Our Statement of Corporate Responsibility
At Texas Pacific, integrating sustainability and Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) objectives into our business strategy is a top priority and integral to the long-term value and longevity of our Company. Our approach allows us to operate with environmental awareness, social due diligence, and best governance practices. Texas Pacific has an unwavering commitment to operate responsibly in all aspects of our business, and we will continue to take purposeful actions to deliver this strategy.
- Tyler Glover, Chief Executive Officer
Guided by Our Core Values
Texas Pacific Land Corporation’s (“Texas Pacific,” “TPL,” or “the Company”) Core Values act as guiding principles underlying our business conduct and engagement with partners and stakeholders. Since 1888, when Texas Pacific was first established as a land trust, our commitment to long-term success has been dependent on adapting to dynamic market forces and doing what is right for all stakeholders.
Our ESG Strategy
Our Core Values align with our strategic and operational priorities, as well as our Environmental, Social, and Governance (“ESG”) commitments. Our ESG strategy reflects our dedication to meeting tactical business priorities while managing the environmental impacts of our operations, maintaining principles for social responsibility, and upholding a commitment to strong corporate governance.
Our ESG strategy is focused on the overarching priorities of environmental management, employee health and safety, workforce management and equality, community and landowner engagement, and strong corporate governance and ethics. We are committed to working towards a sustainable future and operating in a responsible manner across all of our operations and land management activities. We strive to uphold the highest standards of ethics, transparency, and accountability, and we foster the safe and responsible development of our lands.
Regular Assessment of Practices and Priorities
Our ESG disclosure has been prepared in accordance with the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), and the Task Force on Climate-Related Disclosures (TCFD) frameworks. The data disclosed covers all of our operations. Given the dynamic nature of ESG priorities and best practices, assessments and reviews of our metrics and disclosure policies will continue to be evaluated and, if necessary, adjusted on a regular basis.
As TPL does not produce oil or gas from the land in which our royalty revenue stream is derived, we developed our sustainability goals and partnership opportunities in consultation with the entities operating on those lands. We maintain strong relationships with these operators to encourage environmental best practices as it relates to their specific infrastructure and operational requirements. On the water solutions side of our business, we have developed a tailored ESG program that speaks to the ethical and responsible buildout of our water assets and management of water as a natural resource. Our continued goal is an integrated and iterative approach to sustainable and responsible resource management.
Our Partnership with Oil & Gas Lessees
- Partnering to develop innovative technologies that support emissions management.
- Partnering to develop renewable energy buildout across TPL’s land.
- Electrification and energy efficiency projects that support the low-carbon goals of operators.
- Water infrastructure buildout to support the mitigation and response to climate change.
- Community-level engagements, social investments, and volunteering.
- Partnerships with emergency responders in TPL communities.
If you have questions or comments, please contact us at IR@texaspacific.com.
Materiality Analysis
In 2020 we conducted a materiality assessment to determine the ESG metrics that drive the most long-term business, environmental, and social value for TPL and our stakeholders. We assessed a long list of ESG issues derived from the SASB, GRI, and TCFD frameworks, our own priorities, oil and gas industry best practices, and current market drivers. TPL considered various impacts to the Company, including strategic business impact, direct financial impact, regulatory and legislative and policy impact, brand impact, and opportunities for innovation. We also factored in the issues that are most important to our lessees, operators, and surrounding communities. The following ESG topics were determined, and remain today, the most material to our operations:
Environment
- Ecological and Biodiversity
- Energy Management
- Spill Prevention
- Water Management and Resiliency
Social
- Employee Attraction and Retention
- Employee Welfare and Human Rights
- Landowner and Community Relations
- Operational Safety and Emergency Preparedness
- Workforce Health and Safety
- DEI Program
Governance
- Board Structure and Independence
- Asset Integrity
- Business Ethics and Transparency
- Government Relations and Regulatory Strategy
- Supplier and Contractor Engagement
| Category | Units | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emissions (1) | ||||||
| Scope 1 CO2 Emissions (1)* | Metric Tonnes CO2e | NC | NC | 18,987 | 16,159 | 10,590 |
| Scope 2 CO2 Emissions (2) | Metric Tonnes CO2e | NC | NC | 5,110 | 6,596 | 11,492 |
| Total Scope 1-2 CO2 Emissions (3) | Metric Tonnes CO2e | NC | NC | 24,097 | 22,755 | 22,082 |
| Spills (4) | ||||||
| Produced water spills - number | # | NC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Other spills* - number | # | NC | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Produced water spills - volume | Barrels | NC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Other spills* - volume | Barrels | NC | 0 | 0 | 45** | 0 |
| Produced water spills - volume in Unusually Sensitive Areas | Barrels | NC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Other spills*- volume in Unusually Sensitive Areas | Barrels | NC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Produced water spills- volume recovered | Barrels | NC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Other spills* - volume recovered | Barrels | NC | 0 | 0 | 45 | 0 |
