DOCSLIB.ORG

Inside the Big Oil Playbook

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Inside the Big Oil Playbook Inside the Big Oil Playbook Strategies and Tactics Used in the Industry’s Battle to Ship Tar Sands Oil Out of Casco Bay Inside the Big Oil Playbook Strategies and Tactics Used in the Industry’s Battle to Ship Tar Sands Oil Out of Casco Bay Written by: Jordan Schneider, Frontier Group Emily Figdor and Taryn Hallweaver, Environment Maine Research & Education Center June 2014 Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Joshua Axelrod, environmental law and policy consultant, International Program, Natural Resources Defense Council; Rachel Burger, founder, Protect South Portland; Kenneth Rumelt, staff attorney and assistant professor, Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic, Vermont Law School; and Jim Murphy, senior counsel, National Wildlife Federation for their review and insightful comments on drafts of this report. Thanks also to Tony Dutzik and Jeff Inglis of Frontier Group for their editorial assistance. Environment Maine Research & Policy Center is grateful to the Oak Foundation for making this report possible. The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of Environment Maine Research & Policy Center. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review. © 2014 Environment Maine Research & Policy Center Environment Maine Research & Policy Center is a 501(c)(3) organization. We are dedicated to protecting Maine’s air, water and open spaces. We investigate prob- lems, craft solutions, educate the public and decision makers, and help Mainers make their voices heard in local, state and national debates over the quality of our environment and our lives. For more information about Environment Maine Research & Policy Center or for additional copies of this report, please visit www.environmentmainecenter.org. Frontier Group conducts independent research and policy analysis to support a cleaner, healthier and more democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate information and compelling ideas into public policy debates at the local, state and federal levels. For more information about Frontier Group, please visit www.frontiergroup.org. Design and Layout: To the Point Publications, www.tothepointpublications.com Cover photo: Earl Long Table of Contents Executive Summary . 4 Introduction ........................................................8 The Tar Sands Threat to Maine........................................10 South Portland Residents Attempt to Ban New Tar Sands Oil Infrastructure . 11 Big Oil Steps in to Defeat the Waterfront Protection Ordinance..................................13 The Big Oil Playbook: Strategies and Tactics Used Against the Waterfront Protection Ordinance . 14 Spend Big to Defeat the Waterfront Protection Ordinance . .14 Downplay the Role of Out-of-State Big Oil Interests .............................................16 Deny the Existence of Any Plans to Export Tar Sands from Maine ................................19 Manufacture and Play Up Economic Fears ......................................................21 Conclusion . 23 Appendix . 24 Notes ..............................................................26 Executive Summary or the last decade, the world’s largest oil Big Oil’s campaign to defeat the South Portland bal- corporations have developed one of the most lot initiative, the Waterfront Protection Ordinance, is a extensive industrial operations in the world: case study of the tools and tactics Big Oil has already theF extraction and processing of tar sands (natural used, and can be expected to use in the future, to bitumen) in northeastern Alberta, Canada. Tar sands keep alive the possibility of shipping tar sands oil oil (diluted bitumen) is more carbon intensive than through Maine, other U.S. states, and large swaths of conventional oil and nearly impossible to clean up Canada. when spilled into waterways. As citizens and decision-makers consider tar sands Public opposition to the extraction and transporta- projects in Maine, and throughout the United States tion of tar sands oil has grown significantly in the last and Canada, it is imperative to understand the tactics five years, most notably in response to TransCanada’s the oil industry is using to advance its interests in the Keystone XL pipeline proposal, which would pipe tar Alberta tar sands. sands oil through the heartland of America, across valuable cropland and one of the nation’s most Big Oil’s campaign to defeat the Waterfront Pro- critical aquifers. In response to mounting grassroots tection Ordinance used four main strategies. resistance against Keystone XL and other proposals to transport tar sands, the American Petroleum Insti- 1) Spend big to defeat the ordinance. tute (API), Big Oil’s Washington, D.C., lobbying arm, has led aggressive “astroturf” (or phony grassroots) Big Oil spared no expense in its effort to defeat the campaigns to try to thwart local opposition to the Waterfront Protection Ordinance. industry’s tar sands plans. • Opponents of the Waterfront Protection South Portland, Maine, became what the Bangor Ordinance spent nearly $750,000 on the campaign Daily News described as “ground zero” for the tar to influence votes in the city of South Portland sands debate when residents, in partnership with (population 25,000)—or $168 for every “no” several statewide environmental groups, qualified a vote on the ordinance. To put this spending in ballot initiative to stop the oil industry from estab- perspective, consider that former New York City lishing Portland Harbor as the U.S. East Coast ship- Mayor Michael Bloomberg spent $184 for every ping hub for tar sands’ entry into the global energy vote in his favor in one of the most expensive market.1 In response, Big Oil launched a massive, self-financed political campaigns in U.S. history. $750,000 campaign to defeat the initiative in a city of In contrast, President Barack Obama’s nationwide just 25,000 people, spending the equivalent of $168 presidential campaign spent $16 for every vote for every “no” vote. Big Oil ultimately prevailed by a cast in his favor in 2012. margin of 192 votes. 