Exxon Mobil Corporation (ExxonMobil)

Exxon Mobil Corporation (ExxonMobil)
Corporate Information
Name	Exxon Mobil Corporation (ExxonMobil)
Founded	1999-11-30
Descended from	Standard Oil  (John D. Rockefeller)
Type	Public company
ISIN	US30231G1022
Traded as	NYSE: XOM  (S&P 100;  S&P 500)
Location	Global
Headquarters	Irving, Texas, U.S.A.
Areas served	Global
Industry	Energy Oil and gas
Predecessor	Exxon Mobil
CEO	Darren W. Woods
Chairman	Darren W. Woods
Controversies	Exxon Valdez oil spill (Alaska, 1989) History of lobbying for climate change denial Accusations of: improperly dealing with human rights issues; influence on American foreign policy it's impact on the future of nations
Products	Crude oil Natural gas Oil products Petrochemicals Power generation
Brands	Coolanol (coolants) Esso Exxon Mobil On the Run (convenience store) Speedpass
Revenue	2020: US$178.57 billion
Operating income	2020: (US$29.45 billion) (decrease)
Total assets	2020: US$332.75 billion
Total equity	2020: US$157.15 billion
Employees	2020: 72,000
Subsidiaries	Aera Energy (California oil & gas) Exxon Neftegas ExxonMobil Australia ExxonMobil Nigeria Imperial Oil SeaRiver Maritime (transport) XTO Energy  (hydraulic fracturing)
Website	Corporate.ExxonMobil.com

Background

Exxon Mobil Corporation, stylized as ExxonMobil, is an American multinational oil and gas corporation headquartered in Irving, Texas. ExxonMobil is the largest direct descendant of John D. Rockefeller's  Standard Oil, and was formed on 1999-11-30, by the merger of Exxon (formerly the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey) and Mobil (formerly the Standard Oil Company of New York). ExxonMobil's primary brands are Exxon,  Mobil, Esso, and ExxonMobil Chemical. ExxonMobil is incorporated in New Jersey.

One of the world's largest companies by revenue, ExxonMobil from 1996 to 2017 varied from the first to sixth largest publicly traded company by market capitalization. ExxonMobil was ranked third globally in the Forbes Global 2000 list in 2016, and was the tenth most profitable company in the Fortune 500 in 2017. As of 2018, the company ranked second in the Fortune 500 rankings of the largest United States corporations by total revenue. Approximately 55.56% of the company's shares are held by institutions. As of March 2019, ExxonMobil's largest shareholders include The Vanguard Group (8.15%)  [founder of the dark money funder the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program],   BlackRock (6.61%), and State Street Corporation (4.83%).

ExxonMobil is one of the largest of the world's Big Oil companies. As of 2007, it had daily production of 3.921 million BOE (barrels of oil equivalent); but significantly smaller than a number of national companies. In 2008, this was approximately 3% of world production, which is less than several of the largest state-owned petroleum companies. When ranked by oil and gas reserves, it is 14th in the world - with less than 1% of the total. ExxonMobil's reserves were 20 billion BOE at the end of 2016 and the 2007 rates of production were expected to last more than 14 years. With 37 oil refineries in 21 countries constituting a combined daily refining capacity of 6.3 million barrels (1,000,000 m3), ExxonMobil is the seventh largest refiner in the world, a title that was also associated with Standard Oil since its incorporation in 1870.

ExxonMobil had been criticized for its slow response to cleanup efforts after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, considered to be one of the world's worst oil spills in terms of damage to the environment. ExxonMobil has a history of lobbying for climate change denial and against the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. ExxonMobil has also been the target of accusations of improperly dealing with human rights issues, influence on American foreign policy, and its impact on the future of nations.

Additional Reading

---




Source: xkcd.com/2500  |  explainxkcd.com

---

Insider knowledge

For decades, some members of the fossil fuel industry tried to convince the public that a causative link between fossil fuel use and climate warming   [climate change ; anthropogenic climate change] could not be made because the models used to project warming were too uncertain. Supran et al. show that one of those fossil fuel companies - ExxonMobil - had their own internal models that projected warming trajectories consistent with those forecast by the independent academic and government models. What they understood about climate models thus contradicted what they led the public to believe.

