It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
After nearly five years of development and several delays, the first hydrogen-powered commercial vessel in the United States has received U.S. Coast Guard approval to enter service. Developed by a startup called SWITCH Maritime, the vessel a 75-passenger catamaran ferry Sea Change was presented last Friday with its Certificate of Inspection by Captain Taylor Lam, USCG Sector San Francisco commander and Captain of the Port for Northern California.
With the COI, the vessel is now able to commence commercial operation for zero-emission public ferry service. Following a formal launch event in June, the Sea Change will be operated in a six-month pilot service by the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA). After the initial demonstration period, SWITCH will put the vessel into a more permanent ferry route.
“This COI represents the culmination of years of close collaboration with the US Coast Guard and a significant milestone for the maritime industry, demonstrating the viability of carbon-neutral vessels,” said Pace Ralli, CEO of SWITCH. “We are immensely grateful for the support from the US Coast Guard and all our partners along the path to completion. This is not the finish line, but just a starting point from which to build many more.”
Ralli highlights the rapid evolution of the technology. He said they are already able to provide similar operational capabilities and ranges to diesel-powered vessels. The hydrogen system also eliminates the need for shoreside charging infrastructure required by battery-only vessels.
Sea Change is the first hydrogen-powered vessel in the U.S. (SWITCH)
The Sea Change uses hydrogen fuel cells to power all-electric motors for transit distances up to 300 nautical miles and speeds up to 15 knots. Built and launched at All American Marine shipyard in Bellingham, Washington, in August 2021, the Sea Change is a 70-foot catamaran ferry designed by Incat Crowther. There have been significant hurdles and developing the technology and gaining approval. The vessel reached the San Francisco Bay Area just over a year ago with SWITCH working to train the crew and complete USCG certification.
The vessel features an integrated hydrogen power system from Zero Emission Industries, with 360kW of fuel cells from Cummins and 600kW of electric motor propulsion from BAE Systems. Its tanks from Hexagon Purus have a capacity for 242kg of hydrogen stored in a gaseous form on the top deck at a pressure of 250 bar.
There are so far only a handful of hydrogen-powered vessels in the world although supports highlight the potential for the industry. Founded in 2018, SWITCH Maritime develops, finances, builds and leases zero-emission maritime vessels to existing operators in the U.S. and internationally. SWITCH has reported it is actively working on additional expansion designs for 150-, 300- and 450-passenger zero-emission ferries.
KR Guide to Select Thermal Properties for Cryogenic Insulation Materials
KR has published the Guide to Selection of Thermal Properties of Cryogenic Insulation Materials for safe storage of cryogenic fuels, including LNG and liquid hydrogen.
Last year, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted the '2023 Greenhouse Gas Strategy' with the goal of achieving carbon neutrality in international shipping by 2050. The strategy aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20%, striving for 30%, by 2030, at least 70%, striving for 80%, by 2040, and to achieve net-zero emissions by around 2050.
In response to these increasingly stringent environmental regulations, the maritime industry is focusing not only on the widely used liquefied natural gas (LNG) but also on the long-term use of alternative fuels such as hydrogen and ammonia. In particular, there is a rising emphasis on insulation system technology to ensure the safe and efficient storage of cryogenic low- and zero- carbon fuels.
Representative cryogenic fuels include LNG and liquid hydrogen. Hydrogen is a liquid below its boiling point of -253°C, which is about 90°C lower than the boiling point of LNG at -162°C, requiring advanced insulation technology. Since liquefied hydrogen reduces its volume by about 800 times compared to its gaseous state, securing stable storage technology on ships would enable the affordable import and utilization of hydrogen through marine transport, while also facilitating the implementation of Republic of Korea's Hydrogen Economy Roadmap (2019).
To develop insulation system technology that is essential for the use of cryogenic low- and zero- carbon fuels, KR partnered with researchers from the Korea Institute of Machinery & Materials (KIMM), Pusan National University (PNU), and the Seoul National University of Science and Technology (SEOULTECH) to publish the report.
The report describes the insulation system used in ships for -162°C LNG and -253°C liquefied hydrogen, and analyzes environmental factors influencing the heat transfer mechanisms of the system and other design elements.
KIM Daeheon, Executive Vice President of KR's R&D Division, stated, "This technical guide is expected to serve as the standard for material selection during the design of insulation systems in cryogenic environments or the development of innovative insulation systems. KR will continue to provide alternative fuel technology services, driving decarbonization of the maritime sector and aligning with evolving maritime technology through various R&D activities.”
Donald Trump's promised crackdown on immigration could inflict mass misery and economic calamity, according to a new analysis.
The former president's radical plans for a potential second term in office include barring entry from select Muslim-majority nations, denying all asylum claims and rounding up millions of undocumented immigrants for deportation, and economic analyst Robert Shapiro warned in a new Washington Monthly column that these policies would set off an "economic disaster."
"By any measure, a policy that eliminated 4.5 percent of the current workforce, including large numbers of college and high school graduates, would set off serious economic tremors," Shapiro wrote.
