WTI Crude

Loading...

Brent Crude

Loading...

Natural Gas

Loading...

Gasoline

Loading...

Heating Oil

Loading...

Rotate device for more commodity prices

Alt Text

EIA: Coal Is Dying As Renewables Rise

The EIA has forecast global…

Alt Text

U.S. Oil Rig Count Continues To Collapse

The total oil and gas…

Alt Text

North Korean Sanctions May Hurt China’s Oil Giants

As the U.S. considers further…

ExxonMobil Just Got Hit By This Fast-Rising New Energy Problem

LNG storage facility

Big developments this week on a new challenge quickly rising for the energy industry… and beyond.

Climate change reporting.

ExxonMobil lost a key decision in an ongoing climate change battle Wednesday. When a New York judge ordered the oil giant to turn over correspondence from its executives on potential impacts of changing temperatures on the company’s business.

That all comes out of an investigation launched by New York ‘s Attorney General. To determine if oil companies like Exxon have been misleading investors with regards to material business risks posed by climate change.

If the courts find Exxon has been reticent in reporting climate risks, it opens the firm to significant regulatory fines and investor lawsuits. It would also allow regulators and prosecutors to go after other companies across the energy space.

And it isn’t just in the U.S. where climate change reporting is becoming a big issue. Canadian securities regulators also got in on the act this week — announcing the launch of project to examine how well Toronto-listed firms are disclosing their climate risks.

Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) said Tuesday they will begin gathering information from companies and investors through an online survey. With the goal to “assess whether issuers provide appropriate disclosure regarding risks and financial impacts associated with climate change.” Related: OPEC Out Of Moves As Goldman Sachs Expects Another Oil Glut In 2018

This is a fairly innocuous beginning. With the regulatory body unlikely to take any action against specific issuers yet.

But it is an opening step in bringing climate change onto the map for Canadian companies. And could lead to stricter reporting requirements, with potentially significant consequences for industries like oil and gas.

CSA said it will gather information through this spring and summer, ahead of publishing findings later this year. Keep any eye out in the second half of 2017 for big changes emerging in reporting for energy companies, and beyond.

Here’s to things heating up.

By Dave Forest

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • NickSJ on March 24 2017 said:
    This isn't a "fast rising new energy problem". It is an extortion attempt by leftist AG's to force energy companies to bow before their green religion.
  • Bill Simpson on March 24 2017 said:
    The American public should be warned that anything which degrades the petroleum industry inside the United States, will result in a fuel price explosion and fuel shortages which will cause an economic collapse far worse than the Great Depression of the 1930's. Remember when Hurricane Katrina shut down a few refineries on the Gulf Coast, and kids couldn't go to school because there was no fuel for their school buses? That was a tiny taste of bankrupting any large oil company serving the United States. Some people had better be careful what they wish for.
    That isn't a value judgement. It is an economic fact.
    My fantasy would be to control Exxon. The government messed with me, and I would shut down every refinery and pipeline I owned. Then sit back and watch the riots after everything stopped within a couple of weeks. Of course, I would need my own nukes, like that North Korean guy. Before long, they would beg me to start up my refineries. I would teach the ignorant that oil is just as important as electricity.
  • Lee James on March 25 2017 said:
    I think coming up with a legal decision against Exxon's lack of consideration for the risk of climate on profitability is a tough one. EM would say the benefits of burning its petroleum product greatly so out-weigh any downsides -- who cares?

    That being said, I think fossil fuel purveyors could be more publicly forthright in acknowledging that their product carries with it problems ... that we need to acknowledge the risks of leaks and intentional burning along with the benefits of burning.

    Best yet, burn if we must, but pay for obvious pollution as we go -- not down the road, where our kids pay to correct bad water and air. Should we put a price on carbon pollution and use our marketplace to signal that fossil fuels are becoming a little more expensive, and alternatives to burning are increasingly attractive?

    I ask, can fossil fuel companies accept the idea that we value their product, but we would really prefer not to use it?

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News