---

Structured Abstract

BACKGROUND

In 2015, investigative journalists discovered internal company memos indicating that Exxon oil company has known since the late 1970s that its fossil fuel products could lead to global warming with "dramatic environmental effects before the year 2050." Additional documents then emerged showing that the US oil and gas industry's largest trade association had likewise known since at least the 1950s, as had the coal industry since at least the 1960s, and electric utilities, Total oil company (TotalEnergies, and GM (General Motorsand Ford Motor Company since at least the 1970s. Scholars and journalists have analyzed the texts contained in these documents, providing qualitative accounts of fossil fuel interests' knowledge of climate science and its implications. In 2017, for instance, we demonstrated that Exxon's internal documents - as well as peer-reviewed studies published by Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists - overwhelmingly acknowledged that climate change is real and human-caused. By contrast, the majority of Mobil and ExxonMobil Corp's public communications promoted doubt on the matter.

ADVANCES

Many of the uncovered fossil fuel industry documents include explicit projections of the amount of warming expected to occur over time in response to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Yet, these numerical and graphical data have received little attention. Indeed, no one has systematically reviewed climate modeling projections by any fossil fuel interest. What exactly did oil and gas companies know, and how accurate did their knowledge prove to be? Here, we address these questions by reporting and analyzing all known global warming projections documented by - and in many cases modeled by - Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists between 1977 and 2003.

Our results show that in private and academic circles since the late 1970s and early 1980s, ExxonMobil predicted global warming correctly and skillfully. Using established statistical techniques, we find that 63 to 83% of the climate projections reported by ExxonMobil scientists were accurate in predicting subsequent global warming. ExxonMobil's average projected warming was 0.20° ± 0.04°C per decade, which is, within uncertainty, the same as that of independent academic and government projections published between 1970 and 2007. The average "skill score" and level of uncertainty of ExxonMobil's climate models (67 to 75% and ±21%, respectively) were also similar to those of the independent models.

Moreover, we show that ExxonMobil scientists correctly dismissed the possibility of a coming ice age in favor of a "carbon dioxide induced 'super-interglacial';" accurately predicted that human-caused global warming would first be detectable in the year 2000 ± 5; and reasonably estimated how much CO2 would lead to dangerous warming.

OUTLOOK

Today, dozens of cities, counties, and states are suing oil and gas companies  [petroleum industry] for their "longstanding internal scientific knowledge of the causes and consequences of climate change and public deception campaigns." The European Parliament and the U.S. Congress have held hearings, U.S. President Joe Biden has committed to holding fossil fuel companies accountable, and a grassroots social movement has arisen under the moniker #ExxonKnew. Our findings demonstrate that ExxonMobil didn't just know "something" about global warming decades ago - they knew as much as academic and government scientists knew. But whereas those scientists worked to communicate what they knew, ExxonMobil worked to deny it - including overemphasizing uncertainties, denigrating climate models, mythologizing global cooling, feigning ignorance about the discernibility of human-caused warming, and staying silent about the possibility of stranded fossil fuel assets in a carbon-constrained world.

---

Abstract

Climate projections by the fossil fuel industry have never been assessed. On the basis of company records, we quantitatively evaluated all available global warming projections documented by - and in many cases modeled by - Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists between 1977 and 2003. We find that most of their projections accurately forecast warming that is consistent with subsequent observations. Their projections were also consistent with, and at least as skillful as, those of independent academic and government models. Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp also correctly rejected the prospect of a coming ice age, accurately predicted when human-caused global warming would first be detected, and reasonably estimated the "carbon budget" for holding warming below 2°C. On each of these points, however, the company's public statements about climate science contradicted its own scientific data.

[ ... snip ... ]

What ExxonMobil knew versus what they said

Our findings about the company's early understanding of climate science contradict many of the claims that ExxonMobil and its allies have made in public.

Emphasizing uncertainties

It has been established that, for many years, Exxon's public affairs strategy was - as a 1988 internal memo put it - to "emphasize the uncertainty in scientific conclusions regarding the potential enhanced greenhouse effect." However, our analysis shows that in their reports and briefings to management, ExxonMobil's own scientists did not particularly emphasize uncertainty; on the contrary, the level of uncertainty indicated by their global warming projections (bootstrapped 2σ standard error of the mean = ±21%) was commensurate with that reported by independent academics (±16%). Crucially, it excluded the possibility of no anthropogenic global warming; at no point did company scientists suggest that human-caused global warming would not occur. Nor did they conclude that the uncertainties were too great to permit differentiation of human and natural drivers. Yet publicly, ExxonMobil Corp made these claims until at least the early 2010s.

