat Bay, New Jersey reduced annual losses from flooding during smaller storms by an average of 16 percent, and up to 70 percent in some locations.
Narayan and Beck see restoring wetlands as an effective way to make coastal communities more resilient against storms and flooding:
"Across the United States, the Caribbean and Southeast Asia, coastal communities face a crucial question: Can they rebuild in ways that make them better prepared for the next storm, while also conserving the natural resources that make these locations so valuable? Our work shows that the answer is yes."
- Carbon-Rich Mud
Wetlands store large quantities of carbon in plant tissue and soils. But as climate expert Williams Moomaw and wetland scientists Gillian Davies and Max Finlayson point out, no global climate change agreement calls for protecting wetlands as a way to slow climate change. And around the globe, wetlands are constantly being drained, diked and paved over.
Coastal wetlands can extend well inland, transitioning from saltwater to brackish and freshwater.
EPA
In contrast, forest protection gets a special section in the Paris agreement, which offers developing countries incentives to protect and expand tropical forests as carbon sinks. Moomaw, Davies and Finlayson believe wetlands deserve equal attention:
"In our view, instead of draining swamps and weakening protections, governments at all levels should take action immediately to conserve and restore wetlands as a climate strategy. Protecting the climate and avoiding climate-associated damage from storms, flooding and drought is a much higher use for wetlands than altering them for short-term economic gains."
3. 'Blue Carbon' Banks
Mangrove forests, which grow in salt water in tropical regions, are especially effective at locking up "blue carbon"—so called to distinguish it from "green" carbon storage on land. Louisiana State University scientists Robert Twilley and Andre Rovai estimate that "the wood and soil of mangrove forests along the world's coastlines hold 3 billion metric tons of carbon—more than tropical forests."
Coastal development is an enormous threat to mangroves, whether for vacation homes in Florida or aquaculture farms in Asia. Twilley and Rovai wanted to pinpoint what type of mangroves were the most effective at storing carbon. By comparing conditions in different settings where mangroves flourish, they determined that river deltas and estuaries offer the best conditions for mangrove growth and carbon uptake:
"Overall, mangroves in deltaic coasts such as the Mississippi River delta, the Amazon in Brazil and the Sundarbans in India and Bangladesh can sequester more carbon yearly than any other aquatic or terrestrial ecosystem on the globe. These are the world's blue carbon hot spots."
- Mangroves Versus Marshes
==
https://www.alternet.org/environment/carbon-capture-what-we-dont-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-climate-change
==
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12102018/global-warming-solutions-negative-emissions-carbon-capture-technology-ipcc-climate-change-report
The UN's latest global warming report made it clear that if the world is to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, society urgently needs to move away from fossil fuels completely.
But to keep the planet from warming more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, the report says, we'll also have to figure out how to undo some of the damage that's already been done.
"Given our current knowledge, we can't get to 1.5 degrees without removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it," said Kelly Levin, a senior associate at the World Resources Institute.
With 1.5°C of warming just around the corner, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) considered several solutions for removing CO2 from the air—some as simple as planting more trees, others as complex as using technology to filter CO2 from the air. Their practicality and their risks vary considerably.
...
Some of the most viable options identified by the IPCC are based in the natural world, as opposed to more costly technologies that aren't yet proven on large scales.
Of the options considered, the solution the IPCC found to have both the most potential for reducing CO2 and the lowest costs was what's known as soil carbon sequestration.
How Soil Carbon Sequestration Works
The way soil carbon sequestration works is well understood, explained Deborah Bossio, the lead soil scientist with the Nature Conservancy. When plants grow, photosynthesis absorbs carbon dioxide from the air and converts the carbon to a more stable form under the ground. If farmers use certain practices, such as farming without tilling the soil and leaving the ground covered for longer, more carbon gets stored in the ground.
"You have so many agricultural fields that only have crops during one season, and the rest of the year it's this bare dirt," Bossio said. "We're talking about growing things during those other times to increase the amount of carbon that can be stored."
...