"Using Okun’s Law on the relationship between rising unemployment and GDP, a 4.5 percent drop in employment is associated with depressing GDP growth by more than 9 percentage points. This estimate also includes the impact on other jobs. A recent study of much more modest programs to deport immigrants found clear evidence that they cost other American jobs. By one calculation, deporting 1 million immigrants would lead to 88,000 additional employment losses by other Americans, suggesting that Trump’s program could cost up to 968,000 Americans their jobs on top of the 7.1 million jobs held by immigrants up for deportation."
Contrary to popular misconception, only 4 percent of undocumented immigrants work in agriculture, while nearly a third of them work in the construction or hospitality industries and 14 percent of working unauthorized immigrants provide professional, scientific, technical or administrative services.
"Doing the math, we find that a mass deportation program could depress national wage and salary income by $317.2 billion or 2.7 percent of labor income in 2023," Shapiro wrote. "This would be a much larger percentage loss than during the 1980, 1991, and 2002 recessions. It also would be more than half the 5 percent decline in 2009 at the height of the Great Recession. By these measures, too, a severe recession would likely accompany Trump’s draconian program."
Mass deportation could potentially revive inflation, which happened when companies had to replace large numbers of workers after COVID-19 crested, and businesses would either have to pay more in overtime and recruitment or accept lower productivity, which all leads to higher prices for consumers.
"Mass deportations would involve enormous costs for taxpayers," Shapiro wrote. "One study found that apprehending, detaining, transporting, processing, and finally deporting unauthorized immigrants in 2015 cost the government an average of $18,214 per deportee or $24,094 in current dollars. Using the latest DHS estimates, the taxpayer costs to deport 11 million people would come to $265 billion—without including their American children or the costs to build and maintain large detention camps. For perspective, $265 billion is equivalent to 11 percent of all projected income tax revenues in 2024 and 30 percent of the Pentagon’s 2024 budget."
"Now, Trump seems determined to set new records for deportations," he added, "regardless of the costs to taxpayers and the economy."
Trump set to attend Big Oil fundraiser following quid pro quo offer
Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump will reportedly attend a fundraising luncheon organized by leading oil and gas executives in Houston on Wednesday, following a controversial offer he made to the industry to roll back environmental regulations in return for $1 billion in campaign donations—with two companies associated with both events.
At his Mar-a-Lago Club last month, Trump told a group of roughly two dozen oil and gas executives that $1 billion would be a "deal" for them, given how much money they would make in reduced taxes and regulations if he is elected, TheWashington Post first reported.
Top executives at Continental Resources and Occidental Petroleum, two of the companies with representatives reportedly present when the offer was made, are among the organizers of Wednesday's luncheon, according to The New York Times. Harold Hamm, the executive chairman and founder of Continental Resources and one of the luncheon's organizers, has been a longtime supporter of Trump; he spoke at the 2016 Republican convention.
Trump's campaign has raised about $7.3 million from the oil and gas industry in the 2024 election cycle, most of it since January, while President Joe Biden has taken in just $186,000, according to OpenSecrets data reported by the Times. These figures don't include money given to super PACs.
The industry has grown less supportive of Biden since his administration paused liquefied natural gas (LNG) export permits to certain countries in January, a move that was hailed by environmental campaigners.
"This LNG pause is a huge deal for climate and environmental justice," Tiernan Sittenfeld, the senior vice president of government affairs for the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), told the Times this week.
"Big Oil gave $6.4 million to Trump's 2024 campaign in just the first three months of 2024 alone," LCV said on social media Monday. "Make no mistake: Trump and his Big Oil friends are an existential threat to our communities, planet, and future."
The pause could affect the monumental profits of the oil and gas industry. Following the fracking boom of the last two decades, the U.S. has become the world's leading exporter of LNG. Qatar, the second-largest exporter, announced plans to increase production following the U.S. pause.
During the Trump presidency, LNG exports boomed and the tax cuts that he signed disproportionately benefited the industry. Trump presumably sought to capitalize on this history in making the quid pro quo offer, which Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) characterized as a case of "open corruption."
The quid pro quo offer was underreported by cable news, according to an analysis by Media Matters for America, but has been the subject of a congressional probe. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, sent letters to eight oil and gas firms reportedly present for the Mar-a-Lago offer and the American Petroleum Institute, a lobby group, requesting information about their financial arrangements with Trump. He expressed concern that they may have "accepted or facilitated Mr. Trump's explicit corrupt bargain."
The oil and gas industry stands to make $110 billion from tax breaks alone if Trump is elected, according to an analysis by Friends of the Earth Action released last week.
While Trump's quid pro quo offer was direct and nakedly transactional in a way that may be new, his party has long-standing oil industry ties.
"Maybe some of these Big Oil CEOs preferred a different candidate in the primary, but it was clear that they were always going to support the Republican nominee," LCV's Sittenfield said. "They are all about continuing to pad their already enormous profits at the expense of our climate."
Inside Donald Trump’s billion-dollar Big Oil heist Sabrina Haake May 19, 2024 Then-President Donald Trump speaks to city officials and employees of Double Eagle Energy on the site of an active oil rig on July 29, 2020 in Midland, Texas.
In June 2017, Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, shamefully walking away from a global commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — the only signatory country to do so.
