From: Douglas Grandt answerthecall@icloud.

com
Subject:Beware both those who despise you and those who defend you!
Date:March 13, 2017 at 4:41 PM
To:Max Schulz max.schulz@exxonmobil.com, Suzanne M. McCarron Suzanne.M.McCarron@ExxonMobil.com, Darren W. Woods
Darren.W.Woods@ExxonMobil.com
Cc: William (Bill) M. Colton William.M.Colton@ExxonMobil.com

Dear Max, Suzanne and Darren (who actually wrote this blog?),

I have been following the conversation on your blog dated February 23, 2016.

There are some very interesting comments, but nobody actually called you on the essential assumption that
reveals your hubris:

Assumption #1: ExxonMobil ignores COP21s 1.5C aspiration and you snub your collective
nose at humanitys desire to survive.

This is a fundamental flaw in your business plan, aka 2016 Energy Outlook, as I have explained before.

According to the materials balance science of CO2, humanity must ween itself off the primitive combustion of
hydrocarbons for energy in the next 15-20 years, and we must begin to implement carbon sequestration with
agricultural and forest soil and land management.

This means immediately beginning to reduce CO2 and methane emissionswe do not have the luxury of
waiting for Congress or COP nations to enact a revenue-neutral carbon fee and for it to increase to a level
sufficient to impact liquid fuels (gasoline in cars and trucks, diesel in trucks, trains and ocean-going vessels,
kerosene in aircraft, bunker C in ocean-going vessels and fuel oil to heat buildings.

Many people understand that, but dont get the devil in the details. BUT, they are very frustrated with your
willful blindness.

What is telling in the comments below is the anti-science people with whom you certainly would not keep
company come to your defense. They dont understand sciencethe climate science Exxon knows so well.
One fails speculating how a carbon tax works. You need to have frank conversations with the ignoramuses
and you need to be sincere and honest with us people of conscience. If you dont, you will surely have both
sides storming your castlemayhem in Irving. "You sure have gotten yourself into one fine pickle, Ollie."

For the record, below is your blog, as well as the comments to-date. It is clear by this juxtaposition that you
should be alarmed by the escalating level of frustrations and feelings of disenfranchisement. My fear is that
people will begin doing crazy things, like shooting high powered rifles into pipelines and other facilities
even at the expense of sacrificing their own lives.

You must begin the end-game soon by announcing a plan to retire, shut down, dismantle and clean-up your
infrastructure, and taking the lead in bringing the industry together. It would be a much-appreciated start.

Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
 The future of energy opportunities and challenges

Im very excited to welcome the first guest blog from our new Chairman and CEO Darren Woods.
See his comments on energy and economic growth, as well as the importance of managing the risks
of climate change.
~Suzanne

We all generally share similar aspirations: jobs and

good health, comfortable and safe places to live and a
clean environment. Thats true in U.S. cities like Dallas
where ExxonMobil, the company I now have the
privilege to lead, is headquartered and its true all
over the world. Whats also true, and too often
overlooked, is the vital role that energy and energy
technologies play in fulfilling these shared aspirations.

Energy is the power behind everything from our

smartphones to our global economy. Growing U.S.
energy production has spurred a manufacturing
renaissance, adding $20 billion a year to the economy
and hundreds of thousands of new jobs, according to
estimates by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
ExxonMobils new projects on the U.S. Gulf Coast are expected to generate more than 45,000 jobs
alone.

Most forecasts project that many factors including global population growth of nearly 2 billion, a
doubling of worldwide economic output and a rapid expansion of the middle class in emerging
economies will raise global energy demand by an amount equivalent to the total energy used
today in the entire Western Hemisphere.

This growing demand creates a dual challenge: providing energy to meet peoples needs while
managing the risks of climate change. I believe, and my company believes, that climate risks
warrant action and its going to take all of us business, governments and consumers to make
meaningful progress. At ExxonMobil, were encouraged that the pledges made at last years Paris
Accord create an eective framework for all countries to address rising emissions; in fact, our
company forecasts carbon reductions consistent with the results of the Paris accord commitments.

The world already has powerful tools for meeting global energy demand while reducing emissions.
One is natural gas. Today in America, nearly one-third of the electricity is produced using natural
gas. Our role as the countrys largest producer of natural gas which emits up to 60 percent less
CO2 than coal for power generation has helped bring CO2 emissions in the United States to the
lowest level since the 1990s. Increasing use of natural gas means our overall energy mix is growing
less carbon-intensive.

Greater energy eciency is also essential. It might seem counterintuitive, but a big part of
ExxonMobils business is developing products and technologies that help save energy. Examples
include our advanced automotive materials that make cars lighter and more fuel-ecient, and
improved plastic packaging that reduces the energy needed to ship goods around the world.

But the world also will need breakthrough clean-energy technologies such as carbon capture and
storage (CCS). ExxonMobil is investing heavily in CCS, including research in a novel technology that
uses fuel cells that could make CCS more aordable and expand its use.

Were also researching advanced biofuels, including biofuels made from algae a potentially game-
changing energy source that would place less stress on food supplies, land and fresh water than
traditional biofuels while reducing emissions. All told, weve invested $7 billion to develop lower-
emission energy solutions during the past decade and a half.

