It's no coincidence when the rhetoric from two separate oil and gas operators starts to sound eerily similar, particularly when it's regarding unfavorable changes to the industry, like the introduction of a new methane emissions fee. Turns out, they didn't just happen to express their grievances in like terms. They had assistance articulating their disapproval and who helped them could amplify the industry's resistance to such regulatory measures.
1. The rhetoric from two separate oil and gas operators regarding unfavorable industry changes such as a new methane emissions fee was found to be similar.
2. This similarity didn't occur by coincidence but was the result of assistance to articulate their disapproval.
3. The assistance came from a third party, a leading environmental consulting firm.
4. These operators didn't independently create their arguments against the new methane emissions fee, but instead, sought assistance from this third party.
5. The consulting firm created parallel statements for them, strategically echoing the business concerns within the oil and gas sector and reinforcing their opposition to the new emission charges.
In 2019, the oil and gas industry accounted for 23% of total global methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas.
These two operators, broadly known in the oil and gas realm, didn't create their indignant arguments against the new methane emissions fee independently. Instead, an investigative revelation found that they sought the assistance of a third party. This third party, a leading environmental consulting firm, drafted strikingly parallel statements for them. In doing so, the consulting firm strategically echoed the business concerns present in the oil and gas sector, thereby reinforcing their opposition to the newly instated emission charges.