Conoco Pledges ‘Net-Zero’ Emissions in Break With U.S. Rivals

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Conoco Pledges ‘Net-Zero’ Emissions in Break With U.S. Rivals

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-19/conoco-pledges-net-zero-emissions-in-break-with-u-s-rivals?sref=fyhEsXfZ

 

 

 

https://static.conocophillips.com/files/resources/climate-risk-strategy-slides-10-19-20.pdf?mc_cid=2b2ddc9024&mc_eid=ff5237c333

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,235]

5 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said:

Conoco Pledges ‘Net-Zero’ Emissions in Break With U.S. Rivals

“We’re the first U.S. based oil and gas company to take this step,” Chief Executive Officer Ryan Lance said during a conference call intended to discuss the company’s $9.7 billion deal to buy Concho Resources Inc. 

Yeah in 30 to 35 years the article said. WTF.....And the paragraph before reads "It’s noteworthy that the target doesn’t include emissions by customers burning or processing Conoco’s crude, natural gas or other products, which represent about 80% of fossil fuel pollution. In that crucial regard, the U.S. explorer’s plan is less ambitious than those of Royal Dutch Shell Plc and BP Plc."

 

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

I don't think the climate activists will buy it. Conoco is keeping track of the emissions they directly produce in their activities, but the activists will blame them for the combustion of their product. 

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,235]

3 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

I don't think the climate activists will buy it. Conoco is keeping track of the emissions they directly produce in their activities, but the activists will blame them for the combustion of their product. 

Realistically they probably can get their manufacturing to "Net Zero" once it reaches the hub or refinery. They won't tell you what they expect in the process of getting the oil outta the ground, and after 3rd party purchases....well they have no clue how much emissions NG and gasoline, Kero, Diesel will be consumed that far out..... 

Blowing smoke for a "feel good" i got it first statement. LOL

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

6 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Realistically they probably can get their manufacturing to "Net Zero" once it reaches the hub or refinery. They won't tell you what they expect in the process of getting the oil outta the ground, and after 3rd party purchases....well they have no clue how much emissions NG and gasoline, Kero, Diesel will be consumed that far out..... 

Blowing smoke for a "feel good" i got it first statement. LOL

Its all smoke and screen,

Faux green

As long as it sounds clean...

Hahaha

The Greed New Deal!!!!

 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Big Banks Could Lose Billions In The Global Energy Transition

JP Morgan pledged to help clients align their business with Paris Agreement emission targets. HSBC announced up to a $1 trillion in green energy funding. An investor group worth $20 trillion in assets urged heavy emitters to clean up their act. Another group, worth $5 trillion, said it will set lower-emission targets for its own investment portfolio. These are stories from just the last two weeks and they seem to point in the same direction: banks and other financial institutions are growing sour on oil and gas. Could they go all the way?

The trend is not exactly new. U.S. banks began to grow reluctant about continuing to provide loan financing to oil and gas companies before this year’s price collapse and the pandemic. Well productiveness was turning out lower than forecast and borrowers were sinking deeper into debt. Banks had to protect themselves. But this year, the trend has intensified considerably as the green energy movement got a major push from post-pandemic recovery plans, with their originators arguing the only recovery that made sense was a green recovery. Lenders smelled the new opportunities.

The European Union, for example, has tied the distribution of its pandemic recovery fund of $878 billion (750 billion euro) to the requirement that at least 37 percent of the money is used for green energy projects. But Europe is not the only one. Investments in renewables this year have proved more resilient than those in fossil fuels. There has been a decline, true, but it has been lower than that in the fossil fuel sector. So banks are following the money. It might, however, be premature to follow it all the way out of oil and gas. According to industry insiders from both oil and banking, they are unlikely to do that.

 

 

A widespread divestment from oil and gas would be harmful for the industry but it would also be harmful to the banks’ new emissions targets, the President of the U.S. Petroleum Equipment & Services Association, the national trade association of the oilfield services and equipment industry.

