ExxonMobil caves to climate activists

by Mike Bastasch

Oil giant ExxonMobil has capitulated to activist shareholders and will begin issuing detailed reports on potential risks “climate change policies” pose to its business operations.

“These enhancements will include energy demand sensitivities, implications of two degree Celsius scenarios, and positioning for a lower-carbon future,” Exxon wrote in a federal regulatory filing submitted Monday night.

Exxon has faced increasing pressure over the years to “disclose” the risks its business operations could face because of global warming and future regulatory changes to phase out fossil fuels.

Exxon already issued projections on how global warming and future regulations could affect their business, but activists were unsatisfied. Opponents of the measure, however, say the company was foolish to give in.

“I began telling ExxonMobil management in 2008 that trying to appease climate-activists-dressed-as-investors was a fool’s errand,” Steve Milloy, publisher of the site JunkScience.com and Exxon shareholder, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Milloy said “fake investor” activists aren’t interested in benefiting other investors by maximizing profits, but instead “they want to use Exxon as a means of advancing their left-wing social and political agenda,” he said.

Exxon executives initially opposed shareholder measures, but activists managed to gather enough votes in May to pass a global warming reporting measure. The measure is non-binding but represents a big political win for activists.

The measure asked Exxon potential risks of “technology changes and from climate change policies such as the 2015 accord aiming to keep average global temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius,” Reuters reported in May.

Milloy argued against the measure at the shareholders meeting, but he was unsuccessful in convincing investors to vote down the measure as they had done so many times in the past.

The New York State Common Retirement Fund, the country’s third-largest public pension plan, submitted the measure at Exxon’s annual shareholder meeting earlier this year. The Vanguard Group and BlackRock also supported efforts to disclose climate regulation risks.

“The notion that Exxon could appease the activists by merely issuing some report on climate is a grossly incompetent reading of the threat presented,” Milloy said.

Milloy filed a shareholder measure this week. The measure asks Exxon to compile a report on whether or not Exxon’s voluntary environmental programs “are producing actual and meaningful benefits to shareholders, the public health and the environment, including global climate,” according to a copy Milloy shared with TheDCNF.

Environmentalists have made a concerted effort in recent years to “decarbonize” the world through investor activism.

Part of the effort involves convincing financial institutions to stop investing in fossil fuel projects. California’s public pension fund divested from coal holdings, missing out on a recent boom in coal stocks.

Likewise, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is considering divesting from oil and gas, despite the fund being supported by the country’s vast oil reserves.

Ceres, an environmental group, celebrated Exxon’s decision. Cere’s Andrew Logan said “shareholders have won a major victory,” adding Exxon will have to “seriously reckon with the potential risks of a low-carbon transition.”

“Of course, the company could go about the analysis requested by the shareholder proposal in a way that illuminates the risks for investors, or it could choose to do so in a way that obscures,” Logan told Axios on Tuesday.


Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jeanparisot

The conclusion of the report will be that Exxon shareholders should vote for Trump.

Sheri

They should sell their stock and find a company not run by whiney little sissy men.

joelobryan

What does the above picture say about this blog? Let’s be more direct.

Ragnaar … I dunno. What do YOU think it says about this blog?

It might say something about the commenter who posted it … it wasn’t posted by the website.

I think the picture should be removed. I don’t think the enemy is men who dress differently. Nor is the hero Cary Grant.

Ragnaar … it’s an exaggeration. It expresses an opinion. It’s funny …lighten up.

DonM

A lot of people try to cultivate and maintain a specific image through their dress & and appearance. (I don’t, I’m too lazy).

The guy on the left is maintaining a certain image … letting others know who he is or who he wants to be know as. The guy on the right is also (likely) telling people who he is (or who he wants to be, or who he wants to hang out with).

Judging people by their appearance is not evil … in a lot of cases it is what the “judged” want. If the guy on the right started to dress like Cary Grant he would be shunned by his peers and he would also need to find a new job.

RockyRoad

Let me guess–Ragnaar looks more like the Ragman on the right rather than the clean-cut alpha male on the left.

Alpha males have a plan and follow it heads up; the guy on the right is so self-absorbed with text messaging he probably doesn’t realize he’s stepped into traffic.

michael hart

Ragnaar December 12, 2017 at 3:35 pm
[…] Let’s be more direct.

OK, I’ll try. I suggest “beta-cucks” may be a more modern translation of Sheri’s term, but I’m getting a little behind the times myself so don’t quote me on that.

Rob

If I were holding Exxon I would. Their share price has been losing value. Over 20 dollars in the last two years. If it keeps going that way they’ll become vulnerable for a take over. China would just love to get their hands on it.

Samuel C Cogar

So sayith: michael hart – December 12, 2017 at 9:25 pm

OK, I’ll try. I suggest “beta-cucks” may be a more modern translation of Sheri’s term, but I’m getting a little behind the times myself so don’t quote me on that.

Being an old fert, … I have to say that the term “sissy” or “sissy men” was always employed to describe boys and/or men who were afraid ….. or feared … “to do something” ….. that they were told, requested or challenged to do ……. which is what one would expect from girls and/or older females.

But being called a “sissy” doesn’t describe or explain the nurtured “feministic” thinking/emotional mindset of boys or men, …….. thus the term “girly-men” is the correct one to use.

IMLO, a big percentage of the past 2 or 3 generations of young males have been and still are being ….. nurtured to think like a female.

A “sign of the times” is, …… there is now far, far more female teachers in the Public School classrooms than there are male teachers.

So the problem with ExxonMobil is that they’re too beta-cuck. And it they weren’t, they’d maybe forget about their shareholders and undo whatever the resolution was. And John Bogle has thrown in with the beta-cucks with the weight of his huge and wildly successful Vanguard mutual funds. And I mean, I pick which mutual funds to invest my money with using a beta-cuck, Yes or No test. So this whole global warming thing is some beta-cucks deal with men dressing differently than what real men dress like. Now that these things are clear, it’s just a matter of time before the skeptics prevail.

My sensitivity training recommendation is to watch the Dallas Buyers Club. The hero looks at his business partner and accepts them while fighting the man.

Keitho

Exxon should just fixate on the absolutely worst outcome from the most extreme legislation and report that. That should result in their acquiring only rational investors who will see the absolute insanity of what the activists want to see in the legislation and hence how unlikely it will be.

Hopefully.

Jeanparisot

At 1000 ppm CO2 and +3deg, human life will flourish, so will Exxon’s profits.

They should crowd source this thing, we could have so much fun with it.

Bryan A

They should base their report on the effect of both “Current (Obama Era) Regulations” and how they would effect shareholder value, and potential Trump Era Regulations and how they could improve shareholder value.

M Montgomery

Yes, in this world of niche marketing and niche everything, there are ways to attract investors who line up with the company’s product. The invisible hand would be the best revenge. Activists who always try to accomplish things by force, guilt, shame, and tyranny never fail to ignore that any “solution” they engineer in this way is short term.

The Exxon cable commercials lately have made me ill. Was wondering what the heck was going on.

Joe Crawford

Their responding seems simple to me. Just issue a report that says that “If the environmentalists win we’ll be out of the oil and gas business.”

Sheri

Better yet, stop producing oil right now and see how many freeze back East. Give them the number of an environmentalist to call if they get cold.