4 Inside the Big Oil Playbook • Big Oil’s campaign strategy was shaped by high- • Out-of-state interests provided more than 70 priced out-of-state consultants. The anti-Water- percent of the in-kind and cash donations made front Protection Ordinance campaign spent to the anti-Waterfront Protection Ordinance $133,000 on consulting, including more than campaign. (See Figure ES-1.) API was the largest $63,000 of in-kind consulting services provided donor, contributing more than $270,000 in cash by API. and in-kind services—enough to cover one-third of the anti-Waterfront Protection Ordinance • Big Oil interests also hired well-connected campaign. political insiders, such as Dan Demeritt, former communications director for Gov. Paul LePage, • Even some of the “in-state” oil interests that and New Hampshire political publicist Jim Merrill, contributed to the anti-Waterfront Protection who directed President George W. Bush’s 2000 Ordinance effort represented predominantly general election campaign in the Granite State. out-of-state interests. For example, the ultimate parents of Portland Montreal Pipe Line, the 2) Downplay the role of Big Oil. largest in-state contributor to the anti-Waterfront Protection Ordinance campaign, are Texas-based To give its campaign the gloss of public support, Big ExxonMobil, Canadian Exxon subsidiary Imperial Oil highlighted the faces and voices of prominent Oil Limited and Canadian energy giant Suncor local officials and businessmen in its campaign ads, Energy. mailers and websites. But behind the scenes, out- of-state corporations and global experts at engi- • The anti-Waterfront Protection Ordinance neering “astroturf” campaigns were hard at work campaign’s “grassroots” outreach was also orchestrating the campaign. controlled from afar. Big Oil retained the Figure ES-1. The Majority of Anti-Waterfront Protection Ordinance Contributions Came from Out-Of-State Interests* Citgo Petroleum Corporation 3% Cianbro Companies PMPL Sprague 2% 19% Gulf Oil 8% 6% AGCMaine 1% Irving Oil Maine Energy 9% Marketers Association 1% American Global Companies, Petroleum Institute LLC 50% 1% C.N. Brown Company <1% In-State Company Out-of-State Company *Sprague Operating Resources and Irving Oil both have headquarters in New Hampshire and therefore considered “out-of-state,” despite the fact that they own some facilities on South Portland’s waterfront. On the other hand, Portland Pipe Line Corp., headquartered in Port- land, is considered “in-state” despite being majority-owned by ExxonMobil, a multinational corporation based in Texas. Executive Summary 5 Maryland-based consulting firm DDC Advocacy to make use of these excellent assets, and that to provide nearly $172,000 in canvassing services includes the possibility of reversing our pipeline, during the campaign. DDC Advocacy advertises and it includes the possibility of moving oil from that its “reach extends across the United States the western Canadian oil sands.” and around the world” and encourages clients to • In February 2014, an API-backed front group “Hire us. We speak the local dialect.” called “Energy Citizens” took out ads in three • Big Oil also hired out-of-state contractors for Portland-area newspapers. The advertisements direct mail and robo-call services, including firms claimed that tar sands oil is “just oil” and that in Iowa, Minnesota and Virginia. “crude oil from
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Journalism, Truth and Healthy Communities
    Journalism, Truth and Healthy Communities Healthy people, healthy businesses, healthy governments — healthy communities — are all best informed and engaged by independent community journalists who examine school budgets, expose scandals, question practices and politics, scrutinize environmental practices, who champion good and who dare to challenge fear and falsehoods. The work we do in our newsrooms enhances community life, it exposes mental and social health care problems and brings solutions forward, it relentlessly exposes overspending in our governments, and highlights the great people who live and work all around us. Communities are healthier, more engaged, more resilient and better able to thrive when informed by truth. The Advertiser-Democrat • Aroostook Republican • The Bethel Citizen • Boothbay Register • The Bridgton News • The Calais Advertiser • The Camden Herald • Castine Patriot • Coastal Journal • County Wide Newspaper • The Courier-Gazette • The Ellsworth American • The Forecaster • The Franklin Journal • Houlton Pioneer Times • Island Ad-Vantages • The Lincoln County News • Livermore Falls Advertiser • Machias Valley News • Observer • Mount Desert Islander • The Original Irregular • The Penobscot Times • The Piscataquis Observer • The Quoddy Tides • The Rangeley Highlander • Rumford Falls Times • St. John Valley Times • The Star-Herald • The Weekly Packet • Wiscasset Newspaper • York County Coast Star • York Weekly Fiddlehead Focus • Penobscot Bay Pilot • Pine Tree Watch A year ago, Carlene Gray suffered a stroke and now every time the 82-year- old tries to climb down the five steps to her yard, it’s a harrowing experience. The boards wobble beneath her. She clutches the railing in fear and hangs on to whomever is there to help. “Somebody has to be with her,” said Hope Priola, Gray’s granddaughter.
