ConocoPhillips Climate Risk Report ExxonMobil Climate Risk Report Chevron Climate Risk Report https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/‐ https://www.chevron.com/‐/media/shared‐ https://static.conocophillips.com/files/resource Report Link /media/Global/Files/energy‐and‐carbon‐ media/documents/update‐to‐climate‐change‐ s/climate‐change‐report.pdf summary/Energy‐and‐carbon‐summary.pdf resilience.pdf Not quite, ConocoPhillips' pathways have only No, the company puts forward a pathway No, the company did not discuss emissions a 50% chance of limiting warming to 2°C and with no clear reductions to 2040. reductions pathways in its report. currently only projected to 2030. ExxonMobil doesn’t include a projected temperature increase. It claims that its Does the Low‐carbon scenarios should all be on a well trajectory for the energy sector, which ends in Although the findings of the 2018 IPCC 1.5°C company put below 2°C pathway and striving for 1.5°C, in line 2040, closely parallels an IPCC scenario that report underscore the urgent need for swift and forward an with the Paris climate agreement ‐‐ particularly results in a 2.4C increase by 2100—but the deep reductions in emissions from fossil fuels, emissions in light of the IPCC 1.5°C report published in XOM curve never actually bends down, it just Chevron did not update the scenarios it used to reduction 2018. A 50% chance to meet 2°C is too little too goes up on the same angle through 2040. So test the resilience of its portfolio in its 2019 pathway in late. it’s a false claim. If ExxonMobil’s projection report. line with the went to 2100 there’s every reason to believe Paris climate it would go much higher than 2.4C. agreement? The report acknowledges climate science in the climate risk section, linking climate change to more intense or more frequent extreme Energy Outlook Graph. p.8 N/A weather events. However, ConocoPhillips references does not use the recent IPCC 1.5°C report in its scenario planning. Does the company have an absolute emissions reduction target No No No covering emissions from the use of its products? Does the company have an emissions Yes, to reduce GHG emission intensity by No No intensity between 5% and 15% by 2030. reduction target? Yes, has put forward performance measures to Yes, has put forward reduction measures reduce upstream emissions intensity by 25 to Already has intensity reduction target. expected to reduce methane emissions 15% 30% for flaring and 20‐25% for methane and reduce flaring 25% by 2020. emissions by 2023. Chevron has put forward new performance measures based on emissions reductions from its Does the own operations. While these are not targets, the company have company has included them in as metrics in its a different bonus incentive plan. A closer look, however, sort of Long‐term target to reduce GHG emissions ExxonMobil has put forward "reduction reveals that flaring represents approximately 3% quantitative intensity by between 5% and 15% by 2030. The measures that expected to lead to of Chevron's total greenhouse gas emissions. An emissions target only includes Scope 1 and 2 emissions, considerable improvements in emissions intensity reduction of 25% by 2023, based on reduction omitting scope 3. Based on the numbers performance", which lack the formality and 2016 levels, would result in an overall emissions goal? provided by ConocoPhillips in this report, rigidity of an official target. They intend to intensity reduction of far less than 1% per year. reaching the target would lead to an intensity reduce methane emissions by 15% and have a Similarly, Chevron's methane emissions reduction of 1.73 Tonnes/MMBOE. 25% reduction in flaring by 2020. comprise approximately 2% of the company's overall emissions. A 20% intensity reduction by 2023 would lead to negligible overall emissions reductions. Chevron's metrics are decidedly un‐ ambitious "We have a long‐term target to reduce our GHG emissions intensity from five to 15 percent by 2030 from a Jan. 1, 2017 baseline...Our performance will be based on gross operated "In 2018 we announced GHG emissions GHG emissions, stated in carbon dioxide‐ reduction measures that are expected to lead "The Board set Upstream intensity reduction Continued ‐ equivalent terms, divided by our gross operated to considerable improvements in emissions metrics of 25 to 30 percent for flaring and 20 to Does the production, stated in barrels of oil equivalent. performance when compared with 2016 25 percent for methane emissions for the company have The target is set in relation to our Scope 1 levels. These included: 2016–2023 time period."