Rick C PE

Sheri — Good idea, but I have another suggestion. The oil companies should simply begin a program of rationing fuel distribution based on a reduction of say 2% per year from current levels. This will of course result in shortages, increasing prices, reduced economic growth, etc. But what the heck, it’s to “save the planet”. Since it would require a bit of collusion among the major suppliers, there would be a pretty immediate anti-trust action which I’m sure would result in court orders to end the rationing. So the oil companies would be off the hook and back to business as usual.

rocketscientist

The reports should list the effects on business of “being forced to comply with new environmental regulations” and list these as potential future losses. The share holder may then see the effects of the environmental idiocy.
I wonder what the value of the stock will be if ExxonMobil were to get out of the oil ad gas business.

Bryan A

If Exxon-Mobile got out of the Oil & Gas business, the effect would be to inflate the cost of the commodity sufficiently as to make the recovery of potentially stranded assets (stranded due to recovery costs vs commodity price) more affordable for the remainder of the oil companies (given Exxon’s share of the market.). If the environmentalists truly want to eliminate Oil and Gas, they need to do everything in their power to drive down the price of the commodity making it unprofitable to drill and pump.
Oil that costs $50 per barrel to produce will not get pumped with Oil at $25 per barrel but if you inflate the cost to $70 per barrel, there is more profit in costlier oil reserves.

Johnny Cuyana

Rockets., correct you are: a simplistic but very basic and reasonable question … for reasonable enviros. Oh! Wait! … I did not mean to write that as we are in search of reasonable enviros. [sarc/]

PS: if XOM got out of the business, someone, or, someones, would take their place IMMEDIATELY … where, effectively, after a short period of volatility, the stock would lose NO value.

TonyL

Perhaps ten years ago, some of us were warning that Global Warming was all about politics. The response was usually “Stick To The Science”. These days, it is obvious to one and all that the issue is political.

Now we get to the real heart of the matter. The issue is not just politics, but power and money. This action shows just one venue where the money comes in. Once again, the GW activists have gotten ahead of the rest of us, and we need to catch up or get beaten.

The fact that ExxonMobil just did a cosmically stupid thing is almost beside the point.

MarkW

No doubt the activists will use the fact that Exxon is producing this report as further evidence that they are right in their prognostications.
I can hear it now; even Exxon believes that CO2 is a danger to us all.

John W. Garrett

If I (an ExxonMobil shareholder) wrote what I think about this craven action, the comment would not be suitable for women and children.

The Rockefeller heirs have gone soft in the head thanks to at expensive, educations at so-called “elite” schools (see Middlebury, see McDonogh, see Princeton, see Haverford, see Oldfields, see St. Pauls, see Amherst, see Union) where they have been indoctrinated by modern-day Rasputins such as McKibben.

Some of them then run off to be faux farmers in rural Vermont and professional “world-savers” in order to atone for their pedagogically-instilled guilt. Other members of the tribe practice their guilt-driven charlatanry from perches high above Central Park.

Meh. Exxon Mobil have been climate cowards for quite some time. That is why I have argued for so-called “climate change deniers” TOGETHER WITH the CO2 catastrophists to initiate shareholder lawsuits against Exxon Mobil management, ultimately with a main sub-goal of getting them to reveal “what Exxon knew”. I’m pretty sure that Exxon Mobil, as an organization, knows everything about climate change that I do – and I have spent a lot of time studying this. Oh, and I’m sick of people like Naomi Oreskes making a killing, pretending that’s is 1980, forever…..
This doesn’t appear quite to be what I have argued for, but it is close enough to support. If Exxon Mobil knows that the CO2 catastrophists are correct, then their management is incompetent for not managing their transition to a post-fossil fuels world. OTOH, if the management knows that the CO2 catastrophists are full of it, then they have shown incompetency by not educating the public as to why that is so, and how onerous carbon tax type of schemes would be.
Another logical possibility is that Exxon Mobil management is asleep at the wheel, and has not paid enough attention to the matter to arrive at an informed opinion. Again, this would be managerial incompetency – probably a worse scenario than either of the other two.

At the very least, I hope this action results in Exxon Mobil management showing more of their cards.

One reason I have no sympathy for Exxon Mobil, regardless of which scenario is the accurate one, is that their cowardliness has made it more likely that a little guy like Anthony Watts might get hung out to dry. I have little doubt that they wouldn’t spend a nickel of their great mounds of cash supporting Watts, if ever he was caught in a legal quagmire like Tim Ball or Mark Steyn have been. If they’ve given a nickel to either Ball or Steyn’s legal defense, that would be news to me.

Samuel C Cogar

metamars – December 12, 2017 at 11:00 am

If Exxon Mobil knows that the CO2 catastrophists are correct, then their management is incompetent for not managing their transition to a post-fossil fuels world. OTOH, if the management knows that the CO2 catastrophists are full of it, then they have shown incompetency by not educating the public as to why that is so, and how onerous carbon tax type of schemes would be.

Metamars, …… you are spouting “silliness” and probably due to the very reason that you have never held a job in the PRIVATE sector of being the owner of your own business …. or a foreman, a department manager, a president of large business or an Officer of a major Corporation that is DEPENDENT upon the public’s “purchasing power” for the “success” or ”failure” of the business.

Sorry to say, but you have no idea how to solve a …… “damned if they do and damned if they don’t” problem that the enviro-wackos are responsible for creating out of CO2 anemic air.

Metamars, is there really anyone so miseducated, learning disabled or STUPID enough to believe that a major number of Exxon Mobil stockholders are demanding that Exxon Mobil Corporate Officers post haste and/or immediately ….. divest (“transition to” as you so noted) all corporate assets associated with production and sale of fossil fuel products?

Successful businesses and corporations never got to where they are by listening to the numb-skull ramblings of “barroom” braggarts and incompetent “wannnabees”.

3x2

[…] detailed reports on potential risks “climate change policies” pose to its business operations

Seems perfectly sensible for any company.

@ Samuel C Cogar : Your post doesn’t have much to do with mine. I have pointed to Exxon Mobil’s mismanagement of their response to the CLAIM that anthropogenic global warming, due to fossil fuel burning, is posing a great danger to humanity.

IMNSHO, their management are legally liable for formulating such a policy, just like they’d be legally liable if they didn’t insure their assets against fire, theft, etc.

What form their CAGW ‘insurance’ should take depends on what their honest evaluation of the danger posed by AGW is. Under any of the scenarios that I indicated, I do not see where Exxon Mobil has acted responsibly. E.g., if they seriously have kept an eye on the issue, and concluded that the “holy models” (to borrow from Monckton) are wrong, and run hot, then they should have spent money educating the public that THIS is the reality. Even in 2017, politicians feel free to spout what I consider to be LIES about climate change and global warming.

Instead of addressing my arguments, you’ve given generalities like “damned if they do and damned if they don’t” and an argument from incredulity about the need for a fossil fuel company to transition to something more benign, if they are, in fact, peddling something unsustainably dangerous to most of humanity.

In any event, I don’t really care about how corporate management for Exxon Mobil got socialized, or what their calculus is. Their aloofness from the climate change controversy is putting people like Mark Steyn, Tim Ball, and yes, Anthony Watts, at considerable risk of being financially ruined. Their aloofness is also helping perpetuate the sorry state of science, which offends my sense of appreciation of honest, scientific pursuit. (I didnt’ get a degree in math and physics because I didn’t have an ideal image of science….)

If anybody thinks I should be more sympathetic to well paid corporate types than the likes of Steyn, Ball and Watts, well, boo hoo. I really don’t care.

Samuel C Cogar

metamars – December 14, 2017 at 10:23 am

@ Samuel C Cogar : Your post doesn’t have much to do with mine. I have pointed to Exxon Mobil’s mismanagement of their response to the CLAIM that anthropogenic global warming, due to fossil fuel burning, is posing a great danger to humanity.

