Reg Report EORI CO2 2012 7.12.12
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
2017 Corporate Responsibility Report
2017 corporate responsibility report 2017 corporate responsibility report chevron in Nigeria human energy R chevron in Nigeria 1 2017 corporate responsibility report 2 chevron in Nigeria 2017 corporate responsibility report “We are the partner of choice not only for the goals we achieve but how we achieve them” At the heart of The Chevron Way is our vision … to be the global energy company most admired for its people, partnership and performance. We make this vision a reality by consistently putting our values into practice. The Chevron Way values distinguish us and guide our actions so that we get results the right way. Our values are diversity and inclusion, high performance, integrity and trust, partnership, protecting people and the environment. Cover photo credit: Marc Marriott Produced by: Policy, Government and Public Affairs (PGPA) Department, Chevron Nigeria Limited Design and Layout : Design and Reprographics Unit, Chevron Nigeria Limited chevron in Nigeria 3 2017 corporate responsibility report the chevron way explains who we are, what we do, what we believe and what we plan to accomplish 4 chevron in Nigeria 20172017 ccorporateorpporatee resresponsibilityponssibility reportreport table of contents message from the CMD 6 about chevron in nigeria 7 social investments 8 health 9 education 12 economic development 16 partnership initiatives in the niger delta 20 engaging stakeholders 26 our people 29 operating responsibly 35 nigerian content 41 awards 48 chevron in Nigeria 5 2017 corporate responsibility report of rapid change in the oil and gas industry, our focus remains on delivering that vision in an ethical and sustainable way. Our corporate responsibility focus areas are aligned with our business strategy of delivering industry-leading returns while developing high-value resource opportunities. -
Adams Natural Resources Fund
ADAMS NATURAL RESOURCES FUND FIRST QUARTER REPORT MARCH 31, 2021 GET THE LATEST NEWS AND INFORMATION adamsfunds.com/sign-up L ETTER TO S HAREHOLDERS Dear Fellow Shareholders, Every new year brings with it the opportunity for a fresh start, resolutions for change, and hope for the future. No year in recent history has held greater expectations than 2021. We all hope to put the pandemic behind us and get back to normal. The year began with a new President in the White House and multiple vaccines already starting to be distributed. As the quarter progressed, we made significant strides towards vaccinating the most vulnerable. While we are moving closer to a return to normalcy as the availability of vaccines continues to grow, new COVID-19 variants threaten to slow progress. The economy continued to show signs of recovering as employers added more jobs in the first quarter and the unemployment rate declined to 6.0%. In February, consumer sentiment rose to its highest level since March 2020, when the COVID-19 shutdowns were just beginning. Over the past year, household savings have grown significantly and should begin to flow through the Energy was the best economy as it reopens. performing sector in the S&P 500 as oil prices The passage of a $1.9 trillion stimulus package and a rebounded. commitment of continued support from the Federal Reserve helped drive the stock market higher in the first quarter. The S&P 500 ended the quarter up 6.2%. Improved growth prospects pushed yields on 10-year Treasury notes higher and raised some concerns that the size of the stimulus could lead to higher inflation. -
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 105/Wednesday, June 2
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 1999 / Notices 29669 2. Insurance Project in Brazil DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE oilfield facilities associated with subsea 3. Insurance Project in Argentina wellbores. As used herein, ``subsea 4. Insurance Project in Argentina Antitrust Division wellbores'' means offshore wellbores 5. Insurance Project in Turkey having a subsea wellhead at or near the Notice Pursuant to the National sea bottom. However, the scope of 6. Insurance Project in Algeria Cooperative Research and Production 7. Pending Major Projects DeepVision's operations does not Act of 1993ÐDeepVision L.L.C. extend to services provided by 8. Report on Equity Fund Notice is hereby given that, on March Transocean Offshore Inc.'s (and its CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: 12, 1999, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the affiliates') existing fleet of conventional Information on the meeting may be National Cooperative Research and coiled tubing drillling vessels and obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 systems for semi-submersibles and 336±8438. et seq. (``the Act''), Baker Hughes offshore platforms, nor to Baker Hughes Dated: May 28, 1999. DeepVision Holdings, Incorporated has Incorporated's (and its affiliates') coil Connie M. Downs, filed written notification tubing services of the type OPIC Corporate Secretary. simulataneously with the Attorney corresponding to their existing services [FR Doc. 99±14045 Filed 5±28±99; 2:53 pm] General and the Federal Trade that operate (a) Onshore, (b) through surface completions or (c) through BILLING CODE 3210±01±M Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties and (2) the nature and conventional subsea workover, drilling objectives of the venture. -
ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION Doug Lawler Vice
www.anadarko.com | NYSE: APC ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION INVESTOR RELATIONS CONTACTS: John Colglazier Vice President 832/636-2306 Dean Hennings Doug Lawler Manager 832/636-2462 Vice President, Operations Wayne Rodrigs Manager 832/636-2305 May 25, 2011 www.anadarko.com | NYSE: APC Cautionary Language Regarding Forward-Looking Statements and Other Matters This presentation contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The words “believe,” “expect,” “plan” or other similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based upon Anadarko’s current expectations and beliefs concerning future developments and their potential impact thereon. While Anadarko believes that its expectations are based on reasonable assumptions as and when made, no assurance can be given that such expectations will prove to have been correct. A number of factors could cause actual results to differ materially from the projections, anticipated results or other expectations expressed in this presentation, including the following: Anadarko's ability to successfully drill, complete, test and produce the wells and prospects identified in this presentation; to meet financial and operating guidance; to execute the 2011 capital program and meet the long-term goals identified in this presentation; the outcome of events in the Gulf of Mexico relating to the Deepwater Horizon event and the Company’s ability to successfully defend its stated position under the corresponding Operating Agreement; the legislative and regulatory changes, such as delays in the processing and approval of drilling permits, exploration plans andoil spill response plans, that may impact the Company’s Gulf of Mexico and International offshore operations resulting from the Deepwater Horizon event. -
Enterprise Risk Management in the Oil and Gas Industry: an Analysis of Selected Fortune 500 Oil and Gas Companies’ Reaction in 2009 and 2010 Violet C
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Clute Institute: Journals American Journal of Business Education – First Quarter 2016 Volume 9, Number 1 Enterprise Risk Management In The Oil And Gas Industry: An Analysis Of Selected Fortune 500 Oil And Gas Companies’ Reaction In 2009 And 2010 Violet C. Rogers, Stephen F. Austin State University, USA Jack R. Ethridge, Stephen F. Austin State University, USA ABSTRACT1 In 2009, four of the top ten Fortune 500 companies were classified within the oil and gas industry. Organizations of this size typically have an advanced Enterprise Risk Management system in place to mitigate risk and to achieve their corporations’ objectives. The companies and the article utilize the Enterprise Risk Management Integrated Framework developed by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO) as a guide to organize their risk management and reporting. The authors used the framework to analyze reporting years 2009 and 2010 for Fortune 500 oil and gas companies. After gathering and examining information from 2009 and 2010 annual reports, 10-K filings, and proxy statements, the article examines how the selected companies are implementing requirements identified in the previously mentioned publications. Each section examines the companies’ Enterprise Risk Management system, risk appetite, and any other notable information regarding risk management. One observation was the existence or non-existence of a Chief Risk Officer or other Senior Level Manager in charge of risk management. Other observations included identified risks, such as changes in economic, regulatory, and political environments in the different countries where the corporations do business. -
GE's $7.4 Billion Loss, Write-Off on Baker Hughes: Another Bad Bet On
Kathy Hipple, Financial Analyst 1 Tom Sanzillo, Director of Finance Tim Buckley, Director of Energy Finance Studies, Australasia October 2019 GE’s $7.4 Billion Loss, Write-off on Baker Hughes: Another Bad Bet on Fossil Fuels Q3 Loss, Write-Off Likely to Be $9+ Billion; More Red Ink to Flow, as O&G Has $25 Billion of Goodwill on Balance Sheet Executive Summary General Electric, once a blue-chip stalwart in global markets, now struggles with declining revenues and earnings. One important thread that runs through the tattered cloth of GE’s decline is its misreading of changing dynamics in the energy sector. Throughout the ongoing energy transition, as GE has continued to bet heavily on fossil fuels, many of those bets have turned sour for the company and its shareholders. GE’s Oil & Gas (O&G) division’s 2017 merger with oil services company Baker Hughes was a particularly costly bet, one that epitomizes how GE has been blind-sided by the rapidly evolving energy transition. Over the past year, GE has formally announced it has taken, or will take, losses or write-offs of approximately $9.6 billion (bn)1 in connection with two partial sales of its stake in one of the world’s largest oil services companies, Baker Hughes, a GE company (BHGE). These losses include the company’s $2.2 bn Q4 2018 pre-tax loss on the first sale of BHGE shares in November 2018, and an estimated pre-tax loss 1 All figures are US$ unless noted. GE’s $7.4 Billion Loss, Write-off on Baker Hughes: Another Bad Bet on Fossil Fuels 2 and write-off of an additional estimated -