..."Methane accounts a different emissions and Scope 2 gross operated • 15 percent reduction in methane emissions for about 5 percent of Chevron’s total GHG sort of emissions as these are the emissions over which by 2020 compared with 2016 emissions. Approximately a third of the 5 percent quantitative we have the most control. The target covers all • 25 percent reduction in flaring by 2020 are considered fugitive emissions, or leaks from emissions GHGs, but in practice will likely apply to carbon compared with 2016 equipment and piping; of the remaining reduction dioxide and methane emissions as our • 10 percent GHG emissions intensity emissions, most are generated by flaring and goal? emissions of other greenhouse gases are not reduction at Imperial operated oil sands by venting." p.5/p.13 material. The target informs climate goals at the 2023 compared with 2016." p.25 business level. We intend to report our progress against the target on an annual, calendar‐year basis." p.34 No No No ConocoPhillips calculates and discloses Scope 3 The company does not address scope 3 Chevron only addresses Scope 3 emissions when emissions, but does not include them in its GHG emissions, which are the emissions from the stating that the company refuses to take reduction target. end use of their product. responsibility for the end use of its products. Does the company's reduction efforts include "For oil and natural gas exploration and emissions production companies, Scope 3 emissions fall from the end primarily into the “use of sold products” use of their category. Our GHG intensity target does not products cover Scope 3 emissions. As an exploration and (Scope 3)? production company with no downstream assets we have no control over how the raw "Chevron does not support establishing targets materials we produce are transformed into associated with the use of Chevron’s products N/A other products or consumed. We do, however, (emissions related to the energy demand of calculate our Scope 3 emissions annually based consumers)." p.9 on net equity production numbers. The latest update to the EPA’s GHG Emission Factors Hub required a revision to our emissions factors that, in conjunction with lower net production, resulted in our Scope 3 emissions decreasing in 2017." p.33 Mostly Not quite Kind of The report acknowledges climate science in the Chevron acknowledged the recent IPCC 1.5°C climate risk section, linking climate change to While ExxonMobil includes sea level rise in its report, but insisted that increasing its own fossil more intense or more frequent extreme physical risks section, the company does not fuel production is consistent with the dramatic weather events. However, ConocoPhillips acknowledge the recent IPCC 1.5°C report. decrease in emissions from burning fossil fuels references does not use the recent IPCC needed to meet that temperature target. 1.5°C report in its scenario planning. Does the report acknowledge current "When considering physical environmental "As noted by the Intergovernmental Panel on climate risks, we evaluate the type and location of our Climate Change’s Special Report: Global science? "Science suggests that future extreme weather current and planned facilities. As an example, Warming of 1.5°C, there are many ways to limit events may become more intense or more offshore facilities could be impacted by global warming... It is our view that a decrease in frequent, thus placing at risk our operations in changes in wave and wind intensity as well as overall fossil fuel emissions is not inconsistent coastal regions and areas susceptible to by changes in ice floe patterns, while onshore with continued or increased fossil fuel typhoons or hurricanes." p.17 facilities could be vulnerable to sea level rise, production by the most efficient producers. Our changes in storm surge or geotechnical strategy is to be among the most efficient considerations." p.33 producers. " p.9 Yes, but does not disclose the amount of the Yes Not disclosed internal carbon price. ConocoPhillips uses an internal carbon price of ExxonMobil does not discuss whether the Chevron discussed the use of an internal price on $40 per metric tonne applied beginning in the company uses an internal carbon price in its carbon in its 2018 Climate Change Resilience year 2024. decision‐making processes. report, but not in the 2019 update. Does the company use "We use carbon pricing to navigate GHG an internal regulations, change internal behavior, drive price on energy efficiency and low‐carbon investment, carbon in its and stress‐test investments. The company uses decision‐ a range of estimated future costs of GHG making emissions for internal planning purposes, "Our internal carbon price outlook is considered process? including an estimate of $40 per metric tonne N/A in the economic evaluations supporting major applied beginning in the year 2024 as a capital project appropriations." p.26 sensitivity to evaluate certain future projects and opportunities. The company does not use an estimated market cost of GHG emissions when assessing reserves in jurisdictions without existing GHG regulations." p.31 Kind of No No In terms of climate policy, ExxonMobil continues to focus on its membership in the Climate Leadership Council to the exclusion of Chevron touts its involvement in the Oil and Gas The company includes trade association its support for trade associations and other Climate Initiative (OGCI), without mentioning its Does the activities as part of the external context around industry groups that spread climate support for trade associations and other industry company climate‐related risk.