5 included in my “Carbon Majors” analysis. However, these companies use differing and conflicting methodologies, whereas our analysis applies a consistent, comparable, and peer-reviewed methodology. That said, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, Statoil, Total, Hess, BP, and ConocoPhillips, do estimate and submit to CDP product-related emissions (ExxonMobil only estimates emissions for products sold in New Zealand, USA, and Quebec). Although each company’s methodology differs, they are roughly comparable to my own internally consistent methodology. CDP and CAI collaborated on a guidance methodology report for calculating emissions from carbon production by fuel.6 Though not subsequent to my results, Royal Dutch Shell estimated in a 1988 confidential report7 that came to light earlier this year8 that in 1984 its products contributed 3.9% of world fossil fuel emissions. While Shell used a different methodology (counting its refinery outputs, not equity production, and not deducting for non-energy uses), this result roughly confirms but exceeds Climate Accountability Institute’s result for Shell in 1984: 2.1% of global fossil fuel emissions. My analysis is based on company-data (SEC Form 10-Ks or Annual Reports), and a robust and peer-reviewed methodology. There is little room for disputing our results – except for relatively minor uncertainties and variables that mostly arise from lack of company-reported data (e.g., historical data on their own fuel use, flaring rates, vented CO2, methane leakage rates, etc.) The largest component of emissions attributed to major carbon producers — variable, but ~90% — is from combustion of the carbon in their extracted oil, gas, and coal, and those calculations are relative straightforward and unassailable. Q8: Could you please briefly describe the findings of 2013 report, “Carbon Majors: Accounting for carbon and methane emissions 1854-2010: Methods and Results Report”? A8: This report was written concurrently with the paper published in Climatic Change (Heede 2014) and presents the same results in greater detail. A 46page section on methodology (Annex B) elaborates on the quantitative process, data sources, workflow, accounting protocol, emission factors, accounting for non-energy uses, caveats and uncertainties, and calculation details for crude oil and natural gas liquids, natural gas, coal, and cement. Q9: How were you able to arrive at these findings, or what methods were used? A9: Same methods were employed in both reports, covering the same entities, data sources, fuels, and years. See Q5. Q10: Was this report peer-reviewed? A10: Yes. The methodology developed for the Heede 2014 paper in Climatic Change was originally peer-reviewed by Kornelis Blok and his colleagues at Ecofys, an independent and well-respected expert group focused on climate, 6 Griffin, Paul, Richard Heede, & Ian van der Vlugt (2017) The Carbon Majors Database: Methodology Report 2017, CDP & CAI, March, 9 pp. 7 Shell Internationale Petroleum Maatschappij (1988) The Greenhouse Effect, Confidential Report, HSE 88-001, The Hague, 91 pp. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411090-Document3.html#document/p32/a411303 8 Mommers, Jelmer (2018) Advocaten in actie tegen klimaatverandering: deze golf rechtszaken verandert de wereld (Lawyers in action against climate change: this wave of lawsuits is changing the world), De Correspondent, 16 March. https://decorrespondent.nl/8048/advocaten-in-actie-tegen-klimaatverandering-deze-golf-rechtszaken-verandert-dewereld/886962032-c29274df