 

 

“Renewable energy technology isn’t fully developed at scale to provide the power the world needs, and even if it were, oil and natural gas are an important part of the renewable energy supply chain,” Leslie Beyer explained, adding that the energy transition that is currently underway was not about replacing one form of energy with another but rather getting all forms of energy, the entire ecosystem of energy to work together to provide the world with cleaner, reliable, and affordable energy.

Indeed, the shift to an entirely renewable energy future will be challenging.

“I wouldn’t describe the shift into renewables as ‘grave’ for the oil and gas industry as a whole. While it’s true that a shift started from fossil fuels into renewable energy decades ago, the cost to power the planet from clean energy alone would be very expensive,” said Andrew Goldstein, president of commodity brokerage Atlas Commodities.

Goldstein did note, however, that despite the challenges, renewable energy is drawing greater attention from Big Oil—and banks—because they see demand for such energy grow in the future.

In a way, Big Oil is moving in tune with banks: As banks move their investments into renewable projects, those who have put themselves into a position to capitalize on those projects will benefit,” Goldstein.

But there is something else about the energy transition that seems to get ignored: it won’t happen in a flash. And if banks are ignoring that, they risk getting burned by their enthusiastic embrace of renewables and shirking of oil and gas.

“A lot of the noise is being generated around the energy transition but it needs to be appreciated that the transition is just that – and it won't happen overnight,” says Paul Stockley, Head of Oil and Gas at UK-based law firm Fieldfisher. “There is a danger that the banks and others are jumping on the bandwagon too readily and that the role of oil and gas is being lost in the frenzy.”

Acknowledging there has been a definite trend of banks and other financial services providers curbing their exposure to the oil and gas industry, Stockley added that a complete exit would be harmful to lenders, as well as borrowers.

“Banks turning away from oil and gas could lose out on business opportunities as a result, including energy transition opportunities if they base lending decisions on a sector rather than technology,” he told

 

 

It is a fact that many at the pro-renewables end of the energy scale tend to overlook but the oil and gas industry is in a good position to help the energy transition.

“A billion people lack access to electricity around the world. Energy demand will rise 25% by 2040. That means scale and infrastructure matter,” PESA’s Leslie Beyer. “We need the technological expertise of the men and women of the oil and gas industry, who have delivered power to the world through the years, to help provide solutions we need for the future. Excluding us would be short-sighted and unwise.”

To be fair, banks are not turning their backs on oil and gas all on their own. They are being guided in that direction by rising ESG investing appetite and investor pressure for lower-emission lending, as well as by new regulations aimed at advancing the Paris Agreement agenda. It bears noting, however, that even the International Energy Agency, a vocal proponent of the green energy transition, expects oil and gas to be around for a long while and supply energy to the growing number of people who need it as the global population continues to rise.

Yet in the unlikely event that banks completely cut off oil and gas companies from their list of clients, the industry will still have alternatives. Commodity traders are one such alternative, according to Oliver Abel Smith, banking partner at Fieldfisher. Another is private debt funds and yet another is sustainability-linked loans. These are not yet something that is available on the market of debt instruments but would be a natural development of current trends.

Over the past year, five of the largest U.S. banks pledged to stop financing Arctic oil and gas drilling. The news was certainly not welcome by the industry but it bears noting that the pledge was specific, focusing on an area of drilling that is not exactly a priority for drillers. Arctic drilling is expensive, the outcome is, as always, uncertain, and a pandemic is definitely not the best time for it.

 

 

It may well be that banks are being more talk than action when it comes to oil and gas. Banks, after all, are, or at least should be, pragmatic institutions rather than ones guided by ideological concerns. As such, they are unlikely to completely turn their backs on oil and gas. Some may well minimize their exposure to the industry, however, in search of greener financial pastures.

 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Just now, ceo_energemsier said:

Big Banks Could Lose Billions In The Global Energy Transition

JP Morgan pledged to help clients align their business with Paris Agreement emission targets. HSBC announced up to a $1 trillion in green energy funding. An investor group worth $20 trillion in assets urged heavy emitters to clean up their act. Another group, worth $5 trillion, said it will set lower-emission targets for its own investment portfolio. These are stories from just the last two weeks and they seem to point in the same direction: banks and other financial institutions are growing sour on oil and gas. Could they go all the way?

