The Carbon Majors Database
CDP Carbon Majors Report 2017
100 fossil fuel producers and nearly 1 trillion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions

CDP Report | July 2017
Author: Dr. Paul Griffin

PartnerAbout this report
The Carbon Majors Database stores greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions data on the largest company-related
sources of all time. CDP’s Carbon Majors Report 2017 is
the first in an ongoing series of publications aimed at using
this Database – the most comprehensive available – tohighlight the role that corporations can play in driving the
global energy transition.
Large-scale GHG emissions data has traditionally beencollected at the country-level. In fact, these emissions
can be traced to a smaller group of commercial decision
makers. The Carbon Majors Database was establishedin 2013 by Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability
Institute (CAI) to show how these emissions are linked
to companies, or ‘Carbon Majors’. Now CDP works incollaboration with the CAI to maintain the Database andshare its important data and insights with all stakeholders.
This report looks at industrial carbon dioxide and methane
emissions deriving from fossil fuel producers in the past,present, and future. In 1988, human-induced climatechange was officially recognized through the establishmentof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Since this time, the fossil fuel industry has doubled its
contribution to global warming by emitting as muchgreenhouse gas in 28 years as in the 237 years between
1988 and the birth of the industrial revolution. Since 1988,
more than half of global industrial GHGs can be traced tojust 25 corporate and state producers.
In 2015, a fifth of global industrial GHG emissions wasbacked by publicly listed investment. The scale ofemissions signals the importance and potential of investor
engagement in the fossil fuel industry. Many oil and gas
majors are already developing scenarios to comprehend
their potential role in the future energy system. The Carbon
Majors Database is also projected out to 2100 to illustrate‘contraction and convergence’ theory at the companylevel. Setting science-based targets is an initial step forcompanies to take in navigating themselves through thisglobal transition.
This report is aimed at investors wishing to better
understand the amount of carbon associated with theirfossil fuel holdings. Further, it is intended that this output
will improve transparency from fossil fuel companies,
particularly around product-related (Scope 3) emissions,as well as providing them with contextual information
regarding their share of global emissions. The Database
can also be useful to policy analysts and academics fordeveloping further insights in this area of research.
Companies included in the Database are invited to share
updated GHG emissions figures where estimates havebeen employed. Other stakeholders are also welcome toshare their views and data use stories. All enquiries can bedirected to datacheck@cdp.net.

2

Contents

4

CDP foreword

5

Introducing the Carbon Majors Database

6

The approach

7

Global industrial greenhouse gas emissions

8

Past accountability

9State entities

10

The present picture

12

A future vision

13

Science-based targets

14

Appendix I
Cumulative emissions 1988-2015

15

Appendix II2015 Sample emissions

Important Notice
The contents of this report may be used by anyone providing acknowledgement is given to CDP Worldwide (CDP). This does not represent a licence torepackage or resell any of the data reported to CDP or the contributing authors and presented in this report. If you intend to repackage or resell any of thecontents of this report, you need to obtain express permission from CDP before doing so.
CDP have prepared the data and analysis in this report based on responses to the CDP 2016 information request. No representation or warranty (express
or implied) is given by CDP as to the accuracy or completeness of the information and opinions contained in this report. You should not act upon theinformation contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice. To the extent permitted by law, CDP do not accept or assume any
liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained inthis report or for any decision based on it. All information and views expressed herein by CDP is based on their judgment at the time of this report and are
subject to change without notice due to economic, political, industry and firm-specific factors. Guest commentaries where included in this report reflect theviews of their respective authors; their inclusion is not an endorsement of them.
CDP, their affiliated member firms or companies, or their respective shareholders, members, partners, principals, directors, officers and/or employees, may
have a position in the securities of the companies discussed herein. The securities of the companies mentioned in this document may not be eligible for salein some states or countries, nor suitable for all types of investors; their value and the income they produce may fluctuate and/or be adversely affected byexchange rates.
‘CDP Worldwide’ and ‘CDP’ refer to CDP Worldwide, a registered charity number 1122330 and a company limited by guarantee, registered in England
number 05013650.
© 2017 CDP Worldwide. All rights reserved.*

3

CDP foreword
Pedro Faria, Technical Director, CDP

A fresh angle to an old debate.
I ran into Rick Heede at COP20 in Lima, where we
spoke about our most recent accomplishments over
several cups of coffee. He went into details about his‘Carbon Majors’ project, explaining the painstaking
process of tracing cumulative emissions from thehighest emitting companies back to the 1850s. I
was utterly impressed and slightly envious – what alaborious and amazing piece of work!

Climate action is
no longer confinedto the direction
given by policy
makers — it is now
a social movement,commanded by both
economic and ethicalimperatives andsupported by growing
amounts of data.