Going into the 2024 election, Trump is warring with climate science again. Even as global temperatures hover at a precarious tipping point endangering habitability, Trump has solicited a billion-dollar contribution from fossil fuel execs in exchange for letting the planet burn baby burn.
Trump’s lowly $1 billion price tag
At a shockingly under-reported event in April, the presumptive Republican nominee invited fossil fuel representatives to dine with him at Mar-a-Lago where he served up a foul tasting entrée of quid pro quo.
More than 20 oil executives from Chevron, ExxonMobil, Occidental Petroleum and other fossil fuel concerns attended.
Over a steak dinner, Trump offered attendees $110 billion in tax breaks and said he’d reverse Biden’s environmental protections. Trump also pledged to scrap President Joe Biden’s policies on electric vehicles and wind energy and other initiatives opposed by the fossil fuel industry, including legal barriers to drilling and the Biden administration’s rules designed to cut car pollution.
The catch: the oil barons must agree to donate a billion dollars to Trump’s presidential campaign.
Trump said it was a good “deal.” Ponying up $1 billion to get Trump re-elected would be advantageous for Big Oil, he promised, because the value of the tax and regulation cuts he’d give them in return would far exceed that amount, including new offshore drilling and speedier permits.
Forbes reported that during an Arizona campaign rally in 2020, Trump similarly suggested that he could offer ExxonMobil permits in exchange for a $25 million campaign contribution. Appalling and galling though it was, last month’s Mar-a-Lago Big Oil fete wasn’t the first time Trump’s open corruption jeopardized a livable planet.
Climate disinformation from the fossil fuel lobby is legion, and it has gone on for decades.
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers has undertaken an extremely well-financed campaign against Biden’s EPA tailpipe rules, misleading consumers and voters by calling the rules a “ban” on “gas cars.” The lobby has purchased ads in battleground states to lie to voters about Biden’s efforts to increase the manufacture of EVs, claiming that increasing EV production and adopting the charging station infrastructure to support them will restrict consumer choice.
Their disinformation efforts are obscene because their profits are obscene.
Last year, ExxonMobil and Chevron reported their biggest annual profits in a decade. Three of the largest oil and gas producers reported combined profits of $85.6 billion in 2023. ExxonMobil reported $36 billion, while Chevron reported $21.4 billion. Shell’s reported profits were down from 2022 but still reflected the second-largest profits in a decade.
Then-President Donald Trump speaks to 5,000 contractors at the Shell Chemicals Petrochemical Complex on Aug. 13, 2019, in Monaca, Pa. President Donald Trump delivered a speech on the economy, and focused on manufacturing and energy sector jobs. (Photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)
Under the Inflation Reduction Act, the oil industry also received hundreds of billions of dollars in new financial incentives to expand carbon-reducing technologies. Given that larger fossil fuel companies have already diversified into renewables, one would think they would lead the discussion on what an appropriate energy mix looks like, instead of falsely lambasting Democrats’ transition efforts.
The rub, it’s clear, is timing and greed. They want the U.S. to rely primarily on fossil fuels for several more decades, but by then, scientists warn, the transition will be too late. Democrats investigate
Politico reported last week that oil executives are licking their chops, eagerly drafting industry-friendly executive orders Trump would sign as soon as he returns to office.
Democrats say not so fast.
After the Washington Post reported that Trump had offered to dismantle Biden’s environmental rules in exchange for $1 billion in campaign contributions, Democrats on the House oversight committee sent letters to nine oil executives asking about the Mar-a-Lago meeting.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) wrote in the committee’s letter that, “Media reports raise significant potential ethical, campaign finance, and legal issues that would flow from the effective sale of American energy and regulatory policy to commercial interests in return for large campaign contributions.”
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said that “Trump’s offer of a blatant quid pro quo to oil executives is practically an invitation to ask questions about Big Oil’s political corruption and manipulation.”
The Houston Chronicle says Democrats are pearl clutching. While it is true that Democrats promise donors they will try to protect abortion access, there’s a vast moral and legal chasm between vowing to protect a fundamental human right — healthcare — and vowing to destroy a fundamental human right — breathable air.
A tale of two countries
Whether or not voters understand it, the climate contrast between Biden and Trump couldn’t be more dramatic.
Biden refers to global warming as an “existential threat” and has engaged in over 300 actions aimed to cut greenhouse gas emissions, reduce air pollution, restrict toxic chemicals and preserve public lands and waters. Biden’s administration has taken more action to combat climate change than any other administration in U.S. history. The Inflation Reduction Act led to record investment in solar, wind and increased EV sales.
Although these policies will take years to deliver climate results, by one early assessment, they have already resulted in a 3 percent cut in energy emissions.
President Joe Biden points to a wind turbine size comparison chart during a meeting about the Federal-State Offshore Wind Implementation Partnership in the Roosevelt Room of the White House June 23, 2022, in Washington, D,C. The White House is partnering with 11 East coast governors to launch a new Federal-State Offshore Wind Implementation Partnership to boost the offshore wind industry. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Trump, amplifying Big Oil’s decades-long disinformation campaign in exchange for money, has called climate change a “hoax.” At his New Jersey rally last week, Trump vowed to stop offshore wind “on day one.”