The trend is not exactly new. U.S. banks began to grow reluctant about continuing to provide loan financing to oil and gas companies before this year’s price collapse and the pandemic. Well productiveness was turning out lower than forecast and borrowers were sinking deeper into debt. Banks had to protect themselves. But this year, the trend has intensified considerably as the green energy movement got a major push from post-pandemic recovery plans, with their originators arguing the only recovery that made sense was a green recovery. Lenders smelled the new opportunities.

The European Union, for example, has tied the distribution of its pandemic recovery fund of $878 billion (750 billion euro) to the requirement that at least 37 percent of the money is used for green energy projects. But Europe is not the only one. Investments in renewables this year have proved more resilient than those in fossil fuels. There has been a decline, true, but it has been lower than that in the fossil fuel sector. So banks are following the money. It might, however, be premature to follow it all the way out of oil and gas. According to industry insiders from both oil and banking, they are unlikely to do that.

 

 

A widespread divestment from oil and gas would be harmful for the industry but it would also be harmful to the banks’ new emissions targets, the President of the U.S. Petroleum Equipment & Services Association, the national trade association of the oilfield services and equipment industry.

 

 

“Renewable energy technology isn’t fully developed at scale to provide the power the world needs, and even if it were, oil and natural gas are an important part of the renewable energy supply chain,” Leslie Beyer explained, adding that the energy transition that is currently underway was not about replacing one form of energy with another but rather getting all forms of energy, the entire ecosystem of energy to work together to provide the world with cleaner, reliable, and affordable energy.

Indeed, the shift to an entirely renewable energy future will be challenging.

“I wouldn’t describe the shift into renewables as ‘grave’ for the oil and gas industry as a whole. While it’s true that a shift started from fossil fuels into renewable energy decades ago, the cost to power the planet from clean energy alone would be very expensive,” said Andrew Goldstein, president of commodity brokerage Atlas Commodities.

Goldstein did note, however, that despite the challenges, renewable energy is drawing greater attention from Big Oil—and banks—because they see demand for such energy grow in the future.

In a way, Big Oil is moving in tune with banks: As banks move their investments into renewable projects, those who have put themselves into a position to capitalize on those projects will benefit,” Goldstein.

But there is something else about the energy transition that seems to get ignored: it won’t happen in a flash. And if banks are ignoring that, they risk getting burned by their enthusiastic embrace of renewables and shirking of oil and gas.

“A lot of the noise is being generated around the energy transition but it needs to be appreciated that the transition is just that – and it won't happen overnight,” says Paul Stockley, Head of Oil and Gas at UK-based law firm Fieldfisher. “There is a danger that the banks and others are jumping on the bandwagon too readily and that the role of oil and gas is being lost in the frenzy.”

Acknowledging there has been a definite trend of banks and other financial services providers curbing their exposure to the oil and gas industry, Stockley added that a complete exit would be harmful to lenders, as well as borrowers.

“Banks turning away from oil and gas could lose out on business opportunities as a result, including energy transition opportunities if they base lending decisions on a sector rather than technology,” he told

 

 

It is a fact that many at the pro-renewables end of the energy scale tend to overlook but the oil and gas industry is in a good position to help the energy transition.

“A billion people lack access to electricity around the world. Energy demand will rise 25% by 2040. That means scale and infrastructure matter,” PESA’s Leslie Beyer. “We need the technological expertise of the men and women of the oil and gas industry, who have delivered power to the world through the years, to help provide solutions we need for the future. Excluding us would be short-sighted and unwise.”

To be fair, banks are not turning their backs on oil and gas all on their own. They are being guided in that direction by rising ESG investing appetite and investor pressure for lower-emission lending, as well as by new regulations aimed at advancing the Paris Agreement agenda. It bears noting, however, that even the International Energy Agency, a vocal proponent of the green energy transition, expects oil and gas to be around for a long while and supply energy to the growing number of people who need it as the global population continues to rise.