How ExxonMobil Corp exaggerated the uncertainties of climate science and modeling

• In 2000, ExxonMobil Corp CEO Lee Raymond wrote that "We do not now have a sufficient scientific understanding of climate change to make reasonable predictions and/or justify drastic measures ... the science of climate change is uncertain ..." The report speculated about a "natural period of warming," "solar activity," and "volcanic eruptions, El Niño." "With all this natural climate 'noise' and the complexities of measurement," it said, "science is not now able to confirm that fossil fuel use has led to any significant global warming".

• In 2001, an ExxonMobil Corp press release said of the "Hockey Stick" graph showing anthropogenic global warming: "The error bars are huge, yet some prefer to ignore them."

• In 2005, Lee Raymond said in a television interview: "There is a natural variability that has nothing to do with man ... It has to do with sun spots ... with the wobble of the Earth ... The science is not there to make that determination as to whether global warming is human-caused ... There are a lot of other scientists that do not agree with the National Academy and IPCC ... The data is [sic: data (plural) are...] not compelling."

• In 2007, ExxonMobil Corp's website stated that "Gaps in the scientific basis for theoretical climate models and the interplay of significant natural variability make it very difficult to determine objectively the extent to which recent climate changes might be the result of human actions."

• In 2013, ExxonMobil Corp CEO Rex Tillerson said: "The facts remain there are uncertainties around the climate ... what the principal drivers of climate change are ... There are other elements of the climate system that may obviate this one single variable of burning fossil fuels ... And so that's that uncertainty issue ..."

Denigrating climate models

ExxonMobil has often specifically claimed or suggested in public that climate models are "unreliable." In 1999, for example, ExxonMobil Corp's chief executive officer (CEO) Lee Raymond said future climate "projections are based on completely unproven climate models, or, more often, sheer speculation." In 2013, his successor, Rex Tillerson, called climate models "not competent." In 2015, Rex Tillerson stated: "We do not really know what the climate effects of 600 ppm versus 450 ppm will be because the models simply are not that good." The company's own modeling contradicts such statements. Exxon's 1982 projection shown in Fig. 1 (panel 3), for example, suggests that 600 ppm of atmospheric CO2 would lead to 1.3°C more global warming than 450 ppm.

Quantifying ExxonMobil's broader climate knowledge

We gain additional insights into how ExxonMobil misled the public and other stakeholders by further evaluating the company's climate projections and comparing them to its public communications.

Mythologizing global cooling

Panel 1b of Fig. 1 is a graph of the global warming "effect of CO2 on an interglacial scale" originally published by climate scientist J. Murray Mitchell Jr. in March 1977 and reproduced by Exxon scientist James Black in a private briefing to the Exxon Corporation Management Committee 4 months later. This dataset was not included in our preceding analysis because its long time scale does not permit accurate digitization of its projected post-industrial anthropogenic global warming. Nonetheless, overlaying the original graph with the temperatures simulated by a modern Earth system model (in red) shows that Exxon scientists were accurate in warning their superiors of the prospect of a "carbon dioxide induced 'super-interglacial,'" as Mitchell Jr. termed it, that would render Earth hotter than at any time in at least 150,000 years. This shows that Exxon scientists correctly sided with the majority of the peer-reviewed literature in the 1970s that foresaw human-caused global warming overwhelming any possibility of global cooling and a (natural) ice age. According to Peterson et al. (2008), only ~14% of the peer-reviewed literature between 1965 and 1977 anticipated global cooling. It also shows that "the myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus" cultivated in public by Mobil in the 1990s and ExxonMobil Corp in the 2000s was false and contradicted the conclusion of their own scientists that global cooling was unlikely.

How Mobil and ExxonMobil Corp cultivated the myth of a 1970s global cooling scientific consensus

• In 1997, Mobil CEO Lee Raymond questioned whether "the Earth is really warming" by claiming that "In the 1970s, some of today's prophets of doom from global warming were predicting the coming of a new ice age."

• In 2001, an ExxonMobil Corp press release said: "There is no consensus about long-term climate trends and what causes them ... during the 1970's [sic], people were concerned about global cooling."

• In 2003, US Senator James Inhofe, who has to date received $2.3 million in campaign contributions from oil and gas companies, including ExxonMobil, argued that the issue of human-caused global warming "is far from settled" by pointing to "those who warned us in the 1970s that the planet was headed for a catastrophic global cooling."