    [Show full text]
  • August 14, 2019
    PRSRT STD Postal Customer U.S. Postage PAID Cape Elizabeth, ME 04107 Permit No. 454 Portland, ME The Cape Cour erECRWSS Volume 32 Number 13 An Independent Not-for-Profi t Newspaper Aug 14 - Aug 27, 2019 Serving Cape Elizabeth Since 1988 In the Spirit of Community capecourier.com 22nd running of the TD Beach to Beacon 10K By Kevin St. Jarre Photo by Sara Spidle Photo by Joanne Lee A young Beach to Beach spectator cheers runners on at the corner of Shore Road and Cape Elizabeth residents Jessica Butzel, Nancy O’Sullivan and Kelly O’Sullivan are all Route 77 as they pass by on their way to the fi nish line. smiles after the race. With nearly perfect weather for the event, hopefuls Abdi and Robinson fi nished third was Emily Infi eld, 29, of Portland, Oregon, Maine’s fi rst women’s fi nisher was 16-year more than 6500 runners participated in the and fourth, respectively. with a time of 32:39. She recently recovered old Sofi e Matson, of Falmouth, with a time 22nd annual TD Beach to Beacon 10K race, The top female fi nisher was Joyciline Je- from hip surgery and had not run a 10K since of 36:01. Corey Dowe, 26, of Farmington at and it was a pair of Kenyans coming out on pkosgei, 25, of Kenya, with a time of 31:05. 2017. Olympic favorite Scott Fauble, 27, with 36:34, and Heather Gallant, 38, of Wayne at top. She ran even with fellow Kenyan and defend- a time of 28:58, was the top American men’s 36:58, fi nished second and third, respectively Alex Korio, 28, of Kenya won with a time ing women’s champion Sandrafelis Chebet- fi nisher.