He has claimed without evidence that wind energy causes cancer, and that he knows “windmills very much,” because he has “studied it better than anybody I know.” Demonstrating the principles of Darwinism, Trump eliminated more than 125 environmental rules and policies during his time in office and is now promising more destruction.
In November, we will elect the president we deserve. Whether Trump or Biden is elected, both men are elderly. That means they will be gone long before the worst environmental disasters arrive.
The choice is before us. One of these candidates promises his grandchildren will eat from a golden plate. The other promises there will be something on the plate.
Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25 year litigator specializing in 1st and 14th Amendment defense. Her Substack, The Haake, is free.
Winds of Change for Energy Ports
Petrochemical ports see new opportunities in clean energy
(Article originally published in Mar/Apr 2024 edition.)
The global production of energy has taken a new twist: It has to be cleaner. Reducing carbon emissions and reaching “net zero” targets are terms becoming commonplace in the energy industry’s vocabulary.
Several U.S. ports that handle petroleum products or lease land to energy-producing companies are becoming more involved in the emissions reduction scenario, not only as depots for cleaner energy production but also as cleaner users. “Electric” seems to be the way to go – from drayage vehicles on docks moving containers to cranes and trucks and shore power for ships.
But not every port is following the conventional path in support of clean energy development.
Diverse Energy Needs
“As a bulk and breakbulk port, the Port of Beaumont is tied to energy in unexpected ways,” says Beaumont’s Port Director, Chris Fisher. “While aggregate, crude oil, wind turbine components and project cargo don’t seem related, they all support the diverse energy needs of the United States.”
Beaumont moves over one million tons of aggregate annually, most of which supports multi-billion-dollar refinery and petrochemical facility expansion efforts by laying the groundwork for upgrades. Aggregate also supports the maritime transportation network by supplying the base material needed to construct critical highway and road infrastructure that leads directly to ports and other industrial facilities.
As wind projects have been all the rage, Beaumont’s heavy-lift capabilities moved wind turbine components that supported 30 wind projects in the U.S. Fisher adds that with more than $85 billion in announced industrial projects along the Sabine-Neches Waterway, including Port Arthur LNG and Golden Pass LNG, Beaumont is a top choice for moving project cargo in support of exports and global energy needs. And as an energy exporter, Beaumont’s Jefferson Energy liquid bulk terminal, a net exporter of crude oil, gasoline and yellow wax, realized a 331 percent increase in volume over the last five years.
Port Tampa Bay, which handles 18 million tons of petroleum products per year or over 45 percent of Florida’s total, recently received an economic shot in the arm when Overseas Shipholding Group (OSG), a leading provider of energy transportation services, announced plans to study the development of a proposed Tampa Regional Intermodal Carbon Hub.
According to a release, the study is intended to evaluate the commercial feasibility of developing an intermediate storage hub at Port Tampa Bay for CO2 captured from industrial emitters across Florida. The hub would initially receive, store and process two million metric tons of CO2 per year, which would ultimately be transported by OSG vessels across the Gulf of Mexico for permanent underground storage.
It would be the first of its kind in the nation, and captured CO2 can actually be used in the production of synthetic fuels such as gasoline and diesel.
Petrochemical port operations in the Gulf of Mexico
Methanol and Wind
Port Lake Charles on the Gulf Coast of Louisiana has been chosen as the site of a planned major methanol plant to be built by Lake Charles Methanol II. The company plans to invest $3.24 billion to produce low-carbon intensity methanol and other chemicals.
“The proposed facility would reform natural gas and renewable gas feedstocks into hydrogen while capturing carbon dioxide, which would then be used to produce about 3.6 million tons per year of methanol,” it said in a statement.
Port Lake Charles’ Executive Director Richert Self adds, "This represents a significant capital investment for Southwest Louisiana. We’ll be involved in the export of three-to-four million tons of methanol per year. For the Port of Lake Charles, it’s yet another diversification of cargo. For years, we’ve handled petroleum coke and other fossil fuel-related energy cargoes, and methanol will complement that. It’s another area that displays that we’re truly an energy port.”
Port Lake Charles says another potential area of development may be offshore wind.
"Sites at the port’s industrial canal could become available to support the offshore wind industry as a marshaling and staging facility, an offshore wind component factory or both,” notes Director of Cargo & Trade Development Therrance Chretien.
The Port of Virginia, which is determined to become a net-zero operation by 2040, is transforming its Portsmouth Marine Terminal (PMT) into an offshore wind energy hub to support Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) project and many other projects expected to be built along the U.S. East Coast.
Port spokesman Joe Harris says the improvements there, in support of Dominion’s project, are on-time and on-budget. Virginia wants to establish itself as a Mid-Atlantic logistics hub for the offshore wind energy industry: “We’re supporting this industry by providing a modern platform from which private industry (Dominion) can safely and efficiently operate.”
The first few loads of monopiles, which are base units that attach to the seafloor, have arrived and are on-site. The monopiles are over 250 feet in length and weigh nearly 1,500 tons on average.
Dominion has leased 72 acres of PMT, which is being used for the staging and pre-assembly of the CVOW components. Harris says the overall construction project will last 2.5 years and consist of 176 offshore wind turbines situated on a lease site 27 miles off the coast of Virginia Beach. Port investment in the project is $220 million.