Yet in the unlikely event that banks completely cut off oil and gas companies from their list of clients, the industry will still have alternatives. Commodity traders are one such alternative, according to Oliver Abel Smith, banking partner at Fieldfisher. Another is private debt funds and yet another is sustainability-linked loans. These are not yet something that is available on the market of debt instruments but would be a natural development of current trends.

Over the past year, five of the largest U.S. banks pledged to stop financing Arctic oil and gas drilling. The news was certainly not welcome by the industry but it bears noting that the pledge was specific, focusing on an area of drilling that is not exactly a priority for drillers. Arctic drilling is expensive, the outcome is, as always, uncertain, and a pandemic is definitely not the best time for it.

 

 

It may well be that banks are being more talk than action when it comes to oil and gas. Banks, after all, are, or at least should be, pragmatic institutions rather than ones guided by ideological concerns. As such, they are unlikely to completely turn their backs on oil and gas. Some may well minimize their exposure to the industry, however, in search of greener financial pastures.

 

 

 

It is not that they "could" lose billions, they are going to lose multiples of billions!!!!

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,235]

17 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

It is not that they "could" lose billions, they are going to lose multiples of billions!!!!

Last week and week before when banks started to freeze oil money the hand-writing was on the wall. EF em, don't invest in Big Banks.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Just now, Old-Ruffneck said:

Last week and week before when banks started to freeze oil money the hand-writing was on the wall. EF em, don't invest in Big Banks.

I have had my share of crap from these banks, even blocking funds and transactions and international payments on crude oil cargoes and physical trade of crude oil and LNG, sick of them and their BS.

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,235]

1 minute ago, ceo_energemsier said:

I have had my share of crap from these banks, even blocking funds and transactions and international payments on crude oil cargoes and physical trade of crude oil and LNG, sick of them and their BS.

IMHO when banks won't let you invest your money as you see fit, find a broker who will. Good luck tho, brave new world out there.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

4 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

IMHO when banks won't let you invest your money as you see fit, find a broker who will. Good luck tho, brave new world out there.

In a few years, these same banks will have eggs all over their faces and their share holders will demand answers on these "green initiatives" and the banks will be begging oil gas companies to come back.

Again remember BP=Beyond Petroleum and then BP= Back to Petroleum after their "green fiasco"

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

This is all part of the Big Freeze Out that I talked about on this site months ago. High Tech is leading this charge and it's Machiavellian. Drive the price of oil companies down by removing the big institutional investors (who now have no choice but to "invest" in blue sky tech companies with minimal assets), followed by banks being bullied into not loaning to those same companies (while happily holding their deposits) which increases the death spiral. Lather rinse repeat. 

Again, where can all those trillions go? Why, they're going to Alphabet, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter and Tesla. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

A great video interview with a Union Leader for the Boilermakers.  He lays it out like he and his members see it when it comes to green vs carbon.

 

Edited October 21, 2020 by Dan Warnick

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 10/21/2020 at 9:24 AM, ceo_energemsier said:

Big Banks Could Lose Billions In The Global Energy Transition

JP Morgan pledged to help clients align their business with Paris Agreement emission targets. HSBC announced up to a $1 trillion in green energy funding. An investor group worth $20 trillion in assets urged heavy emitters to clean up their act. Another group, worth $5 trillion, said it will set lower-emission targets for its own investment portfolio. These are stories from just the last two weeks and they seem to point in the same direction: banks and other financial institutions are growing sour on oil and gas. Could they go all the way?

The trend is not exactly new. U.S. banks began to grow reluctant about continuing to provide loan financing to oil and gas companies before this year’s price collapse and the pandemic. Well productiveness was turning out lower than forecast and borrowers were sinking deeper into debt. Banks had to protect themselves. But this year, the trend has intensified considerably as the green energy movement got a major push from post-pandemic recovery plans, with their originators arguing the only recovery that made sense was a green recovery. Lenders smelled the new opportunities.

The European Union, for example, has tied the distribution of its pandemic recovery fund of $878 billion (750 billion euro) to the requirement that at least 37 percent of the money is used for green energy projects. But Europe is not the only one. Investments in renewables this year have proved more resilient than those in fossil fuels. There has been a decline, true, but it has been lower than that in the fossil fuel sector. So banks are following the money. It might, however, be premature to follow it all the way out of oil and gas. According to industry insiders from both oil and banking, they are unlikely to do that.