M En Tor Progra
program alumni t PO BOX 13226 DENVER, CO 80201 720.663.9070 DenverPetroleumClub.com CLASS OF 2011 led by John Mork, ECA, Mike O’Shaughnessy, Lario Oil & Gas, and Bill Schneider, Teocali Energy • Jonathan Alegranti, Encana Oil & Gas • JD McNally, EOG • Eric Baros, Geospatial Consultants • Blake O'Shaughnessey, GFL & Associates, LLC • Chase Boswell, Thunder River Production • Danny Sells, Mansfield Oil • Michael Burn, IHS CERA • Bill Sinclair, Agelio Networks • Jessica Cavens, Encana Oil & Gas • Nik Solich, VanGilder-Enrisk • Dave Gannon, Cimarex • David Watts, Bill Barrett Corp. • Scott Hazelwood, W.W. Grainger • Lee Zink, Baytex Energy USA • Kyle Hoppes, EOG CLASS OF 2012 led by Peter Dea, Cirque Resources, Dave Keyte, Caerus Oil & Gas, and Neal Stanley, Teton Oil & Gas • Jonathan Bach, Morgan Stanley • Richard Kilby, Resolute Energy mentor program • Nick Beidas, Baker Hughes • Jarred Kubat, Wold Oil Properties • Jessica Cavens, Encana Oil & Gas • Will McCollum, Encana Oil & Gas • Keiven Cosgriff, Encana Oil & Gas • Owen McMillen, Foundation Energy Management • Jackie Haney, Cobalt Oil & Gas • Chris McRickard, Encana Oil & Gas • Nicholas Hansen, Lockton Companies • Ahna Mee, Arista Midstream • Bruce Hopkins, GEM Student • Diane O’Neil, Black Hills Corp. • AJ Jairamani, Baker Hughes CLASS OF 2013 led by Bob Boswell, Laramie Energy II, Roger Hutson, HRM Resources, and Mark Sexton, Inflection Energy • Ryan Brook, Transmontaigne • Ryan Pocius, IHS • Jennifer Cadena, Welborn Sullivan Meck & • Jase Roberts, Western Energy Alliance Tooley • -
Anadarko Petroleum Co. Civil Penalty Ruling
Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 15606 Filed 11/30/15 Page 1 of 34 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater * Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, * MDL 2179 on April 20, 2010, * * * SECTION J This Document Applies To: * * * JUDGE CARL BARBIER No. 10-4536, United States of America v. BP * Exploration & Production, Inc., et al. * * MAG. JUDGE SALLY SHUSHAN * * ——————————————————————————————————————— FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PENALTY PHASE Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 15606 Filed 11/30/15 Page 2 of 34 CONTENTS I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3 A. Factual Background ......................................................................................................... 3 B. The Government’s Complaint.......................................................................................... 4 C. Relevant Prior Rulings ..................................................................................................... 6 D. The CWA’s Civil Penalty Factors ................................................................................... 7 II. Findings of Fact ..................................................................................................................... 8 A. Factor 1: Seriousness ....................................................................................................... 8 B. Factor 2: Economic Benefit .......................................................................................... -
Halliburton Company
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-Q [X] Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011 OR [ ] Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the transition period from _____ to _____ Commission File Number 001-03492 HALLIBURTON COMPANY (a Delaware corporation) 75-2677995 3000 North Sam Houston Parkway East Houston, Texas 77032 (Address of Principal Executive Offices) Telephone Number – Area Code (281) 871-2699 Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X] No [ ] Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes [X] No [ ] Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. -
Big Oil Goes to College an Analysis of 10 Research Collaboration Contracts Between Leading Energy Companies and Major U.S