Governments can help advance the search for energy technologies by funding basic research and
by enacting forward-looking policies. A uniform price of carbon applied consistently across the
economy is a sensible approach to emissions reduction. One option being discussed by
policymakers is a national revenue-neutral carbon tax. This would promote greater energy eciency
 policymakers is a national revenue-neutral carbon tax. This would promote greater energy eciency
and the use of todays lower-carbon options, avoid further burdening the economy, and also provide
incentives for markets to develop additional low-carbon energy solutions for the future.

This is an exciting time to be part of the worlds largest publicly traded energy company. The
responsibilities and challenges are significant and so are the possibilities. I am convinced that by
taking advantage of human ingenuity, embracing free markets and enacting sound government
policies, we can meet the worlds energy needs and meet all of our shared aspirations in an
environmentally and socially responsible way. ExxonMobil is committed to achieving these goals.

76 Comments ExxonMobil Perspectives

Peter Yawei Zhang 18 days ago
Hope You can make some breakthroughs on CCS and Utilization, and close the carbon
cycle economically.
1 Reply Share

rpc 18 days ago

http://www.washingtontimes..... Is the company jumping on the ship when others are
jumping o?
Reply Share

mitulica rpc 18 days ago

Oh please. https://skepticalscience.co...
2 Reply Share

rpc mitulica 17 days ago

You link is 5 years old. Lots of hard evidence since then that increases in
atmospheric CO2 are not correlated to the earth's temperature. The basis for
the MIT and 300 other scientists sending their letter to the President.
Reply Share

Non Sequitur 18 days ago

This reeks like the tobacco settlement.

The more hydrogen atoms there are in the fuel, the more water is created as a byproduct of
combustion and less CO2.

Exon produces liquid and gaseous petroleum products that are much higher in hydrogen
composition than coal.

To summarize. Exon is trying to use the power of government to protect

them from competition, i.e. coal, the interests of consumers and tax
payers be damned.
Reply Share

UncaDoug 18 days ago

What's wrong with this picture?
Pick it apart paragraph by paragraph.
Make a list. Write to Darren Write Away!
Mr. Darren W. Woods
President, CEO & Chairman
ExxonMobil Corporation
5959 Las Colinas Blvd.
Irving, TX 75039
1 Reply Share
 gitarfan UncaDoug 17 days ago
There's nothing wrong with it. When you and your fellow travelers start acting like CC
is a crisis, I'll pay more attention. You all still drive, live in houses instead of tents, fly
in planes and all the other things that create carbon. BTW James Hansen is a self-
promoting fraud.
1 Reply Share

UncaDoug gitarfan 17 days ago

Darren, Bill, Suzanne and Max know what I'm referring to, as did Rex whose
legacy at Exxon has been cast ... TellRex.com ... irreparably?
1 Reply Share

Jim Walsh 17 days ago

ExxonMobil wants a carbon tax because it will allow them to continue with business as
usual...

What we need is 100% renewable energy future and this is how we get there:
http://www.foodandwaterwatc...
1 Reply Share

bighouse03 Jim Walsh 17 days ago

Then Jim Walsh, I propose that you go ahead and support a company that is
researching renewable energy options. Exxon Mobil has hired thousands and
thousands of people who are trained in geology, geophysics, and engineering
(among many other specialties) all leading to exploring for, finding, producing,
refining and transporting petroleum products. Exxon Mobil has a fiduciary
responsibility to its shareholders to maximize the bottom line and can't simply decide
to explore other options. I hope you realize there is room for more than one energy
source in the world?
1 Reply Share

Jim Walsh bighouse03 17 days ago

Are you speaking for ExxonMobil?
Reply Share

bighouse03 Jim Walsh 17 days ago

I am speaking for the many thousands of proud retirees who worked
hard for many years for Exxon, Mobil, and/or Exxon Mobil. Most
people commenting don't know anything about the oil and gas
industry and forget that this company is comprised of people who
devoted a huge portion of their life to doing the best job they can and
don't appreciate unwarranted criticism.
2 Reply Share

Ferd Berfell bighouse03 17 days ago

Exxon Mobil also has a responsibility to it's employees and it's communities,
i.e. people, as good corpoate citizens. This BS that it is only for shareholders
is a line that the top management takes to justify their huge pay packages
which are heavily weighted in company stocks meaning they are some of the
main shareholders they are talking about. Not that this is completely bad but if
they make short term decisions based on boosting the value to achieve that
years stock options they may be not as concerned with long term planning as
they should be. Stock buybacks are a good example, taking billions of dollars
to purchase their own stock to keep the price up and make their stock
options valuable instead of putting more money into R&D or hiring more
employees.
Reply Share
 Reply Share

bighouse03 Ferd Berfell 17 days ago

So are you complaining about salaries or something else? Your
response is very fuzzy. It also sounds like you are either in a very bad
mood or just don't like Exxon Mobil Corporation!
1 Reply Share

rxmjr bighouse03 16 days ago

That is the problem. The bottom line is the only responsibility that global
corporations feel responsibility for. What about the responsibility to care for
our planet, plan for the future, and tell the truth about climate change instead
of burying the research you did years ago and pay amends for the corporate
imperialism of the past instead of pushing for more drilling, more public lands
open to exploitation, here and around the world and lobbying for tax breaks
that you do not need and do not deserve.
.
Reply Share

rpc Jim Walsh 17 days ago

Your article that you are promoting promises to tell us how to get to 100% renewable
energy, but then it does not. You have no data, only generalities. And BTW, the
climate is not changing in relation to CO2 levels. Earth's temps have remained flat
over the last 20 years despite big increases in CO2. I.e. the models are wrong. And
many scientists are waking up to that fact. http://www.washingtontimes....
Reply Share