This was a new and powerful perspective on climate
accountability, different from the dichotomies Parties
adopted about future responsibility and that led
to stalemate for an agreement in the Copenhagensummit: developed vs. developing, North vs. South,
historical emitters vs. future emitters, etc.
‘Carbon Majors’ offers insight into responsibility fromthe perspective of the producers of hydrocarbons;those companies that have made astonishing returns
over decades through the extraction and productionof greenhouse gas emitting products.
From Lima we moved to Paris, where there was avery smart shift to expand the remit of climate action
beyond the Parties, welcoming investors, banks,
companies, NGOs, civil society organizations, andcitizens, among others. This was the milestone forwhen we were officially empowered to take collective
responsibility for our climate. With this necessarily
comes the responsibility to act on it: A call to action
for collective stewardship.

The publication of this seminal report comes shortly
after the US’ announcement of withdrawal from theParis Accord – the first global agreement to reducegreenhouse gas emissions. While an unfortunate
decision, we have witnessed a resurgence in theenergy and commitment to GHG emission reductions
from non-state actors, including cities, states, regions
and companies. They have reaffirmed what wealready know: the transition is already underway andis irreversible. Climate action is no longer confinedto the direction given by policy makers; it is now asocial movement, commanded by both economicand ethical imperatives and supported by growing
amounts of data. Those that ignore this reality do soat their own peril.
Fossil fuel companies are also going to have todemonstrate leadership as part of this transition.
They owe it to the millions of clients they serve thatare already feeling the effects of climate change,
and to the many millions more that require energy
for the comfort of their daily lives but are looking
for alternatives to their products. We should all beconscious of our shared responsibility, which implies
learning from the past while keeping our eyes on the
future, internalizing our stewardship responsibilities,
and acting upon them together to ensure a moresustainable world.
Pedro Faria
Technical Director,
CDP

This 2017 report and dataset release mark the firstin an ongoing series of updates to Rick’s pioneeringwork. It is the first output of an ongoing collaboration
between CAI and CDP that started in Lima. It
highlights several important aspects: historical
corporate emissions, the present view, and the pathforward. Its novelty lies in its comprehensivenessand the fact that it’s the only available data source
to paint GHG emissions responsibility from theproducer-side. The segmentation by hydrocarbon
type not only facilitates improved emission
estimations, but also provides useful information
for those working in or with the energy sector. It
is the result of laborious data collection, but alsoof methodological improvements on GHG indirectemissions accounting.

4

Introducing the Carbon Majors Database

The Carbon Majors Database brings a fresh perspective
to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by attributing
them to companies.
The Carbon Majors Database in its original form wascompleted in 2013 by Richard Heede, Director of the
Climate Accountability Institute (CAI). CDP began its
relationship with the CAI in 2014 and is committed to
keeping the Database securely stored, updated, andaccessible to all stakeholders. CDP has also been
growing the sample of companies contained within
the Database, which presently consists of:
100 extant 1 fossil fuel producers (‘Carbon
Majors’): 41 public 2 investor-owned companies;
16 private investor-owned companies; 36 stateowned companies; and 7 state producers 3.
923 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent 4(GtCO2e) from direct operational and productrelated carbon dioxide and methane emissions(1854-2015), representing over half (52% 5) ofglobal industrial GHG since the dawn of theindustrial revolution (1751).
A wider ‘2015 Sample’ of 224 companies,
representing 72% of annual global industrial GHG
emissions in 2015.

100

Fossil fuel producers(plus 8 non-extant)

923

Billion tonnes of CO2e(1.1 trillion including non-extants)

Direct operational emissions (Scope 16) andemissions from the use of sold products (Scope 3:
Category 11) are attributed to the extraction andproduction of oil, gas, and coal. Scope 1 emissions
arise from the self-consumption of fuel, flaring, andventing or fugitive releases of methane.
Scope 3 emissions account for 90% of totalcompany emissions and result from the downstream
combustion of coal, oil, and gas for energy purposes.
A small fraction of fossil fuel production is used in
non-energy applications which sequester carbon.
Emissions of this scale have traditionally beencollected and accounted from the national-levelby organizations such as the International Energy
Agency (IEA). This is the first and only database
containing global-scale emissions, past and present,
at the company-level.
Alongside this report, CDP have released a dataset 7,
extracted from the Database, of emissions from all
100 producers over the period 1988-2015 and the
top 100 companies of the 2015 Sample.

52%

Of global industrial
GHGs since theindustrial revolution(62% including non-extants)

1. The Database also contains 8 significant non-extant producers raising total emissions to 1,090 GtCO2e, or 62% of global industrial GHG emissions since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
2. Publicly invested, or traded, ownership excludes private sources of investment including: Individuals, venture capital, private equity firms, holding companies, insurance companies, and corporations.
3. State producers are producing entities that are represented by national production.
4. All data in this report relating to fossil fuel producers is taken from the Carbon Majors Database.
5. All emissions figures relating to the fossil fuel industry as a whole, and to global emissions, were collected or calculated using the formula expressed on page 6. Data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center(CDIAC), the International Energy Agency (IEA), the Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), and others are used to provide a full picture of global GHG emissions. For more detailed information onsources, refer to the CDP ‘Carbon Majors Database: Methodology Report 2017’.
6. Greenhouse gas emissions accounting ‘Scopes’ as defined by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol of the World Resources Institute (WRI).
7. CDP (2017) The Carbon Majors Database: 2017 Dataset. CDP, London.