 

 

A widespread divestment from oil and gas would be harmful for the industry but it would also be harmful to the banks’ new emissions targets, the President of the U.S. Petroleum Equipment & Services Association, the national trade association of the oilfield services and equipment industry.

 

 

“Renewable energy technology isn’t fully developed at scale to provide the power the world needs, and even if it were, oil and natural gas are an important part of the renewable energy supply chain,” Leslie Beyer explained, adding that the energy transition that is currently underway was not about replacing one form of energy with another but rather getting all forms of energy, the entire ecosystem of energy to work together to provide the world with cleaner, reliable, and affordable energy.

Indeed, the shift to an entirely renewable energy future will be challenging.

“I wouldn’t describe the shift into renewables as ‘grave’ for the oil and gas industry as a whole. While it’s true that a shift started from fossil fuels into renewable energy decades ago, the cost to power the planet from clean energy alone would be very expensive,” said Andrew Goldstein, president of commodity brokerage Atlas Commodities.

Goldstein did note, however, that despite the challenges, renewable energy is drawing greater attention from Big Oil—and banks—because they see demand for such energy grow in the future.

In a way, Big Oil is moving in tune with banks: As banks move their investments into renewable projects, those who have put themselves into a position to capitalize on those projects will benefit,” Goldstein.

But there is something else about the energy transition that seems to get ignored: it won’t happen in a flash. And if banks are ignoring that, they risk getting burned by their enthusiastic embrace of renewables and shirking of oil and gas.

“A lot of the noise is being generated around the energy transition but it needs to be appreciated that the transition is just that – and it won't happen overnight,” says Paul Stockley, Head of Oil and Gas at UK-based law firm Fieldfisher. “There is a danger that the banks and others are jumping on the bandwagon too readily and that the role of oil and gas is being lost in the frenzy.”

Acknowledging there has been a definite trend of banks and other financial services providers curbing their exposure to the oil and gas industry, Stockley added that a complete exit would be harmful to lenders, as well as borrowers.

“Banks turning away from oil and gas could lose out on business opportunities as a result, including energy transition opportunities if they base lending decisions on a sector rather than technology,” he told

 

 

It is a fact that many at the pro-renewables end of the energy scale tend to overlook but the oil and gas industry is in a good position to help the energy transition.

“A billion people lack access to electricity around the world. Energy demand will rise 25% by 2040. That means scale and infrastructure matter,” PESA’s Leslie Beyer. “We need the technological expertise of the men and women of the oil and gas industry, who have delivered power to the world through the years, to help provide solutions we need for the future. Excluding us would be short-sighted and unwise.”

To be fair, banks are not turning their backs on oil and gas all on their own. They are being guided in that direction by rising ESG investing appetite and investor pressure for lower-emission lending, as well as by new regulations aimed at advancing the Paris Agreement agenda. It bears noting, however, that even the International Energy Agency, a vocal proponent of the green energy transition, expects oil and gas to be around for a long while and supply energy to the growing number of people who need it as the global population continues to rise.

Yet in the unlikely event that banks completely cut off oil and gas companies from their list of clients, the industry will still have alternatives. Commodity traders are one such alternative, according to Oliver Abel Smith, banking partner at Fieldfisher. Another is private debt funds and yet another is sustainability-linked loans. These are not yet something that is available on the market of debt instruments but would be a natural development of current trends.

Over the past year, five of the largest U.S. banks pledged to stop financing Arctic oil and gas drilling. The news was certainly not welcome by the industry but it bears noting that the pledge was specific, focusing on an area of drilling that is not exactly a priority for drillers. Arctic drilling is expensive, the outcome is, as always, uncertain, and a pandemic is definitely not the best time for it.

 

 

It may well be that banks are being more talk than action when it comes to oil and gas. Banks, after all, are, or at least should be, pragmatic institutions rather than ones guided by ideological concerns. As such, they are unlikely to completely turn their backs on oil and gas. Some may well minimize their exposure to the industry, however, in search of greener financial pastures.