| Energy Management- TPWR Operations (5) | ||||||
| Total energy consumed | Gigajoules (GJ) | Energy tracking initiated in 2020 | 317,912 | 287,140 | 263,289 | |
| Percentage grid electricity | Percentage (%) | 12% | 16% | 29% | ||
| Percentage renewable energy | Percentage (%) | 3% | 6% | 13% | ||
| Percentage Fuel | Percentage (%) | 85% | 78% | 58% | ||
| Ecological Impacts (6) | ||||||
| Percentage of land owned, leased, and/or operated within areas of protected conservation status or endangered species habitat | Percentage (%) | Less than 1% | Less than 1% | Less than 1% | Less than 1% | Less than 1% |
| Percentage of total land disturbed | Acres (%) | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Percentage of impacted area restored | Percentage (%) | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Other Environmental Indicators (7) |
||||||
| Percentage of total capital spent on electrification | Percentage (%) | 2.7% | 6.2% | 3.3% | 54% | 37% |
| Capital spent on electrification | Dollars | $1,200,000 | $1,875,000 | $150,000 | $6,386,000 | $6,943,000 |
| Safety Incidents | ||||||
| Fatalities - Employees | # | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Fatalities - Contractors | # | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Employee and Contractor Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR) *TPWR employees only for 2018 |
Per 200,000 hours worked | 4.87 | 0.65 | 0.00 | 1.59 | 0 |
| Employee and Contractor Lost Time Incident Rate *TPWR employees only for 2018 |
Per 200,000 hours worked | 4.87 | 0.65 | 0.00 | 0.79 | 0 |
| Average hours of Health, Safety, and Emergency Response Training for Employees (8) | Hours/ Employee | 9.22 | 11.06 | 22.14 | 21.27 | 7.34* |
| Operational Safety and Emergency Preparedness | ||||||
| Number of reportable water pipeline incidents | # | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Percentage significant | Percentage (%) | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Cyber Security | ||||||
| Number of breaches | # | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cybersecurity training hours | Hours/ Employee | NC | 1 hour, 36 minutes | 2 hours, 4 minutes | 1 hour, 48 minutes | 3 hours, 5 minutes |
| Completed Training- employees | Percentage (%) | NC | 100% | 99% | 100% | 100% |
| TPL’s Workforce | ||||||
| Employee Turnover Rate | Percentage (%) Annually | 16% | 12% | 4% | 22% | 15% |
| Full-Time Employees | # | 64 | 94 | 102 | 92 | 99 |
| Contractors | # | NC | NC | 17 | 28 | 22 |
| Temporary Workers | # | NC | NC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Workforce Diversity and Equal Opportunity (9) | ||||||
| Percentage of female employees | Percentage (%) | 42% | 46% | 44% | 42% | 42% |
| Percentage female in: | ||||||
| Executives, Senior Officers, and Directors | Percentage (%) | 3% | 3% | 3% | 4% | 4% |
| First and Mid-Level Managers | Percentage (%) | 13% | 14% | 14% | 13% | 8% |
| Professionals and Other | Percentage (%) | 27% | 29% | 27% | 24% | 30% |
| Employees by Age Group | ||||||
| Under Age 30 | Percentage (%) | 28% | 24% | 25% | 17% | 15% |
| Age 30-50 | Percentage (%) | 56% | 60% | 56% | 68% | 64% |
| Over Age 50 | Percentage (%) | 16% | 16% | 19% | 15% | 21% |
| Charitable Contributions | ||||||
| Dollars contributed to local community investments | Dollars ($) | $21,000 | $385,000 | $160,000 | $269,000 | $587,000 |
| Board of Directors | ||||||
| Number of members of the Board of Directors | # | TPL was a Trust until 2021-- 2021 Board information in Governance Section | 9 | 10 | ||
| Independent Board members | # | 8 | 9 | |||
| Female members of the Board | Percentage (%) | 22% | 20% | |||
| Minority members of the Board | Percentage (%) | 0% | 0% | |||
| Ethics and Compliance Training | ||||||
| Employee completion of mandatory training | Percentage (%) | NC | 97% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Notes:
NC: Not collected or Not Available
∆ (1) 2020 and 2021 Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions parameters are based on 2020 EPA eGRID emissions parameters. 2022 Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions parameters use 2023 EPA Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Commercial gasoline products are assumed to have a 10% ethanol blend and commercial diesel products are assumed to have a 5% biodiesel blend. Scope 3 emissions rely on eGRID2021 emission factors.
∆ (1)* Scope 1 emissions quantified from TPWR’s water operations (TPL does not have any Scope 1 emissions within Land and Royalties).
∆ (2) Scope 2 emissions quantified from both TPL and TPWR electricity consumption.
∆ (3) MT of CO2e calculation applied EPA’s 2023 Emissions Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
∆ (4) TPWR operations did not track in 2018, and the company had no reportable produced water spills in 2019, 2020, 2021, or 2022.
∆ (4)* Stored materials in secondary containment including chemicals, lubricants and fuels.
∆ (4)** These 45 bbls underwent full and successful remediation efforts.
∆ (5) 2020 percent energy type allocation was previously based on production. For 2021 and forward, this metric is based on percent of total energy consumption without any correlation to production.
∆ (6) Total acreage: of approximately 900,000 acres. Of disturbed acreage, none fall under 'endangered or areas of conservation status'. Disturbed is defined as changing the original state of the land by putting equipment or infrastructure on that area of land.
∆ (7) These numbers come from capital budget costs-- primary power infrastructure builds divided by total capital spend as reported in 10K.
∆ (8) Average hours of training = in person and online.
∆ (8)* In 2022, the Company required corporate employees to participate in certain HSE response trainings. The number of hours required for corporate employees is less than the required hours for field employees thus, reducing the overall average per employee in 2022.
∆ (9) First and Mid-Level Manager = TPL's Supervisor- Director; Executives and Senior Officers = TPL's VP and Above.