Ben Franklin rpc 17 days ago

rpc, where did you ever get the idea that the "earth's temps have remained
flat over the last 20 years"? I suggest you expand your source of news feeds.
http://berkeleyearth.org/gl...
2 Reply Share

rpc Ben Franklin 17 days ago

Your Berkley report confirms no atmospheric temp increase since 1998
and that ocean temps have dropped over that time. Here is another
one of many saying the same thing. That's why the MIT and 300 other
scientists wrote to President Trump. http://www.climatedepot.com...
Reply Share

Ben Franklin rpc 16 days ago

rpc, did you even look at the annualized data for land, ocean or
land&ocean in the Berkeley Earth web site referenced? And you lost
me completely when you chose to cite ClimateDepot - simply not a
credible source for unbiased information.
1 Reply Share

rpc Ben Franklin 16 days ago

Of course I looked at the data. The models have simply been wrong
about the correlation between CO2 levels and earth temperatures.
Berkeley Earth is hardly an unbiased organization. But here's more
http://yournewswire.com/par...
Reply Share

Ben Franklin rpc 14 days ago

rpc, I love the honesty of "Yournewswire" when they post on the
banner of their website that they are "unfiltered". Because it is clear
 banner of their website that they are "unfiltered". Because it is clear
they have no technical review or source review on their posts before
they publish the junk they post. Please broaden your reading list a bit.
1 Reply Share

rpc Ben Franklin 14 days ago

Ben Franklin. You never dispute the facts about phony man-made
climate change, just where the facts come from, including the Harvard
and other learned professors cited in the yournewswire site.
Reply Share

Ed 17 days ago
I could cynically suggest this does not truly reflect ExxonMobil's heart-felt position, but I
would rather say that the position stated is perfectly consistent with a for-profit company
that also wants to be seen as a good citizen. While the company would pay a carbon tax for
whatever energy it uses to produce and deliver its products (that is a very big number), these
costs will be marked up and passed on to end users who then are also subject to a tax at
the pump for their own usage. And since all energy companies would be equally taxed, there
is no competitive disadvantage to taking this position. The net eect should be a market-
based conservation eect. I vote to accept the message. as delivered.

Further, we should not be cynical that a Republican White House and Congress would take
the lead on a carbon tax idea. Conservatives believe that for many desired outcomes,
economics is the best way to shape consumer behavior. Need I say, lower fuel prices have
unleashed a wave of SUV and truck purchases that give convincing evidence that the
majority of our fellow citizens don't care about environmental issues. Their purchase
decisions are based on "what I want" and "what I can aord." The sooner a carbon tax is
initiated, the better.

Finally, we need to start focusing on HOW a carbon tax will be employed. Given the amount
of debt this country has piled up in the last decade, we need to NOT make a carbon tax fully
neutral. I would vote to set a significant annual debt reduction goal, then fund that goal with
a potion of the carbon tax. My view.
Reply Share

Ben Franklin Ed 17 days ago

Ed, I am not sure why you would be cynical of ExxonMobil and not cynical of the
consumers that buy their products instead. ExxonMobil functions in a market for
products. If people choose to stop buying fossil fuel based energy - ExxonMobil will
react quickly and adjust. What I view Darren Woods as asking for is simply some
predictability on how we will address climate change in a way that actually impacts
the outcome. ExxonMobil has qualified scientists to inform their understanding that
climate change is real and that as a country and as a world we will act on it sooner or
later. Putting a price on carbon dioxide (and methane) emissions NOW is a solid step
forward that let's companies like ExxonMobil plan for the future and wisely invest
there capital in bets that will provide products you and I want to buy and also
address climate change.
2 Reply Share

Ed Ben Franklin 17 days ago

I have taken the positive approach in my comment. The opportunity for
cynicism comes when we agree that ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel
suppliers have handy physics in which the externalities of their products are
mostly invisible. If the physics were dierent, so that 500 pounds of solid CO2
pellets came out of a vehicle exhaust for every tank of fuel consumed, the
problem would look very dierent, right?
Reply Share
 Ben Franklin Ed 17 days ago
Fully agree. A big part of our problem is that we don't see CO2
emissions. I like the visual image of if these emissions came out as a
solid.
2 Reply Share

Goodbuddy Ben Franklin 15 days ago

GLOBAL WARMING IS NOW CLIMATE CHANGE

RULE NO. 1: If you cannot explain the past, do not attempt to predict the
future!!

Global Warning has now become Climate Change". Could it be because

after all the gross errors and cherry-picked data that the UN IPCC used in
creating this hysteria the corrected data suggests that the earth has actually
been COOLING SLIGHTLY for the last decade or so and Al Gore's "hockey
stick" graph has become a "hockey puck".