 

Often it is govt action that stumps the oil & gas industry:

https://www.reuters.com/article/engie-lng-france-unitedstates-idUSKBN27808G?taid=5f926f12b3855100013e9096&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

Same is true of coal. Here in QLD, Australia, it took 12 years for the Adani coal mine to get approval, and it will only produce 15 mtpa rather than 60. In the meantime, India has been buying low-quality coal from Indonesia and ripped up a lot of rain-forest in the process. I am an environmentalist, but cannot fathom the stupidity of most green movements. To be anti-nuclear is stupid enough, but to then favour the lopping of rain-forest in Indonesia to dig up brown coal, instead of cleaner black coal from Australia, is just perverse. Likewise, I do not see the logic in refusing to buy US shale gas on green grounds when it would otherwise be flared? Just makes no sense to me.

[BLA + 1,666]

On 10/20/2020 at 1:17 PM, ceo_energemsier said:

Conoco Pledges ‘Net-Zero’ Emissions in Break With U.S. Rivals

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-19/conoco-pledges-net-zero-emissions-in-break-with-u-s-rivals?sref=fyhEsXfZ

 

 

 

https://static.conocophillips.com/files/resources/climate-risk-strategy-slides-10-19-20.pdf?mc_cid=2b2ddc9024&mc_eid=ff5237c333

Yea

Conoco pledges to be NET-ZERO by 2050

LOL

That's Thirty Years from now.  The company and Lance won't even be around by then ?  

Did Lance call a moratorium on Conoco operations in the Alaskan environmentally fragile great north slope wilderness ?  NO.

Conoco is the largest individual employer in Alaska.  The fishing industry as a whole is the only one bigger.

But it's s great PR move !

China promised Net-Zero by 2060.  Let's check back in 38 years and see how they are doing.  China is still building coal fired power plants a hundred at a clip.

Edited October 27, 2020 by BLA

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

10 hours ago, BLA said:

Yea

Conoco pledges to be NET-ZERO by 2050

LOL

That's Thirty Years from now.  The company and Lance won't even be around by then ?  

Did Lance call a moratorium on Conoco operations in the Alaskan environmentally fragile great north slope wilderness ?  NO.

Conoco is the largest individual employer in Alaska.  The fishing industry as a whole is the only one bigger.

But it's s great PR move !

China promised Net-Zero by 2060.  Let's check back 38 years and see how they are doing.  China is still building coal fired power plants. 

Is Lance a Democrat?  And China, well, Communist...

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 10/21/2020 at 11:37 AM, Ward Smith said:

This is all part of the Big Freeze Out that I talked about on this site months ago. High Tech is leading this charge and it's Machiavellian. Drive the price of oil companies down by removing the big institutional investors (who now have no choice but to "invest" in blue sky tech companies with minimal assets), followed by banks being bullied into not loaning to those same companies (while happily holding their deposits) which increases the death spiral. Lather rinse repeat. 

Again, where can all those trillions go? Why, they're going to Alphabet, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter and Tesla. 

This whole movement is not mainly about bankers, it is about the globalist "Masters of the Universe" who have a lot of influence over the bankers. Some of them are bankers, but numerically a minority. They are mainly interested in making their money in Asia where there are more people, they can produce cheaper goods, and sell them in the West. Asia will continue to burn coal and make solar cells and most of the products that we used to make. The globalists have little interest in maintaining a middle class in America. They want total control over the smelly Walmart shoppers, and all the other shoppers for that matter, even the nice smelling ones. 

Why are the Masters of the Universe supporting Antifa and B.L.M? It is to scare the masses into the arms of the Democrats. Fortunately it may work in reverse due to unforeseen backlash. We will know on November 3. 

[BLA + 1,666]

On 10/23/2020 at 5:17 PM, Dan Warnick said:

Is Lance a Democrat?  And China, well, Communist...

Actually he is is a huge Senator Murkowski (R) fan.  She takes care of Conoco in Alaska.