Their aloofness is also helping perpetuate the sorry state of science, which offends my sense of appreciation of honest, scientific pursuit. (I didnt’ get a degree in math and physics because I didn’t have an ideal image of science….)

Metamars, my post had everything to do with yours, …… that’s why I authored it. (And I earned my AB Degrees in the Biological and Physical Sciences because I truly love the actual factual things associated with the natural world around me and literally dislike and hate the Politically Correct agitprop-based garbage that public education has been “pushing” for the past 30 years.)

“DUH”, you are apparently misnurtured, miseducated and science delusional if you ACTUALLY believe that ….. “ anthropogenic global warming, due to fossil fuel burning, is posing a great danger to humanity”, ……. which is proof-positive that you are, like millions of other, …. who are a sorry “by-product” of the current “liberal” public education system that is determined to replace teaching with propaganda …… and replace logic and reason with unmoored emotion.

You are what you were nurtured (educated) to be, …..to wit:

There’s more than one swamp eating away at this nation. The ignorant and intolerant meltdown of students is brought to us by a “liberal” education system determined to replace teaching with propaganda and logic and reason with unmoored emotion.

One of the more recent examples comes from last week. College students in New York were thrown out of a student-run coffee shop because their “Make America Great Again” caps violated the “safe space” rules. The offending students were accused of being fascists and given three minutes to leave the premises.

Excerpted from: Tammy Bruce | The Washington Times
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/15/tammy-bruce-drain-education-swamp-college-students-tyrannical-behavior-must-be-stopped.html

Actually, I DON’T believe that “anthropogenic global warming, due to fossil fuel burning, is posing a great danger to humanity”. However, in the real world that I live in, millions of people do believe that, including politicians that are collectively very powerful. These politicians can make laws making it easy to sue the likes of Exxon Mobil for environmental damages, even considered to be “in the pipeline”. Since Exxon will work oil patch leases that run 30 years, e.g., if their management is not incompetent, they much assess (and re-assess, on a regular basis) the threat of regulatory impacts on their business. If their honest assessment is that the politicians are out to lunch, then they should have invested money in public education (and not, say, in just lobbying) so that the public pushes their politicians in a more realistic direction.

It’s be nice if you addressed the arguments I’ve made, other than giving us your opinion about which climate change scenario is most realistic. E.g., even assuming that Exxon Mobil agrees with you and me about anthropogenic climate change, you have nothing to say about how Exxon Mobil is doing addressing the threat to their business from delusional politicians and citizens of democracies who pay their salaries.

It would goofy to expect that politicians will act in a manner consistent with a belief diametrically opposed to their own.

Look, when I was a kid, a local gas station hired an attractive blond, wearing a bikini and high heels, to strut around, doing a promotion. If Exxon Mobil WANTED to educate the public, they could. But they do no such thing, and I’m just fine with suing them to get them to fess up to what they know (which certainly won’t be what the likes of Naomi Oreskes likes to fantasize that they know). Another argument which you failed to address is how forcing Exxon Mobil to show their cards might take pressure off of the likes of Steyn, Ball, and Anthony Watts. One gets the impression that you only care about Exxon Mobil maximizing their profits by keeping their heads down – and let everybody else fend for themselves.

Samuel C Cogar

metamars – December 16, 2017 at 9:32 am

If their honest assessment is that the politicians are out to lunch, then they should have invested money in public education (and not, say, in just lobbying) so that the public pushes their politicians in a more realistic direction.

Metamars, you are either a direct beneficiary of a public school expenditure …… or a delusional miseducated graduate of a public school system ……… because there ain’t no way in ell …. that investing, giving, dumping or pouring “MORE MONEY, MORE MONEY, MORE MONEY” into any of the hundreds of Public School Systems in the US of A is going to have beneficial effect on the education of the student populace.

Educate yourself, starting with this factual commentary, to wit:

America’s public school systems are going bankrupt, as they pour money they don’t have into programs that enrich employees at the expense of students.

Excerpted from: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/17/school-choice-programs-are-needed-to-save-americas-public-schools.html

Samuel C Cogar

metamars – December 16, 2017 at 9:32 am

If Exxon Mobil WANTED to educate the public, they could. But they do no such thing, and I’m just fine with suing them to get them to fess up to what they know (which certainly won’t be what the likes of Naomi Oreskes likes to fantasize that they know).

OH MY GAWD, …….. metamars, ……. so you absolutely positively believe that all the “fossil fuel” companies, ….. such as Peabody Coal, Arch Coal, British Petroleum, Chevron, Occidental, etc., ….. and especially Exxon Mobil, …….. should be sued for all their worth for not telling the public the facts about all the things related to the “causes” of climate change that none of those corporations know anything about any more than you yourself knows.

metamars, ……. testify, ……. tell us why you absolutely positively do not think, believe or want anyone suing the purveyors of the “junk science” of CO2 caused AGW such as the likes of Naomi Oreskes, Michael Mann, etc., etc,, ….. all of whom claim to be “experts” on global warming/climate change.

The young, mostly mentally immature, … lefty liberal miseducated fanatics should “GETTA CLUE” …… and accept the FACT that ….. “the burden of proof is the responsibility of the accuser”, …….. and given the literal fact that the likes of Naomi Oreskes, Michael Mann, etc., are the one’s ACCUSING atmospheric CO2 for being RESPONSIBLE for Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change, ….. then Oreskes et el should be forced to provide actual factual scientific evidence to prove their “claim”.

“should be sued for all their worth for not telling the public the facts about all the things related to the “causes” of climate change that NONE OF THOSE CORPORATION KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ANY MORE THAN YOU YOURSELF KNOWS. ” (emphasis mine)

Do you think before you write? Can you comprehend simple English? Or, are you being deliberately obtuse?

I wrote, “I’m pretty sure that Exxon Mobil, as an organization, knows everything about climate change that I do – and I have spent a lot of time studying this.”

Did you miss this? I think not.

“metamars, ……. testify, ……. tell us why you absolutely positively do not think, believe or want anyone suing the purveyors of the “junk science” of CO2 caused AGW such as the likes of Naomi Oreskes, Michael Mann, etc., etc,, ….. all of whom claim to be “experts” on global warming/climate change.”

Actually, you should FIRST address my arguments, instead of trying to deflect. Your refusal to do so suggests that you’re either not an honest player, or else you’re hopelessly irrational.

But since you ‘ask’, AFAIK, Naomi Oreskes and Michael Mann – two people I think of as deliberate frauds – have no legal responsibility to tell the full truth about climate change. Should that NOT be the case, than I’m just fine with taking them to court. Feel free to take up that cause, but do please first inform us as to why nobody has – to my knowledge – stated this to be the case, prior to your brilliant arrival on the scene.

For reasons that I have ALREADY stated (and which you studiously ignore addressing), Exxon Mobil management has demonstrated obvious incompetency in dealing with the climate change issue. And it’s my belief that that fact makes them legally liable. I personally don’t care about their moral failings, nor do I have any particular desire to punish them (though no problem with doing so). Rather, I want to see them sued so that the public can find out, through a discovery process, WHAT EXXON KNEW. Not what Naomi Oreskes SAYS they knew, circa 1980, and pretends that that describes their state of knowledge for the next 45 years, but rather WHAT EXXON ACTUALLY KNEW, THROUGH THE YEARS.

An activist shareholder lawsuit, which could be participated in by both sincere so-called “climate change deniers” as well as sincere CO2 catastrophists, is the only mechanism that I can think of that could actually ferret out the truth.

