• 6 minutes Saudis Threaten Retaliation If Sanctions are Imposed
  • 11 minutes Can the World Survive without Saudi Oil?
  • 15 minutes Saudis Pull Hyperloop Funding As Branson Temporarily Cuts Ties With The Kingdom
  • 26 mins WTI @ $75.75, headed for $64 - 67
  • 2 hours U.N. About Climate Change: World Must Take 'Unprecedented' Steps To Avert Worst Effects
  • 1 hour Saudi-Kuwaiti Talks on Shared Oil Stall Over Chevron
  • 1 hour UN Report Suggests USD $240 Per Gallon Gasoline Tax to Fight Global Warming
  • 58 mins Closing the circle around Saudi Arabia: Where did Khashoggi disappear?
  • 8 hours U.S. - Saudi Arabia: President Trump Says Saudi Arabia's King Wouldn't Survive "Two Weeks" Without U.S. Backing
  • 6 hours OPEC's No. 2 Producer Wants to Know How Buyers Use Its Oil
  • 7 hours Iranian Sanctions - What Are The Facts?
  • 33 mins EU to Splash Billions on Battery Factories
  • 20 hours How High Can Oil Prices Rise? (Part 2 of my previous thread)
  • 4 hours Who's Ready For The Next Contest?
  • 5 hours China Thirsty for Canadian Crude
  • 8 hours Superhumans
Russia To Resume Gas Imports From Turkmenistan

Russia To Resume Gas Imports From Turkmenistan

According to Aleksei Miller, Gazprom’s…

New Document Suggests Shell Knew About Climate Change 30 Years Ago

gas pump

An internal Shell report from 1988 has revealed the supermajor was aware of the effect of its business on climate. The report, uncovered by Dutch journalist Jelmer Mommers from the De Correspondent news platform, has been published in the Climate Files and might just make life that much more difficult for the Anglo-Dutch company.

The document is an in-depth study of what was at the time called global warming with references to an earlier study and suggestions that the company was interested in researching climate change at least since 1981.

Some parts of a document could be seen as a loud slap in the face of not just Shell, but the whole oil industry: what are the chances that only Exxon and Shell knew about the effects of fossil fuel extraction and use on the climate?

Here’s one quote that all those suing Big Oil could use as another weapon in their arsenal:

(Click to enlarge)
Source: ClimateFiles

And another one, complete with calculations of the contribution of the oil industry to rising CO2 levels:

(Click to enlarge)

The document’s authors recommend that the oil industry should start planning how to address its contribution to climate change—and climate change itself—early on, though not “immediately” because of the slow pace of the changes.

Related: Bahrain Says Giant Discovery Holds 80 Billion Barrels Of Oil

The report considers various approaches to tackling CO2 emissions, noting, however, that the consequences of rising CO2 levels are surrounded by “existing large uncertainties.” At the time, scientists were split on the significance of global warming for the world.

Among the suggestions that the authors make are reducing the use of fossil fuels and developing renewable energy sources, alongside removal of CO2, stopping deforestation, and “energy saving”.

If the document proves authentic, the report shows that Shell knew about climate change, it knew about the significant contribution of the fossil fuels industry, and about its own personal contribution to CO2 emissions (4 percent of the global level as of 1984).

Yet, given the lack of an urgent call to action on the part of the authors, it is easily understandable why the company chose not to act immediately to address the issue—it would have required a seismic shift in its business, which no company would undertake readily.

The report’s release comes on the heels of a lawsuit threat against the supermajor from the Dutch arm of Friends of the Earth.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:



Join the discussion | Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Rod on April 06 2018 said:
    I sure would like to get those climate change scientists into a court of law. I would make mincemeat of those frauds!
  • Randy Verret on April 05 2018 said:
    All those excerpts prove is that you can "cherry pick" a couple paragraphs out of context and engage in conjecture at will. Pretty much the same playbook that Inside Climate News used on the ever fizzling "Exxon Knew" conspiracy. Yes, oil & gas majors are LOADED with technical professionals, engineers & scientists, so I do not find it at all surprising that the potential for climate change was long ago recognized. The QUANTITATIVE effect of CO2 in the atmosphere and the EXACT impact of man is STILL a topic of considerable debate amongst qualified climate scientists. While the "political science" seems settled, the physical science has significant questions that remain. That does not make folks who disagree with the "mantra" as DENIERS, it just means they question the data & accompanying science, which is perfectly compatible with the scientific method.

    I have a more productive suggestion. Why don't we change the discussion to what CLEAN, SUSTAINABLE & SCALABLE alternatives do we have to transition away from fossil fuels over the decades to come. That (to me) seems a lot more constructive than all the NOISE that is being propagated by all the environmental activists & their media "enablers." Anybody can look for BLAME. REAL progressive thinkers look for SOLUTIONS...
  • Mike Kom on April 05 2018 said:
    Really? Al that shows is there was awareness, using archaic science, that there's CO2 gas in the atmosphere. The rest is just speculation. Even today, the science is vague. I don't see anything that would pass as guilt in any RATIONAL court of law.

Leave a comment

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