5

The approach

Transparency is at the heart of the approach, which
relies on company reported activity data and follows
a simple, reproducible methodology for estimating
emissions.
Where possible, Scope 1 emissions from upstream
activities are sourced from company responses to
the CDP Climate Change information request. Scope
1 emissions of non-responders and all of Scope 3
emissions are estimated. The estimation method
follows the IPCC ‘Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories’ 8.

Emissions =Σ EF • Ppp

p

The general form of calculation is expressed by theequation above. This equation states that activity
data (e.g. barrels of oil) is multiplied by a factor which
defines the emissions specific to that activity (e.g.
tonnes of CO2e per barrel of oil). In this case, P is
production, EF is the emission factor, and subscript p
is the product.
8. IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 1: General
Guidance and Reporting’, IGES, Japan.
9. CDP (2017) The Carbon Majors Database:Methodology Report 2017. CDP, London.

filings. For Scope 3 Category 11 ‘use of soldproducts’, net production is used over sales becauseof data availability, and because this eliminates the
chance of double-counting from resales.
To improve estimation accuracy, liquid hydrocarbons
are split into crude oils, natural gas liquids, andbitumen. Coal production is split by grade, such as
bituminous and lignite, or by application, such as
thermal and metallurgical. The variation in Scope 3
emission factor for oil and gas production is illustrated
in Figure 1.
Many fossil fuel companies do not disclose Scope 3‘use of sold product’ emissions. One intention of the
Database is that it will incentivize greater transparency
from fossil fuel extraction companies in this area.
For a more detailed description of the methodologicalapproach, please refer to the CDP ‘Carbon Majors
Database: Methodology Report 2017’ 9.

Nearly all activity data is collected from sources
available in the public domain, most of which arefound in company annual reports and securities

Figure 1: Oil and gas company product portfolio mix and GHG emissions intensity
Sands/Bitumen (LHS)

Crude/Condensate (LHS)

NGL (LHS)

Gas (LHS)

Intensity (kgCO2e/boe) (RHS)

100%

500

90%
80%
70%

450
447

60%

400

50%

378

376

375

371

371

40%

363

357

357

358

355

355

352

353

346

348

350

350

350
347

346

30%

345
335

337

330

323

20%

315

300

10%

Gazprom

EncanaRepsolBHP Billiton

Anadarko

Shell

OMV

Statoil

Eni

Total

ApacheDevon Energy

ExxonMobil

ConocoPhillipsBP

Murphy Oil

ChevronHess

Occidental

Marathon Oil

Canadian Natural

Rosneft

LukoilPetrobras

Husky

250
Suncor0%

6

Global industrial greenhouse gas emissions

A huge acceleration in the extraction of fossil fuels has
doubled their contribution to global warming since 1988.
In 1988, the IPCC was established and, as such,the effects of human activities on the climate were
officially recognized. Despite this landmark, the fossil
fuel industry has expanded prodigiously since 1988
and has become more carbon-intensive:

Figure 3: Fossil fuel sector
operational and product GHG
emissions, 1750-2015
Gas
Liquids
Coal

40

Coal makes up a larger share of fossil fuels.
The chart on the right depicting the independent
contributions to emissions from oil, gas, and coalshow that, despite an increase in the share of gas(a less carbon-intensive fuel), the vast expansionof coal production over the past 15 years has led
the overall emissions intensity of fossil fuels since1988 to increase (by 2.4%).
Large ventures into carbon-intensive‘unconventional oils’ have emerged.
Companies 10 such as Suncor, ExxonMobil,
Chevron, Shell, and ConocoPhillips haveinvested in the extraction of oil sands, tight oil,heavy oils and other forms which carry a larger
environmental impact than conventional
crude oil 11.

3530

Gas GHG contribution
Oil GHG contribution
Coal GHG contribution

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8
1988

1994

20

15

2000

2006

2012

1988
1988-2015
833 GtCO2e
1751-1987
820 GtCO2e

Fossil fuels are the largest source of anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions in the world. The fossil
fuel industry and its products accounted for 91% of
global industrial GHGs in 2015, and about 70% of
all anthropogenic GHG emissions 12. If the trend infossil fuel extraction continues over the next 28 years
as it has over the previous 28, then global averagetemperatures would be on course to rise around 4ºC
above preindustrial levels by the end of the century 13.
This would entail substantial species extinction, large
risks of regional and global food scarcity, and could
cross multiple tipping points in the Earth’s climate
system, leading to even more severe consequences14.

25
GtCO2e

The contribution of fossil fuels to global
warming has doubled: 833 GtCO2e was
emitted in just 28 years since 1988, comparedwith 820 GtCO2e in the 237 years between 1988
and the birth of the industrial revolution.