In the likely event that Exxon Mobil management knew that the wheels came off the CO2 catastrophism car long ago, an even better outcome of legal action would be that Exxon Mobil subsequently use what for them is chump change to educate the public about the true state of climate science. Just documented disclosure of their true state of knowledge would please me, but prodding them to do the civically responsible thing would be a significant ‘nice-to-have’.

Unless you’re willing to address my points about the incompetency of Exxon Mobil managements, under any and all of the 3 scenarios I delineated; and further, unless you’re willing to make a reasonable comment about the utility of suing XOM management for said incompetence, as a means to force them to disclose what they actually knew, through the years, about the CAGW hypothesis; and further, unless you’re willing to address my point about such an approach likely taking the heat off of the likes of Steyn, Ball, and Watts, it’d be better if you STOPPED WASTING MY TIME! Your avoidance smacks of either intellectual cowardice and/or hopeless irrationality, and I’m in no mood to indulge you further, in either case.

“Metamars, you are either a direct beneficiary of a public school expenditure …… or a delusional miseducated graduate of a public school system ……… because there ain’t no way in ell …. that investing, giving, dumping or pouring “MORE MONEY, MORE MONEY, MORE MONEY” into any of the hundreds of Public School Systems in the US of A is going to have beneficial effect on the education of the student populace.”

You completely misunderstood what I meant by “public education”, though I can appreciate why you did so. I you look up what I’ve written previously about this issue, you will clearly see that I don’t mean the public school system (which not everybody goes through), but rather pamphleting, advertising campaigns, etc. The gas station girl wearing the bikini should inform you – an updated version would have her handing out pamphlets, though political correctness would probably dictate that she be dressed more modestly, nowadays.

Samuel C Cogar

metamars – December 18, 2017 at 4:52 am

I wrote, “I’m pretty sure that Exxon Mobil, as an organization, knows everything about climate change that I do – and I have spent a lot of time studying this.”

Shur nuff, …. Miss metamars, ….. it t’was the Flying Spaghetti Monster that told you that Exxon Mobil knows everything about climate change that you know, ……. RIGHT?

WOWEEEEE, Miss metamars, …… it shur must be nice having the FSM as a close personal friend to be telling you what those big ole mean corporations are plotting against your socialist liberal peers.

Actually, you should FIRST address my arguments, instead of trying to deflect.

Miss metamars, your arguments are FUBAR, and in dire need of being “deflected” in an attempt to prevent anyone from “taking them serious”.

But since you ‘ask’, AFAIK, Naomi Oreskes and Michael Mann – two people I think of as deliberate frauds – have no legal responsibility to tell the full truth about climate change.

Miss metamars, I hafta assume that you also believe the same about all Teachers in the US Public Schools, as well as all the Professors and Instructors in the colleges and universities that are and have been deliberately and fraudulently teaching their students the “junk science” of CAGW …… but like you said, ….. have no legal responsibility to tell their students the full truth about climate change, ……. RIGHT.

Of course you are RIGHT, Miss metamars, because you believe that Exxon Mobil should be responsible for RE-EDUCATING all those students on the “true facts” of climate change AFTER they graduate from the Public School they attended.

Brilliant solution, Miss metamars, an absolutely BRILLIANT solution you have proposed.

Doug MacKenzie

All they really have to say is ” Our business depends totally on the consumer’s demand for oil and gas…ecological and conservation efforts might reduce that demand somewhat, but that is not a strong force in the marketplace at this time and its future effect remains to be seen….” End of report, totally honest assessment….

michael hart

It certainly would be refreshing if they could just step up to the plate and say “We’ll stop producing oil as soon as you customers stop buying it. But in the meantime, we’re happy to just charge people a lot more for it, if you like?”

I don’t see where ExxonMobil “caved” on anything…

Exxon shareholders approve climate impact report in win for activists
Gary McWilliams

DALLAS (Reuters) – Exxon Mobil Corp’s (XOM.N) chief executive said on Wednesday the company would reconsider how it communicates the risks its faces from climate change after shareholders approved a measure calling for increased transparency.

The non-binding proposal passed with 62 percent of ballots cast in a rare defeat for Exxon’s management, which had recommended a vote against the measure. The company argued that it already provides sufficient information on the potential impact of changing technologies and energy demand on its asset portfolio.

The results likely reflected a shift in how big shareholders voted on the measure, as the same proposal last year received only 38.1 percent of shares voted.

Asset manager BlackRock Inc (BLK.N) backed the proposal, according to a source familiar with the matter. BlackRock holds about 6 percent of Exxon shares.

[…]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxonmobil-climate/exxon-shareholders-approve-climate-impact-report-in-win-for-activists-idUSKBN18R0DC

The measure got 62% of the ballots cast by shareholders. ExxonMobil, like most publicly traded companies, is mostly owned by institutional investors, like BlackRock. Wall Street has gone full [CENSORED] on Gorebal Warming.

The measure is non-binding and the CEO said he would “reconsider how it communicates the risks it faces from climate change”… Not sure what the big deal is.

markl

Good assessment.

Bryan A

Unles I interpreted the article incorrectly, I was under the impression that it wasn’t about the risks that Exxon faces from Climate Change but rather the risks they face from Climate Change Regulations.

RWturner

That’s exactly what I took it as too. Since the political pendulum always sways the other way, and usually even further than before, preparing for ecofascism is a smart move.

Clyde Spencer

David,
“…a rare defeat for Exxon’s management…”?

62% of the shareholders voted for this. 53% of XOM is held by institutional investors like BlackRock, Vanguard, etc. So, this wasn’t just a handful of long-haired maggot-infested hippies who bought a few shares so they could vote for this nonsense. Even though the measure was non-binding, taking under consideration the wishes of 62% of the shareholders isn’t “caving.”

RockyRoad

So the “institutional investors” have been brainwashed; it doesn’t matter what they call themselves if the believe a bunch of plastic banana rock and roll promulgated by our globalist UN masters.

I consider it caving without knowing they’ve been caved.

John F. Hultquist

Not sure what the big deal is.

Me either. We do have money in a large general mutual fund — likely with this company and other big energy companies. I do not know how that fund company voted.
Still, as regulations change in the USA and elsewhere these companies have to study the possible impacts, and decide how to respond.
If they also study Global Warming/Cooling/Zip, they have to plan their response to what their conclusions are. Management and the Board of Directors are paid to do this. If they do not do their jobs, they can be removed. That’s what these folks, and others, do: Carl Ichan, Bill Ackman, Nelson Peltz

Here’s the 8-k filing…

Consistent with ExxonMobil’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, the Company’s Board of Directors has reconsidered the proposal requesting a report on impacts of climate change policies (Item 12) that the New York State Common Retirement Fund submitted for the 2017 Annual Shareholders Meeting. In reconsidering the proposal, the Company sought input from a number of parties, such as the proponents and major shareholders. As such, the Board has decided to further enhance the Company’s disclosures consistent with the Item 12 proposal and will seek to issue these disclosures in the near future. These enhancements will include energy demand sensitivities, implications of two degree Celsius scenarios, and positioning for a lower-carbon future.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/34088/000003408817000057/r8k121117.htm

Hugely muddled thinking: “a report on impacts of climate change policies” would contain nothing about “implications of two degree Celsius scenarios“. Also, I suspect that “energy demand sensitivities” are incorrectly aimed at sensitivity to “climate” when they should be aimed at sensitivity to policy. Even “positioning for a lower-carbon future“, which is purely political, seems likely to be misinterpreted given the likelihood that the other two “enhancements” are misinterpreted.

OTOH, Exxon are no fools. They may be able to work this thing towards sanity. I hope so, but frankly I doubt it.

texasjimbrock

The entire thing is based on political risk; environmental change is not involved.