    [Show full text]
  • Official Website of the Town of Yarmouth, Maine
    Appendix 1 MCM 1 and 2 Backup - Yarmouth Maine - PY7 ISWG Permit Year 7 (2019‐2020) Summary of Minimum Control Measures 1 & 2 Permit Year 7 (PY7) Summary of Minimum Control Measures 1 & 2 The following is a summary of work facilitated by the Cumberland County Soil & Water Conservation District (CCSWCD) on behalf of the Interlocal Stormwater Working Group (ISWG). The 2013 MEPDES MS4 Permit expired on June 30, 2018 but was administratively continued. Guidance from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Maine DEP) indicated that compliance may be maintained by implementing modified Permit Year 6 activities for “Permit Year 7”. CCSWCD submitted an email to Maine DEP clarifying the anticipated modifications to MCMs 1 and 2 on 8/5/2019. In addition, because of the statewide COVID-19 Stay at Home Order and social distancing restrictions, the DEP issued guidance in March and April 2020, and CCSWCD submitted a clarifying email to Maine DEP on 4/9/2020 describing modifications to remaining MCM 1 and 2 BMP action items. This report includes a summary of all four education & outreach plans required under MCM 1 of the 2013 MEPDES MS4 Permit including the Stormwater Public Awareness Plan, the Targeted BMP Adoption Plan, the Municipal Permit Awareness Plan, and the Enhanced Outreach Plan. This report also includes a summary of the regional public event (Urban Runoff) in fulfillment of MCM 2 of the 2013 MEPDES MS4 Permit. Additional voluntary (not required by the permit) outreach activities are also included. MCM1: Public Education and Outreach on Stormwater Impacts Stormwater Public Awareness Plan Task Status Details1 Summarize plan Complete Plan goal: As a result of our efforts, at the end of this permit cycle, 50% of implementation to homeowners, aged 35-55, in the 30 regulated small MS4 municipalities will date understand that water does run off their property, not all is absorbed, and it will carry with it pollutants, such as lawn chemicals, pet waste, and oil drops.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorandum DATE: May 16, 2019
    Memorandum DATE: May 16, 2019 TO: Chair and Members of the Board FROM: Kevin H. Roche, CEO SUBJECT: Agenda for the Outreach & Recycling Committee Meeting There is an ecomaine Outreach & Recycling Committee scheduled for May 23, 2019 @ 4:00PM. The agenda for this meeting is as follows: 1. Approval of Minutes (Attachment A) 2. Update on Recycling is a Work of Art contest 3. Update on School Grants 4. Upcoming Events: • Annual Meeting, June 20, 2019 11:30, Thompson’s Point, Portland • Tentative Date for Open House Date: September 28, 2019 5. Outreach & Education (Attachment B ) • Education & Outreach Data • ecomaine Website & Media Analytics 6. Recycling Market Report (Attachment C) • Update on Contmination and Community Intern Pilot Program 7. Other Meetings: Our Annual Board of Directors Meeting will be held at Thompson Point (Brick South) 8 Thompsons Point, located in Portland Maine. Annual Board of Directors Meeting 06-20-2019 @ 11:30am 5/20/2019 7:28 AM Attachment A Memorandum DATE: March 7, 2019 TO: Chair and Members of the Board FROM: Kevin H. Roche, CEO SUBJECT: Outreach & Recycling Committee Minutes – March 7, 2019 The ecomaine Outreach & Recycling Committee met March 7. The meeting was called to order at 4:03 p.m. by Caleb Hemphill, Chairman. 1. Approval of Minutes • Jamie Garvin moved to approve minutes, Maureen McDevitt seconded and all unanimously approved. 2. Recicyling is a Work of Art Contest Deliberation • The Committee met and selected the following artist(s)/individual(s)/group(s) i. Bomb Diggity Arts – Hearts & Recycling Symbols (Portland) ii. Cecile Williams – Octopus Cleaning up the Ocean (Yarmouth) iii.
    [Show full text]
  • Big Oil's Real Agenda on Climate Change
    Big Oil’s Real Agenda on Climate Change How the oil majors have spent $1bn since Paris on narrative capture and lobbying on climate March 2019 Big Oil’s Real Agenda on Climate Change How the oil majors have spent $1Bn since Paris on narrative capture and lobbying on climate Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Detailed Results ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Big Oil and the US Elections ................................................................................................................ 17 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 20 Appendix: Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 21 Appendix: Climate Scoring Profiles .................................................................................................. 22 1 InfluenceMap March 2019 Executive Summary ◼ This research finds that the five largest publicly-traded oil and gas majors (ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, BP and Total) have invested over $1Bn of shareholder funds in the three
    [Show full text]
  • Big Oil's Oily Grasp