Figure 2: Fossil Fuel product emissions
contribution indices, 1988-2015

10

5

0
1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

10. The CDP investor-focused report ‘In the Pipeline’ ranks oil and gas companies on a range of environmental indicators.
11. The Oil Climate Index of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace benchmarks lifecycle emissions conventional and unconventional oils.
12. Other industrial GHGs include process carbon dioxide from cement manufacturing and other industrial product- or process-related methane, nitrous oxide and F-gases. Non-industrial GHG emissions consist of carbon dioxide
relating to land-use change, and methane from sources such as farming and landfills.
13. Based on comparison with the IEA 6DS scenario which projects an almost 4ºC temperature rise by the end of the century, and 5.5ºC in the long-term.
14. Based on the IPCC (2014) AR5 WGII ‘Impacts, Adaption, and Vulnerability’ report commentary on some of the impacts associated with a 4ºC rise.

7

Past accountability

Over half of global industrial emissions since humaninduced climate change was officially recognized can betraced to just 25 corporate and state producing entities.
By 1988, fossil fuel companies knew, or should have
known, of the destabilizing effects of their productson the environment. Nonetheless, most companies
have expanded extraction activities significantly in thetime since, while non-carbon primary energy sources,
such as renewables, have seen relatively very little
investment. Observing the period since 1988:
Investors own a great legacy of GHG
emissions: Of the 635 GtCO2e of operational
and product GHG emissions from the 100 active
fossil fuel producers, 32% is public investorowned, 9% is private investor-owned, and 59% isstate-owned.
Figure 4: Operational andproduct GHG emissions of 100
active fossil fuel producing
entities, 1988-2015

40
40

35
35

30
30

1. China (Coal)
4. National Iranian Oil
7. Russia (Coal)
10. CNPC
13. PDVSA
16. Peabody
19. Total
22. Petrobras
25. Nigerian National Pet.

The distribution of emissions isconcentrated: 25 corporate and state producing
entities account for 51% of global industrial GHG
emissions. All 100 producers account for 71% of
global industrial GHG emissions.

2. Saudi Aramco
5. ExxonMobil
8. Pemex
11. BP
14. ADNOC
17. Sonatrach
20. BHP Billiton
23. Lukoil

The highest emitting companies since 1988
that are investor-owned include: ExxonMobil, Shell,
BP, Chevron, Peabody, Total, and BHP Billiton. Key
state-owned companies include Saudi Aramco,
Gazprom, National Iranian Oil, Coal India, Pemex, and
CNPC (PetroChina). Coal emissions from China arerepresented by the state, in which key state-owned
producers include Shenhua Group, Datong Coal Mine
Group, and China National Coal Group.
Attributing operational and product GHG emissions
since 1988 paints, for the first time, a producer-side
view of climate accountability. The scale of historicalemissions associated with these producers is large
enough to have contributed significantly to climatechange. It follows that the actions of these producers
over the medium-long term can, and should, play apivotal role in the global energy transition. Directly or
indirectly, these companies are most affected by theprospect of climate change regulation, which presents
myriad risks and opportunities to their future
prosperity.

3. Gazprom
6. Coal India
9. Shell
12. Chevron
15. Poland Coal
18. Kuwait Petroleum
21. ConocoPhillips
24. Rio Tinto

Remaining Fossil
Fuel Industry

Non-extant producers(including Former Soviet
Union)

20
20

15
15

10
10

55

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

0
1988

GtCO2e25
25

8State entities

The Carbon Majors Database represents some state producers with the use of national statistics. National
data statistics, which are compiled by organizations such as the International Energy Agency (IEA), the Energy
Information Administration (EIA), BP, and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), wereused in place of, or to supplement, missing or partial state company data. For state oil and gas producers,
the Oil and Gas Journal’s OGJ100 was also a useful data source. Data from these sources was utilized for 13
active and historical state oil and gas producers with shares of domestic production from multinational oil andgas corporations deducted 15. For 7 state coal producers, national production was considered representative.
Of these coal producers, China and Russia are treated as single producers, though they have come tocomprise a reasonable number of constituent companies as production was privatized, or joint state- andinvestor-owned companies were established. Options for obtaining historical data will be explored so that pastemissions from top Chinese and Russian coal companies can be accounted for in future updates.

Chinese Coal

Figure 5: Top 15 Chinese Coal Companies (50%),
Mt coalFigure 6: Top 12 Russian Coal Companies (76%),
Mt coal

350
300
250
200
150
100
50

JinnengHuainan Mining

Yangquan Coal

Shanxi JinchengKailuan

Shanxi Lu’an

Henan Coal Chem.

Yakuang

Jizhong Energy

Shanxi Coking

Shandong Energy

Shaanxi Coal Chem.

China National Coal0

Russian Coal
Russia is the world’s 6th largest coal producing nationand has seen production increase by 70% since
the late 1990s to 373 million tonnes in 2015. This
growth has been driven largely by an expansion in
the Kemerovo region, Southwest Siberia, in which the
Kuznetsk, or ‘Kuzbass’, coal basin is located.