• In 2004, a report published by the ExxonMobil Corp-funded Cato Institute stated that "Thirty years ago there was much scientific discussion among those who believed that humans influenced the ... reflectivity which would cool the earth, more than ... increasing carbon dioxide, causing warming. Back then, the 'coolers' had the upper hand ... But nature quickly shifted gears ... Needless to say, the abrupt shift in the climate caused almost as abrupt a shift in the balance of scientists who predictably followed the temperature."

Claiming ignorance about discernibility

A second insight involves ExxonMobil's predictions as to when anthropogenic global warming would be discernible against the backdrop of natural climate fluctuations. Ten internal reports and one peer-reviewed publication spanning 1979-1985 offered quantitative estimates, with a median year of 2000 ± 5. (For each document, we infer the predicted year from its corresponding supporting quotations, summarized in table S4; see SM section S1.2.6 for method details.) This is consistent with what in fact occurred. In 1995, the IPCC declared that a human effect on global temperatures had been detected, a conclusion they reiterated with higher confidence in 2000 and in all subsequent IPCC assessment reports. In other words, ExxonMobil's understanding of climate science was sufficient not only to project long-term warming accurately but also to predict when it would be discernible. Yet, ExxonMobil publicly asserted that the science was too uncertain to know when - or if - human-caused global warming might be measurable. In 2004, for example, they stated that "scientific uncertainties continue to limit our ability to make objective, quantitative determinations regarding the human role in recent climate change," a claim that was contrary to the analysis of their own scientists.

Staying silent on stranded assets

A third insight concerns the "carbon budget" - the amount of CO2 that can be added to the atmosphere - while holding anthropogenic global warming below 2°C. Five ExxonMobil studies published between 1982 and 2005 address the question. They conclude that to stabilize CO2 concentrations below 550 ppm and/or limit warming to 2°C would impose a carbon budget of 251 to 716 gigatonnes of carbon between 2015 and 2100. For comparison, recent calculations have narrowed the uncertainty and place the figure at 442 to 651 gigatonnes of carbon. Thus, ExxonMobil's calculations of the carbon budget were consistent with today's best estimates. Yet, to our knowledge, ExxonMobil did not alert investors, consumers, or the general public to this constraint.

[ ... snip ... ]

---

Related

• [Truthout.org, 2023-01-12] Study Reveals Exxon Accurately Predicted Global Warming Decades Ago.  For the first time, researchers have quantitatively shown Exxon’s internal data on global warming was highly accurate.

• [CommonDreams.org, 2023-01-13] 'Nail in the Coffin:' Study Shows Exxon Accurately Predicted Warming Decades Ago.  "Our analysis shows that ExxonMobil's own data contradicted its public statements, which included exaggerating uncertainties, criticizing climate models, mythologizing global cooling, and feigning ignorance," said lead author Geoffrey Supran.

• [CBC.ca, 2023-01-13] Exxon Mobil accurately predicted global warming since 1970s, study finds.  Study reveals oil giant's research predicted global warming with up to 83% accuracy.

---

"Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes," said ExxonMobil lobbyist Keith McCoy. "Did we join some of these 'shadow groups' to work against some of the early efforts? Yes, that's true. But there's nothing illegal about that." These are the words McCoy was caught saying on a secretly recorded video released by Unearthed  [Wikipedia entry], Greenpeace U.K.'s investigative journalism arm, and the British Channel 4 News this summer exposing how the oil giant and lobby groups such as the American Petroleum Institute  [DeSmog.com entry] seed doubt about climate change and undermine legislation to stop global warming.

These revelations quickly spurred calls for Congress to investigate Exxon's and other fossil fuel companies' efforts to obstruct climate action. On 2021-07-26, the United States House Committee on Oversight and Reform sent a letter to Keith McCoy requesting his voluntary appearance before the committee. And on 2021-10-28, Congress questioned the CEOs of ExxonMobil,   Chevron,   BP America,   Shell, and the American Petroleum Institute on their history of blocking climate policy.

For years, academics, journalists, and activists have been unearthing documents proving that the fossil fuel industry knew about the dangers of climate change since the late 1950s. That's many, many years before Keith McCoy was even twinkle in his daddy's eye and decades before he came to Washington to join in Exxon's campaign to deny science and delay action to save the planet from "catastrophic climate change" - a term Exxon used back in 1981.

These documents show how companies worked to erode public acceptance of climate science over the years - including Exxon corporate reports from the late 1970s, revealed by DeSmog in 2016, which stated "There is no doubt" that CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels was a growing "problem."

