DOCSLIB.ORG

Annapolis V. BP

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Annapolis V. BP IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND CITY OF ANNAPOLIS, Civil Action No.: MARYLAND, A Municipal Corporation and Public Entity 160 Duke of Gloucester Street Complaint Annapolis, MD 21401 Plaintiff, vs. BP P.L.C. 1 St James’s Square London, SW1Y 4PD BP AMERICA, INC. 501 Westlake Park Blvd. Houston, TX 77079 BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA INC. 7 St. Paul Street, Suite 820 Baltimore, MD 21202 CROWN CENTRAL LLC 100 Light Street, Suite 2500 Baltimore, MD 21202 CROWN CENTRAL NEW HOLDINGS LLC 100 Light Street, Suite 2500 Baltimore, MD 21202 ROSEMORE, INC. 100 Light Street, Suite 2500 Baltimore, MD 21202 CHEVRON CORP. 6001 Bollinger Canyon Road San Ramon, CA 94583 CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. 6001 Bollinger Canyon Road San Ramon, CA 94583 EXXON MOBIL CORP. 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION 5959 Las Colinas Boulevard Irving, TX 75039 ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC Carel van Bylandtlaan 16, 2596 HR The Hague, The Netherlands SHELL OIL COMPANY P.O. Box 2463 Houston, TX 77252 CITGO PETROLEUM CORP. 1293 Eldridge Parkway Houston, TX 77077 CONOCOPHILLIPS 600 North Dairy Ashford Houston, TX 77079 CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY 600 North Dairy Ashford Houston, TX 77079 PHILLIPS 66 2331 CityWest Blvd Houston, TX 77042 PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY 2331 CityWest Blvd Houston, TX 77042 MARATHON OIL COMPANY 5555 San Felipe Street Houston, TX 77056-2723 MARATHON OIL CORPORATION 5555 San Felipe Street Houston, TX 77056-2723 MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION 539 South Main Street Findlay, OH 45840 SPEEDWAY LLC 500 Speedway Dr Enon, OH 45323-1056 HESS CORP. 1185 Avenue of the Americas 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 CNX RESOURCES CORPORATION 1000 Consol Energy Drive Canonsburg, PA 15317 CONSOL ENERGY INC. 1000 Consol Energy Drive Canonsburg, PA 15317 CONSOL MARINE TERMINALS LLC 1000 Consol Energy Drive Canonsburg, PA 15317 AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE 1220 L Street, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20005 Defendants. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 1 II. PARTIES .............................................................................................................................. 7 A. Plaintiff ............................................................................................................................ 7 B. Defendants ....................................................................................................................... 9 C. Relevant Non-Parties: Defendants’ Agents and Front Groups ...................................... 38 III. AGENCY ............................................................................................................................ 41 IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ........................................................................................ 41 V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 44 A. Defendants Are Responsible for Causing and Accelerating Climate Change. .............. 44 B. Defendants Went to Great Lengths to Understand, and Either Knew or Should Have Known About, the Dangers Associated with Their Fossil Fuel Products. ................................................................................................................ 49 C. Defendants Did Not Disclose Known Harms Associated with the Extraction, Promotion, and Consumption of Their Fossil Fuel Products, and Instead Affirmatively Acted to Obscure Those Harms and Engaged in a Campaign to Deceptively Protect and Expand the Use of Their Fossil Fuel Products. .................. 73 D. In Contrast to Their Public Statements, Defendants’ Internal Actions Demonstrate Their Awareness of and Intent to Profit from the Unabated Use of Fossil Fuel Products. .......................................................................................... 94 E. Defendants’ Actions Have Exacerbated the Costs of Adapting to and Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of the Climate Crisis................................................... 96 F. Defendants Continue to Mislead About the Impact of Their Fossil Fuel Products on Climate Change Through Greenwashing Campaigns and Other Misleading Advertisements in Annapolis and Elsewhere. ................................ 106 i. Exxon’s Misleading and Deceptive Greenwashing Campaigns ............................ 110 ii. Shell’s Misleading and Deceptive Greenwashing Campaigns .............................. 114 iii. BP’s Misleading and Deceptive Greenwashing Campaigns .................................. 116 iv. Chevron’s Misleading and Deceptive Greenwashing Campaigns ......................... 120 v. Marathon’s Misleading and Deceptive Greenwashing Campaigns ....................... 124 vi. ConocoPhillips’s Misleading and Deceptive Greenwashing Campaigns .............. 124 vii. API’s Misleading and Deceptive Greenwashing Campaigns ................................ 125 G. Defendants Also Made Misleading Claims About Specific “Green” or “Greener” Fossil Fuel Products. .................................................................................. 