Of course the climate is changing, as it has been since the earth began. The
last ice age with glaciers a mile or more thick in NYCs Central Park and
extending (with decreasing thickness) about as far south as Atlanta,
Birmingham, and Dallas ended about 10,000 years ago. With the earth
4,500,000,000 years old, 1,000 years in geological time is equivalent to 9
minutes in the typical 77 year life span of a human and10,000 years is only 90
minutes - just enough time to watch the first half and the highlights of an
college football game. (Hereafter time will be expressed in relative geological
times. To convert back to calendar time divide by 9 and multiply by 1000).
Man and CO2??

Several years ago scientists viewing satellite photos saw what appeared to be
dry lake beds in the Sahara Desert. Upon investigation they discovered that
in fact lakes had existed there with surface areas greater than the Great
Lakes. They further determined that extended wet periods followed by
desertification had occurred numerous times, with the last wet period ending
55 minutes ago. Man and Co2??

It was much warmer in 218 BC (20 minutes ago). The proof is that portions of
the route that Hannibal took with his elephant troops in his war with Rome are
now covered with glaciers formed in the Little Ice Age (LIA). More about the
LIA later. Man and CO2??

It was also much warmer in the Medieval Warm Period, 800-1350 AD (6.0-11
minutes ago). We know that because Eric the Red followed by his son Leif
Ericson colonized Greenland around 870 AD. Dozens of settlements
continued until the onset of the LIA around 1350-1400 AD (6.0-6.5 minutes
ago). Man and CO2??

The LIA -- with its famine and death extended until about 1850 (1.5 minutes
ago) and was by far the most miserable period in recorded history. During that
period, glaciers grew dramatically around the world. In Europe farms and
entire villages were overrun by glaciers. Iceland lost half of its population and
Finland lost one-third. Man and CO2??

Viticulture the growing of grapes and production of wine disappeared from

England and Northern Europe. In China warm weather crops such as oranges
disappeared from regions where they had been grown for centuries. Man and
CO2??

In Ethiopia and Mauritania there was snow on the mountains year round
where it had not been before the LIA and is not there now. This is also
where it had not been before the LIA and is not there now. This is also
reflected in the comparative photos of Kilimanjaro that Al Gore used in his
slide show, which showed the glaciers that had grown during the LIA were
retreating. Man and CO2??

The Thames River in England froze each year and Ice Fairs were held on it for
more than two centuries -- with the first in 1607 and the last in 1814 (2.7-3.6
minutes ago). The Bosporus Strait which connects the Black Sea with the
Sea of Marmara and ultimately the Mediterranean froze in 1622 (3.5 minutes
ago). Man and CO2??

In 1658 (3.2 minutes ago) Swedish King Gustav X marched his army across
two frozen straights to invade Copenhagen. In 1780 (2.1 minutes ago)
residents in Manhattan and Staten Islands could visit each other by walking
across the frozen New York harbor. Man and CO2??

In 1968 (23 seconds ago), Doomsday Professor Paul Ehrlich Al Gores hero
and mentor predicted food shortages as early as the 1970s with hundreds
of millions of deaths from starvation. Ironically, on the first Earth Day in
England in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder stated, The threat of a new
ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale
death and misery for mankind. C. C. Wallen of the World Meteorological
Organization said, The cooling that has occurred since 1940 (38 seconds
ago) has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be
reversed. Man and CO2??

RUNNING HOT AND COLD:

DANGER: The Globe Is Cooling: Science News, November 15, 1969: "How
long the current cooling trend continues is one of the most important
problems of our civilization." Washington Post, January 11, 1970: "[G]et a
good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters; the worst may be yet to
come." The article was titled, "Colder Winters Herald Dawn of New Ice Age."
New York Times, December 29, 1974: "[P]resent climate change [will result in]
mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence." Christian
Science Monitor, 1974: "[T]he North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as
an ocean can cool." Newsweek, April 28, 1975: "The drop in food output [as a
result of colder weather] could begin quite soon, perhaps only ten years from
now. Man and CO2??

DANGER: The Globe Is Warming: New York Times, August 22, 1981: "[Global
warming of an] almost unprecedented magnitude [is predicted]." Washington
Post, January 18, 2006: "[Rising temperatures] could, literally, alter the
fundamentals of life on the planet." Time, March 26, 2006: "Polar Ice Caps Are
Melting Faster Than Ever . . . More and More; Land is Being Devastated by
Drought . . Rising Waters Are Drowning Low-Lying Communities . . . By Any
Measure, Earth Is at the Tipping Point; the climate is crashing, and global
warming is to blame." Man and CO2??

In truth, we have been working our way OUT of the LIA with slight ups and
downs for 165+ years and hopefully it will continue until a few hundred years
hence climate will approximate the Medieval Warm Period, with milder
seasons and bountiful crops. And anyone who is honest will admit that we
really dont have a clue (other than the activity of the Sun and possible
variations in the earth's orbit and also changes in the angle of the earth's axis
relative to the sun) as to what has caused the extreme variations in climate
over the last 10-12 millennia and even the last 2-3 for which we have some
history and data. However, what we do know is that it wasnt caused by man
and CO2, as CO2 levels have varied widely in the past.
 ONE ADDITIONAL POINT: CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT!!! In fact, it is
necessary for life on earth. All vegetation requires CO2 for growth through
photosynthesis. Further as is true of all chemical reactions increasing the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the reaction rate and
thus the plant growth and production. That is why CO2 is pumped into
greenhouses. Ironically the only true statement by the true believers in the
GW hoax is when CO2 is referred to as a greenhouse gas, which is a
positive.