LdB

They aren’t remotely interested in what the climate change effects are it could be -10 to +10 degree for all they care… read the report 🙂

All they care about is that regulations may effect sales and trading and hence the share price which they have to keep the market informed on. If a major war broke out effecting sales they would have to advise on that and It’s no more exciting than that.

It’s just lots of layman ignorance on both sides that thinks it has any significance.

Allen Duffy

“Of course, the company could go about the analysis requested by the shareholder proposal in a way that illuminates the risks for investors, or it could choose to do so in a way that obscures,” Logan told Axios on Tuesday.”

This shows the futility of appeasement: round two of the campaign is already being set-up as a rejection of future assessment reports on the grounds of obscuring the “settled science”. What are the bets that reports will only be acceptable if fully sanctioned (enforced) by WWF, Greenpeace, 350.org, etc etc – with little input from actual investors (or indeed Exxon itself)

Harry Passfield

According to the BBC here (UK) the World Bank is going to stop financing oil & gas exploration from 2019. That should be interesting. I hope by then that Exxon will not only report on how they are contributing to CC (not that it can be proved) but that they will also report on the number of deaths caused by the lack of cheap energy when the World is awash with it.

LdB

Perhaps you don’t know what the world bank is, It would be rare they ever financed oil & gas exploration 🙂

the World Bank Group is a unique global partnership: five institutions working for sustainable solutions that reduce poverty and build shared prosperity in developing countries.

Try reading it’s history
http://www.worldbank.org/en/about/history

Harry Passfield

I was simply reporting a BBC ‘news’ item.

They don’t finance actual oil & gas exploration…

The World Bank will end its financial support for oil and gas exploration within the next two years in response to the growing threat posed by climate change.

In a statement that delighted campaigners opposed to fossil fuels, the Bank used a conference in Paris to announce that it “will no longer finance upstream oil and gas” after 2019.

The Bank ceased lending for coal-fired power stations in 2010 but has been under pressure from lobby groups also to halt the $1bn (£750m) a year it has been lending for oil and gas in developing countries.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/12/uk-banks-join-multinationals-pledge-come-clean-climate-change-risks-mark-carney

They give OPM to Third World dictators for “upstream oil and gas” in developing countries.

LdB

That is good news fewer guns being bought by developing nation dictators.

michael hart

The World Bank? lol.

From their 2017 annual report http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/908481507403754670/Annual-Report-2017-WBG.pdf as part of their scheme to somehow “End Poverty” we have first the virtue signalling:

The World Bank leads by example by measuring, reducing, offsetting, and reporting on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from its facilities, major meetings, and corporate air travel. […]

Followed by the virtuous policy:

The World Bank continues to pursue a 10 percent reduction in facilities-based emissions from a 2010 baseline—an emissions target set in 2012. […]

And finally, the inevitable punchline:

Emissions related to business air travel increased around 5 percent between fiscal 2015 and 2016, and have risen overall since fiscal 2010, primarily because of increased travel to meet client demands

To paraphrase Obi-Wan Kenobi, “A more wretched hive of scum, villainy, and hypocrisy, you will not find.”

LdB

Yes but as a director it protects against an action that they didn’t report on it. I think it is a lot of noise over not very much.

AleaJactaEst

simply dump your shares.

“reports on potential risks …”

As a shareholder, I would like them to be honest and report that any climate risk is somewhere between nothing and too small to obsess about.

Griff
Griff

oops! forget. (edit button needed!)

3x2

Or a ‘think before you post’ button

MarkW

With the nutcases trying to destroy pipelines where ever they can, pipeline insurance is quickly getting to be a tricky business.
As to divesting from fossil fuels, great, that makes them cheaper for me to buy.

RWturner

Only a complete moron would think that our modern society can do without pipeline infrastructure. AXA’s loss of market will gladly be picked up by another insurer, and obviously already has.

LdB

That is about as significant as the stupid statement about the world bank above, it’s a company trying to get a niche market with the econutts.

Dodgy Geezer

….Oil giant ExxonMobil has capitulated to activist shareholders and will begin issuing detailed reports on potential risks “climate change policies” pose to its business operations….

Why is this a ‘capitulation? Climate Change Policies may pose massive threats to its business operations. Climate Change won’t pose any risks – it’s not even happening. But knee-jerk activist-driven policies certainly will.

It’s quite straightforward. The oil companies should point out that mad removal of fossil fuels will result in increased poverty and death for voters, and less tax for central governments….

Harry Passfield

One would hope that Tesla shareholders (all 905 of them from my Googling) would equally like to know of the global effects of lithium mining and disposal. Not to mention the life-cycle CO2 generation of Tesla EVs.

AndyG55

comment image

Steve Zell

Exxon–put a kitten in your tank instead of a tiger.

ResourceGuy

The Climate Red Scare is in full motion now. Those who do not come forward willingly will be blacklisted.

Steve Case

I expect I’m not the only one seeing these plastered all over the internet:
comment image

Jeff L

The state just held a lease sale which included all the state offshore acreage next to area 1002 / ANWR. There were no bids by industry. As I have said before, the geology in ANWR is totally different than the rest of the slope – different source rocks & gas prone/ hotter thermal history. Don’t be surprised if there is minimal interest by industry even if ANWR 1002 is opened for leasing.

http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Documents/Leasing/SaleResults/BeaufortSea/2017W/BS2017W_ResultsMap.pdf

johchi7

All the fossil fuels industries should get together and set aside 6 month’s of protest where they will not produce or refine anything. Their message should be clear of why they are protesting these attacks on them by the environmentalist and the government’s taxation and over-regulations that are harming the population by limiting energy and driving up cost to the consumers.

Without fossil fuels there will be no way to make any of the Green Energy Industry devices or anything at all, that the people have come to want and need or to travel or heat and cool their buildings.

A world without energy would give these environmentalists what they want and the population would protest against them and for the fossil fuels industries to get back to work.

Of course the other side would blame the fossil fuels industries for causing the riots and deaths of anyone they can link to the lack of energy. Which is why this will never happen.

BobM

Vanguard was also behind this BS? I’ll be moving my Mom’s Vanguard account elsewhere. They obviously are idiots, though not likely to pose any danger to her Exxon pension.

Because of Bogle’s vision, Vanguard is probably the best mutual fund company.

Karl

So, because you don’t agree with 62% OWNERS of Exxon-Mobil, it’s a capitulation.

It’s called how publically owned companies do business.

BTW

ExxonMobil is historically low on cash, and it’s operating margin is in the toilet, dropping from 16.45% in 2012, to 3.72% in 2016.

https://www.gurufocus.com/term/operatingmargin/XOM/Operating-Margin-Percentage/Exxon%20Mobil%20Corp

A massive sell-off of investors would drop the valuation of the company — and also further the damage caused by their aggressive share buy-back campaign.

D B H

Yep Karl – a 62% of investor vote is democratic and ‘fair’
The reason and activism behind the pressure exerted upon that decision making is, well, questionable.

As far as Exxon buying back shares, isn’t that what companies often do when they are is a strong position to do so?
That then sees their operating margin as a function of the buy back,so not surprising.

Chris

“The reason and activism behind the pressure exerted upon that decision making is, well, questionable.”

Specifically what makes it questionable? Black Rock, besides owning 6% of Exxon shares, represents $6T in assets under management – the biggest asset management firm in the world.