129 ii H. Defendants Intended for Consumers to Rely on their Concealments and Omissions Regarding the Dangers of Their Fossil Fuel Products. .............................. 132 I. Defendants’ Deceit Only Recently Became Discoverable, and Their Misconduct Is Ongoing. ............................................................................................... 134 J. The City Has Suffered, Is Suffering, and Will Suffer Injuries from Defendants’ Wrongful Conduct. ...................................................................................................... 136 VI. CAUSES OF ACTION .................................................................................................... 145 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Public Nuisance) ............................................................................................................... 145 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Private Nuisance).............................................................................................................. 150 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Strict Liability Failure to Warn) ....................................................................................... 153 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Failure to Warn) ............................................................................................... 155 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Trespass) ........................................................................................................................... 158 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Consumer Protection Act) ................................................................................................ 160 VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF .................................................................................................. 164 iii COMPLAINT Jury Trial Requested I. INTRODUCTION 1. Defendants, major corporate members of the fossil fuel industry, have known for nearly half a century that unrestricted production and use of fossil fuel products create greenhouse gas pollution that warms the planet and changes our climate. Climate change will have and has already had devastating economic, social, and cultural impacts throughout the City of Annapolis, and will disproportionately impact people of color, people living in poverty, and other vulnerable communities. Defendants have known for decades that climate change impacts could be catastrophic, and that only a narrow window existed to take action before the consequences would be irreversible. They have nevertheless engaged in a coordinated, multi-front effort to conceal and deny their own knowledge of those threats, to discredit the growing body of publicly available scientific evidence, and to persistently create doubt in the minds of customers, consumers, regulators, the media, journalists, teachers, and the public about the reality and consequences of the impacts of their fossil fuel products. This campaign was intended to, and did, target and influence the public and consumers, including in Annapolis. 2. At the same time, Defendants have promoted and profited from a massive increase in the extraction, production, and consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas, which has in turn caused an enormous, foreseeable, and avoidable increase in global greenhouse gas pollution and a concomitant increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases,1 particularly carbon dioxide (“CO2”) and methane, in the Earth’s atmosphere. Those disruptions of the Earth’s otherwise 1 As used in this Complaint, the term “greenhouse gases” refers collectively to carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Where a cited source refers to a specific gas or gases, or when a process relates only to a specific gas or gases, this Complaint refers to each gas by name. 1 balanced carbon cycle have substantially contributed to a wide range of dire climate-related effects, including, but not limited to, global atmospheric and ocean warming, ocean acidification, melting polar ice caps and glaciers, more extreme and volatile weather, drought, and sea level rise. 3. Plaintiff, the City of Annapolis,2 along with Annapolis’s residents, infrastructure, and natural and historic resources, suffer the consequences of Defendants’ campaign of deception. 4. Defendants are extractors, producers, refiners, manufacturers, distributors, promoters, marketers, and/or sellers of fossil fuel products, each of which contributed to deceiving the public and consumers, in and outside of Annapolis,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Perspectives on Climate-Related Scenarios Risks and Opportunities Table of Contents
