Skip to main content

Full text of "Exxon Climate Documents"

See other formats




October 17, 1983 

Science & Technology Department 

A M NATKIN - Manager 
Office of Environmental Affairs 

Mr. R. L. Preston 
Esso Eastern 
Houston, Texas 

Dear Dick: 

Following your recent review of the Natuna Project with the Management Committee, 
I promised to send you my thoughts on the additional studies which should be 
considered,^ -help resolve,-or at Je as tj»ut_J_n_ proper perspective, pur concerns 
jab ou the envi ronmenta~L aspects ofjthe project 7 

The following are some initial thoughts on the subject and hopefully, theyjnay 
be useful in stimulating our collective thinking on t he sub ject, ^gtfgwil 1 be,- 
getting together with' other, inter'esTedTNew York gr oups* J to"di scuss'^he "sub j ec 

^nd other views and ideas will be passed Vfong^o you^Ythat't i me7i3-^«^ — . 

aasauim ■. . 

I think we generally agree that we are seeking a method of disposing of the off 
gases in a manner which will minimize the risk of environmental damage. We 
must also have the data which will be convincing not only to ourselves but also 
to the international environmental community that the method selected is en- 
vironmentally sound. Of course one may never have enough data to completely 
satisfy the latter especially where the science itself is_contr oversi a1 such as 
with "acid rain" and the CO 2 "Greenhouse" Effect. The alternate disposal methods' 
you have studied dcWi' SveT arj ouTHeT el sy a on envT ronmen ta ^rj sk siassoPn a ted wi thi^.^ 
4;h~em as well as probabilities of being challenged by“tlie environmental community. 
W e think some ^dd i ti on^Tranc fi s i j u s t j fo ediaju ord ers to bettergunderst a nd the* 
re n v i ronroentaj i mp act rand j oterr 

^r.i » r> k: 


^KeTohly^compI etel^accejrt ab l^nd^^Q^j^e^methpd-ofrrftspiJSaiiappears^Oei 
^elrOeXtio n ^of. ’theroff^asesjjntCGthja^flnnatigrras^thi s eliminates the discharge 
of both CO 2 arndT^S/S*^ into the atmosphere or ocean. It is expensive and 
creates an opportunity for recycling within the producing formation. We under- 
stand you are going 4o7eassesS3^^3^^iniai>e%oss^ij^ctfi£z£in3e£tiPiia 
^nto^eartiy'JVjrniatlDTiS- which would preclude or minimize the recycling problem. 

T.he work done so far indicates that the^Qbsea^lsppaiBnptinfra.s^prtajajcajdjC 
^feasible*; removes the H2S but creates a zone around the underwater sparger 
which may be more^toxjc to marine life, and may only temporarily remove the 
CO 2 . T f^/^^'y p £ <Yinw»^nf.^hpgpr j s§Wg£pii£Zthi nlcr 

^ 3 oassav-flata-should:bgIflb tained i to define the potential toxicity in the 
affected area due to the reaction products, i.e. complete the Phase II 

/trr* Appropriate studies should be initiated to j^soive-whether^nd^o^ha fe 
^fextenl~sh el if istrwouid _be effect ed; in the area by higlier carbonate con- 

- 2 - 

'®s^rassS s HK sssr^ asstss";'" 

s-site--s»s —.««-■ 


document „*£ .« ^\T 

^r-oi'rnUst to you. 



lN/ef , (w/att.) 

Att. r d Gervasi \ 

cc: Messrs. • ^ prison 

6 . R. Hodn ’ Jr * 

<- u Johnson 

a’ VI*. Maki 
0* S. McCaffrey 
?. M. Perkins , 
j # L. Woodward »•