100
80
60
40
20

Stroyservis

SeverStal

Zarechnaya

Sibuglemet

KTK

Russian CoalEN+

MechelEvraz

SDS-Coal

Kuzbassrazrezugol

SUEK

0

15. For more detail on this approach, refer to: Heede,
R. (2014), ‘Carbon Majors: Accounting for carbon
and methane emissions 1854-2010. Methods& Results Report’, Climate Mitigation Services,
Colorado.

400

Shenhua Group

Coal production in China is broken down into stateowned industry groups, which may partially own
one or a number of listed subsidiaries. According to
the Chinese-based data service company sxcoal,production from the top 50 coal company groups in2015 amounted to 71% of national production. Halfof Chinese coal production in 2015 came from 15
company groups, and one third of national production
from just 7 companies: Shenhua Group, Datong Coal
Mine Group, China National Coal Group, Shandong
Energy Group, Shaanxi Coal Chemical Industry,
Shanxi Coking Coal Group, and the Yankuang Group.
Key listed subsidiaries of these groups include:
Shenhua, Datong Coal Industry, China Coal Energy,
Shaanxi Coal Industry, Shanxi Xishan Coal & Electricity,
and Yanzhou Coal Mining.

450

Datong Coal Mine

Since the turn of the millennium, growth in Chinese
coal production has tripled to nearly 4 billion tonnes,
representing half of global output. Most of thisexpansion has occurred in the provinces of Shanxi,
Shaanxi, and Inner Mongolia. Companies such as
Shenhua, Datong, and China Coal Energy are key
players in these regions.

The coal mining industry in Russia remained instate-hands for most of the 1990s, during which it
underwent restructuring for private investment. By theend of 2002, the Russian coal industry had been fully
broken-up and privatized. The Siberian Coal Energy
Company (SUEK) is one outcome of this transition.
SUEK was founded in 2001 through the affiliation ofcompanies in the Irkutsk and Chita regions, and theRepublic of Buryatia. It soon expanded assets rapidly
in numerous other areas, including the Kuzbass
basin. Three quarters of Russian coal production in2015 was shared between 12 companies and halfof production came from just 4 companies: SUEK,
Kuzbassrazrezugol, SDS-Coal, and Evraz.
9The present picture

Investors in fossil fuel companies carry influence
over one fifth of industrial greenhouse gas emissions
worldwide.
2.0

1.5

New to the Carbon Majors Database is the ‘2015
Sample’, which comprises direct operational andproduct-use GHG emissions data of 224 fossil fuelcompanies in 2015. Compared with the period since
1988, a similar picture emerges for 2015:
Emissions from investor-owned companies
are significant: of the 30.6 GtCO2e ofoperational and product GHG emissions from 224
fossil fuel extraction companies, 30% is public
investor-owned, 11% is private investor-owned,
and 59% is state-owned.

GtCO2eThe distribution of emissions isconcentrated: 50 16 fossil fuel companies (Figure7) account for half of global industrial GHG
emissions. All companies in the sample accountfor 72% of global industrial GHG emissions.

1.0

Most of the largest companies are oil andgas companies: included in the top 50 fossil
fuel companies are 29 oil and gas companies
accounting for one third of global industrial GHG.

Though dominated by state-ownership, investor
ownership of fossil fuel extraction companies covers
a significant share of operational and product GHG
emissions. Of the companies in this sample, public
investor influence reaches 8.3 GtCO2e, which is
20% of global industrial GHGs. This proportion could
also rise, with the largest emitting company, Saudi
Aramco, presently investigating options forfloating shares 17.
The scale of investor-owned emissions in the fossil
fuel industry highlights the importance and potential
of investor engagement 18. Whether through private
dialogue or public shareholder resolutions, investors
have already demonstrated influence on the actions
and board level decision-making of large oil andgas majors. Investors can minimize the carbon riskon their investment by encouraging companies to:Disclose in-line with the Financial Stability Board’s(FSB) Taskforce for Climate-related Financial
Disclosure (TCFD) recommendations, conduct
1.5-2ºC scenario analysis, adopt carbon pricing in
financial accounting, communicate transition plans
and investment in low-carbon R&D, engage with
policy makers on positive environmental issues,
and more.

Figure 7: Top 50 fossil fuel companies in 2015 by operational (Scope 1) and product (Scope 3)
GHG emissions (50% of global industrial GHGs)
Scope 1

Scope 3: Coal

Scope 3: Liquids

Scope 3: Gas

0.5

Saudi Aramco
Gazprom
National Iranian Oil
Coal India
Shenhua Group
RosneftCNPC
ADNOC
ExxonMobil
Pemex
Shell
Sonatrach
Kuwait PetroleumBP
Qatar Petroleum
PDVSA
Peabody
Iraq National Oil
Petrobras
Chevron
Datong Coal Mine
LukoilChina National CoalPetronas
Nigerian National Pet.
Shanxi Coking
BHP Billiton
Shandong Energy
Total
Glencore
Shaanxi Coal Chem.
Poland Coal
Yankuang
StatoilArch Coal
Eni
TurkmenGaz
ConocoPhillips
Kazakhstan Coal
SUEK
Anglo American
Henan Coal Chem.
Jizhong Energy
Surgutneftegas
Shanxi Jincheng
Bumi
Sinopec
Kailuan
CNOOC
Shanxi Lu’an