James J. (Buddy) Spears, Jr.

Chemical Engineer
6731 Frontier Drive
Greenwell Springs, LA 70739 3105
Tele: (225) 261-9081 (225) 261-5513 Cell
Reply Share

Steve Everley 17 days ago

This post is a good reminder that, despite the dark headlines and hyperbolic press releases,
large energy companies are built around science and technology. They employ thousands of
some of the worlds smartest scientists, engineers, and environmental experts. Meeting
global energy demand requires trade-os, and the questions associated with those
decisions do not have simple answers. For example, as much as some activists want us to
believe that all fossil fuels are bad (and that we should Keep It In the Ground), its natural
gas that has done the most to reduce CO2 emissions in the United States. Importantly,
natural gas has also helped integrate more renewables into the electric grid, which delivers
even more CO2 reductions. We wont solve the complex energy challenges outlined in this
post with simple slogans about energy; the only way to solve them is to view the challenges
as opportunities, as Mr. Woods describes. ExxonMobil obviously isnt the only company or
organization doing that, but its certainly good that they are.

"EPA: US greenhouse gas emissions declined in 2015," The Hill, Feb. 2017:
http://thehill.com/policy/e...

"Progress: U.S. Carbon Emissions Decline," Scientific American, Oct. 2016:

https://www.scientificameri...
Reply Share

Stomp Mobility Inc 17 days ago

Dear Mr. Woods. The US Armed Forces, US law Enforcement Agencies, and US DOE Clean
Cities Coalition's, have signed urgent requests for Stomps planned 3D Printed 30 Sec
Recharging SUV's and Pickups. May Exxon consider serving as Ocial Energy Supplier
for US Military and US Law Enforcement 3D Printed 30 Sec Recharging SUV's and
Pickups. Thank you, Don MacAllister, CEO, Stomp Mobility Inc.
Reply Share

sdfreeman 17 days ago

We started with Standard Vacuum in 1954 drifted to Mobil when we split. Mobil got a head
start in Singapore and were able to help the first survey teams from Exxon. It became
obvious that Exxon had the money and the will to fully exploit the opportunities in Southeast
Asia.
Fortunately, the two best oil companies in the world got smart and combined. One might say
they have not done badly. However; there has been such a huge flow of cash from the world
wide production of oil and gas that we have found it dicult to keep our eyes on the prize.
We have brilliant young men at all levels and very much like our political problem we have
establishment types holding the line because it works and creative types trying to justify
spending money for new and necessary improvements. It is possible, and it should not be
ignored, that the future may require a whole new approach. We see no reference to nuclear
energy, for instance, when that may be source of heat for distillation and cracking. Not to
energy, for instance, when that may be source of heat for distillation and cracking. Not to
mention the tremendous reduction CO2. All of our bright young engineers and scientists
need to dream and be creative. The guys at the top have their hands full with the present.
Go for it .
Reply Share

Carolyn Chase 17 days ago

Thanks for going on the record on these issues, yet it's easier to say, than do. What do your
scientists tell you about how much IS going to have to stay in the ground? What are your
investments in renewables? And have you sent this to Secretary Tillerson and his boss?
Thanks.
2 Reply Share

Jim Lloyd 17 days ago

I regret that ExxonMobil is rolling over and playing dead on the risks of CO2. There is ample
evidence that global warming has been the biggest source of fake news in the last 40 years.
I guess it is better politically to not take a strong position against the Paris accords, but let's
not forget that CO2 has been playing a prominent role in the greening of this planet.
1 Reply Share

rxmjr Jim Lloyd 16 days ago

I regret that you have the temerity to make claims about fake news when the oil
industry has and is one of its great producers.What is your "ample evidence?"
1 Reply Share

rpc rxmjr 15 days ago

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...
Reply Share

SageThinker rxmjr 14 days ago

Exactly. Propaganda by deniers.... funded by Exxon and the API.
2 Reply Share

Tom Shepstone 17 days ago

I'm glad Woods pointed out what natural gas is accomplishing that nothing else
country on earth has done what we've done in the US by simply allowing comp
as ExxonMobil to develop our shale gas resources. This has allowed us to mak
electricity with something that produces as much as 60% less CO2 than coal, f
steep decline in CO2 that wasn't even though possible with massively intrusive
matched by equally massive subsidies. The shale gas revolution is winning wha
we had with CO2 in this country and doing so without the aid of government. S
http://naturalgasnow.org/po... and http://naturalgasnow.org/en...
Reply Share

Jelle Meersmans Tom Shepstone 16 days ago

Working myself for a competitor being Total, i have huge diculties with these
narratives as it shows just a part of the answer that would be applicable for let's say
one decade. By 2050 the world should have reached zero CO2 emissions if we
would allign with the 450 scenario of the International Energy Agency which gives us
a 66% chance of keeping global warming at 2C. EV's will oset by 2028 2 million
barrels of oil/day, the same volume that created the crash in oil prices in 2014. I had
an in depth look on the price level oil companies should obtain to exploit them in a
profitable way in this doesn't look very promising. This narrative is therefore only
increasing the carbon bubble to which the housing bubble of 2008 was peanuts.
Stop telling people that consuming more gas in stead of coal is the solution. You
guys are playing with our savings ending up with no money to combat the eects of
climate change leaving a world behind that will be insurable. There's only one
 sustainable solution and that 100% renewable energy! more gas consumption taking
into account a growing middle class of 3 billion people between 2009 and 2030 will
continue as well to acidify the oceans, and extinction of fish which is the main source
of proteins for most people in the world.
1 Reply Share

SageThinker Tom Shepstone 14 days ago

Destroyed water, given people cancer clusters in the Bakken, caused daily
earthquakes where fracking is rampant, and still not reduced global warming much
(for much methane leaks and is unreported and many times more potent greenhouse
gas than CO2).

