An Oil Giant Is Spending $100 Million to Preserve U.S. Hardwood Forests

TotalEnergies of France makes what is likely the largest-ever purchase of carbon offsets from U.S. timberlands


A forester measures trees in a West Virginia forest owned by Aurora Sustainable Lands. The forest is part of a carbon-offset project that will generate emissions credits for oil company TotalEnergies.

A French oil giant is paying $100 million to keep American trees standing.

TotalEnergies is purchasing carbon credits that cover timberland in 10 states ranging from the Louisiana lowlands to the Lake States, the Adirondack Mountains in New York and the Appalachian Mountains in West Virginia and Kentucky. The outlay is likely the largest ever in the opaque market designed to forestall tree harvesting in the U.S.

The idea behind the offsets is that rather than cut down trees for wood, leave them standing and absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow.

Companies often voluntarily purchase offsets to satisfy their own emissions targets rather than to meet regulatory mandates. Those sold by major U.S. timberland owners have been a fairly resilient pocket in a carbon-credit market otherwise plagued by allegations of fraud and overstated environmental benefits.

TotalEnergies said it is amassing offsets to make up for greenhouse-gas emissions that it cannot eliminate by 2030. Before this year, it had committed $725 million to offsets generated by preserving or restoring natural carbon sinks around the world, including wetlands and forests.

The seller in its latest purchase is Aurora Sustainable Lands, which was created two years ago to carry out Wall Street’s biggest wager yet on forest offsets. Investors led by T. Rowe Price Group subsidiary Oak Hill Advisors—best known as a corporate-debt investor—paid about $1.8 billion for nearly 1.7 million acres of hardwood forests spread over 17 Eastern states. The latest sale will involve about 740,000 acres.

Aurora has since reduced harvest volumes by more than 50% on the properties, said Aurora Chief Executive Jamie Houston.

“Historically, harvests were based on creating the highest timber revenue,” Houston said. “Now harvests are based on creating a multidecade carbon sink on all of these properties.”

In some cases, that means cutting down trees, such as planted pine, and letting the plots reseed naturally from nearby hardwoods. In others it means leaving alone trees that live long and grow large, such as the cypress in Aurora’s Louisiana woodlands, Houston said.

Aurora has initiated carbon projects—which involve a lot of tree measuring—and is generating offsets on all of its properties, he said.

Aurora sold more than $100 million of offsets to various buyers last year. It sold another bunch to Microsoft this year in a deal arranged, like the one with TotalEnergies, by its partner, Anew Climate.

Anew determined how much carbon is on the properties, registered the offsets with accrediting groups and found the buyer, said Josh Strauss, Anew’s president of environmental products. It also manages verification, he added.

“They use the highest available voluntary-market standards,” he said.

TotalEnergies declined to say how many offsets the $100 million will buy and the exact time frame for the deal. Each offset represents 1 metric.

Prices for most voluntary forest offsets are negotiated privately and not widely known. Weyerhaeuser, the largest U.S. private landowner, late last year sold voluntary offsets associated with reduced logging in its North Maine Woods timberlands for $29 apiece.

That is much higher than in the broader global market for various emissions offsets, which has been beset by allegations of fraud and greenwashing. Studies and news articles have shown some projects had vastly overstated their impact on emissions.

A glut of voluntary emissions offsets and concerns about quality have depressed prices for many types of carbon credits around the world. Offset futures prices have plunged from about $12 in November 2021 to less than $1 recently, according to Bank of America analysts.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees U.S. derivatives markets, said last year that it would make policing carbon offsets a priority. The Biden administration in May issued guidelines aimed at bolstering trust in voluntary carbon markets.

TotalEnergies said it would use credits to offset Scope 1 emissions, which come directly from its operations, and Scope 2 emissions from its energy purchases. Those are the types of emissions that the Securities and Exchange Commission said it will require companies to disclose starting in fiscal year 2026.

Many of the carbon offsets that TotalEnergies is buying are associated with forests in West Virginia.

Adrien Henry, vice president for nature-based solutions at TotalEnergies Exploration & Production, said that although the company is buying offsets at a clip of about $100 million a year, it is giving priority to reducing emissions over the remainder of this decade.

“We will start offsetting some of our residual emissions in 2030 and ramp up so that in 2050 TotalEnergies is net zero,” he said. “The rest of the journey is avoiding and reducing emissions by a lot of other actions.”

Write to Ryan Dezember at ryan.dezember@wsj.com

Source: WSJ

9 Likes

@Marv_Vandermeer @david_marx @Josh_Kappes @Daniel_Yaptangco @Adam_Cameron @Ryan_Milbourne @Michel_Cidral @Vaidas_Vabolys, @Earl_Heath

9 Likes

colour me skeptical on this.

Big Oil combining with Wall Street to do the right thing for the planet and “the common man” seems like a stretch. I have dealt with too many people in big business, NGO’s and carbon to have much faith that this is little more than GreenWashing and a financial play.
I was talking to a friend this weekend about going to New York for a Carbon Finance conference years ago and then talking to a few brokers on Bay Street about how to finance some forestry projects. I could see the Dollar Signs in their eyes as I spoke. I knew right there that the financial sharks would step in and make a killing and leave behind broken dreams and promises left unfilled.
And I don’t have much faith in people with no understanding of the timber business getting involved to save forests. The hardwood forests in the US are very well managed today. I suspect Wall St and and Oil Company “helping out” won’t make the situation better

I would love to be wrong about this, but it will take 5-10 yrs to find out

9 Likes

Thanks for sharing your perspective @Marv_Vandermeer . Your skepticism is understandable, given the history of big business.

That said, hopefully with enough scrutiny and transparency in the carbon offset market, we can hold these companies accountable and see that these projects deliver real, measurable benefits. Hopefully in 5-10 years we’ll see some meaningful progress. Do you still attend some of these carbon finance conferences?

10 Likes

I gave up a long time ago on carbon finance.

it is a financial scheme that will produce less benefits than if the money was properly invested into real sustainable forestry projects. Too many parasites in the financial world that see the opportunity to profit from it and don’t care about the actual impact. Are there any timber experts in any of these carbon projects?

we have multiple species that are endangered and the list keeps growing. Show me one lumber company that has developed a long term plan to regenerate them. It is very possible, can be very profitable, but requires a long term commitment. They don’t care, they all want short term profits.
Companies will spend $100 on marketing how sustainable they are before they will spend $1 on true sustainability. I have talked to too many of them to think otherwise. My wife works for Fortune 400 companies. Their commitment to “sustainability” is about marketing. They only care about the $$. If everyone cares about the environment, why are things not improving? I don’t believe what they say when I see what they do.

I am not a pessimist, I am a pragmatist. Unfortunately, they overlap on this issue.

9 Likes