0.0

16. This is more than the 25 corporate and state producing entities emitting over half of global industrial GHG emissions since 1988 (page 8) because coal emissions from Russia and China are split into their constituent
companies. For more detail on this representation, refer to page 9.
17. The Economist (2016) ‘The Big Float’, 28 April 2016.
18. For a guide on how investors have influenced, and can influence, oil and gas majors, refer to the CDP collaborated report ‘Investor Climate Compass: Oil and Gas’.

10

11

A future vision

Fossil fuel extraction companies will need to plan their
future in the context of a radical transformation of the
global energy system.
Futures modelling was undertaken by fossil fuelcompanies long before the climate change era to costand manage reserves. Oil and gas companies are
now analyzing scenarios in which global emissions
are constrained to avoid dangerous climate change.
In so doing, these companies are better positioned
to understand and define their potential role in atransforming industry.
The next step for a company is to design a transition
plan that will minimize the physical and transition risks
imposed by climate change. A transition plan begins
with the setting of an emissions target. The Science
Based Targets Initiative was established in 2015
to guide companies in this area and set the corporate
standard for alignment with a 2ºC limit in the rise of
global average temperature above thepre-industrial level.
19. Meinshausen, M., Meinshausen, N., Hare,
W., Raper, S., Frieler, K., Knutti, R., Frame, D.,
and Allen, M. (2009) Greenhouse-gas emission
targets for limiting global warming to 2°C, Nature,
458:1158-1162.
20. Carbon Tracker (2015) ‘The $2 trillion stranded
assets danger zone.’
21. Contraction and convergence is a widelyaccepted framework for global GHG emissions
mitigation conceived by the Global Commons
Institute.

40

The implication of a temperature limit is a cap in global
GHG emissions which, in turn, places a cap on theextraction of fossil fuels. In 2009, Malte Meinshausen
et al. quantified proven fossil fuel reserves against a
global carbon budget for the first time 19. It showedthat existing reserves of fossil fuels contain locked-inemissions far above the carbon budget required for
a 2°C limit. This truth confirms the risk of stranded
assets: When reserves become financially unviable
to extract and must be abandoned. A recent study 20
found that over 2 trillion dollars (USD) of investment infossil fuel companies is at risk of being stranded.

Figure 8 is a chart illustrating the ‘contraction andconvergence’ 21 GHG profile of the Fossil Fuel sector
and its ‘Carbon Majors’ out to 2100. The reductionin emissions would be mostly driven by a decline inproduction (in-step with a decline in global fossil fueldemand), the rate of which is somewhat dependent
on the dissemination of carbon, capture, utilizationand storage (CCUS): a breakthrough technology thatsequesters CO2 emissions through applications orunderground storage, though without any scalable
examples to-date. Meanwhile, population growth will
push the world’s demand for primary energy up. The
gap in supply and demand will be closed by growthin zero-carbon sources of energy such as nuclear,solar, wind, hydro, and biomass.
Fossil fuel companies can contribute to the transition
by reducing operational emissions, shifting to lighter
fossil fuels, engaging in the deployment of CCUS andother carbon-offset options, and diversifying theirportfolio of primary energy products to encompass
renewables. These measures all contribute to a
decoupling of growth and emissions, which will
maximize the growth achievable by a company underan emissions cap.

35
Figure 8: Fossil fuel sector direct and product
GHG emissions by producer, projected under a2-degree scenario, 1850-2100

30

GtCO2e

25

20

15

10

5

0
1850

1875

1900

1925

1950

1975

2000

2025

2050

2075

2100
12

Science-based targets

In response to the disparity between the private sector’s current emissions trajectory and the trajectory requiredby internationally-agreed-upon targets, CDP, the World Resources Institute (WRI), and the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) formed the Science Based Targets Initiative to increase the level of ambition of emission reduction
targets in the corporate sector. The Sectoral Decarbonization Approach (SDA) was developed by the Initiativeby building on existing approaches: It allocates a carbon budget to companies based on their contribution to
the economy. The SDA methodology was unveiled in 2015 as the Initiative’s first major publication 22. Sector
modeling for the SDA method was built on the 2-degree scenario (2DS) developed by the International Energy
Agency (IEA) as part of its 2014 Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP) outlook. The choice of this scenario is nota pre-requisite of the SDA, but was chosen because it is the most suitable scenario for articulating the method.

The Primary Energy Sector

Figure 9: Emissions intensity convergencemechanism for primary energy sector
400

kgCO2 /boeWork is underway to define a methodology that coal,oil, and gas extraction companies can use to set Scope
1 and Scope 3 (use of sold products) science-basedtargets. The Fossil Fuel industry is a subset of thePrimary Energy sector, which includes production of all
primary forms of energy: Fossil fuels, biomass,
nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, and other renewables. The
company’s primary energy product portfolio defines
its sector and, in the SDA, the sector is the basis onwhich the benchmark for setting science-based targets
is defined. For example, if a company’s operations
are weighted towards natural gas production, thenthe benchmark will more closely reflect the scenario’s
emissions projection for natural gas.