Methane from the ground is not "natural" and it's a huge PR campaign to make it
seem good --- "think about it"!
2 Reply Share

Susan Gale Ballarini 17 days ago

OMG Exxon shareholder alert...
Reply Share

Ben Franklin Susan Gale Ballarini 14 days ago

Susan, ExxonMobil shareholders should have gotten a "shareholder alert" anytime
over the last 30 years. The documented changes in the concentration of CO2 in the
atmosphere is not new news; and the physics that says the increasing CO2
concentrations will cause the planet to warm is also well known for over 30 years.
1 Reply Share

rpc Ben Franklin 13 days ago

But the increases in CO2 over the last few decades have not led to the
resulting increases in global temps. I.e. the models are all wrong.
Reply Share

ucictrees 16 days ago

Darren W. Woods, seems to be center of Trump on the environment. I certainly hope so!
Reply Share

Mary Kay Sexton 16 days ago

Thank you. I appreciate the work ExxonMobile is doing to decrease the carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere. I worry not about me, but future generations of families, worldwide, that will
be dealing with serious issues caused by rising temperatures.
1 Reply Share

SageThinker Mary Kay Sexton 14 days ago

Seriously? They're the promoters of climate change denialism to begin with. They're
a big reason we're in this mess. Yes, it's about the future for our children, but they're
the evil ones. Why do you laud them? Oh my goodness.
1 Reply Share

Mary Kay Sexton SageThinker 2 days ago

I know. Hard to believe... But this is their quote: "Our position on climate
change. ... The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action.
Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming eect.
There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to
further quantify and assess the risks." Right now, given who is in charge of the
EPA, I want to build bridges with anyone who sees carbon emissions as
having a warming eect. What they've done in the past, is well, the past. I can
not undo the past. I can stand for what I believe now, and do my part for a
 not undo the past. I can stand for what I believe now, and do my part for a
better future.
Reply Share

SageThinker Mary Kay Sexton 2 days ago

There is no utility in "building bridges" with Exxon just because they
now admit climate change to be real.

They will pursue their own profit and nothing else. They are not a moral
actor. They use propaganda and they will say whatever is to the
immediate benefit.

It is not "just the past" and they do not deserve to exist.

If we do not have integrity we will never frame the struggle in a good

way.

Do not trust murderers and liar -- you are a fool if you do. Let's move
beyond them. We don't need them. They should not exist and they are
sociopaths and evil.

I do my part for a better future and this is my part -- speaking the

fierce god's honest truth.

We cannot make alliance with people that have no integrity. We must

see that clearly.
1 Reply Share

Donald Tidwell 16 days ago

Is ExxonMobil intending to invest in non-carbon based energy technologies. They certainly
have the financial strength to do so.
1 Reply Share

SageThinker Donald Tidwell 14 days ago

They should not exist. They should not have financial strength from lying to the world
to protect their dirty products.
1 Reply Share

Donald Tidwell SageThinker 14 days ago

I'm a chemist in the paint and coatings industry. We produce extremely useful
coatings using their products, However, the primary end product of their
naturally occurring feedstock is energy production (electrical) and motor fuel
(cars, trucks, buses, locomotives, planes and ships). It would be important to
transition into better technologies for each of these. Rather than fighting wind,
solar, tidal, fusion (if ever practical), and other technologies (some still in
infancy or not thought of yet), support these technologies and be a
responsible partner in progress.
Reply Share

SageThinker Donald Tidwell 14 days ago

I support renewable energy and i support a carbon fee and rebate, but
ExxonMobil should not exist nor should Monsanto or G.E. They exist
on ill-gotten gains.
2 Reply Share

Feargal M 16 days ago

"in fact, our company forecasts carbon reductions consistent with the results of the Paris
accord commitments" : The maths simply don't add up even with a near 100% swing to
natural gas. CCS is simply not providing the promise of capturing the volumes of CO2
necessary. A combination of measures is needed including carbon tax, maximising
substitution of coal and oil by gas in the short term, expanding nuclear, energy eciency
and demand side measures and rapid expansion of renewables under a reformed energy
pricing model such that energy security is not impacted.
1 Reply Share

waltinseattle Feargal M 9 days ago

fusion, go back to the moon, harvest the He3 and do a mass project to perfect the
devices.
Reply Share

Darryl C. 16 days ago

As an Exxon shareholder - non-carbon based technology - is another way - I can go "o
grid"... Can U???
Reply Share

rxmjr 16 days ago

ExxonMobil has decades of experience in the manipulation of the media to put itself in the
best possible light, from the full-page ads during the fuel crises of the 70's to sponsorship of
Masterpiece Theater to the claims of environmental friendliness while denying its role in
climate change, obstructing the development of alternative energy, and fostering violence in
the exploitation of African resources. Now that it owns the State Department, let us see how
it uses the increase in its already massive power to make the world a better place. Do not
hold your breath. Yet. Save the oxygen. We may need it.
2 Reply Share

rpc rxmjr 15 days ago

You mean like when East Anglia University doctored emails during the Copenhagen
climate change talks? Fake science http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...
Reply Share

Kevin 16 days ago

EDIT: I would like to acknowledge that I appreciate Exxon for allowing my comment to be
published.

