Chesapeake Energy

Chesapeake has set a target to achieve a 100% reduction in its scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2035. Additionally, the company aims to reduce the intensity of its scope 1 and 2 emissions by 35% by 2025 compared to 2021 levels. Chesapeake does not provide information regarding the proportion of offsets it plans to use to achieve its emissions reduction targets. The company can improve by establishing a long-term target covering its scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, as well as setting intermediate targets no more than five years apart to encourage near-term action.

Chesapeake only marginally decreased its scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions intensity between 2017 and 2021, driven by its reduction in scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity and increase in the share of gas production. To align with its 1.5°C pathway Chesapeake needs to decrease its scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions intensity by 4% annually between 2021 and 2026. Between 2022 and 2050, Chesapeake is projected to exceed its 1.5°C carbon budget by about 50%.

No evidence was found of a policy or statement for Chesapeake’s engagement with trade associations regarding climate change matters. The company also lacks a systematic process to monitor and review its climate policy positions. Despite expressing support for the Paris Agreement, Chesapeake is affiliated with multiple trade associations, such as the American Petroleum Institute (API), that hold positions opposed to climate policy. The company does not have a mechanism in place to ensure that its policy positions align with the objectives of the Paris Agreement.

Chesapeake has not yet pursued the development of low-carbon business models. The company has expressed its intention to explore emerging technologies and commercial solutions to support its efforts in reducing emissions in the future. These potential solutions include geothermal energy; carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS); as well as opportunities to collaborate with partners beyond the conventional oil and natural gas industry. However, Chesapeake has not provided a specific timeline for these activities, nor has it made any financial commitments to support these endeavours.

Chesapeake aims to reduce its scope 1 and 2 emissions by 100% by 2035. This target is supported by a 2025 target to reduce scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity by about 35% by 2025 compared to 2021, and a methane intensity reduction target. The company is committed to achieving enterprise-wide zero routine flaring by 2025. However, the company does not specify the proportion of offsets it is planning to use to achieve its targets. Moreover, the company does not have any scope 3 emissions reduction targets.

Chesapeake plans to improve the energy efficiency of its operations by reducing or capturing pneumatic device emissions, reducing emissions from pressure regulators and capturing associated gas. Chesapeake also plans to use electricity to power drilling and completion fleets and improve methane detection using emerging technologies.

Chesapeake has acquired the companies Vine Energy and Chief, consequently increasing the share of fossil gas in its production mix. The company also installed about 1,800 continuous methane monitoring devices. Chesapeake is involved in at least two of the 25 largest projects by carbon dioxide emissions committed by potential 2023-2025 final investment decisions. The company is not developing any low-carbon business models.

Chesapeake reduced its scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity between 2017 and 2022 at a rate sufficient to align with its 1.5°C pathway. However, the company is still projected to exceed its 1.5°C carbon budget by about 50% between 2022 and 2050.

The company’s decarbonisation strategy is based on reducing emissions from its traditional operations while increasing the share of fossil gas in its production portfolio. Chesapeake is not developing any low-carbon business models and does not invest in the research and development (R&D) of climate change mitigation technologies.

No evidence was found of the company’s commitment to social dialogue or of the categories of stakeholders the company engages with on a just transition. Furthermore, no evidence was found to demonstrate the company’s ongoing social dialogue and meaningful engagement with affected stakeholders. No evidence was found of the company undertaking just transition planning to mitigate the social impacts of the low-carbon transition on workers, affected stakeholders and its business relationships. Additionally, no evidence was found to demonstrate the company’s engagement in social dialogue and with stakeholders in its just transition planning.

No public commitment by the company was found stating its intention to create and support access to green and decent jobs as part of the low-carbon transition. Moreover, no evidence was found of the company’s action to promote these jobs in a way that ensures gender balance and inclusion of vulnerable groups. Additionally, no relevant disclosure was found of the company’s assessment of employment dislocation risks. No public commitment by the company was found stating its intention to re- and up-skill workers displaced by the transition to a low-carbon economy. Additionally, no evidence was found that the company re- and up-skills workers in a way that ensures gender balance and inclusion of vulnerable groups.

No relevant disclosure was found to show if the company identifies impacts of the low-carbon transition on social protection for workers and affected stakeholders, nor how it contributes to social protection. Additionally, no evidence was found that the company expects its business relationships to contribute to the social protection of their workers and affected stakeholders. No relevant disclosure was found to show how the company identifies any misalignment of its lobbying activities with policies and regulations that support the just transition, nor of the measures it takes to address misalignment. Furthermore, no evidence was found that the company lobbies for policies and regulations for green and decent job creation; retention, education and reskilling; and social protection for workers.

While the company commits to respecting human rights and the ILO fundamental rights at work, no evidence was found that it expects its business relationships to respect the ILO fundamental rights at work. No evidence was found of the company’s process to identify, assess and mitigate salient human rights risks in its own operations and in its supply chain. Further, no evidence was found of the company disclosing the stakeholders whose human rights have been affected by its activities. The company does, however, have a grievance mechanism available to workers and external stakeholders.

The company commits to respecting the health and safety of its workers and expects the same commitment of its business relationships. However, no evidence was found of the company having a time-bound target for paying all workers a living wage. While the company discloses the proportion of its direct workforce covered by collective bargaining agreements, no relevant disclosure was found of the company’s required working hours. The company discloses the race/ethnicity and gender of its workforce by employee category. No evidence was found that the company commits to gender equality and women’s empowerment.

No evidence was found that the company commits to protecting personal data and that it has a privacy statement regarding the collection, sharing and access to personal data. No relevant disclosure was found of the company’s global tax strategy and the corporate income tax it pays in each relevant jurisdiction. The company does have a policy prohibiting bribery and corruption, and it includes corresponding clauses in its business relationship contracts. While the company has a lobbying and political engagement policy, no evidence was found that it specifies that it does not make political contributions. The company discloses its expenditure on lobbying activities.