200
Sector intensity
Very high intensity
High intensity
Low intensity
Very low intensity

0
2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Once the company’s sector is defined, the benchmark is set in terms of absolute emissions or emissions
intensity. To translate a sector benchmark to a company target, ‘allocation mechanisms’ are applied. Figure
9 illustrates the ‘convergence’ allocation mechanism, which is used to set emissions intensity targets. The
intensity target is defined by converging the company’s intensity in the base year to the sector’s intensity in 2050.
Companies starting from a higher intensity have a steeper intensity reduction path, whereas companies thathave already taken steps to reduce intensity have a shallower path.

Scenarios
The SDA does not specify the use of any one emissions scenario. Work is now being carried out to define
an envelope within which a scenario may be deemed acceptable. Figure 10 is an illustration of the envelope
concept. The approach and data is borrowed from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report 23 (AR5) and the AR5
scenarios database 24. The link between emissions and temperature is made using the Model for the Assessmentof Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC). In this way, it is possible distinguish scenarios by
their probability of achieving climate goals. Further work investigating scenarios compliant with the ‘well-below
2-degree’ ambition of the Paris Agreement will also be undertaken.
Figure 10: Envelope concept
applied to emissions scenarioswith 50-66% probabilityof achieving a 2ºC global
temperature limit

50

Median40

25-75th percentile range
30

20
22. SBTi (2015) ‘Sectoral Decarbonization Approach(SDA): A method for setting corporate emission
reduction targets in line with climate science. CDP,
WRI, WWF.
23. IPCC (2014), ‘Climate Change 2014: Mitigationof Climate Change. Contribution of Working
Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’[Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona,
E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I.
Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann,
J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow,
T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA.
24. AR5 Scenario Database Version 1.0.2.

10

0

-10

-20

2005

2010

2015

2020

2015

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

2055

2060

2065

2070

2075

2080

2085

2090

2095 2100
13

Appendix I
Cumulative emissions 1988-2015

Producer

Cumulative 1988-2015
Scope 1 25 GHG, MtCO2e

Cumulative 1988-2015
Scope 3 26 GHG, MtCO2e

Cumulative 1988-2015
Scope 1+3 GHG, MtCO2e

Cumulative 1988-2015
Scope 1+3 of global
industrial GHG, %China (Coal)

9,622

119,312

128,933

14.3

Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco)

4,263

36,29840,561

4.5

Gazprom OAO

4,652

30,56935,221

3.9

National Iranian Oil Co

2,468

18,037

20,505

2.3

ExxonMobil Corp

1,833

15,952

17,7852.0

892

15,95016,842

1.9

Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex)

2,055

14,74916,804

1.9

Russia (Coal)

1,216

15,524

16,7401.9

Royal Dutch Shell PLC

1,212

13,80515,017

1.7

China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC)

1,479

12,564

14,042

1.6

BP PLC

1,072

12,71913,791

1.5

Chevron Corp

1,215

10,608

11,823

1.3

Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA)

1,108

9,971

11,0791.2

Abu Dhabi National Oil Co

1,135

9,635

10,769

1.2

Poland Coal

884

9,596

10,4801.2

Peabody Energy Corp

266

10,09810,364

1.2

1,490

7,507

8,997

1.0

Kuwait Petroleum Corp

767

8,194

8,961

1.0

Total SA

778

7,762

8,541

0.9

BHP Billiton Ltd

588

7,595

8,183

0.9

ConocoPhillips

654

6,809

7,463

0.9

Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras)

533

6,375

6,907

0.8

Lukoil OAO

557

6,193

6,750

0.8

Rio Tinto

297

6,445

6,743

0.7

Nigerian National Petroleum Corp

643

5,848

6,491

0.7

Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas)

995

5,190

6,185

0.7

Rosneft OAO

571

5,295

5,866

0.7

Arch Coal Inc

182

5,514

5,696

0.6

Iraq National Oil Co

435

4,927

5,362

0.6

Eni SPA

672

4,647

5,319

0.6

Anglo American

114

5,173

5,287

0.6

Surgutneftegas OAO

482

4,653

5,135

0.6

Alpha Natural Resources Inc

343

4,561

4,904

0.5

Qatar Petroleum Corp

798

4,103

4,901

0.5

PT Pertamina

602

4,254

4,857

0.5

Kazakhstan Coal

418

4,317

4,735

0.5

Statoil ASA

198

4,497

4,695

0.5

National Oil Corporation of Libya

425

4,101

4,526

0.5

Consol Energy Inc

515

3,979

4,495

0.5

Ukraine Coal

286

4,143

4,429

0.5

RWE AG

499

3,701

4,201

0.5

Oil & Natural Gas Corp Ltd

193

3,367

3,560

0.4

Glencore PLC

228

3,159

3,387

0.4

TurkmenGaz

746

2,471

3,217

0.4

Sasol Ltd

259

2,936

3,195

0.4

Repsol SA

224

2,773

2,996

0.3

Anadarko Petroleum Corp

201

2,790

2,991

0.3

Egyptian General Petroleum Corp

383

2,444

2,827

0.3

Petroleum Development Oman LLC

372

2,397

2,769

0.3

Czech Republic Coal

277

2,430

2,706

0.3

Remaining 50 producers in sample

6,232

60,56966,800

7.4

Total sample (100 producers)