Edited October 27, 2020 by BLA

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Halliburton to Set Emission Reduction Targets

 

Halliburton Company (NYSE: HAL) announced Thursday its commitment to set science-based targets to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The company said it submitted its commitment letter to the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), which is a collaboration between CDP, the United Nations Global Compact, World Resources Institute, and the World Wide Fund for Nature. With its commitment, Halliburton will submit targets in 2021 with pending SBTi validation by 2022, the company outlined.

“Our SBTi commitment reinforces our sustainability goals while helping our customers provide the world with affordable and reliable energy,” Halliburton Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Jeff Miller said in a company statement.

“Our industry plays an important role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and provides us a great opportunity to do what we do best; innovate, collaborate, and execute to drive efficiencies and affect change,” he added.

Science-based targets are emissions reduction targets in line with what the latest climate science outlines is necessary to meet the goals of the Paris Accord, which itself seeks to limit global warming to well below two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. More than 1,000 companies have committed to set emissions reduction targets grounded in climate science through the SBTi.

In December last year, Schlumberger (NYSE: SLB) revealed that it had committed to setting a science-based target to reduce its GHG emissions. The company said its commitment had been submitted to the SBTi and noted that, in line with the defined criteria, it will define its reduction target by 2021. Other oil and gas companies taking action through the SBTi comprise Enagas S.A., OKQ8 AB, CGP Primagaz and Fluxis Belgium.

Founded in 1919, Halliburton describes itself as one of the world's largest providers of products and services to the energy industry. The company employs more than 40,000 people, representing 140 nationalities in more than 80 countries, according to its website.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

On 10/20/2020 at 5:44 PM, Old-Ruffneck said:

Last week and week before when banks started to freeze oil money the hand-writing was on the wall. EF em, don't invest in Big Banks.

WASHINGTON, Nov 20 (Reuters) - Wall Street banks would not be allowed to refuse to lend to categories of businesses under a rule proposed on Friday that aims to address concerns that politically controversial sectors, like oil and gas and gun-makers, are being deprived of funding.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) said its proposal aims to ensure “fair access” to bank services, capital, and credit for all types of legal businesses, based on the risk assessment of individual customers, rather than broad-based categories or classes of customers.

“Fair access to financial services, credit, and capital are essential to our economy,” Acting Comptroller of the Currency Brian Brooks said in a statement. “This proposed rule would ensure that banks meet their responsibility to provide their services fairly since they enjoy special privilege and powers.”

The proposal would apply to the nation’s largest banks that may exert significant pricing power or influence over sectors of the national economy, the regulator said.

It follows years of complaints by Republicans over what they say are increasingly partisan and discriminatory lending practices by big banks, who are under pressure from investors and staff to curb lending to contentious industries including fossil-fuel companies, private prisons and firearms makers.

Friday’s proposal is subject to 45 days of public comment, giving the OCC little time to finalize it before President Donald Trump leaves office on Jan. 20, after which President-elect Joe Biden would be in a position to replace Brooks if he chose. (Reporting by Michelle Price Editing by Sonya Hepinstall)

 

 

Banks Can’t Deny Services to Entire Industries Under OCC Proposal

OCC proposal follows complaints from oil-and-gas industry

WASHINGTON—Big U.S. banks can’t refuse to lend to entire categories of lawful businesses under a rule proposed Friday, following complaints that the oil-and-gas industry was unfairly denied financing  by large lenders.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency said its proposal is aimed at ensuring “fair access” to banking services for all types of legal but politically controversial businesses, not just fossil-fuel companies.

It covers a range of businesses the regulator said have been denied service for apparently partisan reasons, such as family-planning centers, firearms manufacturers and privately managed prisons.

“We need to stop the weaponization of banking as a political tool,” Brian Brooks, the acting comptroller, said in an interview this week. “It’s creating real economic dislocations.”

Friday’s proposal will be subject to public comment until Jan. 4 before it can receive final approval, leaving a narrow window for Mr. Brooks to complete the measure before President Trump leaves office on Jan. 20. Though Mr. Brooks can remain in his job after President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration, the incoming administration could move swiftly to replace him.

To Read the Full Story

 

 

 

Banks Can’t Deny Services to Entire Industries Under OCC Proposal