To explain the long history of what the fossil fuel industry knew and when they knew it, Stanford University science historian Ben Franta has collected a dozen of his favorite documents.

[ ... snip ... ]

ExxonMobil's chief executive said Thursday [2021-10-28] that his company "does not spread disinformation regarding climate change" as he and other oil company chiefs countered congressional allegations the industry concealed evidence about the dangers of it. Testifying at a landmark House hearing, CEO Darren Woods said ExxonMobil "has long acknowledged the reality and risks of climate change, and it has devoted significant resources to addressing those risks." The oil giant's public statements on climate "are and have always been truthful, fact-based ... and consistent" with mainstream climate science, Woods said. Woods was among top officials at four major oil companies testifying Thursday as congressional Democrats investigate what they describe as a decades-long, industry-wide campaign to spread disinformation about the role of fossil fuels in causing global warming.

The much-anticipated hearing before the House Oversight Committee [United States House Committee on Oversight and Reform] comes after months of public efforts by Democrats to obtain documents and other information on the oil industry's role in stopping climate action over multiple decades [climate change denial]. The appearance of the four oil executives -- from ExxonMobil,   Chevron,   BP America, and Shell -- has drawn comparisons to a high-profile hearing in the 1990s with tobacco executives who famously testified that they didn't believe nicotine was addictive.

"The fossil fuel industry has had scientific evidence about the dangers of climate change since at least 1977. Yet for decades, the industry spread denial and doubt about the harm of its products -- undermining the science and preventing meaningful action on climate change even as the global climate crisis became increasingly dire," said Reps. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif. "For far too long, Big Oil has escaped accountability for its central role in bringing our planet to the brink of a climate catastrophe. That ends today," said Maloney, who chairs the Oversight panel. "This hearing is just the start of our investigation," added Khanna, who leads a subcommittee on the environment. "These companies must be held accountable."

The committee released a memo Thursday [2021-10-28] charging that the oil industry's public support for climate reforms has not been matched by meaningful actions, and that the industry has spent billions of dollars to block reforms. Oil companies frequently boast about their efforts to produce clean energy in advertisements and social media posts accompanied by sleek videos or pictures of wind turbines. "Today's staff memo shows Big Oil's campaign to 'greenwash' their role in the climate crisis in action," Maloney said. "These oil companies pay lip service to climate reforms, but behind the scenes they spend far more time lobbying to preserve their lucrative tax breaks."

Carolyn Maloney and other Democrats have focused particular ire on Exxon, after a senior lobbyist for the company was caught in a secret video bragging that Exxon had fought climate science through "shadow groups" and had targeted influential senators in an effort to weaken President Joe Biden's climate agenda, including a bipartisan infrastructure bill and a sweeping climate and social policy bill currently moving through Congress.

Keith McCoy, a former Washington-based lobbyist for Exxon, dismissed the company's public expressions of support for a proposed carbon tax on fossil fuel emissions as a "talking point." McCoy's comments were made public in June by the environmental group Greenpeace UK, which secretly recorded him and another lobbyist in Zoom interviews. McCoy no longer works for the company, an Exxon spokesperson said last month [2021-09].

[ ... snip ... ]

ExxonMobil senior lobbyist Keith McCoy was caught on video more than a month ago [2021-06] saying that he and his employer fight congressional climate action by using "shadow groups" and centrist think tanks. But the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation has so far decided to keep McCoy on as an advisor.

McCoy is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's (CBC Foundation; CBCF) corporate advisory council, which "[advises] the CBCF's Board of Directors on policy, special initiatives, and leadership development." The CBCF's Board of Directors currently includes six members of the United States House of Representatives, some of whom hold positions on the House committee with jurisdiction over legislation related to environmental protections and climate change. The CBCF is a nonprofit affiliate of the Congressional Black Caucus that researches how policies affect Black communities, publishes legislative reports, and hosts an annual legislative conference that it describes as "the leading policy conference on issues impacting African Americans and the global Black community."

On 2021-06-30, a Greenpeace-affiliated outlet released video of Keith McCoy, a senior director of federal relations for Exxon [ExxonMobil], telling an undercover reporter that his company works behind the scenes to stall action on climate change [climate change denial] even as it claims publicly to support the Paris Agreement and policies like a carbon tax. McCoy, who believed he was giving advice to someone who was looking to hire a lobbyist, said that the company backs a carbon tax because it believes it will never happen but gives it a good talking point.