    October 2019 Perspectives on Climate-Related Scenarios Risks and Opportunities Table of Contents 3 Letter from the Chairman and CEO 36 Metrics and Performance Data 4 About MPC 37 Managing Physical Risks to Our Facilities 6 Introduction 41 Conclusions 7 Governance and Risk Management 43 Endnotes 10 Climate Scenario Planning 43 Forward-looking Statements 30 Energy Strategy and Performance GLOSSARY OF TERMS barrel: 42 U.S. gallons — a common volume ERM: Enterprise Risk Management measure for crude oil and petroleum products GHGs: Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide barrel of oil equivalent or boe: is a unit of energy and methane based on the energy released by burning one barrel IEA: International Energy Agency of crude oil or 5.8 million British thermal units. IEA’s CPS: Current Policies Scenario bpcd: barrels per calendar day — the average of how much crude oil or other feedstock a refinery IEA’s NPS: New Policies Scenario processes over a period of time, divided by the IEA’s SDS: Sustainable Development Scenario number of days in that period, typically 365 days (a LNG: Liquefied natural gas common rate measure for petroleum refineries) LPG: Liquefied petroleum gases bpd: barrels per day — a common rate measure for crude oil and petroleum products Tonne or metric ton: 2,205 pounds Carbon dioxide equivalent is a common unit MPC: Marathon Petroleum Corporation CO2e: of measurement converting all greenhouse gases NGL: Natural gas liquid — a light hydrocarbon to carbon dioxide. MPC calculates CO2e emissions liquid often produced with natural gas using the EPA factors identified in Equation A-1 in Scope 1 Emissions: All direct GHG emissions by 40 CFR Part 98.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Climate Coalition
    Log in Page Discussion Read View source View history Search SourceWatch HELP CMD SHINE A LIGHT ON What Is CMD? CORRUPTION! Donate Here ALEC Exposed Outsourcing America Thanks to a $50,000 challenge grant, your gift will be matched 1- Exposed Koch Exposed to-1, so every dollar you give today will go twice as far! FrackSwarm CoalSwarm NFIB Exposed GIVE TODAY! Fix the Debt State Policy Network Recent Changes Global Climate Coalition Random page The Global Climate Coalition (GCC) was one of the most outspoken How To and confrontational industry groups in the United States battling Learn more from the Sign Up to Edit Center for Media and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Prior to its disbanding in early Democracy's research Contact Us 2002, it collaborated extensively with a network that included industry on climate change. Help Write History Research Corporations trade associations, "property rights" groups affiliated with the anti- Edit an Article environmental Wise Use movement, and fringe groups such as Correct Errors This article is Sovereignty International, which believes that global warming is a plot to part of the Search Effectively enslave the world under a United Nations-led "world government." Center for Media Find FAQs & Democracy's Explore Our Index Contents spotlight on front groups and Blow the Whistle 1 Personnel corporate spin. Find the Home Page 2 History Other Info 3 Excerpts from the GCC web site 4 Funding About SourceWatch About PRWatch 5 Internal Documents Search Categories 6 Case Studies Random Article 7 Contact Information 8 Other SourceWatch Related Resources Other Policies 9 External links Ground Rules Disclaimers Copyright Info Personnel Ads Glenn Kelly, Executive Director Gail McDonald, President William O'Keefe, Chairman, an executive for the American Petroleum Institute Tools Frank Maisano, Media Contact, is a member of the Potomac Communications Group, whose other clients What links here include Con Edison, the Edison Electric Institute, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • SUSTAINABILITY REPORT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC SUSTAINABILITY REPORT 2011 I Shell Sustainability Report 2011 Introduction
    SUSTAINABILITY REPORT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC SUSTAINABILITY REPORT 2011 i Shell Sustainability Report 2011 Introduction CONTENTS ABOUT SHELL INTRODUCTION Shell is a global group of energy and petrochemical companies employing 90,000 people in more than 80 i ABOUT SHELL countries. Our aim is to help meet the energy needs of 1 INTRODUCTION FROM THE CEO society in ways that are economically, environmentally and socially responsible. OUR APPROACH Upstream 2 BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FUTURE Upstream consists of two organisations, Upstream International and Upstream Americas. Upstream searches for and recovers oil 3 SD AND OUR BUSINESS STRATEGY and natural gas, extracts heavy oil from oil sands for conversion 4 SAFETY into synthetic crudes, liqueƂ es natural gas and produces synthetic oil products using gas-to-liquids technology. It often works in joint 5 COMMUNITIES ventures, including those with national oil companies. Upstream 6 CLIMATE CHANGE markets and trades natural gas and electricity in support of its business. Our wind power activities are part of Upstream. Upstream 8 ENVIRONMENT International co-ordinates sustainable development policies and 9 LIVING BY OUR PRINCIPLES social performance across Shell. Downstream OUR ACTIVITIES Downstream manufactures, supplies and markets oil products and 10 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN ACTION chemicals worldwide. Our Manufacturing and Supply businesses include reƂ neries, chemical plants and the supply and distribution 11 KEY PROJECTS of feedstocks and products. Marketing sells a range of products 12 DELIVERING ENERGY RESPONSIBLY including fuels, lubricants, bitumen and liqueƂ ed petroleum 12 Natural gas gas for home, transport and industrial use. Chemicals markets 15 The Arctic petrochemicals for industrial customers.