L.A. and Long Beach
Upgrading facilities that currently handle petroleum products is under way at the Port of Los Angeles, says Michael Galvin, Director of Waterfront and Commercial Real Estate. The port has seven marine oil terminals that provide local fuel outlets with crude and products like diesel.
Galvin notes, “There’s a transition going on to renewable fuels,” with less carbon intense production. However, “Those fuels are being imported into our facilities now to meet specific energy producers’ needs in relation to regulations here in the State of California.”
While the port is focused on upgrading its present marine petroleum facilities, storing and supplying components for the various offshore wind projects developing along the California coast has been on its radar. “There have been discussions with various developers to utilize existing water space or land to do that,” Galvin says. But, he adds, the nearby Port of Long Beach “has a much larger proposal to develop” as a logistics base to supply wind energy components.
“On our side, we’ve looked at different developers to see what can be done on land or water but nothing is solid at this point,” Galvin says. The port would be happy to play a role in offshore wind where it can but “these companies need large pieces of land, like 100+ acres for long-term lease, and we just don’t have 100 acres to be used for that. So that’s an issue we have.”
The Port of Long Beach’s Pier Wind project is a proposed 400-acre terminal designed to facilitate the assembly of offshore wind turbines, which would be towed to wind farms in the ocean off central and northern California. If approved, it would be the largest facility of its kind in the nation and would help California meet its goals for sustainability and renewable energy sources.
Galvin concludes by saying, “The big goal here between the ports of L.A. and Long Beach is to get to zero emissions on our terminals by 2030 and off-terminal with our drayage truck fleet by 2035." – MarEx
The Maritime Executives' ports columnist Tom Peters writes from Halifax, Nova Scotia.
The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executiv
Saturday, May 18, 2024
Banks Remain Financially Committed to Oil Despite Transition Shift
The world’s 60 largest banks have invested $6.9 trillion in the oil and gas industry since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2016.
Oil Change International reported, $3.3 trillion went towards expanding the production of hydrocarbon energy.
Worse still for climate NGOs, funding for fracking increased last year as well, reaching $59 billion.
There is no large international bank without a net-zero plan. These plans invariably include curbs in lending to the oil and gas industry. Yet despite these plans. Most of the world’s top lenders continue doing business with the oil industry—and they’ve been doing more of it lately.
The revelation comes from the 15th annual Banking on Climate Chaos report authored by an organization called Oil Change International, part of a group of climate NGOs committed to putting an end to the oil and gas industry.
According to this report, the world’s 60 largest banks have invested $6.9 trillion in the oil and gas industry since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2016, marking the official start of the global net-zero shift. Of this, Oil Change International reported, $3.3 trillion went towards expanding the production of hydrocarbon energy.
This is bad enough news from the climate NGO perspective, certainly, but it is not the only bad news. What’s worse than a total of $6.9 trillion in hydrocarbon investment is an investment of $705 billion for 2023 alone—with some segments of the industry seeing increases in bank funding. This, in a world with a net-zero agenda, should not be happening, especially when banks are making decarbonization pledges and officially shrinking their business dealings with oil and gas producers. Yet not all of them are doing it.
Oil Change International, for lack of other tools, uses naming and shaming to sound the alarm of banks financing oil and gas, calling what it sees as the worst net-zero offenders “The Dirty Dozen”.
Those are led by JP Morgan, which invested $430.9 billion in the oil and gas industry between 2016 and 2023. At number two, we have Citi, with oil and gas exposure of $396.3 billion for the period, followed by Bank of America, which invested $333.3 billion between the signing of the Paris Agreement and last year.
The “Dirty Dozen” also includes lenders such as Barclays, MUFG, Scotiabank, and HSBC, as well as RBC and the report includes a lot of language aimed at making these banks feel embarrassed about their business practices. What it doesn’t do is ask the question that this information begs: why are banks investing so much in oil and gas?
The answer, of course, lies in the financial reports of oil companies and news reports such as the one that Global Witness released this February, stating Big Oil majors paid their shareholders a record $111 billion in dividends on the back of record profits for 2022. Those record profits were driven by the energy crunch in Europe that highlighted the importance of energy security in a way that everyone could understand—except climate NGOs, it appears.
The Oil Change International report says that financing for liquefied natural gas increased last year, hitting $120.9 billion. From their perspective, this must be a worrying trend. From the perspective of the banks themselves, this is good business—because demand for LNG is on the rise with Europe switching from pipelines to LNG carriers. Even record electricity generation from wind and solar in 2023 did not depress demand for liquefied gas.
Worse still for climate NGOs, funding for fracking increased last year as well, reaching $59 billion, provided to a total 236 companies by lenders including already named and shamed JP Morgan, Citi, and BofA, along with Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo. The reason this happened was that demand for oil, including shale oil, was also on the rise, just like demand for natural gas.
The energy demand conundrum is the ultimate challenge for the climate NGO crowd. Protests and road-gluing spectacles may attract attention—although sometimes it is the wrong kind of attention—but the net-zero agenda cannot be followed if demand for hydrocarbons remains as strong as it has been in all the years since the signing of the Paris Agreement.