I cant help but be skeptical of the true motives behind this. To me, this signals that Exxon
sees the writing on the wall, CO2 will inevitably cause massive upheaval resulting in massive
litigation and lawsuits. A large number of State Attorney Generals are looking into RICO
investigations as the oil and gas industry has been misleading the public for decades. The
parallels between the tobacco industry and the oil and gas are uncanny.

We now have proof that Exxon paid third parties to manipulate public perception of fossil
fuels eect on the climate, while having known for 40 years that climate change was real
and caused by fossil fuels.

http://www.latimes.com/busi...
3 Reply Share

Goodbuddy Kevin 15 days ago

IF YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN THE PAST DO NOT ATTEMPT TO PREDICT THE
FUTURE!

AND THE WORD CAME DOWN FROM OUR CLIMATOLOGIST-IN-CHIEF

The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. Those were the words of Barack
Obama in his 2014 State of the Union address. He shall get no argument from me on
that fact. Indeed, that may be the most truthful statement from the President ever
that fact. Indeed, that may be the most truthful statement from the President ever
(though unintentional), as I shall explain.

But first we need to distinguish between Weather and Climate. Weather is a short
period of change such as a series of severe cold fronts with rain, sleet or snow; 24
36 hours of a hurricane; a series of storms with high winds, tornadoes, and torrential
rain; or an extended drought of several weeks or even a few months. Climate on
the other hand is any of the fore-mentioned types of weather or combinations
thereof for several centuries (Little Ice Age -- 1350-1850 -- for example)
.
Before explaining why I agreed with the president, I must note that the topic has
changed from Global Warming for about 20 years to Climate Change for the last
2 or 3.

Now for the explanation as to why I agree: There was a drastic change in climate
about 65 million years ago that led to extinction of the dinosaurs almost overnight.
More recently was the last Ice Age that ended about 10-12 thousand years ago.
Animals that became extinct during that Climate Change included the mastodon,
wooly mammoth, saber tooth tiger, and the giant bear. The Sahara Desert has seen
numerous wet periods with lakes having surface areas larger than the combined
Great Lakes and each wet period followed by desertification. The last wet period
ended about 6 thousand years ago cyclic climate change without mans input.

There have been several significant climate changes within recorded history. For
example, it was much warmer in 218 BC than today. We know that (at least I do)
because portions of the route that Hannibal took with his elephant troops in his war
with Rome are now covered with glaciers formed during the Little Ice Age (LIA -- see
below).

It was also much warmer between 800-1350, the Medieval Warm Period. We know
that because Eric the Red followed by his son, Leif Ericson colonized Greenland.
There were numerous successful settlements that endured until the onset of the
aforementioned LIA. The LIA, which was the most miserable time in recorded history,
ran from about 1350 to 1850, when it ended rather abruptly for reasons unknown to
man.

In truth, we have been working our way OUT of the LIA with slight ups and downs
for 165 years and hopefully it will continue until a few hundred years hence climate
will approximate the Medieval Warm Period, with milder seasons and bountiful crops.
And anyone who is honest will admit that we really dont have a clue as to what has
caused the extreme variations in climate over the last 10-12 millennia and even the
last 2-3 for which we have some history and data (other than activity of the Sun,
orbital changes of the earth and in the angle of inclination relative the Sun, none of
which man is a factor). However, what we do know is that it wasnt caused by man
and CO2.

One further point: CO2 is not a pollutant. It is necessary for life on the planet as
plants require CO2 for photosynthesis and growth. Further, as the CO2 concentration
increase so does growth rates. That is why CO2 is pumped into greenhouses. The
statement by the GW and more recently the CC extremists that CO2 is a greenhouse
gas is the only truth that they have spoken.

So, yes, The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. In fact climate will continue
to change as it has been since the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago. The earth
has seen numerous ice ages followed by periods much warmer than today. And
since man has been around for a comparatively miniscule time, it stretches logic to
infinity to argue that -- while manmade CO2 could not be responsible for thousands
of severe climate changes in the past -- it IS responsible today for comparatively very
minor and fluctuating changes.
 James J. Spears, Jr., P.E.
Registered Professional Engineer
In Chemical Engineering
Louisiana Registration No. 15273
Reply Share

waltinseattle Goodbuddy 9 days ago

and oxygen is not a poutant, just the most corrosive gas inn the atmosphere
and one we need to live as plants need co2. there is no linear infinity for us,
there is none for plants and co2, let alone the methane currently on the way to
making its little cousin look like that 90 pound beach weakling. then there is
the problem with plants and heat. and the fact they need "useless" leaves, not
roots, to cool.thus increasing dry soil vulnerability. did we mention the shift
from high value nitrogen as i crops, to starches?... Yes that's a fine degree,
but it does not make you a universal expert, and at days end, if i am run over
and killed with my wife and kids all dead too, does it matter if the car was at
fault or the driver? the accident is of more importance than the agent behind
it. don't try to say its no accident/tragedy because it wasn't the driver at fault
Reply Share

rpc Kevin 15 days ago

Sorry, all of the models that have predicted a direct correlation between CO2 levels
and earth temps have been proven wrong. You are now the deniers.
Reply Share

