From: Douglas Grandt answerthecall@me.

com
Subject: Your Blog: Trending to lower emissions
Date: June 30, 2017 at 2:23 PM
To: Suzanne M. McCarron Suzanne.M.McCarron@ExxonMobil.com
Cc: Darren W. Woods Darren.W.Woods@ExxonMobil.com, William (Bill) M. Colton William.M.Colton@ExxonMobil.com,
Jeffrey J. Woodbury jeff.j.woodburv@exxonmobil.com, Susan K. Avery, PhD savery@whoi.edu, Max Schulz
max.schulz@exxonmobil.com

Suzanne,

Today, I am writing my second response to your blog dated May 12, 2017, "Trending to lower emissions"

I have told you before, that the basis for your optimistic reports on gas replacing coal as a less carbon intensive fuel is
wrong. Study after study, which you surely have read, conclude that leakage of fugitive methane released in the drilling,
well completion, fracking, and production is sucient to destroy your argument.

Bill McKibben has a way with words, and he does not mince them. Here is what Bill McKibben wrote in an email this
morning, which validates everything I have been tell you and Darren Woods, and Rex Tillerson before him:

1) Stop new fossil fuel infrastructure. If you're serious about Paris, that means
realizing we're already overshooting the temperature targets we set there there's
literally no more room in the carbon budget for more pipelines, more frack fields,
more coal ports. If France's new president can put an end to exploration for oil
and gas, so can our leaders.

2) Commit to 100% renewables. Not to "more solar panels," but to powering our
cities and states with sun and wind, and soon. Already cities from Atlanta to Salt
Lake to San Diego have made the pledge; California's state senate has already
passed such a bill. 100% is the most important number we've got.

3) Recognize that natural gas is as bad an enemy as coal or oil. This has been
America's greatest climate mistake in recent years: we've driven down our carbon
emissions by driving up the methane that natural gas production pours into the
atmosphere, meaning we're making no progress. And all that cheap fracked gas is
holding back the conversion to actual clean energy. It's got to stop.
Furthermore, in his 'Rolling Stone' June 26, 2017, commentary "How to Tell If Your Reps [ExxonMobil] Are Serious About
Climate Change" McKibben concluded with an in-depth discussion on the following, which I have summarized, but you
should google and read the entire text because it aects your future (to be brutally honest about your future, you should
substitute "ExxonMobil for Your Reps and "politicians):

Here are three simple criteria for determining whether your local politicians
[ExxonMobil] are serious enough to pass the climate test.
They are committed to converting to 100 percent renewable energy
They will work to keep remaining fossil fuels in the ground
They understand natural gas could be the most dangerous fuel of all
In the final paragraph, you would also be well advised to substitute "ExxonMobil" for "politicians" and Trump.
..
So now it's up to the rest of us to make sure this dark moment produces real gain.
If we let politicians [ExxonMobil] simply "stand up for science" or promise to
someday reincarnate the Paris accord, then we will never catch up with climate
change. If instead the rage that Trump [ExxonMobil] has provoked catapults us
into truly serious action well, that will be the best revenge.
.
I would suggest you cease writing deceptive, obfuscatory blogs, and update previous blogs with retractions.
.
Sincerely yours,
.
Doug Grandt