Today’s investments shape tomorrow’s world. If financial institutions and insurers want to become responsible climate actors, they need robust policies that address the 3 main drivers of climate change: coal, oil and gas. And they need them quickly.
GOGEL is an extensive public database that covers 887 oil & gas companies operating in the upstream and/or midstream subsector of the industry. GOGEL’s sister database, the Global Coal Exit List, has been setting standards for coal divestment since 2017. GOGEL aims to do the same for oil & gas. It provides the data financial institutions need to develop and implement meaningful oil & gas policies.
GOGEL is a company-level database. It covers nearly all companies in the upstream subsector of the oil & gas industry. These companies represent 94.6% of oil & gas production, 96.0% of short-term expansion, and 91.0% of capital expenditures for exploration.
GOGEL includes information on unconventional oil & gas production. All companies that produce at least 2 mmboe (million barrels of oil equivalent) within one of 6 unconventional oil & gas categories are listed on GOGEL.
GOGEL covers companies in the midstream subsector that represent
74.3% of pipeline expansion and 91.7% of LNG terminal expansion.
“We welcome the publication of Urgewald’s Global Oil and Gas Exit List. We find it incredibly useful to identify actors that are involved in activities that are not in line with our climate strategy. It will be a key resource for implementing our decision to exit from the oil and gas companies that do not have a science-based transition pathway by 2030.”
La Banque Postale
GOGEL deliberately focuses on oil & gas expansion and unconventional production. Even if the use of coal was phased out overnight, emissions from developed oil and gas reserves would soon exhaust our carbon budget for 1.5°C. Yet more than 95% of the upstream oil & gas companies listed on GOGEL are on expansion course. Unconventional hydrocarbons such as shale oil & gas extracted by fracking, tar sands oil and coalbed methane or Arctic oil & gas are particularly harmful for the environment and are often more carbon- and methane-intensive than conventional oil & gas. GOGEL allows its users to assess which companies have the highest share of unconventional oil & gas production, which companies have the biggest upstream expansion plans and which companies are the largest developers of midstream fossil infrastructure.
Expansion and unconventional production are the most urgent issues for financial institutions to address. But what we ultimately need is a managed decline of oil and gas production. Absolute reductions in oil and gas production are the only way to Net Zero emissions.
GOGEL contains data on two main subsectors of the oil and gas value chain, upstream and midstream.
For the upstream subsector, GOGEL provides information on:
- total production
- unconventional share of production (fracking, tar sands, coalbed methane, extra heavy oil, ultra deepwater and Arctic)
- total short-term expansion plans as well as the share of unconventional short-term expansion
- capital expenditures on oil & gas exploration
- fossil fuel share of revenue
For the midstream subsector, GOGEL lists pipelines and LNG terminal capacity under development.
In addition, GOGEL links the listed companies to reputational risk projects. Oil & gas projects have many adverse effects beyond greenhouse gas emissions. The reputational risk projects included on GOGEL are associated with one or more of 4 pre-defined reputational risk categories: (1) social harm; (2) environmental destruction; (3) conflict/violence; and (4) litigation. In many cases, local communities, activists and NGOs are protesting the projects. Information on protests comes from Urgewald’s extensive network of partner organizations. The reputational risk projects are only linked to the companies listed with quantitative data on GOGEL, even though other companies might also have stakes in the projects. The list of reputational risk projects is not conclusive and will be updated regularly. For more information and detailed descriptions of the projects, please see the Reputational Risk page.
all companies that in 2020 produced
≥ 20 mmboe of oil & gas and/or
≥ 2 mmboe of oil & gas in one of
6 unconventional categories
All companies that intend to add
≥ 20 mmboe of oil & gas resources to their production portfolio
All companies that spent
≥ USD 10 million annually on exploration between 2019 and 2021 (3-year average)
All companies developing
≥ 100 km of pipelines
All companies developing
≥ 1 Mtpa of annual LNG terminal capacity
“No fossil fuel exploration is required in the NZE as no new oil and natural gas fields are required beyond those that have already been approved for development.”
IEA (2021), Net Zero by 2050
“Given the rapid decline of fossil fuels, significant investment in new oil and gas pipelines are not needed in the NZE.”
IEA (2021), Net Zero by 2050
“Also not needed are many of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) liquefaction facilities currently under construction or at the planning stage.”
IEA (2021), Net Zero by 2050
Fracking is an extraction method used to access gas and oil trapped in deep rock formations. Oil & gas producers drill wells and pump so-called fracking fluid into the ground to crack open the rock and release the trapped oil and gas resources. 83% of global fracking takes place in the US (Rystad Energy).
To extract unconventional oil and gas through fracking, companies need to drill many more wells than for conventional oil and gas production. More wells translate into more gas leaks. Gas consists mostly of methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas. Over a 20-year time span, methane has an 86 times higher warming effect than CO2. In addition, the fragmented fracking infrastructure creates spider webs of roads, wells and gathering pipelines. In some cases, these fracking “landscapes” are so enormous they can be seen from outer space.
Fracking fluid is dangerous for humans and the environment. It consists of pressurized water, toxic chemicals and sand. The exact chemical composition of the fluid is often unknown as the companies define this information as confidential business interests. It is therefore impossible to completely assess the dangers of fracking fluid. However, a study from 2016 by scientists from Yale University found that at least 157 chemicals used in fracking fluid have serious health impacts and interfere with children’s physical and cognitive development.
After the oil and gas has been extracted, the companies dispose of wastewater, often by injecting it into underground disposal wells. The high pressure of wastewater injection as well as fracking itself destabilizes the ground and increases the risk of earthquakes. According to the National Resources Defense Council, the central and eastern United States experienced more than 1,000 earthquakes of magnitude 3 or higher in 2015. For the years from 1973 to 2008, the annual average was 25.
Fracking poses a serious threat to ground and surface water. The extensive use of water increases the risk of water shortages and droughts in fracking regions. Oil, gas or fracking fluids can seep through the cracks created in the rock and into the groundwater. In addition, spills, deliberate dumping or inadequate storage and disposal of fracking fluid or wastewater contaminate soil and surface waters. A case in point is the Vaca Muerta project in Argentina, where fracking companies dump wastewater into illegal and unsafe open pits.
GOGEL includes data on the proportion of a company’s hydrocarbons production from fracking of shale oil, shale gas, tight liquids and tight gas. These resources can only be extracted through fracking.
Tar sands are a mix of tar, clay, sand and bitumen. Bitumen is a very dense and viscous form of petroleum that cannot be pumped like conventional oil. This makes oil from tar sands hard to extract and difficult to process. Producing oil from tar sands is very carbon intensive and has immense impacts on local communities and the environment. The world’s largest deposits of tar sands lie in Alberta (Canada), and most of the oil produced here is exported to the United States.
There are two ways to produce tar sands oil. When the deposits lie less than 75 meters below ground, the companies use open pit mining. The impacts are comparable to lignite mining. Large areas of forest are cut down and the fertile topsoil is blasted away. Wetlands are drained and the natural course of rivers and streams is diverted. Left behind are vast areas of total destruction. The resource is then transported to a processing plant to separate the bitumen from the clay and sand. This process requires large amounts of water. To produce one barrel of bitumen from open pit mining, the companies need 3 to 4 barrels of new water (not recycled). After the separation, a poisonous slurry remains. This slurry is stored in enormous lakes, that the industry calls tailings ponds. The dams, which hold back the tailings often leak and contaminate the surrounding environment. The volume of these toxic tailings ponds has now surpassed 1.6 trillion liters in Alberta and is steadily growing. Shallow tar sands resources are less common than deep tar sands deposits, but their environmental impact far outstrips their volume.
In cases where tar sands deposits are more than 75 meters underground, companies extract the bitumen directly (in-situ). The in-situ extraction methods use steam, chemicals or heat to make the bitumen less viscous so that it will flow to the surface. In-situ extraction uses less water and doesn’t require tailings ponds, but it also generates wastewater, which is stored in the same well the bitumen was extracted from and can seep into the surrounding soil and water.
All the way from the underground deposits to the end consumer, tar sands emit more greenhouse gases than conventional oil & gas. After bitumen is extracted (or has been separated in the case of open-pit mining), it needs to be upgraded in special refineries. The upgrading process requires additional resources and energy. A study by the US Congressional Research Service found that fuel derived from tar sands generates up to 31% more greenhouse gas emissions than the US average on a well-to-wheel basis. Moreover, bitumen refining creates a byproduct called petcoke. Some coal-fired power plants use petcoke instead of or in addition to coal. Petcoke is even more emission-intensive than coal. This makes the climate footprint of tar sands even worse. In addition, the transportation of tar sands oil through pipelines poses a severe threat to the environment because conventional technologies cannot tackle spills of tar sands oil. Most tar sands pipelines transporting oil from Alberta run through indigenous peoples’ lands.
Coalbed Methane (CBM) or Coal Seam Gas (CSG), is fossil gas, which occurs in coal seams located between 200 and 1,100 meters underground, where pressurized water in the coal seam keeps it trapped. To extract the methane, companies need to lower the water pressure. This requires pumping extensive amounts of wastewater to the surface. This water must be treated before it can be used for anything else. Sometimes, gas companies need additional pressure to crack open the coal seams in order to release the methane. In these cases, they use fracking. In Australia, the country in the world with the most coalbed methane production, up to 40% of CBM wells are fracked.
The multiple adverse effects related to dewatering make CBM an extremely harmful type of gas production. On average, US CBM production pumps 78,000 liters of water out of the coal seams every day. As a consequence, the groundwater level can sink, with severe impacts on wetlands, lakes and rivers and the plant and animal species and people that depend on them. In some cases, people’s drinking water supplies can run dry. The water that gas companies pump out of the coal seam is full of salt and contains heavy metals and radioactive components. Leaks or spills can contaminate surface waters or seep into groundwater supplies. Even when the gas companies filter the wastewater, massive amounts of toxic waste remain.
Extra heavy oil has numerous characteristics that make it difficult to produce, transport and process. In many ways, it is similar to bitumen, the petroleum component of tar sands. The energy intensity and technological challenges related to its extraction are similar. However, extra heavy oil is slightly less viscous. The Orinoco River Belt in Venezuela holds the world’s largest extra heavy oil reserves.
Extra heavy oil is a high-density type of oil with an API gravity below 15°. The lower the API gravity, the heavier the oil. This means the oil does not flow well. Producers need to use different techniques to heat up the deposits for the extra heavy oil to become less viscous. Only then can they extract the resource. Before the oil can be transported through pipelines, the companies need to thin out the extra heavy oil with lighter oil. However, the resulting blend is often still very “thick” and almost impossible to clean up in the case of a spill.
The recovery methods require lots of water, because the heating process involves large amounts of hot steam. Upgrading and refining processes also require water. The oil production often draws from the same water sources as neighboring communities and therefore increases the risk of water shortages for the local population.
Extra heavy oil is chemically complex, and next to other components it contains heavy metals and high levels of sulfur. Before companies can upgrade the extra heavy oil into more manageable blends, these unwanted components must be removed. This creates toxic waste. During and after the removal process, these toxic substances can escape into the environment and the resulting pollution poses a major hazard to people’s health. Extra heavy oil also has a lower hydrogen share than conventional oil. Companies add hydrogen to improve the ratio, but burning it is still difficult and dirty. The many complex processes necessary to be able to use extra heavy oil make it one of the worst types of oil in terms of climate impact. According to the American Geosciences Institute, Venezuelan extra heavy oil emits ca. 600 kg CO2 per barrel within its entire lifecycle. In comparison, conventional light West Texas oil emits approx. 480 kg CO2 per barrel.
Ultra deepwater wells are located at least 1,500 meters below sea level. Most offshore production takes place on the continental shelf (maximum 125 meters depth). Deepwater (125 - 1,500 meters) represents approximately one third of total offshore production, while ultra deepwater accounts for approximately 9 percent (Rystad Energy). Ultra deepwater oil production is unconventional, because it is much more risky than offshore production on the shelf, and the consequences of accidents are more severe. The lion’s share of ultra deepwater production takes place in US and Brazilian waters.
Drilling in ultra deepwater is similar to working in outer space. In very deep water, temperatures are close to freezing and water pressure is extreme. At the same time, the oil & gas resources are very hot and wells are under enormous pressure from within. These temperature extremes put great strains on equipment, and companies have to steer everything that happens down at the borehole remotely. This increases the chance of errors and makes it more difficult to correct them when they happen.
Accidents at these depths are almost uncontrollable, and the high pressure on the wells means accidents have catastrophic effects. In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon wellhead exploded at 1,260 meters depth. Oil shot into the water with massive force and polluted the aquatic and coastal ecosystems. The spill killed birds, fish, plants and mammals. The full impact of the disaster is still unknown. The Deepwater Horizon disaster is, however, only a foretaste of the consequences of blowouts in ultra deep waters. Researchers have found that for every 30.5 meters of additional depth, the likelihood of accidents like leaks or blowouts increase by 8.5 percent (Muehlenbachs et al, 2013).
The risk of accidents is the biggest threat related to ultra deepwater production, but even routine drilling activities can have severe impacts on fragile ecosystems at the bottom of the sea. Biological systems operate at a notably slower pace here than in shallow waters, which makes them much more vulnerable. And our knowledge of these systems is very limited. We still know more about the surface of the moon than about the complex web of life at the bottom of the sea.
Oil & gas companies’ activities in the Arctic pose a grave threat to its ecosystems and the region’s traditional inhabitants. In addition, Arctic drilling speeds up climate change in a region already hard hit by global warming. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Arctic is heating up twice as fast as the rest of the globe.
Both onshore and offshore oil and gas production harm the unique aquatic, coastal and terrestrial ecosystems of the Arctic. The low temperatures, high waves and dark and foggy winters mean that spills from offshore oil and gas production in the Arctic are impossible to contain. And the slow rate of biological degradation of oil at near-zero temperatures means that it will remain in the environment for decades.
Onshore production has different, but similarly severe consequences for the region. Service roads, pumping stations, pipelines, open waste pits and hundreds of wells fragment the landscape. This infrastructure makes the journey more difficult for nomadic tribes and animals that need to move across the Arctic landscape in response to the changing seasons. Companies need to transport the produced oil and gas to the rest of the world. The oil and gas expansion in the High North thus comes with a heightened risk of spills and pollution from shipping accidents.
Climate change makes oil and gas extraction in the Arctic easier, but also more dangerous. The Arctic tundra is thawing due to global warming. This creates gigantic sinkholes and destabilizes the ground under pipelines and waste pits. Spills of wastewater, gas and oil become more likely. Oil and gas production and the related industrialization emits soot (black carbon). The soot falls onto the nearby ice and turns it black. As a consequence, the ice absorbs more heat, melts faster, and climate change speeds up.
GOGEL uses the Arctic definition of the Arctic Monitoring & Assessment Programme (AMAP), a working group of the Arctic Council. The Arctic Council and other actors use the AMAP definition to measure and monitor pollutants and climate change impacts on ecosystems and human health in the Arctic. The AMAP working group produces sound science-based, policy-relevant assessments and public outreach products to inform policy and decision-making processes on the impact of climate change in the Arctic. Urgewald therefore considers this the best definition for financial institutions seeking to develop impactful policies on the Arctic.
GOGEL relies on a variety of data sources. The information on current oil & gas production, production percentages and upstream expansion is based on quantitative data obtained from Rystad Energy. The other part of the upstream data is based on company data sources, like annual reports, financial statements and investor presentations. In some cases, we also use information from government agencies or stock exchanges.
The midstream segment of GOGEL contains information sourced from Global Energy Monitor (GEM). GEM tracks fossil infrastructure projects globally.
The descriptions of the Reputational Risk projects rely on different sources, like NGO reports, independent research institutions and reliable news outlets. The relevant sources are always listed below the description of the project.
Work in Progress
GOGEL is a work in progress. The database will be updated each fall and also expand over time. In future iterations of GOGEL, we aim to include gas-fired power expansion and other subsectors of the oil & gas industry.
For more detailed information on the GOGEL methodology, download the detailed methodology from our publications page.