Kevin rpc 15 days ago

As I a strong believer that many of the issues we face today are a direct result
of our inability to listen to each other, I ask as one intelligent person to
another, can you provide me some reading material that will help me become
a more informed citizen on the topic, particularly sources that support your
point of view.
2 Reply Share

Timothy Peterson 16 days ago

EXXON solar panel plant in LAS VEGAS? I will work and hire people. 701-430-0002. I do
have a company plan after completion of the powerplant. Oshore drilling makes rain and
earth drilling takes rain to bake and salt land. OCEAN has her line. WORLD is ROUND. I also
have a movie make that would make rain rain rain rain rain rain rain.
Reply Share

Timothy Peterson 16 days ago

Please Visit my facebook for SEAPIT ARTICLE.

https://www.facebook.com/ti...
Reply Share

Pam Sam 16 days ago

I just came back from spending a month in Akwa Ibom State in Nigeria. The Chinese are
trying to get a larger foothold there by oering the state an energy solution with employment
and job training opportunities. I would prefer that ExxonMobil would help expand American
influence there. Who do I talk to about improving ExxonMobil public relations in Nigeria?
Reply Share

rpc 15 days ago

How about this, in addition to dozens of other scientific articles on the man-made climate
change hoax. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...
 Reply Share

Ben Franklin rpc 14 days ago

rpc, really? You cite an 8 year old opinion piece in The Telegraph as a counter
argument? I suggest you broaden your reading list. I'd rather listen to ExxonMobil.
Or, the National Academies of Science from all of the developed countries:
http://www.nationalacademie...
Reply Share

rpc Ben Franklin 13 days ago

I thought I would take the opportunity to remind you of what happened during
the Copenhagen talks...when the esteemed East Anglia U doctored emails to
try to prove man-made climate change. They, Bill Nye the Science Gur and Al
Gore...really?
Reply Share

waltinseattle rpc 9 days ago

hows the coolaide today?
Reply Share

rpc waltinseattle 9 days ago

Right, so E Anglia U did not doctor emails. Al Gore did not make $100
million selling his rinky-dink cable TV channel to Arab oil interests. The
earth's temperatures have risen commensurate with CO2 levels. Got it.
Reply Share

Kevin rpc 14 days ago

Thanks for taking the time to reply. In regards to your Opt Ed piece, I read through
the article. I was hoping you would provide more scientific and peer reviewed
literature that supported your point of view. But I will start with the information you
provided.

I call into question the author of the piece, Christopher Booker. Christopher is an
English journalist and author who has a degree in History. His motives are very
apparent in the article you reference, as the final paragraph of the piece quite bluntly
promotes his book, The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with
'Climate Change' Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History?
(Continuum, 16.99) is available from Telegraph Books for 14.99 plus 1.25 p & p.[1]

He has a direct financial incentive to publish contrarian information to advance his

own financial well being.

Additionally, Christopher Booker has over the decades made a name for himself by
being one of the leading contrarians at the telegraph, published dozens of pieces
claiming that asbestos[1] and second hand smoke[2] are harmless and do not cause
cancer. These claim flies in the face of Science.

Christopher Booker also also championed the cause of Marie Black. Ms Black fled
the UK with her partner and daughter in order to evade social services. Ms Black was
subsequently convicted of 23 charges of serious sexual oenses against children,
including rape[4].

Is Christopher really the mantle that you wish to lay your argument upon?

I look forward to continuing our dialog and am eagerly awaiting your next reading
assignment.

Sincerely,
Kevin
 Kevin

[1] http://books.telegraph.co.u...
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...
[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...
[4] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/u...
Reply Share

Peter C. Bryn 15 days ago

Fantastic message by incoming CEO Woods. I appreciate you carrying on the push toward
sensible solutions to manage climate risks.
1 Reply Share

waltinseattle Peter C. Bryn 9 days ago

grat theory. risk management also means getting o with externalizing costs, and
covering your quarterlies
Reply Share

SageThinker 14 days ago

Exxon lied about climate change. Exxon funded climate change denial. It's hard to take
seriously anything from ExxonMobil. You should not exist.
5 Reply Share

Yimy 13 days ago

Excellent, thanks for help to save our only one planet.
Reply Share

husq 12 days ago

The models need updating.

http://news.wisc.edu/from-r...

The finding, published Feb. 23, 2017 in the journal Nature, is important
because it provides the first hard proof for what scientists call the
chaotic solar system, a theory proposed in 1989 to account for small
variations in the present conditions of the solar system. The
variations, playing out over many millions of years, produce big changes
in our planets climate changes that can be reflected in the rocks
that record Earths history.
Reply Share

waltinseattle 9 days ago

paris accord on climate, a framework...how long before we start building the house on the
framework?
Reply Share

Don Watson 7 days ago

Is there any research on that very abundant plant which covers the south as to how it can be
used for energy? I'm writing about KUDZU!
Reply Share

https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/perspectives/the-future-of-energy-opportunities-and-challenges/

###