D B H

To Chris…Questionable because the very fact that Exxon is having to respond to pressure based upon CAGW….and
EVEN if Exxon had done research way back at the beginning of this period in mans understanding of the climate issue, they may have seen that there was no problem.
Yes, there may be Co2 produced due to their ‘business’ of producing fossil flues, but that the impact upon the
climate was not proved, or not an issue at all.
What they didn’t do, was be able to see where the CAGW issue would wind up, decades later….and who could?
So, the pressure exerted for them to now, to report upon their activities, falls into the same trap…that they may well NOT believe there is an issue, even today, despite the benefit of the science that has ensued.
Their ‘crime’ then is simply not standing shoulder to shoulder with those that do believe in CAGW.

Its not an issue of their product causing / not causing an impact upon the climate.
Its that they did research, and formed an opinion.

Karl

Not when their operating margin is tanking

Bryan A

Karl,
Was that 62% of stockholders based on a 100% turnout, or just 62% of those stockholders that cast votes??
If 50% of stockholders cast votes then it is only 31% of stockholders that voted in favor.
If 5 of those stockholders hold 6% each and 31% of shares voted in favor, then it was really only 5 voters who controlled the vote.

More likely, less than 2% of the stockholders voted.

Walt D.

Surely this violates Sarbanes-Oxley? Making false statements in a financial disclosure document?

LdB

Please read the statement
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/34088/000003408814000012/xom10k2013.htm

Climate change and greenhouse gas restrictions. Due to concern over the risk of climate change, a number of countries have adopted, or are considering the adoption of, regulatory frameworks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These include adoption of cap and trade regimes, carbon taxes, restrictive permitting, increased efficiency standards, and incentives or mandates for renewable energy. These requirements could make our products more expensive, lengthen project implementation times, and reduce demand for hydrocarbons, as well as shift hydrocarbon demand toward relatively lower-carbon sources such as natural gas. Current and pending greenhouse gas regulations may also increase our compliance costs, such as for monitoring or sequestering emissions.

What do you find not true about the statement?

RockyRoad

Well, first of all, it’s not a financial statement. You apparently know very little about Sarbanes-Oxley.

LdB

It is perhaps you that doesn’t understand it .. read the header of the link and who it’s too 🙂

LdB

You did make me double check so I had to look it up on the Sox-Online reporting system
http://www.sox-online.com/compliance-approaches/risks-and-controls/

Under section “(A) are responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls;”
Using auditing standard No 5.
https://pcaobus.org//Standards/Auditing/Pages/Auditing_Standard_5.aspx

Matters affecting the industry in which the company operates, such as financial reporting practices, economic conditions, laws and regulations, and technological changes;

I would say that government climate change regulation would fit under ” laws and regulations”

I don’t live or operate under the laws of USA but I am reading what it says and taking it literally.

Driller43

Many years ago, Exxon concluded that climate change from CO2 was a ‘serious risk’ that warranted additional science study and government consideration. Not a foregone conclusion, but a risk – it is scary how many people do not understand the work ‘risk’, instead pursuing only binary yes/no answer. And Exxon told the IPCC of their studies and told the public of these these views. Interesting that some folks think ExxonMobil should not follow the voting result from their shareholders (who own the company). ExxonMobil recommended a ‘no’ vote, not because they thought climate change was a non-issue, but rather the management and board thought the company was already doing enough communication on this. If shareholders want to spend their money for more, management should follow if practical.

D B H

What a way to start my morning, reading this dribble (about Exxon caving in)
But then I looked at their stock price and it seems the general feeling as reflected by the price is….not much has changed.
Still, I am small enough and churlish enough to remain somewhat peeved at the Green activists feeling as though they have won some battle.
I can’t stand to think of all the smarmy smiles and back slapping going on.

I’m SOooo shallow!!!
Sigh!

Anoneumouse

This is all really silly, every one knows that Woman is to blame for global warming.
In the beginning, man was happy to wait for the apple to fall from the the tree, crush it, ferment the resultant juice and then sit by the fire outside the cave entrance and drink it.

But no, woman had to pick it and eat it.

Not happy with having to bash her mans loin cloth on a rock by a stream or with brushing the cave floor with a bunch of twigs on a stick,, she wanted a whole load of labor saving devices. This resulted in her man building a fossil fuel burning power station to drive her washing machine, spin dryer, eye level grill, fan oven, vacuum cleaner, hair dryer, curling tongs and latterly a battery charger.

So what about the car you ask?

Well, she wanted to visit her bloody mother in Inverness.

nc

Good one, but I dare you to post over at Jonova’s site!

RockyRoad

Posting and reading the same comment are two different things.

Exxon cannot be serious. Responding to “potential risks” of climate change policies is pouring money down a rabbit hole chasing the fantasy of day. The absurdity of this whole issue is the premise that climate science is settled.

Physicists now posit that nature cannot be modeled with Newtonian physics but might be modeled with quantum physics. In December 2016, the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) reported results from the CLOUD experiment that are potentially game changing. The implications of the results are that CO2 does not play a significant role in global warming, climate models used by the IPCC to estimate future temperatures are too high, and the models should be redone. The CERN models are driven by quantum physics.

In 1992, United Nations’ bureaucrats distorted the scientific message of climate change to further the redistribution of wealth under the guise of an illusionary threat of runaway global warming. A perverted interpretation of Principle 15 from UN 1992 Rio Declaration led to the one percent solution. The EPA interpreted Principle 15 to mean that, if one can hypothesize a one percent possibility of an environmental threat, measures to respond to the perceived threat were justified. Compelling scientific evidence of a threat of serious damage became a moot point. The adoption of this premise was the beginning of agenda-driven science. Exxon is making a huge mistake to get on the EPA train just before Trump derails it. Where is Tillerson when Exxon needs him?

Bruce Cobb

It truly boggles the mind, the idea that companies need to disclose possible risk to their business in the future, as if they have a crystal ball that allows them to see the future. Anyhow, last I checked it was up to the investor themselves to determine the risk of their investments. How about the “risk” to McDonald’s of more and more people becoming vegetarians? Once you go down that road, there is no end to it. It’s absurd.

I’m going to take a wild guess, here, and say that you don’t work in the insurance industry….

This is a generalization. ExxonMobil’s financial statements needed to go far enough in disclosing future liabilities. Not doing say can be argued to be a failure by management and the auditors.

Unless there has been a Second Coming, no one on the planet can foresee the future liabilities caused by climate change. The chance of liabilities is not more or less than the chance of advantages from the climate of the future. The idea that actuarial science can be applied to the results of climate models is absurd .

LdB

It’s called company law in almost all developed countries Bruce and while it may come as a surprise to you it’s normal. All public companies will has statements on the company exposure and risks mitigation to enviromental disasters and computer hacking etc as well.

willhaas

But the reality is that, according to the paleoclimate record and the work that has been done with models, the climate change we have been experieicnig is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind, even Exxon, has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. So Exxon can either shut down opperations entirely or they can produce to the maximum and what they will do will have no effect on climate.

If you think that the burning of fossil fuels is bad then stop making use of all goods and services that involve fossil fuels. Virtually all food bought at stores these days is at one time moved by truck so stop buying and eating it. Most clothing involves materials that are harvested and transported by equipement that makes use of fossil fuels so stop wearing clothes. Most buildings and other structures have been build with materials that have involved the use of fossil fuels so stay out of all buildings. Manmade surfaces to include asphault, concrete, wood, and even gravel involve the use of fossil fuels so stay off such surfaces. Most water system involve the use of fossil fuels so do not make use of water unless you get the water yourself from a natural body of water. Remember that it is your money that keeps the fossil fuel companies in business. Your own body generates greenhouse gases, CO2, H2O and CH2 that it adds to the atmosphere. If these gasses are bad then stop adding them to the atmosphere.