Attempts to destroy this demand, however, have invariably failed. The buildout of alternative sources of electricity to gas and coal are thriving, with governments spending billions on supporting them. Even so, wind and solar have been unable to cope with the rise in electricity demand and now there are warnings that more gas power plants would need to be built to respond to the expected surge in that demand that the IT sector will drive.
In transport, EV sales have grown strongly thanks to equally strong government support and yet even in Norway, which has the highest per-capita adoption rate, oil demand has not declined. Some of the world’s top carmakers are losing hundreds of thousands on the EVs they produce and they only keep doing it because their gasoline and diesel vehicles are still selling well.
Pointing the finger at banks for their lending to the oil and gas industry without acknowledging the reasons they are doing it would, in any other context, be considered sloppy work. Yet in this case, the reasons for banks to continue funding oil and gas are too inconvenient for the activists tracking this funding. These reasons are that oil and gas make money and that it is very good money—because people want reliable, affordable energy.
By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com
Big Banks Have Funded Climate Crisis With Nearly $7 Trillion Since Paris Agreement
"Banks that profit from climate chaos invent new greenwash every year, but we have the receipts that show how much money they put into fossil fuels," said one report author.
Protesters picket outside a Chase Bank branch in November 2019. (Photo: Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images)
The world's 60 biggest banks funded fossil fuels to the tune of $6.9 trillion in the eight years following the Paris agreement.
That's the conclusion of the 15th annual Banking on Climate Chaos report, which was published Monday and also found that the financial institutions lavished $705 billion on oil, gas, and coal in 2023—the hottest year on record.
"Financiers and investors of fossil fuels continue to light the flame of the climate crisis," Tom BK Goldtooth, report co-author and executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, said in a statement. "Paired with generations of colonialism, the fossil fuel industry and banking institutions' investment in false solutions create unlivable conditions for all living relatives and humanity on Mother Earth."
U.S. financial giants JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Bank of America topped the "dirty dozen" list of the banks that gave the most to fossil fuels since 2016, at $430.9 billion, $396.3 billion, and $333.2 billion respectively. In 2023, U.S. banks provided 30% of total fossil fuel finance, the largest share of any country. JPMorgan also topped the 2023 list at $40.88 billion, with Japanese bank Mizuho Financial overtaking the No. 2 spot with $37.04 billion, and Bank of America remaining in third place with $33.68 billion.
"The science shows that over half of fossil fuels in existing fields and mines must stay underground to limit global warming to 1.5°C, and our Big Oil Reality Check analysis finds that none of the major oil and gas companies we analyze plan to do anything even close to what is needed to hold global warming to 1.5°C," report-co-author David Tong, the global industry campaign manager at Oil Change International, said in a statement. "By injecting a staggering $70[5] billion into fossil fuel financing in 2023 alone, the world's largest banks fund the climate chaos fossil fuel companies wreck on communities worldwide."
The report also tracks how much the financial institutions spent on companies that had fossil fuel expansion plans, according to the Global Oil and Gas Exit List and the Global Coal Exit List. The banks spent $3.3 trillion since 2016 and $347.5 billion in 2023 alone on these companies, or nearly half of total expenditures. Report co-author April Merleaux, research and policy manager at Rainforest Action Network, called the 2023 expansion finance figure "dangerous and inconsistent with real climate commitments."
Overall, Citibank has spent the most on fossil fuel expansion since 2016 at $204 billion, while JPMorgan was the top funder of expansion in 2023 with $19.3 billion.
"As this report is worth nothing if it doesn't turn into action, we call on the banks to finally become fossil free banks, and on the wider climate justice movement to use this data to mobilize for a fossil free banking world."
The researchers also looked at what fossil fuel companies and activities the banks were financing. All told, they considered funding to 4,228 companies. Clients with major expansion plans in 2023 included the pipeline companies Enbridge, TC Energy Corp, and Sempra as well as NextDecade Corp and Rio Grande Valley LNG, which are developing new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity.
Fossil fuel financing did decrease in 2023, down from $778.7 billion in 2022.
"The trend of decreased financing from traditional banks to fossil fuel companies is good news, tempered by the reality that financing for fossil fuel expansion should be zero," the report authors wrote. "But there is little evidence that the decline is driven by voluntary commitments by the banks, especially given the policy rollbacks among major banks."
Indeed, in 2023, Bank of America rolled back commitments to not fund Arctic drilling, thermal coal, or coal-fired plants. Instead, the report authors suggested the downturn in finance was due to external economic and geopolitical factors.
"Unless banks take action to rule out finance for such clients, the decline may not be permanent," they warned.
When it came to the funding of individual high-risk fossil fuel activities, funding for overall expansion, fracking, tar sands, coal- and gas-power plants, and Amazon, Arctic, and deepwater oil and gas all declined. At the same time, funding for metallurgical coal, coal mining, and methane LNG all increased, with LNG funding rising from $116 billion in 2022 to $121 billion in 2023.
"In a year with record climate impacts, I am shocked to see financing for any category of fossil fuels increase. And yet in 2023 this report shows a big increase in financing to companies developing methane gas terminals and related infrastructure," Merleaux said. "Banks should be listening to those on the frontlines and stepping away from these projects."