    [Show full text]
  • Southeast Clean Energy Resource Team Strategic Energy Plan
    Southeast Clean Energy Resource Team Strategic Energy Plan CERTS PARTNERS: Minnesota Department of Commerce The Minnesota Project University of Minnesota Regional Sustainable Development Partnerships Rural Minnesota Energy Board Metropolitan Counties Energy Task Force Resource Conservation and Development Councils FUNDED BY: The Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources from the U.S. Department of Energy Oil Overcharge Money The Carolyn Foundation The Blandin Foundation Minnesota Department of Commerce U.S. Department of Energy Community Assistantship Program, University of Minnesota, with financial sup- port from the Otto Bremer Foundation and Regional Sustainable Development Partnerships Program University of Minnesota Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment University of Minnesota Regional Sustainable Development Partnerships FINAL REPORT Energy Use, Renewable Energy Resources and Potential for Meeting the Energy Needs of the Fifteen Counties in SE/SC MN from Local Renewable Energy Resources and Energy Efficiency From the Citizens on the THE SE/SC CLEAN ENERGY RESOURCE TEAM Representing 15 Counties in SE/SC Minnesota: Blue Earth, Dodge, Faribault, Fillmore, Freeborn, Goodhue, Houston, Le Sueur, Mower, Olmsted, Rice, Steele, Wabasha, Waseca, Winona JUNE 2005 Dedicated to Dick Broeker, 1942 - 2004 The SE/SC Clean Energy Resource Team (CERT) dedicates this report to the memory of Dick Broeker. As Director of the Experiment in Rural Cooperation in SE Minnesota, Dick was involved in establishing the CERTs Project. When the Clean Energy Resources Teams were formed in regions around the state in December 2003, Dick was instrumental in organizing our team and helping us with our work through June 2004, when he retired. During this time, we completed a Strategic Plan to guide our work and an Inventory and Assessment of the people, infrastructure and resources in our area.
    [Show full text]
  • ENERGY DARWINISM the Evolution of the Energy Industry
    ENERGY DARWINISM The Evolution of the Energy Industry Citi GPS: Global Perspectives & Solutions October 2013 J ason Channell Heath R J ansen Alastair R Syme Sofia Savvantidou Edward L Morse Anthony Yuen Citi is one of the world’s largest financial institutions, operating in all major established and emerging markets. Across these world markets, our employees conduct an ongoing multi-disciplinary global conversation – accessing information, analyzing data, developing insights, and formulating advice for our clients. As our premier thought-leadership product, Citi GPS is designed to help our clients navigate the global economy’s most demanding challenges, identify future themes and trends, and help our clients profit in a fast-changing and interconnected world. Citi GPS accesses the best elements of our global conversation and harvests the thought leadership of a wide range of senior professionals across our firm. This is not a research report and does not constitute advice on investments or a solicitation to buy or sell any financial instrument. For more information on Citi GPS, please visit www.citi.com/citigps. Citi GPS: Global Perspectives & Solutions October 2013 Jason Channell is a Director and Global Head of Citi's Alternative Energy and Cleantech equity research team. Throughout his career Jason's research has spanned the energy spectrum of utilities, oil & gas, and alternative energy. He has worked for both buy and sell-side firms, including Goldman Sachs and Fidelity Investments, and has been highly ranked in the Institutional Investor, Extel and Starmine external surveys. His knowledge has led to significant interaction with regulators and policymakers, most notably presenting to members of the US Senate Energy and Finance committees, and to United Nations think-tanks.
