Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Big Oil money doesn’t go over well down on The Farm
Many at Stanford are upset by university’s relationship with ExxonMobil
Stanford University has found itself caught squarely in the middle of a major proxy battle between a group of New Jersey nuns and the world’s largest privately owned oil company.
The university, which has been heavily criticized for taking up to
$100 million from ExxonMobil for climate and energy research, is poised this week to vote in favor of the nuns’ proposal that the oil giant immediately reduce its greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming. The vote would fall in line with the university’s policy to support proxy resolutions addressing climate change.
But ExxonMobil officials are steadfastly against the proposal and urged their shareholders to vote against it.
Why? Among the reasons the company gives in its proxy statement: Its close relationship with Stanford.
“ExxonMobil worked to establish and is providing $100 million to Stanford University’s Global Climate and Energy Project – a pioneering climate and energy research effort,” the company says on page 61 of its proxy statement, which contains legally required information on issues to be voted on by shareholders. “Our involvement enables the corporation to readily assess new technologies for commercialization and investment as appropriate, to improve shareholder value.”
It’s just the kind of language that late last year prompted a major Stanford donor to rescind his offer to donate $2.5 million to the university. Former Stanford student Steve Bing, a movie producer and staunch environmentalist, was horrified that Stanford allowed Big Oil to use the school’s name and logo in a widespread advertising campaign.
(23 May 2007)
Shell considers halting U.S. refinery plans
Bloomberg News via IHT
SAN FRANCISCO: Royal Dutch Shell, the biggest European oil company, may shelve a joint venture plan to create the largest U.S. refinery because of President George W. Bush’s efforts to reduce gasoline use, a Shell executive said Monday.
“If you’re an investor getting ready to put several billion dollars into expanded capacity, would you do that when the president himself says we want less gasoline?” John Hofmeister, Shell’s top U.S. executive, said at a conference in Santa Clara, California.
At stake is a $3 billion plan by Shell and Saudi Arabia’s state oil company, partners in the Motiva Enterprises venture, to more than double the processing capacity of a refinery in Port Arthur, Texas, to 600,000 barrels of crude a day. Bush called in January for the country to increase use of renewable and alternative fuels to curb reliance on imported oil, seeking a 20 percent reduction in gasoline use by 2017.
(21 May 2007)
BP scraps green energy plan
Douglas Fraser and Catherine MacLeod
Oil giant BP last night pulled out of a £500m world-leading project which would have brought 1000 construction jobs to the north-east of Scotland, on the day the government set out its energy plans.
The company, which has already invested more than £30m in the Peterhead carbon capture and storage (CCS) project, said it simply could not wait for a government-sponsored competition to decide who to back to build such a plant.
In yesterday’s energy white paper Alistair Darling, the Trade and Industry Secretary, said the competition for the project would be launched in November.
Alex Salmond, the First Minister, last night expressed “deep anger and disappointment” claiming the delay set out in the energy white paper had “effectively sabotaged the project at Peterhead”. ..
(24 May 2007)