    Big Oil’s Oily Grasp The making of Canada as a Petro-State and how oil money is corrupting Canadian politics Daniel Cayley-Daoust and Richard Girard Polaris Institute December 2012 The Polaris Institute is a public interest research organization based in Canada. Since 1997 Polaris has been dedicated to developing tools and strategies to take action on major public policy issues, including the corporate power that lies behind public policy making, on issues of energy security, water rights, climate change, green economy and global trade. Polaris Institute 180 Metcalfe Street, Suite 500 Ottawa, ON K2P 1P5 Phone: 613-237-1717 Fax: 613-237-3359 Email: [email protected] www.polarisinstitute.org Cover image by Malkolm Boothroyd Table of Contents Introduction 1 1. Corporations and Industry Associations 3 2. Lobby Firms and Consultant Lobbyists 7 3. Transparency 9 4. Conclusion 11 Appendices Appendix A, Companies ranked by Revenue 13 Appendix B, Companies ranked by # of Communications 15 Appendix C, Industry Associations ranked by # of Communications 16 Appendix D, Consultant lobby firms and companies represented 17 Appendix E, List of individual petroleum industry consultant Lobbyists 18 Appendix F, Recurring topics from communications reports 21 References 22 ii Glossary of Acronyms AANDC Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada CAN Climate Action Network CAPP Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act CEPA Canadian Energy Pipelines Association CGA Canadian Gas Association DPOH
    [Show full text]
  • Cash Flows of Five Oil Majors Can't Cover Dividends, Buybacks
    Kathy Hipple, Financial Analyst 1 Clark Williams-Derry, Energy Finance Analyst Tom Sanzillo, Directory of Finance January 2020 Living Beyond Their Means: Cash Flows of Five Oil Majors Can’t Cover Dividends, Buybacks Companies Are Using Stopgap Asset Sales and New Long- Term Debt to Bridge Chronic Shortfalls for Funding Shareholder Dividends Since 2010, the world’s largest oil and gas companies have failed to generate enough cash from their primary business – selling oil, gas, refined products and petrochemicals – to cover the payments they have made to their shareholders. ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Total, and Royal Dutch Shell (Shell), the five largest publicly traded oil and gas firms, collectively rewarded stockholders with $536 billion in dividends and share buybacks since 2010, while generating $329 billion in free cash flow over the same period.1 (See Table 1.) The companies made up the $207 billion cash shortfall—equal to 39 percent of total shareholder distributions—primarily by selling assets and borrowing money. Table 1: Five Supermajors: Free Cash Flow, Shareholder Distributions, Cash Deficits, 2010 – 3Q 2019 (Billion $USD) Dividends and Free Cash Flow Deficit Buybacks Exxon-Mobil $137.8 $202.3 ($64.5) BP $13.2 $62.9 ($49.7) Chevron $47.3 $90.5 ($43.1) Total SA $29.4 $56.4 ($27.0) Shell $101.0 $123.9 ($22.9) Sum, 5 Supermajors $328.7 $535.9 ($207.2) Source: IEEFA, based on company financial reports. Totals may not add due to rounding. This practice reflects an underlying weakness in the fundamentals of contemporary oil and gas business models: revenues from the supermajors’ operations are not covering their core operational expenses and capital expenditures.
    [Show full text]
  • NO MORE BIG OIL BAILOUTS by Lukas Ross, Senior Policy Analyst at Friends of the Earth
    NO MORE BIG OIL BAILOUTS by Lukas Ross, Senior Policy Analyst at Friends of the Earth KEY FINDINGS Corporate polluters A rent holiday could soon be The biggest are asking for In 2018 these declared for Big Oil, but not for beneficiaries of this “royalty relief,” royalty payments from normal people. Although Trump rental freeze would be essentially a bailout oil and gas companies and Congressional Republicans corporations sitting on that would lower or alone totaled $7.4 blocked support for hard hit the largest amounts eliminate payments to billion. This is enough tenants in the recent $2.2 trillion of acreage. Anadarko taxpayers. This bailout money to buy nearly stimulus, the Interior Depart- paid the most rent would disproportionate- 1.2 million ventilators ment could soon give Big Oil a in 2018 at $14.52 ly benefit corporations or to buy every break on its rent by suspending million, followed by like BP, Shell, individual in the existing leases. This would BHP and Chevron Chevron, Exxon United States 38 freeze rental payments, which at $11.707 million and Anadarko. protective masks. totaled $126 million for oil and $9.914 million, and gas in 2018. respectively. INTRODUCTION Plundering our lands and waters on the cheap at the expense of taxpayers and the climate is hardly new for the fossil fuel industry. The United States now leads the world in cases of COVID-19. Even in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, polluters are wasting no time cashing in on disaster. Trump and Interior Secretary David Bernhardt could soon act by waiving billions in payments due from the oil, gas and coal industries to taxpayers.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 1997
