Chevron sees global Liquid Natural Gas demand rising by 130% to 2035, and is considering new investments lasting beyond mid century. But Liquid Natural Gas faces displacement risk from falling cost renewable energy, financial risk from broadening carbon pricing and technology risk from (among others) hydrogen. As an Oil and Gas Climate Alliance member publicly aligned with the Paris Climate Accord, Chevron is committed to accelerating industry's response to climate change, including reaching net zero emissions after 2050. But -- to cite one example -- Chevron's USUSD25 billion Gorgon Liquid Natural Gas project in Australia -- one of the world's largest energy projects - is expected by Chevron to export fossil fuel until at least 2056, six years beyond 2050. Meanwhile, Chevron is still considering new LNG investments with operating life spans potentially stretching to 2100. Liquid Natural Gas' Scope Three (or life cycle) carbon emissions amount to roughly .66 tonnes of carbon per megawatt-hour equivalent of electricity generated, according to the US Department of Energy. While that is roughly one-fifth lower than coal's Scope Three emissions of .8 tonnes per megawatt-hour equivalent, it is 16 times higher than solar's Scope Three emissions of .04 tonnes per megawatt-hour and 66 times higher than wind's Scope Three emissions of .01 tonnes per megawatt-hour, according to the US Energy Department, the Union of Concerned Scientists and others. Those are large differences. Pricing Chevron's Scope One (or internal) emissions at the US Social Cost of Carbon yields a number equal to a fifth of Chevron's net income, representing an uncounted negative externality that flatters Chevron's true financial performance. Credible researchers (Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Lazard, the International Energy Agency and the US Energy Department, among others) now conclude wind and solar will out-compete Liquid Natural Gas by the mid-2030s in Scope Three carbon adjusted terms. This matters because the International Monetary Fund now admonishes investors to take increasing heed of climate change in investment decisions. Making things harder here is Chevron's refusal to set internal Scope Three targets, instead preferring unspecified internal carbon emission reduction incentives. These look inadequate to meet post-2050 net zero targets, suggesting Chevron views such targets as either satisfiable though unspecified future offsets or likely to prove retroactively non-binding.