The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Topic started by: rangerrebew on January 15, 2021, 03:37:53 pm
-
Two U.S. Oil Companies Join Their European Counterparts in Making Net-Zero Pledges
Occidental Petroleum and ConocoPhillips define their net-zero goals differently, and neither is signaling a shift to clean energy, as some European companies are.
By Nicholas Kusnetz
November 12, 2020
The past few years have brought a widening gap between American oil companies and their European counterparts when it comes to pledging to address global warming. But two recent announcements may signal a change.
Occidental Petroleum announced on Tuesday that it will reach net-zero emissions for all the oil and gas it produces by mid-century, becoming the first major American oil company to make such a pledge. The target aligns the company with the position of an incoming Biden administration that has made addressing climate change a central part of its agenda.
News of the company’s pledge came just weeks after ConocoPhillips announced a goal of zeroing out its direct greenhouse gas emissions, which are much less than the emissions that come from burning the oil and gas the company sells. Taken together, the two corporate pledges could increase pressure on ExxonMobil and Chevron, the nation’s largest oil companies, which have yet to announce such far-reaching goals.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12112020/two-us-oil-companies-join-their-european-counterparts-making-net-zero-pledges/
-
As Paul Simon noted in his song The Boxer: "A pocket full of mumbles, such are promises." Anyone can promise anything if they think, as in this case, It will get the Global Warming Huns off their behinds. The proof is in the actions, not the promise. *hmmmm*
-
One of my early jobs in the environmental profession was calculating site wide releases under SARA 313. Counting fugitive emissions, (valves, flanges, pumps, relief valves, etc) flaring which has established destruction efficiences ,loading emissions of product/feedstocks, spills, unit upsets. tank venting emissions, hydrocarbons from and as combustion byproducts, etc. etc. etc. And this is just manufacturing of product. Add upstream, and losses from product distribution?
Net Zero is a lie. But of course Climate Change as a concept coming from the Envirowhackos is a lie too.
-
One of my early jobs in the environmental profession was calculating site wide releases under SARA 313. Counting fugitive emissions, (valves, flanges, pumps, relief valves, etc) flaring which has established destruction efficiences ,loading emissions of product/feedstocks, spills, unit upsets. tank venting emissions, hydrocarbons from and as combustion byproducts, etc. etc. etc. And this is just manufacturing of product. Add upstream, and losses from product distribution?
Net Zero is a lie. But of course Climate Change as a concept coming from the Envirowhackos is a lie too.
I am sure Net Zero will be accomplished via buying carbon credits and the like.
-
I am sure Net Zero will be accomplished via buying carbon credits and the like.
Been retired as a facility Enviromental Manager for several years, but at least those carbon credits i am familar with were in reference to trade offs in offsets for Air permitting for construction/expansions. If there is some kind of commodity now around Carbon credits, they must be pretty pricey because outside of shutdowns, every facility company has to be struggling to maintain, via emissions limits on their permit.
You have to realize that when the Clean Air Act was reuathorized in 1990, if forced every facility into BACT (Best Available Control Technology) upon the any modification, at what was the time 2 tons per yer VOC (If I remember correctly). By the mid 2000's pretty much all bankable and creditable emissions were used, or through promulated updated regulations, lost.
So I am really curious 15 years later, whre these so called "Carbon Credits" are coming from.
-
Been retired as a facility Enviromental Manager for several years, but at least those carbon credits i am familar with were in reference to trade offs in offsets for Air permitting for construction/expansions. If there is some kind of commodity now around Carbon credits, they must be pretty pricey because outside of shutdowns, every facility company has to be struggling to maintain, via emissions limits on their permit.
You have to realize that when the Clean Air Act was reuathorized in 1990, if forced every facility into BACT (Best Available Control Technology) upon the any modification, at what was the time 2 tons per yer VOC (If I remember correctly). By the mid 2000's pretty much all bankable and creditable emissions were used, or through promulated updated regulations, lost.
So I am really curious 15 years later, whre these so called "Carbon Credits" are coming from.
