The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Energy => Topic started by: Elderberry on March 04, 2020, 12:58:37 pm
-
Houston Chronicle by James Osborne March 3, 2020
Exxon puts out methane policy in hopes that regulators will adopt it
Exxon Mobil released its internal policy on methane emissions Tuesday, urging governments to use it as model for industrywide methane regulation.
The Trump administration has moved to roll back federal methane regulations, drawing opposition from not only environmental groups but large oil companies, including Texas-based Exxon, who argue it is good policy needed to rein in the widespread flaring of natural gas across U.S. oil and gas fields.
"Our industry has developed high-tech advances to curb emissions, and we also hope this framework will be helpful for governments as they develop new regulations,†Exxon CEO Darren Woods said.
More: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Exxon-puts-out-model-methane-regulation-15101493.php (https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Exxon-puts-out-model-methane-regulation-15101493.php)
-
While these may work for EOM, it may be that individual production situations and well siting may not be conducive to meeting these suggestions. What is a fiscal inconvenience to a big operator can be a deal breaker for smaller ones.
Some suggestions may be good; Amerada Hess, now known as Hess, designed locations that very closely resemble what the BLM eventually adopted as their requirements, well before the BLM had requirements, and the result was a cleaner industry, at least here.
Not having seen what the proposals made by EOM are, I can't speak to them specifically, only say they could be a good industry proffered guideline, or a tendered requirement that would tilt the playing field in EOM's favor. There is advantage in having the industry suggest such, because the people suggesting it at least are knowledgeable, unlike the average legislator and all too many appointed regulators.
Unfortunately, all that really asks the wrong question. The right question is one of why there is insane pandering to the AGW/Climate Change crowd in the first place, because such only grants some apparent legitimacy to their claims of human caused warming.
-
While these may work for EOM, it may be that individual production situations and well siting may not be conducive to meeting these suggestions. What is a fiscal inconvenience to a big operator can be a deal breaker for smaller ones....
Which is likely the real reason EOM is proposing them.
-
Which is likely the real reason EOM is proposing them.
I suspect as much, but can't prove it. Pandering to the warmists brings in grant money, I get that, but using it as a weapon against the rest of the industry is a bad deal for the future.
It's usually the smaller operators who take the chances that can prove large reserves like the Bakken, the big outfits tend to buy in later.
-
Houston Chronicle by James Osborne March 3, 2020
Exxon puts out methane policy in hopes that regulators will adopt it
As an annuitant, I'd better keep my mouth shut. 888mouth
-
I suspect as much, but can't prove it. Pandering to the warmists brings in grant money, I get that, but using it as a weapon against the rest of the industry is a bad deal for the future.
It's usually the smaller operators who take the chances that can prove large reserves like the Bakken, the big outfits tend to buy in later.
Appeasement never works.
Shell designed a carbon capture model that increased capital costs on its LNG operations by 25% in Australia.
After implementing it, they spent a ton lobbying the govt to make it mandatory.
Resulted in other operators having to cough up a lot more money so Shell would not be non-competitive in its operations. Overall result is a less competitive LNG industry in Australia.
-
Exxon, u look pretty stupid worrying about this now in face of collapsing prices and revenues.
Get back in the business of making money for stockholders instead of pandering to the radicals.