    [Show full text]
  • Media Locks in the New Narrative
    7. Influences on a changed story and the new normal: media locks in the new narrative It was the biggest, most powerful spin campaign in Australian media history—the strategy was to delay action on greenhouse gas emissions until ‘coal was ready’—with geo-sequestration (burying carbon gases) and tax support. Alan Tate, ABC environment reporter 1990s On 23 September 2013 the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) program Media Watch explored a textbook example of why too many Australians and their politicians continue to stumble through a fog of confusion and doubt in regard to climate change. The case under the microscope typified irresponsible journalism. Media Watch host Paul Barry, with trademark irony, announced: ‘Yes it’s official at last … those stupid scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] got it wrong’, in their latest assessment report. He quoted 2GB breakfast jock Chris Smith from a week earlier saying the IPCC had ‘fessed up’ that its computers had drastically overestimated rising temperatures. ‘That’s a relief,’ said Barry, and how do we know this? ‘Because Chris Smith read it on the front page of last Monday’s Australian newspaper. When it comes to rubbishing the dangers of man-made global warming the shock jocks certainly know who they can trust.’ But wait. The Australian’s story by Environment Editor Graham Lloyd—‘We got it wrong on warming says IPCC’ was not original either. According to Media Watch, Lloyd appeared to have based his story on a News Limited sister publication from the United Kingdom. Said Barry: ‘He’d read all about it in the previous day’s Mail on Sunday,’ which had a story headlined ‘The great green con’.
    [Show full text]
  • NEW YORK ------X CITY of NEW YORK, : : Plaintiff, : No
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------X CITY OF NEW YORK, : : Plaintiff, : No. 18 Civ. 182 (JFK) -against- : : OPINION & ORDER BP P.L.C., CHEVRON CORPORATION, : CONOCOPHILLIPS, : EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, : and ROYAL DUTCH SHELL, PC, : : Defendants. : ---------------------------------X APPEARANCES FOR PLAINTIFF CITY OF NEW YORK: Zachary W. Carter Susan E. Amron Kathleen C. Schmid Margaret C. Holden Noah Kazis CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK Steve W. Berman Matthew F. Pawa Benjamin A. Krass Wesley Kelman HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Christopher A. Seeger Stephen A. Weiss Diogenes P. Kekatos SEEGER WEISS LLP FOR DEFENDANT CHEVRON CORPORATION: Caitlin J. Halligan Andrea E. Neuman Anne Champion Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. William E. Thomson Joshua S. Lipshitz GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Herbert J. Stern Joel M. Silverstein STERN & KILCULLEN, LLC Neal S. Manne Johnny W. Carter Erica Harris Steven Shepard Laranda Walker Kemper Diehl Michael Adamson SUSMAN GODFREY LLP FOR DEFENDANT EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION: Theodore V. Wells, Jr. Daniel J. Toal Jaren Janghorbani PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP M. Randall Oppenheimer Dawn Sestito O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP Patrick J. Conlon EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION FOR DEFENDANT CONOCOPHILLIPS: John F. Savarese Jeffrey M. Wintner Ben M. Germana Johnathan Siegel WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ Tracie J. Renfroe Carol M. Wood KING & SPALDING LLP JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District Judge: Before the Court is a motion by Defendants Chevron Corporation (“Chevron”), ConocoPhillips, and Exxon Mobil Corporation (“Exxon”) (together, the “U.S.-based Defendants”) to dismiss Plaintiff City of New York’s (the “City”) amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
    [Show full text]
  • Hess Corporation Is a Leading Global Independent Energy Company Engaged in the Exploration and Production of Crude Oil and Natural Gas