This year the report—which is a collaboration between Rainforest Action Network; BankTrack; the Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development; Indigenous Environmental Network; Oil Change International; Reclaim Finance; Sierra Club; and Urgewald— features updated methodology that primary sources revealing the role of banks in corporate financial deals. The banks were given a chance to review the data and respond.
"Wall Street's top concern is its profit. Our top concerns are the climate and human rights. Banks that profit from climate chaos invent new greenwash every year, but we have the receipts that show how much money they put into fossil fuels," Merleaux said. "Our new methodology uncovers previously unreported details on banks' support for fossil fuels and gives campaigners new tools to hold them accountable."
Accountability is the report's main goal, according to co-author Diogo Silva, who leads the banks and climate campaign at BankTrack.
"As this report is worth nothing if it doesn't turn into action, we call on the banks to finally become fossil free banks, and on the wider climate justice movement to use this data to mobilize for a fossil free banking world," Silva said. "Later might just be too late. Fossil banks, no thanks!"
LCO2 Carrier Design Developed by Deltamarin for ECOLOG’s CO2 Platform
LCO2 carrier design to transport intra-Europe captured carbon for storage or reuse (Deltamarin)
Designs were presented for the first of a fleet of purpose-built CO2 carriers to transport captured CO2 intra-Europe for storage. The designs were developed by the well-known Deltamarin Group, part of China Merchants, for ECOLOG, an emerging services company that seeks to build the first large-scale CO2 services platform.
Based in Greece and established by Greek shipping tycoon Peter Livanos, ECOLOG is using the model of the gas sector to develop its business model. It plans to be a mid-stream company operating a service platform in the carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration supply chain. According to its statement, the company is building a business that would liquefy, transport, and store 50 million tons of CO2 annually anywhere in the world.
The vessel concept is for short-range transportation. ECOLOG plans to develop a fleet of vessels and terminals connecting hard-to-abate emitters, such as large industrial sites, and providing connections to sequestration sites or re-use facilities.
Deltamarin says in developing the vessel it worked to optimize the LCO2 aspects. It explains that there are different configurations of cargo containment and handling available to address the wide variety of CO2 compositions.
They did not provide details on the size of the vessel but said it is designed to be a versatile and efficient carrier. It uses a low-pressure cargo system and would have a shallow draft to facilitate access to facilities. To reduce the vessel’s environmental impact, they selected dual-fuel LNG engines along with wind-assisted propulsion and capabilities to use shore power.
The designs were developed for the purpose of tendering at shipyards worldwide. No timeline was proposed for construction and entry into service.
ECOLOG’s vessels would follow the Northern Lights vessels which are currently completing construction in China. Each of the ships will have a capacity of 7,500 cubic meters designed to transport captured CO2 from European producers to the Northern Lights’ terminal in Norway before pumping the CO2 to the offshore storage location. The company has agreements for a total of four ships with the first two expected to be delivered this year.
House Democrat Probes Trump's $1 Billion 'Quid Pro Quo' Deal With Big Oil Rep. Jamie Raskin expressed concern that some firms, "which have a track record of using deceitful tactics to undermine effective climate policy, may have already accepted or facilitated Mr. Trump's explicit corrupt bargain."
Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), speaks outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. on January 5, 2024. (Photo: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)
A top U.S. House Democrat announced Tuesday that he is demanding answers from fossil fuel executives after Washington Post reporting revealed last week that former Republican President Donald Trump recently told industry leaders he would gut climate regulations if they raised $1 billion for his 2024 presidential campaign.
Raskin's letters note that the executives "appear to have attended" Trump's fundraising dinner at Mar-a-Lago in Florida last month and "media reports raise significant potential ethical, campaign finance, and legal issues that would flow from the effective sale of American energy and regulatory policy to commercial interests in return for large campaign contributions."
"Mr. Trump's unvarnished quid pro quo offer is especially troubling evidence in light of recent accounts that the 'U.S. oil industry is drawing up ready-to-sign executive orders for Donald Trump aimed at pushing natural gas exports, cutting drilling costs, and increasing offshore oil leases in case he wins a second term,'" he wrote, citing Politico. "These preparatory actions suggest that certain oil and gas companies, which have a track record of using deceitful tactics to undermine effective climate policy, may have already accepted or facilitated Mr. Trump's explicit corrupt bargain."
Raskin also highlighted findings from a January Oversight Committee Democrats staff report, which shows that "when Mr. Trump was in office, he accepted at least $7.8 million from kings, princes, and foreign states, including the People's Republic of China and Saudi Arabia, in blatant violation of the Constitution's foreign emoluments clause, and rendered a sequence of foreign policy favors to his patrons."
The congressman—and constitutional scholar—asked the executives to respond to questions and document requests by May 27. He is seeking the names of employees who attended the April 11 fundraiser, copies of materials distributed during the event, descriptions of all policy proposals and related campaign contributions discussed, and draft executive orders or policy paperwork prepared by members of the companies.
"The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate 'any matter' at 'any time,'" Raskin explained. "The requested information is needed to investigate and legislate on matters related to presidential and presidential-candidate ethics and to continue to address the major ethics crisis created by Donald Trump's efforts to profit off the presidency."
