Anadarko – Environmental Impacts of Hydrofracturing
WHEREAS
Onshore “unconventional” natural gas production often requires hydraulic fracturing, which typically injects a mix of millions of gallons of water, thousands of gallons of chemicals, and particles deep underground to create fractures through which gas can flow for collection. According to the American Petroleum Institute, “up to 80 percent of natural gas wells drilled in the next decade will require hydraulic fracturing.”
The potential impacts of those fracturing operations stem from activities above and below the earth’s surface — including actions that are necessarily part of the life cycle of fracturing and extraction, such as assuring the integrity of well construction, and moving, storing, and disposing of significant quantities of water and toxic chemicals.
High profile contamination incidents, especially in Pennsylvania, have fueled public controversy. Pennsylvania’s Times-Shamrock Newspapers report “many of the largest operators in the Marcellus Shale have been issued violations for spills that reached waterways, leaking pits that harmed drinking water, or failed pipes that drained into farmers’ fields, killing shrubs and trees.”
Anadarko has substantial investments in the Marcellus Shale, where it plans to drill more than 4,500 wells in future years.
Public officials in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and New York City have called for delays or bans on fracturing. Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Colorado, Wyoming and New York State all tightened or are considering tightening regulations and permitting requirements, though state regulations remain uneven. The federal Environmental Protection Agency is studying the potential adverse impact that hydraulic fracturing may have on water quality and public health.
A multi-sectoral assessment for investors, “Water Disclosure 2010 Global Report,” noted the existence of reputational risks from water management for the oil and gas sector.
Proponents believe these potential environmental impacts and increasing regulatory scrutiny could pose threats to Anadarko’s license to operate and enhance vulnerability to litigation. Proponents believe our company is not providing sufficient information on key business risks associated with hydraulic fracturing operations. Proponents believe Anadarko should protect its long-term financial interests by taking measures beyond the existing, inconsistent regulatory requirements to reduce environmental hazards and associated business risks.
RESOLVED
Shareholders request that the Board of Directors prepare a report by October 2011, at reasonable cost and omitting confidential information such as proprietary or legally prejudicial data, summarizing: 1) Known and potential environmental impacts of Anadarko’s fracturing operations; and, 2) Policy options for our company to adopt, above and beyond regulatory requirements and our company’s existing efforts, to reduce or eliminate hazards to air, water, and soil quality from fracturing operations.
Anadarko – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
WHEREAS
Anadarko’s operates in four countries worldwide that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, which obliges industrialized countries to reduce national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions below 1990 levels by 2012, and provides financial incentives for non-industrialized participants to reduce their GHG emissions.
Since Kyoto was adopted, the urgent need for action to prevent the most damaging effects of climate change has become increasingly clear. To avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change, experts believe that we must hold CO2 emissions at or near 2004 levels for the next 50 years, but emissions are continuing to rise.
British finance minister Gordon Brown says the EU should aim to reduce its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 and by at least 60% by 2050; the UK’s reduction target, under Kyoto, is just 12.5% by 2012.
The 2006 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, lead by the former chief economist at the World Bank, “… estimates that if we don’t act, the overall (worldwide) costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever.” In contrast, the costs of action would be about 1% of global GDP each year. While some may criticize this scenario, Nobel Prize economists have applauded this work, urging immediate responses.
Anadarko’s measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions include the use of carbon sequestration as part of enhanced oil recovery operations and working to minimize the flaring and venting of methane gas. However, in 2005 (the latest figures available, which pre-date the Kerr-McGee and Western Resources acquisitions), Anadarko’s direct GHG emissions from Anadarko operations totaled 4.9 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent.
RESOLVED
Shareholders request that the Board of Directors publicly adopt quantitative goals, based on current and emerging technologies, for reducing total greenhouse gas emissions from the company’s products and operations below 2004 levels; and that the company report to shareholders by September 30, 2007, on its plans to achieve these goals. Such a report will omit proprietary information and be prepared at reasonable cost.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
Anadarko’s web site states: “We continually look for innovative ways to minimize the overall environmental impacts of our activities, including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions….In our view, it’s possible to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-effective and voluntary manner.” Anadarko’s Greenhouse Gas Management Plan (http://www.anadarko.com/PDF/GHG_Managment_Plan_exec_summary.pdf) commits our company to “continually improving its performance in [this] area by…Setting corporate objectives and targets and communicating the progress and overall performance in achieving those objectives and targets.”
However, Anadarko has yet to report publicly on its objectives and targets, its progress toward meeting them. A vote in support of this proposal will register interest in holding Anadarko accountable to its pledge to set GHG reduction targets and communicate their progress and performance.