58,328576,506

634,835

70.6

Coal India

Sonatrach SPA

25. Note that Scope 1 and Scope 3 cover only fossil fuel industry related activities; total Scope 1 and Scope 3 emissions for some producers may be higher.
26. Scope 3 refers specifically to Scope 3 Category 11 ‘use of sold products’.

14Appendix II2015 Sample emissions

Producer2015 Scope 1 27 GHG,
MtCO2e2015 Scope 3 28 GHG,
MtCO2e2015
Scope 1+3 of global
industrial GHG, %2015 Scope 1+3 GHG,
MtCO2eSaudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco)

215

1,735

1,951

4.6

Gazprom OAO

108

1,030

1,138

2.7

National Iranian Oil Co

166

870

1,036

2.4

Coal India

54

971

1,025

2.4

Shenhua Group Corp Ltd

79

922

1,001

2.4

Rosneft OAO

83

694

777

1.8

China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC)

81

544

625

1.5

Abu Dhabi National Oil Co

61

523

584

1.4

ExxonMobil Corp

54

523

577

1.4

Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex)

53

477

530

1.3

Royal Dutch Shell PLC

48

460

508

1.2

Sonatrach SPA

89

404

492

1.2

Kuwait Petroleum Corp

43

435

478

1.1

BP PLC

28

420

448

1.1

Qatar Petroleum Corp

73

341

414

1.0

Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA)

42

356

398

0.9

Peabody Energy Corp

10

387

397

0.9

Iraq National Oil Co

31

360

391

0.9

Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras)

27

355

382

0.9

Chevron Corp

36

341

377

0.9

Datong Coal Mine Group Co Ltd

32

333

365

0.9

China National Coal Group Co Ltd

30

320

350

0.8

Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas)

59

281

340

0.8

Nigerian National Petroleum Corp

42

287

329

0.8

Lukoil OAO

3

325

328

0.8

Glencore PLC

35

287

322

0.8

BHP Billiton Ltd

27

290

317

0.7

Shanxi Coking Coal Group Co Ltd

19

298

317

0.7

Shandong Energy Group Co Ltd

24

290

314

0.7

Total SA

20

292

311

0.7

Shaanxi Coal Chemical Industry Group Co Ltd

23

273

296

0.7

Poland Coal

25

266

291

0.7

Yankuang Group Co Ltd

20

236

256

0.6

Arch Coal Inc

7

225

232

0.5

Eni SPA

23

208

231

0.5

Statoil ASA

12

219

231

0.5

TurkmenGaz

53

177

230

0.5

ConocoPhillips

24

199

224

0.5

Kazakhstan Coal

20

203

222

0.5

SUEK Ltd

18

200

218

0.5

Henan Coal Chemical Industry Group Co Ltd

18

197

215

0.5

Anglo American

5

210

215

0.5

Jizhong Energy Group Co Ltd

19

194

213

0.5

Surgutneftegas OAO

20

193

212

0.5

Shanxi Jincheng Anthracite Coal Mining Group Co Ltd

13

191

204

0.5

Bumi Resources

18

182

200

0.5

China Petrochemical Corp (Sinopec)

23

174

197

0.5

Kailuan Group Co Ltd

17

175

192

0.5

China National Offshore Oil Corp Ltd (CNOOC)

8

178

187

0.4

Shanxi Lu’an Mining Group Co Ltd

16

166

181

0.4

Remaining 174 companies in sample

902

8,392

9,294

21.9

2,955

27,61030,565

72.1

Total sample (224 companies)

27. Note that Scope 1 and Scope 3 cover only fossil fuel industry related activities; total Scope 1 and Scope 3 emissions for some companies may be higher.
28. Scope 3 refers specifically to Scope 3 Category 11 ‘use of sold products’.

15

CDP Technical team contacts

External partners

Pedro Faria
Technical Director
pedro.faria@cdp.net

Richard Heede
Director
Climate Accountability InstituteSnowmass, Colorado USA
heede@climateaccountability.org+1 970 343 0707

Ian van der Vlugt
Manager, Data teamian.vandervlugt@cdp.net
Dr. Paul Griffin
Senior Data Analyst, Data teampaul.griffin@cdp.net+44 (0) 20 3818 3895

CDP UK
Level 371 Queen Victoria Street
London EC4V 4AY
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)20 3818 3900
@cdp
www.cdp.net
info@cdp.net