ISTOCKPHOTO/SSHEPHARD Big Oil Goes to College An Analysis of 10 Research Collaboration Contracts between Leading Energy Companies and Major U.S. Universities Jennifer Washburn October 2010 (updated) WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG ii Center for American Progress | Big Oil Goes Back to College Big Oil Goes to College An Analysis of 10 Research Collaboration Contracts between Leading Energy Companies and Major U.S. Universities Jennifer Washburn With research assistance from Derrin Culp, and legal analysis and interpretation of university-industry research agreements by Jeremiah Miller October 2010 Contents 1 Preface 5 Introduction and summary 29 Energy research at U.S. universities 32 The university perspective 38 The energy industry perspective 45 The U.S. government perspective 49 A detailed analysis of 10 university-industry agreements to finance energy research 52 Table: Summary of main contract analysis findings 60 Overview of the 10 agreements: Major findings 69 Recommendations 74 Conclusion 75 Appendix one—Detailed contract review Arizona State University & BP Technology Ventures, Inc., a unit of BP PLC 85 Appendix two—Detailed contract review Energy Biosciences Institute University of California at Berkeley; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign & BP Technology Ventures, Inc., a unit of BP PLC 106 Appendix three —Detailed contract review University of California at Davis & Chevron Technology Ventures, LLC, a unit of Chevron Corp. 114 Appendix four—Detailed contract review Chevron Center of Research Excellence Colorado School of Mines & ChevronTexaco Energy Technology Co., a unit of Chevron Corp. 122 Appendix five—Detailed contract review Colorado Center for Biorefining and Biofuels University of Colorado, Boulder; Colorado State University; Colorado School of Mines; National Renewable Energy Laboratory & Numerous industrial partners 135 Appendix six—Detailed contract review Georgia Institute of Technology & Chevron Technology Ventures LLC, a unit of Chevron Corp. -
BHGE: Innovating to a Cleaner Climate
BHGE: Innovating to a Cleaner Climate bhge.com Managing methane: how tech can help oil and gas recover $30bn1 in revenue The oil and gas industry is under pressure from shareholders and regulators to cut methane emissions, but new technology and evolving economics are making change more likely. Methane emissions have 80 times the climate-change effect of The irony is that methane has value. If captured instead of emitted carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 20-year timeframe, and are responsible it could be sold as natural gas—a cleaner energy source than for a quarter of today’s global warming2. The oil and gas sector is coal – or used in chemicals manufacture. By some estimates, this responsible for a quarter of this output and is under increasing could recoup as much as $30bn for the industry, but the oil and gas pressure from shareholders, consumers and regulators to improve sector points out that the upgrades required to capture and take environmental practices. In addition to that, costs of oil and gas financial advantage of methane that would otherwise be released processing are increasing, in the form of regulatory penalties, would often cost more than the value of the gas collected. emissions taxes, and so on, while the industry must also cope with the ‘easy reserves’ having been reached already. Now, new technologies, such as drones and advanced sensors, are making it easier to monitor leaks and cut emissions, putting the industry in a position to recover the lost revenue that each year’s methane emissions represent. Vents, flares, and fugitives To take advantage of changing technologies, and allay shareholder Finally, there are fugitive emissions – unintentional releases from and regulatory pressure, different approaches are needed leaks or faults. -
Petion to Object to the Anadarko Petroleum Frederick Compressor
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF ) Kerr-McGee Gathering LLC/Anadarko ) PETITION TO OBJECT TO Petroleum, Frederick Natural Gas ) ISSUANCE OF A STATE Compressor Station ) TITLE V OPERATING ) PERMIT Permit Number: 95OPWE035 ) ) Petition Number: VIII-2010- Issued by the Colorado Department of ) Public Health and Environment, Air ) Pollution Control Division ) ) PETITON FOR OBJECTION Pursuant to Section 505(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, 40 C.F.R. § 70.8(d), and applicable state regulations, WildEarth Guardians hereby petitions the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (hereafter “Administrator” or “EPA”) to object to the July 14, 2010 Response of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division (hereafter “Division”) to the October 8, 2009 Order by the Administrator objecting to the issuance of the renewed Title V Permit for Anadarko Petroleum Corporation’s (hereafter “Anadarko’s”) Frederick Compressor Station, Permit Number 95OPWE035 (hereafter “Title V Permit”), which was issued on January 1, 2007.1 The Title V Permit, the Technical Review Document for the Title V Permit, and the Division’s Response to Objection are attached hereto. See Exh. 1, Kerr-McGee Gathering LLC, Frederick Compressor Station Title V Permit, Permit Number 95OPWE035 (January 1, 2007); Exh. 2, Technical Review Document (“TRD”) for Renewal of Operating Permit 95OPWE035 (January 1, 2007) and Technical Review Document Addendum (April 28, 2008); Exh. 3, Division Response to October 8, 2009 Objection by the Administrator (July 14, 2010). In her objection, the Administrator found that the Division “failed to adequately support its determination of the source for PSD [Prevention of Significant Deterioration] and title V purposes.” See Ex.