FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 12:51 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 304

INDEX NO. 451962/2016
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018

Oleske
X

Aff.

1

1

 INDEX NO. 451962/2016

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 12:51 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 304

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018

Tom R
Eizember/Dallas/ExxonM
obil

W Bailes/Dallas/Mobil-Notes@xom

To

Robert

cc

Brian P Flannery/Dallas/ExxonMobil@xom,
Stuewer/Dallas/ExxonMobil@xom

Sherri

K

bcc
04/22/2011

05:13

PM
Subject

t

Re: PROP:

GHG emission

cost planning

basis

Proprietary

I have

out the difference

pointed

for several
years.
"conservative"
provides
a

2030

point

Tom

R. Eizember

- we'
we've

reviews

with

has seemed

been

at $60 for the

EO and $40 for the plan circa
- appeared
to feel it
previously
of claiming
perspective
economics
credits
to

the difference

happy
(but only if viewed
from the
it is not conservative
vs EO from the perspective

reduce
emissions;
emissions).
I will

Rex

in past

basis

out the difference

this year

Corporate
Manager,
Planning
Exxon
Mobil Corporation

again

Strategic

if the consensus

of debiting

with

is to stay

that

actions

increase

$40.

Planning

tom.r.eizember@exxonmobil.com
fax:

972-444-1789

W

Robert

972-444-1679

Bailes/Dallas/Mobil-Notes

Robert W
Bailes/Dallas/Mobil-Note

.

04/22/2011

09:55 AM

To

Tom R Eizember/Dallas/ExxonMobil@xom

cc

Brian P Flannery/Dallas/ExxonMobil@xom,
Stuewer/Dallas/ExxonMobil@xom

Subject

Re: PROP:

GHG emission

Sherri

cost planning

K

basis 3

Note: 1 Attachment(s) removed
from this message
Proprietary

I agree

there

is no

"compelling"

we had on Tuesday.
... that's

2015

I think

still far enough

One

potential

with

EO assumptions.

change

reason

with EO assumption
to change,
and that is consistent
another
year on deciding
whether
to push non-EU
out to be feasible,
but this is a very slow train.

I would

like for us to discuss/consider

I recognize

they serve
organization.

two different

is whether
purposes,
the $60/T

throughout
I also think
and alignment
clarity
$40/T feels
of power sector
CCS traunche,
whereas
distance
much 20 years from now (though
it would drive fuel switching).
unduly
and/or

justifying
emission

more

R. W. (Bob) Bailes
Corporate
Greenhouse
Exxon

Confidential

/ FOIL

Mobil

capital

reduction

discussion

we can wait

investments,
projects.

Gas

though

it would

like

give

to harmonize

P&B

but I think

it would

is a rational

point

no-man's

I also

don't

OECD

beyond

assumptions

provide

more

land

to be in striking
that won't really drive

think

the extra

another

minor

to Pub.

Officers

nudge

$20/T

to energy

risks
efficiency

Manager

Corporation

Treatment

Requested

by Exxon

Mobil

Corp.

Pursuant

Law

g 87(2)

EMC 000354827

 INDEX NO. 451962/2016

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2018 12:51 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 304

5959

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2018

Las Colinas
TX

Irving,

Blvd.,

Room

3322

75039

(972) 444-1811
Tom R Eizember/Dallas/ExxonMobil

Tom R
Eizember/Dallas/ExxonM
obil

04/22/11

t

09:39 AM

W Bailes/Dallas/Mobil-Notes@xom

To

Robert

cc

Brian P Flannery/Dallas/ExxonMobil@xom,
Stuewer/Dallas/ExxonMobil@xom

Subject

PROP:

GHG emission

Sherri

cost planning

K

basis

Proprietary

We need

I don't

point,

[attachment
Tom

on a basis

to settle
see

a compelling

"10CP

GHG Plan

for this

year's

reason

plan

to change

Guidance.ppt"

- combined
last year's

deleted

Plan
basis

basis

review

(attached).

with
Your

MC is late May.

At this

thoughts?

by Robert

W Bailes/Dallas/Mobil-Notes]

Pursuant

to Pub.

R. Eizember

Corporate
Manager,
Planning
Exxon Mobil Corporation

Strategic

Planning

tom.r.eizember@exxonmobil.com
972-444-1789

Confidential

/ FOIL

Treatment

fax:

972-444-1679

Requested

by Exxon

Mobil

Corp.

Officers

Law

g 87(2)

EMC 000354828