- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Two US projects highlight divide over carbon removal’s role in climate fight
Posted on 11/28/23 at 9:12 am
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 on 11/28/23 at 9:16 am to ragincajun03
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 on 11/28/23 at 9:19 am to ragincajun03
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 on 11/28/23 at 9:22 am to bad93ex
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!”
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 on 11/28/23 at 9:26 am to ragincajun03
It's all fricking bullshite.
Posted on 11/28/23 at 9:27 am to ragincajun03
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 on 11/28/23 at 9:30 am to ragincajun03
The entire concept of “carbon capture” is a complete freaking joke. What a clown world we are living in.
Posted on 11/28/23 at 9:41 am to SloaneRanger
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 on 11/28/23 at 9:45 am to ragincajun03
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 on 11/28/23 at 9:46 am to 225Tyga
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 on 11/28/23 at 12:54 pm to ragincajun03
I heard about a highly effective, cheap technology for carbon scrubbing.

Posted on 11/28/23 at 1:02 pm to Bestbank Tiger
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 on 11/28/23 at 1:38 pm to SloaneRanger
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 on 11/28/23 at 1:41 pm to ragincajun03
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 on 11/28/23 at 1:47 pm to lsu777
quote: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.
evil oil companies
Posted on 11/28/23 at 2:00 pm to ragincajun03
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 on 11/28/23 at 2:20 pm to Chucktown_Badger
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 on 11/28/23 at 2:23 pm to ragincajun03
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 on 11/28/23 at 2:49 pm to Pezzo
what a colossal waste of money!
Posted on 11/28/23 at 3:42 pm to ragincajun03
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
Popular
Back to top
