MARATHON OIL CORPORATION | Report on Methane Measurement at MARATHON OIL CORPORATION

Status
Withdrawn
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Resolution details
Company ticker
MRO
Lead filer
Mercy Investment Services, Inc.
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Environment
ESG sub-theme
  • Methane
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Energy
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Shareholders request that Marathon Oil issue a report analysing a critical climate change concern, the reliability of its methane emission disclosures. The report should:
• summarize the outcome of any Marathon Oil efforts to directly measure methane emissions, using recognized frameworks such as OGMP;
• explain whether there is likely to be a material difference between direct measurement results and Company’s reported methane emissions;
• assess the degree to which any differences would alter estimates of the Company’s Scope 1 emissions.
The report should be made public, omit proprietary information, and be prepared expeditiously at reasonable cost.
Whereas clause
Methane is at least 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, meaning reducing emissions now can buy time to address the climate crisis.
In 2020, 32% of U.S. methane emissions from human activities came from natural gas and petroleum systems.1
Methane emissions can be quantified directly through measurement (e.g., by detector, drone or satellite), or indirectly through calculations and modelling. Estimates improve when direct measurement methodologies are used, when emissions are identified by source type and at a site or facility level, and then reconciled, as shown by the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership 2.0 (OGMP).2
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) methodology used to estimate methane emissions fails to capture many major leaks, wasting valuable product (worth $2 billion per year) and substantially underestimating emissions. Studies have found actual emissions to be 50 to 100% higher than reported emissions.3 In certain basins, emissions are more than 10 times industry disclosed figures.2 Therefore, oil and gas industry Scope 1 emissions may be significantly higher than currently reported.
Companies that do not manage methane emissions jeopardize the oil and gas industry’s broader decarbonization efforts, and risk their reputation and social license to operate, as investors, regulators and civil society are setting expectations to address this issue.
In 2021, investors managing more than $6.23 trillion supported strong federal methane regulations. The U.S. joined the Global Methane Pledge, committing to using best available inventory methodologies to quantify methane emissions. Companies across the world, including ConocoPhillips, Devon and Pioneer, have joined the OGMP, committing to improving methane data quality and consistency.4
According to EPA data, Marathon Oil Corporation (“Marathon Oil”) ranks 29th in methane intensity among the U.S. top 100 oil and gas producers, with an intensity of 0.27%.5 However, given the limitations of EPA’s methodology, this ranking lacks credibility.
Supporting statement
At management’s discretion, we recommend that the report:
• Describe the types of source- and site-level measurements used;
• Provide a narrative explanation of the difference between the Company’s estimated methane emissions and their own or third-party direct measurements, by site or region;
• Describe any effort to improve emission estimates over time, consistent with frameworks such as OGMP; and
• Describe any efforts to validate emissions estimates and disclosure through a third-party audit or evaluation.

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.