Started By
Message
locked post

Two US projects highlight divide over carbon removal’s role in climate fight

Posted on 11/28/23 at 9:12 am
Posted by ragincajun03
Member since Nov 2007
24861 posts
Posted on 11/28/23 at 9:12 am
quote:

Nov 28 (Reuters) - In Texas, oil and gas producer Occidental Petroleum (OXY.N) is constructing a giant facility to suck 500,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere annually to keep it from warming the climate, a project backed by hundreds of millions of dollars from investment firm BlackRock (BLK.N).

In Louisiana, a consortium of companies that includes Swiss firm Climeworks is teaming up to build a similar facility that can pull a million metric tons of the greenhouse gas out of the sky each year, boosted by hundreds of millions of dollars in grants from the U.S. government.

The direct air capture (DAC) projects are in neighboring states, but the companies leading them are worlds away when it comes to their views on how carbon removal - an expensive and largely unproven family of technologies to fight or even reverse global warming - should be deployed in a climate-friendly future and the role oil and gas should play in its deployment.

Occidental says some of its carbon would be injected into oil fields to ramp up pressure and raise crude production – a strategy it says that can cleanse the world’s future fossil fuel consumption of climate impact.

Climeworks and its partner Heirloom, meanwhile, says its carbon will go straight into underground storage, and that the technology must go hand in hand with a transition to renewable energy


quote:

Underscoring the rift, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said last week that the oil and gas industry is over-relying on carbon capture to reduce emissions and called the approach "an illusion," sparking an angry response from OPEC which views the technology as a lifeline for future fossil fuel use.

We think that no amount of direct air capture as an industry should be used as any justification for prolonging of expanded fossil fuel production,” said Vikrum Aiyer, head of climate policy at Heirloom, which is a partner in the Louisiana facility called Project Cypress.

The differing approaches also reflect an important financial dynamic in the carbon removal industry: In the near term, it is a lot easier to make money trapping carbon if it comes with a perk like higher oil production.

Otherwise, the enormous price tag for world-scale carbon removal would need to fall to governments if there is any chance of these projects surviving.


quote:

The IEA says DAC would have to capture as much as 1 billion metric tons annually by 2050 if the world is to hit its decarbonization targets, a massive scale-up from the 10,000 metric tons it removes currently.

A major concern is that DAC technology is both expensive and unproven at scale. Capturing carbon using DAC costs somewhere between $600 and $1,000 for each metric ton, mainly because of the huge amount of energy required to run the equipment.


quote:

More mature carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, which traps emissions at a point source like a smokestack, also requires a rapid scale up to make a difference. There are 41 operational commercial CCS projects worldwide with the capacity to store 49 million metric tons annually, according to the Global CCS Institute - about one-thousandth of the world’s total energy and industry-related CO2 emissions.

Most of those use the carbon for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) or are linked to ethanol plants seeking to generate low carbon credits, according to the institute.


quote:

Occidental CEO Vicki Hollub has said DAC could give the oil industry “license to continue to operate for the next 60, 70, 80 years.”

The company says its Stratos project in Texas would use removed carbon to recover oil, or otherwise to generate carbon credits that allow it to brand its oil as “net zero,” and the fuels refined from it as “low carbon.”

“What we're saying is that there is a highly transparent, highly credible way of tackling the emissions from those barrels of oil," said Mike Avery, president of 1PointFive, an Occidental subsidiary developing its DAC projects.

Occidental also has a separate DAC hub proposal in Texas that won half a billion dollars in federal grants. That project’s CO2 will be sequestered underground and have no link to oil and gas, the Department of Energy said.

In Louisiana, the proponents of Climeworks and Heirloom's Project Cypress want to make it clear that the technology should have no role in prolonging the future of fossil fuels, even if it means committing to more limited revenue sources than rivals like Occidental.

Their money will be made instead by marketing carbon removal credits to corporations not involved in fossil fuels that wish to offset unavoidable emissions, or to governments seeking to stay on track with climate targets.

“If you use air capture to get more fuels out of the ground, you're taking away market potential for renewables," said Christoph Gebald, CEO of Climeworks. "This is not in alignment with the energy transition.”


LINK /
Posted by bad93ex
Walnut Cove
Member since Sep 2018
30750 posts
Posted on 11/28/23 at 9:16 am to
quote:

“If you use air capture to get more fuels out of the ground, you're taking away market potential for renewables," said Christoph Gebald, CEO of Climeworks. "This is not in alignment with the energy transition.”


Posted by NCIS_76
Member since Jan 2021
5246 posts
Posted on 11/28/23 at 9:19 am to
quote:

hundreds of millions of dollars from investment firm BlackRock (BLK.N).


Actually, this is your tax dollars being shoved up a wild boars arse.

Hang on. We will have someone say that Black Rock is not associated with our Government.
This post was edited on 11/28/23 at 10:36 am
Posted by ragincajun03
Member since Nov 2007
24861 posts
Posted on 11/28/23 at 9:22 am to
Exactly.

Environmentalists: “Industry, clean up your act!”

Industry develops technology to try to minimize emissions from their operations.

Environmentalists: “That’s not what we meant. Shut down all your operations!”
This post was edited on 11/28/23 at 9:23 am
Posted by waiting4saturday
Covington, LA
Member since Sep 2005
10560 posts
Posted on 11/28/23 at 9:26 am to
It's all fricking bullshite.
Posted by lsu777
Lake Charles
Member since Jan 2004
34840 posts
Posted on 11/28/23 at 9:27 am to
quote:

Exactly.