The largest amount of the so called greenhouse gases being added to the atmosphere is H2O evaporated from exposed damp surfaces. If the so called greenhouse gases are bad for our climate then cover all damp surfaces with a non-biodegradeable water proof material that is not processed or transported by any means that involves the use of fossil fuels.

So if Exxon is really that concerned about greenhouse gases, they should immediately cease all operations and disband the company.

AndyG55

+10 yet again 🙂

LdB

So if Exxon is really that concerned about greenhouse gases, they should immediately cease all operations and disband the company.

1.) You may care to go look up company law in your country .. in most countries if a company director did that you would get jailed. It will come under the section reasons for Dissolving a company.

2.) The statement they are making says nothing about climate change itself and they don’t even say they believe it or not. It simply says that things may be imposed on the market because of world governments acting on climate change and it may effect their trading.

Wharfplank

The sole end game of the exercise is to steer massive amounts of money from the “wrong” hands to the “right” hands. Like Van Jones said, “Take the money from the people creating the problem and give it to the people solving the problem.” And Obama, “Not thousands and millions, but billions and trillions.”

Exxon’s caving is a good first step.

Next, every human urban structure should be the location of cultivated honey bees on its rooftop.

Clearly, we are moving in the right direction. /sarc/

Peta of Newark

Tigers aren’t especially carnivores ya kno

Like lions also and how *they* came to be King of the Jungle – and all that jazz.
Because lions ate the same thing as real (people) Kings and that is how rich people (Kings and their kind) came to get Gout.
From eating a Rich Diet, like the lions. (and tigers)
The only modern-day connection to diet and Gout is from a diet high in offal= livers, kidneys, brains, blood and not least, fat.
and bone marrow. =an Acquired Taste

So lions (and tigers) are like us in sharing the same diet and that why they became our friends.
We are all Lipivores

So where did the notion come from that we are Omnivores, Carnivores or even Herbivores come from?
Probably a drunk who got a fit-of-the-munchies sometime
Ain’t you glad that’s all sorted.

All we need to know is how we persuaded Tigers to go into our Tanks
(Do the adverts still say that?- “Put A Tiger In Your Tank”)

THis is fine, as long as every report comes out along the lines of “No risks whatsoever because your premise is a hoax.”

I just wrote this up for some fellow engineers on ExxonMobil and CO2 capture. Then saw this post on ExxonMobil. It is somewhat related in that money is being spent to change the image of ExxonMobil to being more green.

Several of us were talking this morning about Exxon having a commercial concerning removing CO2. How great the system was going to be. An engineer appears and talks about the wonderful systems that will be coming.

Some background. ExxonMobil has been the whipping dog for environmentalists. They are accused or not letting their stock holders know in the 1980s that their scientists had predicted that there could be global warming in the future. It went to court and while ExxonMobil won, the negative perception was planted. The environmentalists did not let a minor thing like a court settlement deter them in continuing to make accusations against ExxonMobil. So ExxonMobil want to appear to be doing great things to change the negative perception.

The one thing that stands out for all these systems is they are for natural gas plants. Natural gas combustion results in minor CO2 emissions. It is also a very clean gas so nasty stuff like ash, SO2, arsenic etc. are not present. So any CO2 removal systems would have a small minor tiny impact on CO2 emissions. The other little issue is you still have CO2 that is still CO2 so you have not eliminated it, just changed where it is located.

An ExxonMobil commercial shows all these ping pong balls representing CO2 falling out of the sky to demonstrate CO2 being removed. A more accurate picture would be showing a massive indoor stadium and dropping 20 ping pong balls from the ceiling. Not so dramatic.

Technology number 1 – Freezing it out. Yes you heard that right freezing it out. It is called controlled freeze zone. I am sure right out of the box it will prove economical. 

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/technology/carbon-capture-and-storage/controlled-freeze-zone/controlled-freeze-zone-technology

Technology number 2 – Using fuel cells to remove CO2 and safely pipe it underground. This is so good that the fuel cells will generate power that will boost the power plant production.

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/technology/carbon-capture-and-storage/advanced-carbonate-fuel-cell-technology/advanced-carbonate-fuel-cell-technology

Looking greener all the time.

waterside4

THE GORE EFFECT.
Perhaps not strictly on topic, but we are having a global warming gathering in Paris this week.
Yesterday the Forties pipeline was shut down due to a crack being detected not too far from President Trumps golf course in Aberdeenshire.
This pipeline transmits the crude and condensate output from 40 odd North Sea oil platforms., meaning all British sector fields are shut in.
This means that Scotland’s only oil refinery will not get any feedstock.
Meanwhile near Vienna an explosion at a gas handling plant has cut off the supply to Italy and several other East European countries in the midst of a freezing winter, causing Italy to declare a state of emergency.
Sadly there have been some casualties due to the explosion.
This conflab in Paris has had a Papal endorsement (blessing?) from MY Pope, telling them that we must disinvest and desist from all forms of evil fossil fuels.

Is this the Gore effect or is it the Francis effect?

Coeur de Lion

I guess Exxon could employ a writer ( me me!) for half a day to write a report which could say any dam’ thing. Chuck it into the market place and allow the greenies to quarrel over it. As there’s no scientific consensus, no outcome will emerge of any interest.

LdB

Please go and read .. they don’t care one bit what climate change is all they are reporting on is trading conditions that may be imposed on them.

No. Me me. I could write reports over years. ):

Tom13 - the non climate scientist

This statement is a required statement with all publicly traded companies.

A) I agree that XOM could have stated that the science behind AGW is weak (at best) but the government mandates/rgulations can negatively affect XXOM’s business and therefore we are disclosing any items that have the potential to negatively affect the company’s business. That statement would satisfy the required disclosure.
B) XOM could had said that the company’s management has drunk the AGW kool-aid and that potential government regulations will definityly negatively affect the company’s future earnings. That statement would also satisfy the required disclosure.

That being said, either statement will have zero effect on the company’s earning and zero effect on the stock price. The investment market knows the statement is meaningless

LdB

Correct some company directors covering their backsides. ExxonMobil like all public companies will have a natural disaster, computer hacking and any number of other risk to business statements as well.

People could actually bother to read the notification they have to give it’s in the report
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/34088/000003408814000012/xom10k2013.htm

It’s a lot of noise about nothing by Econutts who think it actually means anything.

Thank you to Tom13 and LdB for a little rational thought about this.

Warren Blair

Who runs Australia?
.BlackRock
.Vanguard
.State Street Global
.Fidelity Investments
.BNY Mellon Investment
.J.P. Morgan
Why not Exxon (about the same cap).
The new socialist ruling class, conquering from the inside.
They’re just getting started . . .

Warren Blair

Australia now has the World’s most expensive electricity; more than Germany (excluding tax).

Gregg Eshelman

Another day, another stupid “Global warming is going to make Earth like Venus!” article. https://medium.com/@joshuashawnmichaelhehe/the-venusian-fate-of-humanity-daed12567af7

jim

This is inevitable. The BIS have instructed Central Banks to do this, this gets passed on to commercial banks and insurance companies. Its all about generating investment for the elite with no risk because tax payers pick up the tab.
Its got nothing to do with ‘science’, climate change is a made up thing that is used to whip up support of the masses through PR and the green blob.
The result will be a few getting richer and the rest poorer and starved of energy.
Trump has put a few spokes in the wheel, but he is under attack from all quarters and these people have patience, he will go in 3 or 7 years, they have been planning this for decades.