What I am thinking of is paying someone else producing power with "Carbon Free" energy production for the rights to claim it. It is as silly as it first sounds, but it has been done for years.
-
What I am thinking of is paying someone else producing power with "Carbon Free" energy production for the rights to claim it. It is as silly as it first sounds, but it has been done for years.
Wind / Solar tradeoff with the Power Utilty industry? That I can see. But the article specifically mentioned Oxy and CoP. So unless they are talking about Cogen (which is possible if they are fueling with rich flare gas), I just don't see what kind of onsite shell game they could be playing. Unless, like you mentioned that they are bankrolling solar/wind.... which seems insane to me.
-
One of my early jobs in the environmental profession was calculating site wide releases under SARA 313. Counting fugitive emissions, (valves, flanges, pumps, relief valves, etc) flaring which has established destruction efficiences ,loading emissions of product/feedstocks, spills, unit upsets. tank venting emissions, hydrocarbons from and as combustion byproducts, etc. etc. etc.
@catfish1957
So for a platform, are they only talking about produced gas used for flaring and power generation? Or are they including sold gas and oil, too?
-
Conoco aims for net-zero intensity from Scope 1, 2 emissions by 2050
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/conoco-aims-for-net-zero-intensity-from-scope-1-2-emissions-by-2050-60801885 (https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/conoco-aims-for-net-zero-intensity-from-scope-1-2-emissions-by-2050-60801885)
Oil and gas company ConocoPhillips plans to reduce emissions intensity from its operations and the energy it buys to net-zero by 2050, it said Oct. 19.
ConocoPhillips will trim the intensity of its Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 35% to 45% from 2016 levels by 2030 and intends to reduce that figure to zero by midcentury. Scope 1 emissions come directly from sources owned or controlled by a company, while Scope 2 refers to indirect emissions from purchased energy.
"We're the first U.S.-based oil and gas company to take this step," ConocoPhillips Chairman and CEO Ryan Lance said during an Oct. 19 conference call discussing the company's proposed deal to scoop up U.S. Permian Basin-focused producer Concho Resources Inc. for more than $13 billion....
-
@catfish1957
So for a platform, are they only talking about produced gas used for flaring and power generation? Or are they including sold gas and oil, too?
Platform offshore woiuld be typical for crude production. Which means entire mass of heavy hydrocarbon that will fractioned into everything from asphalt to natural gas, and everything inbetween. How they are calculating "net carbon" from that would be a mystery to me.
-
Conoco aims for net-zero intensity from Scope 1, 2 emissions by 2050
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/conoco-aims-for-net-zero-intensity-from-scope-1-2-emissions-by-2050-60801885 (https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/conoco-aims-for-net-zero-intensity-from-scope-1-2-emissions-by-2050-60801885)
Oil and gas company ConocoPhillips plans to reduce emissions intensity from its operations and the energy it buys to net-zero by 2050, it said Oct. 19.
ConocoPhillips will trim the intensity of its Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 35% to 45% from 2016 levels by 2030 and intends to reduce that figure to zero by midcentury. Scope 1 emissions come directly from sources owned or controlled by a company, while Scope 2 refers to indirect emissions from purchased energy.
"We're the first U.S.-based oil and gas company to take this step," ConocoPhillips Chairman and CEO Ryan Lance said during an Oct. 19 conference call discussing the company's proposed deal to scoop up U.S. Permian Basin-focused producer Concho Resources Inc. for more than $13 billion....
Totally paraphrased, and maybe I'm off base here, it sounds like based on their operations ..... say it is 10,000 tons VOC emitted. They will offset hydrocarbon based on or by buying or trading 10,000 tons of VOC that would have been generated by a fossil fueled power plant.
Shell (Not the company) game... Got it.
-
From reply 8 above:
"Conoco aims for net-zero intensity from Scope 1, 2 emissions by 2050"
(https://pics.me.me/what-did-the-socialists-use-before-candles-electricity-bastiatin-org-6212884.png)