    2017 ANNUAL REPORT Table of Contents 1 Financial and Operating Highlights 2 Letter to Shareholders 5 Global Operations 9 Sustainability 12 Board of Directors and Corporate Officers Our Company Hess Corporation is a leading global independent energy company engaged in the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas. We are committed to meeting the highest standards of corporate citizenship by protecting the health and safety of our employees, safeguarding the environment and making a positive impact on the communities in which we do business. Cover: Drilling Operations, North Dakota Financial and Operating Highlights HESS CORPORATION Amounts in millions, except per share data Financial — for the year 2017 2016 Sales and other operating revenues $ 5,466 $ 4,762 Net income (loss) attributable to Hess Corporation $ (4,074) $ (6,132) Net income (loss) per share diluted (a) $ (13.12) $ (19.92) Common stock dividends per share $ 1.00 $ 1.00 Net cash provided by operating activities $ 945 $ 795 E&P capital and exploratory expenditures $ 2,047 $ 1,871 Midstream capital expenditures $ 121 $ 283 Weighted average diluted shares outstanding 314.1 309.9 Financial — at year end 2017 2016 Total assets $ 23,112 $ 28,621 Cash and cash equivalents $ 4,847 $ 2,732 Total debt $ 6,977 $ 6,806 Total equity $ 12,354 $ 15,591 Debt to capitalization ratio (b) 36.1% 30.4% Common stock price $ 47.47 $ 62.29 Operating — for the year 2017 2016 Net production Crude oil and natural gas liquids (thousands of barrels per day) United States 153 165 International 66 70 Total 219 235 Natural gas (thousands of MCF per day) United States 211 258 International 309 265 Total 520 523 Barrels of oil equivalent (thousands of barrels per day) 306 322 (a) Calculated as net income (loss) attributable to Hess Corporation less preferred stock dividends as applicable, divided by weighted average number of diluted shares.
    [Show full text]
  • Bakken Production Optimization Program Prospectus
    Bakken Production Optimization Program BAKKEN PRODUCTION OPTIMIZATION PROGRAM 2.0 PROSPECTUS PROGRAM INTRODUCTION Led by the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), the highly successful Bakken Production Optimization Program (BPOP), funded by its members and the North Dakota Industrial Commission, is continuing for the time frame of 2017–2020. The goal of this research program, BPOP 2.0, is to improve Bakken system oil recovery and reduce its environmental footprint. The results of the 3-year program will increase well productivity and the economic output of North Dakota’s oil and gas resources, decrease environmental impacts of wellsite operations, and reduce demand for infrastructure construction and maintenance. BPOP 1.0 PARTNERS A premier partnership program was recently completed which has been cited as an exemplary model by others nationwide. It has demonstrated that state lawmakers, state regulators, and industry can work together for positive results for shareholders and taxpayers alike. Phase I partners focused research on industry-driven challenges and opportunities. Continental Resources, Inc. ® Marathon Oil Corporation America’s Oil Champion Whiting Petroleum Corporation North Dakota Oil and Gas Research Program ConocoPhillips Company Nuverra Environmental Solutions Hitachi Hess Corporation Oasis Petroleum, Inc. SM Energy XTO Energy, Inc. BPOP 1.0 ACHIEVEMENTS (2013–2016) Continental’s Hawkinson Project Water Use and Handling Forecast Aimed at significantly increasing total production and A summary of trends in the Bakken, an estimation of production rates from North Dakota oil wells where oil future demand/disposal needs, an overview of treatment reserves of the second and third benches of the Three technologies, recycling/reuse considerations, and a Forks Formation, located just below the Bakken oil summary of implications for BPOP partners were created.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate and Energy Benchmark in Oil and Gas Insights Report
    Climate and Energy Benchmark in Oil and Gas Insights Report Partners XxxxContents Introduction 3 Five key findings 5 Key finding 1: Staying within 1.5°C means companies must 6 keep oil and gas in the ground Key finding 2: Smoke and mirrors: companies are deflecting 8 attention from their inaction and ineffective climate strategies Key finding 3: Greatest contributors to climate change show 11 limited recognition of emissions responsibility through targets and planning Key finding 4: Empty promises: companies’ capital 12 expenditure in low-carbon technologies not nearly enough Key finding 5:National oil companies: big emissions, 16 little transparency, virtually no accountability Ranking 19 Module Summaries 25 Module 1: Targets 25 Module 2: Material Investment 28 Module 3: Intangible Investment 31 Module 4: Sold Products 32 Module 5: Management 34 Module 6: Supplier Engagement 37 Module 7: Client Engagement 39 Module 8: Policy Engagement 41 Module 9: Business Model 43 CLIMATE AND ENERGY BENCHMARK IN OIL AND GAS - INSIGHTS REPORT 2 Introduction Our world needs a major decarbonisation and energy transformation to WBA’s Climate and Energy Benchmark measures and ranks the world’s prevent the climate crisis we’re facing and meet the Paris Agreement goal 100 most influential oil and gas companies on their low-carbon transition. of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Without urgent climate action, we will The Oil and Gas Benchmark is the first comprehensive assessment experience more extreme weather events, rising sea levels and immense of companies in the oil and gas sector using the International Energy negative impacts on ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Presidential Power—The Unitary Executive and the George W