Environmentalists: “Industry, clean up your act!”

Industry develops technology to try to minimize emissions from their operations.

Environmentalists: “That’s not what we meant. Shut down all your operations!”



exactly

saw 1 the other day that quoted an environmental group that was something to the effect of ....if we allow evil oil companies to break into clean energy then that defeats the whole purpose of clean energy


its not about cleaning up the environment...its about breaking oil companies...period. and the reason why is because those people are behind the other companies in the space and they dont want competition. its about the almight dollar.
Posted by SloaneRanger
Upper Hurstville
Member since Jan 2014
10858 posts
Posted on 11/28/23 at 9:30 am to
The entire concept of “carbon capture” is a complete freaking joke. What a clown world we are living in.
Posted by 225Tyga
Member since Oct 2013
18234 posts
Posted on 11/28/23 at 9:41 am to
quote:

The entire concept of “carbon capture” is a complete freaking joke. What a clown world we are living in.


If you don’t understand it…

What’s a joke? You pumps the carbon down into the ground into pockets and then block it in.
Posted by statman34
Member since Feb 2011
3259 posts
Posted on 11/28/23 at 9:45 am to
quote:

Exactly.

Environmentalists: “Industry, clean up your act!”

Industry develops technology to try to minimize emissions from their operations.

Environmentalists: “That’s not what we meant. Shut down all your operations!”


This cannot be stated enough. They want an end to oil with no solution for no oil but they want it now and they want what they want.
Posted by SloaneRanger
Upper Hurstville
Member since Jan 2014
10858 posts
Posted on 11/28/23 at 9:46 am to
Dude, no amount of this feel good, make work “carbon removal” is going to have any effect on the course of the planet’s climate.
Posted by Bestbank Tiger
Premium Member
Member since Jan 2005
75476 posts
Posted on 11/28/23 at 12:54 pm to
I heard about a highly effective, cheap technology for carbon scrubbing.

Posted by ragincajun03
Member since Nov 2007
24861 posts
Posted on 11/28/23 at 1:02 pm to
Figure out how to get those to grow like that near gas plants in West Texas, and you’ll become a very rich dude or dudette.
Posted by lsugradman
Member since Sep 2003
8886 posts
Posted on 11/28/23 at 1:38 pm to
Like all things in life, the extremes are never the answer. Shut down the O&G industry? Nope. Continue to produce O&G the way we have historically? Nope. The right answer lies in the middle.
Posted by Clockwatcher68
Youngsville
Member since May 2006
7250 posts
Posted on 11/28/23 at 1:41 pm to
I wonder if it’s safe to assume that the 1 million metric tons removal of carbon is not a net decrease, and will be offset by some percentage due to the “huge” energy consumption required to remove it?
Posted by AwesomeSauce
Das Boot
Member since May 2015
10827 posts
Posted on 11/28/23 at 1:47 pm to
quote:

evil oil companies
That's the issue. They aren't oil companies but energy companies. If energy was produced through masturbation then Exxon would be making wands and pocket p. The same guys pumping O&G today will own the wind farms and renewables in the future.
Posted by Chucktown_Badger
The banks of the Ashley River
Member since May 2013
33917 posts
Posted on 11/28/23 at 2:00 pm to
quote:

constructing a giant facility to suck 500,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere annually


Anyone else ever notice how they use what sounds like a big number but never provide the context around how much in total is either a) in the earth's atmosphere, or b) how much the US produces annually?

A quick Google search turned up this:
quote:

In 2021, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,340.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, or 5,586.0 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents after accounting for sequestration from the land sector.


So, while that 500k sounds big, it's really 1/12,680th of the total US production, or 0.00000079% OF JUST THE U.S. CO2 PRODUCTION. And it's costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

So think about how many of those plants, and the associated funds, that would be required to make even in infintestimally small dent in our C02 levels. It is 100% a total fricking scam, and BlackRock and others know this, so it begs the question...why are they funding it?

ETA: I bet if you asked an environmental nut what percentage of our atmosphere is CO2 they'd say something like 10-25%, but nope. It's so low it's just considered a "trace element".

quote:

The remaining 0.1% of the atmosphere consists of the trace constituents. These include water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, various oxides of nitrogen, neon, and helium. They are called trace gases because they exist in small amounts.
This post was edited on 11/28/23 at 2:07 pm
Posted by GurleyGirl
Georgia
Member since Nov 2015
14170 posts
Posted on 11/28/23 at 2:20 pm to
quote:

It is 100% a total fricking scam, and BlackRock and others know this, so it begs the question...why are they funding it?


What is the Matrix? Control
Posted by Pezzo
Member since Aug 2020
2569 posts
Posted on 11/28/23 at 2:23 pm to
quote:

suck 500,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere


i cant believe big oil is trying to starve all the vegan's food, vegans should protest
Posted by johnadams1776
florida
Member since Jun 2021
479 posts
Posted on 11/28/23 at 2:49 pm to
what a colossal waste of money!
Posted by TheFlyingTiger
Member since Oct 2009
4078 posts
Posted on 11/28/23 at 3:42 pm to
Scam vultures fighting over your tax dollars peeled off the corpse of the republic.
This post was edited on 11/28/23 at 3:43 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram