Over the past week, virtually every article on the President’s trip to Alaska to highlight the impacts of climate change, has in the next breath mentioned the President’s approval of Shell’s arctic drilling. The allegation made vocally by the environmental community is that these two things are deeply contradictory, and blatantly hypocritical.

It’s an allegation that is sticking because it happens to be true, and as more and more Americans come to terms with the reality that climate change will force us to leave at least three quarters of all existing proven reserves in the ground, the Administration is on increasingly

Oil Change International and Greenpeace U.S. - August 2015
DOWNLOAD REPORT
There is a clear logic that can be applied to the global challenge of addressing climate change: when you are in a hole, stop digging. If we are serious about tackling the global climate crisis, we need to stop exploring, expanding, and ultimately exploiting fossil fuels. This is especially true for high cost, high carbon, high risk frontier projects such as offshore Arctic oil. 
While the Obama Administration has been clear on its commitment to climate action, they continue to allow companies like Royal Dutch Shell to sink billions of dollars in the

An examination of crude-by-rail data shows that the U.S. east coast has become one of the busiest regional destinations for hazardous crude-by-rail traffic. Oil Change International used publicly available Department of Energy (EIA) data as well as subscription data from Genscape to examine the growth of crude-by-rail to one of the most densely populated areas of the United States.

Key Findings:

An average of 450,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude was delivered by rail to the east coast region in 2014.
Around 50% of all crude-by-rail is unloaded in the wider east coast region (PADD 1).
Around 50% of the crude oil input

Today we’re releasing a new briefing, entitled “Lift the Ban, Cook the Climate: Why Eliminating the Crude Export Ban Fails the Climate Test,” detailing why Congress and the President should stand up to current efforts by the oil industry to eliminate the ban on crude oil exports.

Combining all known public sources, and augmenting them with subscription industry databases, this report makes comprehensive information on public financing for coal easily accessible for the first time.

Oil Change International- May 2015

Download Briefing

The Canadian tar sands is among the most carbon-intensive, highest-cost sources of oil in the world. Even prior to the precipitous drop in global oil prices late last year, three major projects were cancelled in the sector with companies unable to chart a profitable path forward.

Since the collapse in global oil prices, the sector has been under pressure to make further cuts, leading to substantial budget cuts, job losses, and a much more bearish outlook on expansion projections in the coming years.

In the wake of plummeting oil prices and ongoing market access constraints, the tar

Despite repeated calls for urgent action on climate change, the World Bank Group increased funding for fossil fuels in its last fiscal year. The World Bank’s increase in fossil fuel finance is especially disappointing as 2014 was the first full fiscal year following the World Bank’s commitment to limit coal financing due to climate concerns.

Shell is currently moving its drilling rigs to Seattle in anticipation of resuming its US offshore Arctic drilling programme in July. However, it is far from clear that Shell has adequate physical or financial plans to deal with the impacts of a major oil spill in this remote region.

This analysis finds that over the last decade, export credit agency financing has played a significant role in supporting coal power generation globally. Most alarmingly, OECD export credit financing for coal has substantially increased in recent years.

Oil Change International, Greenpeace, and Platform – February 2015

Download Briefing

On 29 January 2015, Royal Dutch Shell confirmed that it intends, subject to regulatory approval, to resume its US Arctic drilling programme at a cost for 2015 of at least $1bn.

To date, Shell's Arctic programme has been a failure despite capital expenditure in excess of $6bn. 2012's drilling season beset by multiple operational failings was followed by a 'pause' for 2013 and a forced reversal of 2014 plans because of a US court decision.

This briefing examines Shell's Arctic experiences and outlines key operational and economic issues. We suggest questions investors should