John of Cloverdale WA

Shame from a company that brought us the “Vail sea level curve”, which changed the subsurface petroleum exploration approach in the mid 70’s.
“542 Million Years of Sea Level Change: Exxon’s Sea Level Reconstruction”
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/node/890

LdB

What is the shame?

John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia

“……..implications of two degree Celsius scenarios, and positioning for a lower-carbon future.”
They were an oil company once and exploring and producing hydroCARBON deposits. It is a SHAME they have stopped looking (sarc).

pat

everything CAGW is non-binding. this BBC radio program makes it clear everyone knows that. ridiculous ending with Malte Meinshausen, Senior Researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany and Honorary Senior Research Fellow at the School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, delighted that all is not lost, because wind power is now the cheapest energy source that humankind has available and solar PV is very cheap also, so greed and self-interest will kick in and save the world from CAGW. he does a couple of chuckles as he says it:

AUDIO: 26mins29secs: 12 Dec: BBC Discovery: Cheating the Atmosphere
All countries are supposed to measure and report their greenhouse gas emissions but BBC environment correspondent, Matt McGrath, reveals there are gaping holes in national inventories. He uncovers serious failings in countries’ accounts of warming gases with many not reporting at all. There are disturbing signs that some banned warming chemicals, which are supposed to have been phased out completely, are once again on the rise. And evidence that worthless carbon credits are still being traded. Meanwhile scientists are growing increasingly frustrated by the refusal of countries to gather and share accurate data in the face of this planetary emergency
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csvpfz

arnoarrak

Exxon made a big mistake because these activists are pseudoscientists – they want to prescribe impossible means to Exxon profits. Stupidity annoys me and if there is abundant stupidity in climate science iit derives from a non-existent 2-degree (or whatever limit you set on n “allowable” maximum temperature. There is no science behind it but there is science we can use to understand the futility of it. We owe the knowledge of this fact to Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi who used a sixty one years long set of radiosonde observations from NOAA to put the atmospheric carbon dioxide effect into its place.These radiosonde records included global temperature measures (in degrees Celsius) as well as atmospheric carbon dioxide values (in ppm), and also other atmospheric data. An examination of this radiosonde record revealed that during these 61 years the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by a little over 20 percent. No surprise there, that has been observed and measured many times. But the second observation was a real surprise: despite tthe incessant propaganda about the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide. the was no global temperature increase. at all. This kills the activist claim that increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warms the air. It is a scientific observation that has to be scientifically analyzed and interpreted. It has been part of the peer-reviewed literature for the last six years but yet it is ignored completely. I have discovered no attempt to even question its validity. Their Modus Operandi seems to be to ignore any parts of published science literature and pretendExxon made a big mistake because these activists are pseudoscientists – they want to prescribe impossible means to Exxon profits. Stupidity annoys me and if there is abundant stupidity in climate science iit derives from a non-existent 2-degree (or whatever limit you set on n “allowable” maximum temperature. There is no science behind it But there is science we can use to understand the futility of it. We owe the knowledge of this fact to Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi who used a sixty one years long set of radiosonde observations from NOAA to put the atmospheric carbon dioxide effect into its place.These radiosonde records included global temperature measures (in degrees Celsius) as well as atmospheric carbon dioxide values (in ppm), and also other atmospheric data. An examination of this radiosonde record revealed that during these 61 years the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by a little over 20 percent. No surprise there, that has been observed and measured many times. But the second obbservation that dealt with temperature was a real surprise. It turned out that despite the incessant propaganda about the greenhouse effect of, carbon dioxide, temperature did not track the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These results were reported in peer-reviewed literature under the title “The stable stationary value of the earth’s global average atmospheric Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas optical thickness.” [See Energy & Environment 21(4):243-262 (2010)] A graphic from p. 246 of this paper was also presented as a poster display at the annual meeting of the EGU in Vienna in April 2011’retend . These results were reported in peer-reviewed literature under the title “The stablew stationary value of the earth’s global average atmospheric Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas optical thickness.” [See Energy & Environment 21(4):243-262 (2010)] A graphic from p. 246 of this paper was presented as a poster display at the annual meeting of AGU in Vienna in April 2011′
This is not the only such scientific malpractice I know of. In 2010 I wrote a paper proving that the observed Arctic warming that was twice as fast as IPCC predictions was not greenhouse warming but was caused by a rearrangement otf the North Atlantic flow pattern that dircted more of the Bulf Strream water flowing north along tje coast intothe Arctic Ocean.Six years later, total ignorance of this in the field. Tye conclusion that must be drawn is simple:Do not believe the climate predictions of “climate” sxientists.

Amber

Oh my what a surprise . What’s next a great big check to cure the planets fever ? If I was a shareholder
the management would be gone . Does Exxon really care is they collect a bit more climate guilt money for green lawyers and the government . Nah . I don’t remember Exxon adding scary global cooling stories to their notes .

I suspect somewhere some lawyer said that it would be cheaper just to issue a meaningless report than to fight it.

Karl

Cloud Peak — a coal company is down over 25% since Dec 2016 — Guess California made a good call

How can we understand Exxon’s position? It seems to go against the economic interests of Exon’s shareholders, to whom Exxon owes a fiduciary duty. They’re in the fossil fuels business, after all.

So this must be a BUSINESS decision. What makes BUSINESS sense for Exxon? (Presumably they’re not doing this to gain the indulgence of superstitious progressives. Exxon won’t enter renewable energy either, because they know it is not feasible.

The only evident rationale is that Exxon has all but conceded the transportation energy market to electric energy. So the only way it can redeem its business model (producing and selling fossil fuels to folks who burn them up) is to greatly increase its market share for natural gas sold to power generators.

But wait–coal is, in the long term, cheaper than gas. So, what to do? Get the Bully State to impose carbon regulations and make coal less competitive. so the Big Boys at Exxon are getting to work, selling the boogeyman of climate change. In other words, more rent-seeking behavior from Big Business.

Climate change is a false premise for regulating or taxing carbon dioxide emissions. Political leaders who advocate unwarranted taxes and regulations on fossil fuels will be seen as fools or knaves. Nature converts CO2 to limestone. Climate change may or may not be occurring, but is NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. Temperature changes cause changes in ambient CO2.

There is no empirical evidence that fossil fuels use affects climate. Likely and well-documented causes include sunspot cycles, earth/sun orbital changes, cosmic ray effects on clouds and tectonic plate activity. The further point here is that earth naturally recycles all carbon dioxide.

Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation and other sources. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to calcite (limestone) and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3 (exothermic). The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. A dynamic equilibrium-seeking mechanism.

99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in earth’s crust. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted.

The Paris Treaty is now estimated to cost up to to $100 trillion — $13,333 per human being. Nearly two-thirds of humanity’s cumulative savings over history. And will not affect climate at all.

A modern coal power plant emits few air effluents except water vapor and carbon dioxide. Coal remains the lowest cost and most reliable source of electric energy, along with natural gas. Coal has always competed effectively with natural gas.

Coal & gas dominate electric energy generation because they are cheap. And coal remains the cheapest energy source. Illinois Basin coal now costs less than 1/3 the equivalent cost of natural gas at their respective sources. Less than $1.00/MMBTU. Coal is more competitive with gas today than it was twenty years ago.

ResourceGuy

When do they tell Exxon to sponsor the cocktail hour at the the next Paris Climate party? and how much the catering bill is?

Amber

I intend to send my personal message to the cowards at EXiton . Stop buying their product until they
stop succumbing to green wash black mail . No wonder the little clique of AG’s targeted them . They knew they wanted to role over and were ready to sprinkle some cash their way . Foolish foolish move and an abandonment of shareholders by wimps .