    ANNUAL REPORT 97 AND ACCOUNTS 1997 Den norske stats oljeselskap a.s - Statoil - was founded in 1972. All its shares are owned by the Norwegian state. The company’s object is, either by itself or through partic- ipation in or together with other companies, to carry out exploration, production, transportation, refining and marketing of petroleum and petroleum-derived products, as well as other business. Net operating revenue for the group in 1997 totalled NOK 125 billion. At 31 December, it had the equivalent of 17 000 full-time employees. Statoil is the leading player on the Norwegian continental shelf, and has undertaken a gradual expansion of its international upstream operations in recent years. The group is one of the world’s largest net sellers of crude oil, and a substantial supplier of natural gas to Europe. Statoil ranks as the biggest retailer of petrol and other oil products in Scandinavia. It has a 50 per cent interest in the Borealis petrochemicals group and owns 80 per cent of the Navion shipping company. Statoil is responsible for managing the state’s direct financial interest (SDFI) in partnerships engaged in exploration for as well as development, production and transport of oil and gas on the Norwegian continental shelf. Statoil operates in the following countries: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, UK, Ireland, Belgium, France, Russia, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Azerbaijan, Kazakstan, Angola, Namibia, Nigeria, USA, Australia, China, Venezuela and Brazil. REVIEW OF 1997 CONTENTS 1 REVIEW OF 1997 2 FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS 6 CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S COMMENTS 8 DIRECTORS’ REPORT 16 STATOIL’S OPERATIONS 34 ANNUAL ACCOUNTS 62 OIL AND GAS RESERVES INCREASED RESERVES 63 SENIOR MANAGEMENT STATOIL’S OVERALL OIL AND GAS 64 STATE’S DIRECT FINANCIAL RESERVES INCREASED BY EIGHT PER CENT.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Industry Associations and Initiatives March 2020 Introduction Background
    Review of industry associations and initiatives March 2020 Introduction Background Climate change is among the biggest challenges of our inside of associations through dialogue and discussions, Equinor is a broad energy company committed to actively in some associations than in others, but time. It is a clear call for action. Achieving the ambitions of and we will voice our concerns when we as a member developing its business in support of the ambitions of the we recognise that our membership in associations the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Sustainable find misalignment with an industry association on climate Paris Agreement. We are building a high value and lower give important arenas for development of policy Development Goals will require significant efforts from related policy. In cases of material misalignment, we are carbon oil and gas portfolio, establishing an industrial recommendations, including climate regulations. We across society - from individuals, companies, governments, prepared to exit the association. position in renewables and embedding climate risk into believe that aligning our contribution and positions as associations, multilateral institutions and civil society. our investments and decision-making. We are committed an industry, across companies and associations, will Equinor believes it is a good business strategy to ensure to supporting public policies aimed at combatting be key to supporting the energy transition. In line with Industry associations represent valuable partners for our competitiveness and drive change towards a low-carbon climate change by reducing global greenhouse gas this belief, we signed a joint statement with the investor industry and Equinor is engaged in associations across future, based on a strong commitment to value creation (GHG) emissions.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shale Oil Boom: a U.S
    The Geopolitics of Energy Project THE SHALE OIL BOOM: A U.S. PHENOMENON LEONARDO MAUGERI June 2013 Discussion Paper #2013-05 Geopolitics of Energy Project Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Harvard Kennedy School 79 JFK Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Fax: (617) 495-8963 Email: [email protected] Website: http://belfercenter.org Copyright 2013 President and Fellows of Harvard College The author of this report invites use of this information for educational purposes, requiring only that the reproduced material clearly cite the full source: Leonardo Maugeri. “The Shale Oil Boom: A U.S. Phenomenon” Discussion Paper 2013-05, Belfer Center for Science and International Af- fairs, Harvard Kennedy School, June 2013. Statements and views expressed in this discussion paper are solely those of the author and do not imply endorsement by Harvard University, the Harvard Kennedy School, or the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. The Geopolitics of Energy Project THE SHALE OIL BOOM: A U.S. PHENOMENON LEONARDO MAUGERI June 2013 iv The Shale Oil Boom: A U.S. Phenomenon ABOUT THE AUTHOR Leonardo Maugeri is the Roy Family Fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Leonardo Maugeri has been a top manager of Eni (the sixth largest multinational oil company), where he held the positions of Senior Executive Vice President of Strategy and Development (2000-2010) and Executive Chairman of Polimeri Europa, Eni’s petrochemical branch (2010- 2011). On August 31th, 2011, he left Eni. Maugeri has published four books on energy, among them the The Age of Oil: the Mythology, History, and Future of the World’s Most Controversial Resource (Praeger, 2006), and Beyond the Age of Oil: The Myths and Realities of Fossil Fuels and Their Alternatives (Praeger, 2010).
    [Show full text]