---
NET neg emission tech
==
---
UK Could Become ‘Net Zero by 2050’ Using Negative Emissions
By Daisy Dunne
The UK could cut its emissions to "net-zero" within the next three decades by stepping up investment into technologies that can remove CO2 from the atmosphere, a report finds.
However, such methods, which are known collectively as "negative emissions technologies" (NETs), would only be effective if paired with drastic efforts to cut the UK's current rate of emissions, the findings suggest.
==
---
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/04/3478726/futuregen-gets-epa-approval-for-ccs/
Environmental Protection Agency for the first time on Tuesday issued permits to allow a coal-fired power plant to capture its carbon dioxide emissions and inject them deep underground, a process that many hope could help control climate change if it is ultimately successful.
FutureGen Industrial Alliance Inc. received four identical permits to use the process, called carbon capture and storage (CCS), at its long-planned FutureGen 2.0 coal plant in Meredosia, Illinois. The company’s goal is to capture and inject 1.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions every year for the next 20 years, the yearly equivalent of 232,000 cars, according to EPA.
:{:{:{}:
“The issuance of the permit is a major milestone that will allow FutureGen 2.0 to stay on track to develop the first ever commercial-scale, near-zero emissions coal-fueled power plant with integrated carbon capture and storage,” FutureGen Alliance CEO Ken Humphreys said in a statement.
The permits mean the FutureGen project is one step closer to beginning its long-awaited process of refitting the existing coal-fired power plant in Meredosia, and drilling four, 4,000-foot deep underground wells to inject liquefied carbon dioxide and store it long-term. Drilling those wells could start as soon as October, the EPA said.
The concept of using CCS to achieve a low-emission “clean” coal plant has been talked about for years now, but not without skepticism. On the one hand, U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz has purported that CCS can help control climate change by allowing the country “to use our abundant fossil fuel resources as cleanly as possible.” According to the DOE, CCS is a “next-generation” clean coal technology, an “all-of-the-above approach to develop clean and affordable sources of American energy.”
On the other hand, as ClimateProgress’ Joe Romm has argued, there is no way to know yet whether CCS will be successful as a strategy to mitigate climate change. He warns against looking at the process as a be-all and end-all to fix the climate problem. The technology requires a “staggering” amount of CO2 injection to make a difference as a climate solution, Romm has said, citing a Businessweek report claiming the emissions from just one coal-fired plant would require an underground storage space the size of a major oil field.
“Pretty much every major CCS project relevant to large-scale deployment at coal plants has been scaled back, delayed, or cancelled entirely,” Romm has written, noting that the NextGen project itself has faced numerous setbacks since it was first announced by President George W. Bush more than a decade ago. The original plan from President Bush — the FutureGen 1.0 project — was scrapped because of massive cost increases, according to Midwest Energy News.
Some have raised issues with the safety of the process. A Duke University study found that if injected CO2 were to begin leaking from the underground wells, it could “bubble up into drinking water aquifers near the surface, driving up levels of contaminants in the water tenfold or more in some places.” In addition, a 2009 Stanford University report warned that the process could “trigger small earthquakes that might breach the storage system, allowing the gas back into the atmosphere.”
Romm notes that none of this is to say we shouldn’t try using CCS. It’s just that as of now, he says, there are too many uncertainties regarding how well it would work and how safe it would be to deem it a “major climate solution.”
Still, CCS could become extremely important in the wake of the EPA’s proposed regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing coal plants. If the technology is successful, it could become a way for coal plants to keep operating with strict limits on how much carbon they can emit into the atmosphere.
Until a coal plant in the U.S. is actually CCS-functioning, though, there is no way of knowing if the technology could work. To see all the hurdles FutureGen 2.0 still faces, Bloomberg BNA has a good rundown here.
Tags:
}:}:
---
https://www.alternet.org/bernie-sanders-subpoena-howard-schultz/
no choice
no lnx
Starbucks CEO Schultz refuses to testify on union-busting before Sanders’ committee
.
Julia Conley and Common Dreams February 15, 2023