    Rethinking Presidential Power—The Unitary Executive and the George W. Bush Presidency. Paper prepared for the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association April 7-10, 2005 Chicago, IL Christopher S. Kelley, Ph.D. Department of Political Science Miami University Oxford, OH [email protected] Abstract: Since the Nixon administration, modern presidents have had a difficult time relying upon the traditional powers of bargaining and persuading offered by the “Modern Presidency” theory of presidential power. As a result, presidents have relied on numerous unilateral actions in order to protect the prerogative of the office and to advance the president’s policy preferences by controlling the executive branch. The “unitary executive” theory offers such an explanation of presidential behavior that some regard as “imperial.” In this paper, I explain what the unitary executive theory is, how it has developed, and how the current Bush administration has fully embraced the theory in helping it govern since the very first day of office in 2001. I will focus on the use of signing statements, executive orders, and the OIRA to advance the administration’s objectives. Keywords: Unitary Executive, Signing Statements, Executive Orders, OMB, OIRA Dana Milbank, the former White House reporter for the “Washington Post,” wrote in an October 11, 2004 column profiling David Addington, Vice-President Cheney’s counsel, about an obscure theory of presidential power that permeated the Bush White House. The article described the detail to which Cheney and Addington had paid to preserving presidential power, from the now-famous “torture” memo to international law governing torture to withholding information about the energy task force formed in 2001 to deal with the country’s energy problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Marathon Agreement
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION __________________________________________ ) In the Matter of ) ) Marathon Petroleum Corporation, ) a corporation, ) ) Express Mart Franchising Corp., ) File. No. 181-0152 a corporation, ) ) Petr-All Petroleum Consulting Corporation, ) a corporation, and ) ) REROB, LLC, ) a limited liability company. ) __________________________________________) AGREEMENT CONTAINING CONSENT ORDERS The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has initiated an investigation of the proposed acquisition by Respondent Marathon Petroleum Corporation, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Speedway LLC (collectively “Marathon”), of retail fuel outlets from Respondents REROB, LLC, Petr-All Petroleum Consulting Corporation, and Express Mart Franchising Corp. (collectively “Proposed Respondents”). The Commission’s Bureau of Competition has prepared a draft administrative complaint (“Draft Complaint”). The Bureau of Competition, Proposed Respondents, and Sunoco LP (“Sunoco”) enter into this Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) to divest certain assets and providing for other relief to resolve the allegations in the Draft Complaint through a proposed Decision and Order and Order to Maintain Assets, all of which are attached, to present to the Commission. IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between Proposed Respondents and Sunoco, by their duly authorized officers and attorneys, and counsel for the Commission that: 1. Proposed Respondent Marathon Petroleum Corporation is a corporation organized, existing, and doing business under, and by virtue of, the laws of the State of Delaware, with its office and principal place of business located at 539 South Main Street, Findlay, Ohio 45840. 2. Proposed Respondent Express Mart Franchising Corp. is a corporation organized, existing, and doing business under, and by virtue of, the laws of the State of New York, with its office and principal place of business located at 7401 Round Pond Road, Syracuse, New York 13212.
    [Show full text]