As Raskin released the letters on Tuesday, Media Matters for America's Allison Fisher pointed out that "unfortunately, over a four-day period, TV news broadcast and cable networks—with the exception of MSNBC—did not cover Trump's proposition to oil executives."
However, Trump has made his policy plans clear. Even before the fundraiser, he publicly pledged to "drill, baby, drill" if he beats Democratic President Joe Biden in November. One March analysis found that a second Trump term would lead to the release of 4 billion more tons of planet-heating carbon dioxide—the combined annual emissions of the European Union and Japan—by 2030 than if Biden were reelected.
The letters aren't the first time Raskin has taken aim at the fossil fuel industry this month. At the beginning of May, he testified before the U.S. Senate Budget Committee about a nearly three-year investigation into "Big Oil's campaign of deception and distraction," which he said "undermines the efforts we need to mobilize our people and government to save our climate, our habitat, and our species."
"Unless the deception ends, and until the industry is held accountable," the congressman warned, "we are unlikely ever to be able to muster the national political will to effectively tackle climate change."
Cable News Refused to Report Trump's Bombshell Quid Pro Quo Offer to Big Oil Execs
"The most under-covered Trump story is his complete selling-out of the American people on issues they care about most," one political insider said.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media during an election night event at Mar-a-Lago on November -8, 2022 in Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Major cable news networks Fox News Channel, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC all failed to cover former President Donald Trump's promise to Big Oil executives that he would reverse President Joe Biden's climate regulations if they donated $1 billion to his campaign, according to an analysis published by Media Matters for America late Tuesday.
When the news first broke, Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch wrote, "You won't read a more important story today." Yet, in the four days after the story broke, it only received 48 minutes of cable airtime—all on MSNBC.
"The most under-covered Trump story is his complete selling-out of the American people on issues they care about most," Jesse Lee, a former Biden communications adviser, posted on social media in response to the report. "If gas prices go up soon, these same networks that ignored Trump's $1 billion oil bribe will cover it constantly—and crucify Biden."
"He is basically saying he's going to destroy the planet that our children... are growing up on just if these guys will write him a check."
The story of Trump's quid pro quo offer to fossil fuel executives was first reported by The Washington Post on May 9. It detailed a dinner the former president hosted at Mar-a-Lago in April attended by leaders of oil and gas firms including ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Occidental Petroleum. During the dinner, Trump told the executives that a $1 billion donation would be a "deal" for the industry "because of the taxation and regulation they would avoid thanks to him."
To assess how cable covered—or didn't cover—the story, Media Matters for America looked at the transcripts from May 9 to May 12 for CNN; Fox News Channel; MSNBC; ABC's "Good Morning America," "World News Tonight," and "This Week;" CBS' "Mornings," "Evening News," and "Face the Nation;" and NBC's "Today," "Nightly News," and "Meet the Press." They searched the transcripts for the words "Trump," "former president," or "Mar-a-Lago" close to the words "oil," "donor," "executive," "billion," "industry," "fossil," or "fuel," as well as any version of the words "environment" or "CEO."
Only the MSNBC transcripts turned up any results. These included:Just over 18 minutes—or nearly 40% of the total—on "Velshi" on May 11, featuring interviews with climate activist Bill McKibben, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington president Noah Bookbinder, and The Atlantic's David A. Graham. A discussion on the May 9 edition of "Alex Wagner Tonight" between host Wagner and guests former Obama Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and former Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki. An interview on the May 10 edition of "All in With Chris Hayes" with New York Times climate reporter Lisa Friedman. An exchange on the May 11 edition of "Alex Witt Reports" between host Witt and New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker. An interview on the May 12 edition of "Ayman" with Princeton University sociology professor Kim Lane Scheppele and New York Times columnist and analyst Michelle Goldberg. Mentions on "The ReidOut" and "The Weekend."
Several of the MSNBC interviews did highlight the importance of the story—which has prompted an investigation by a top House Democrat.
McKibben told Ali Velshi that "in a very real sense this is the most important climate election ever."
Others focused on the blatant corruption of the exchange. Graham noted that it was particularly brazen.
"He is making it clear what the quid pro quo is without any kind of pretense. It's just right here, 'You give me money; I'll do what you want me to do,'" Graham told Velshi.
Rhodes called it "basic pay-to-play corruption," adding, "He is basically saying he's going to destroy the planet that our children... are growing up on just if these guys will write him a check."
There were also comments on what the news said about the fossil fuel executives themselves.
"These are the same executives who, in the wake of January 6, said, 'We're not going to support people who undermined our democracy,'" Bookbinder pointed out. "And there they are, these couple of years later, meeting with Donald Trump, courting his support, hearing his offer—his demands—that they give a billion dollars to his campaign."
Baker told Witt: "I think it's going to confirm for a lot of people who are already suspicious of the fossil fuel industry that they have, over the years, bought off Washington writ large. That's been a longtime conviction on the part of people who think that the energy industry has too much power."
"It's going to cause a lot of cynicism, obviously, especially if Donald Trump were to win and then to try to roll back some of these climate initiatives," Baker continued. "People will make the assumption—and it will have some obvious evidence to back it up—that he is doing so in exchange for large contributions from an industry that's affected by it."
They will, that is, if they caught the 48 minutes of reporting the story received.
