- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: Westlake Area: Entergy, Crescent Midstream collaborating on large carbon capture project
Posted on 9/24/24 at 9:20 am to ragincajun03
Posted on 9/24/24 at 9:20 am to ragincajun03
Our government and corporations are just sickeningly corrupt and morally bankrupt.
Carbon capture is such bullsh*t.
Carbon capture is such bullsh*t.
0
Posted on 9/24/24 at 9:32 am to ragincajun03
quote:
they view it as extending the life of the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries
This is correct.
On a broader level I'm never worried about energy in terms of peak oil per se. Why? The strong nuclear force between a proton and neutron is approximately 125 pounds. Think of that for a second. The energy within the nucleolus of an atom is massively dense. We have the technology to access that energy and we use it everyday it's just a little more expensive than chemical energy and so it's not as popular. Nuclear energy splits protons and neutrons (or pushes them together like the sun) and chemical energy breaks bonds between atoms in molecules.
Posted on 9/24/24 at 10:04 am to ragincajun03
couldn't the CO2 just leak back out of the ground kind of like oil and gas seeps out? 
Posted on 9/24/24 at 10:09 am to DVinBR
quote:
couldn't the CO2 just leak back out of the ground kind of like oil and gas seeps out?
Not 10-15 thousand feet below ground. Theoretically the liquid or supercritical CO2 contributes to rock formation called mineral carbonation. But that is on geologic time scales I believe. We won't be around to prove it.
Posted on 9/24/24 at 10:17 am to GumboPot
Yeah...in order to qualify for these credits, I believe you have to keep it in the ground for 99 years. Don't think any of us participating in this thread discussion will be around on Year 99 to confirm it's still all trapped down there.
Posted on 9/24/24 at 10:33 am to ragincajun03
quote:interesting considering no Class VI permits have been issued in Louisiana yet
Ashcroft said they have not chosen the storage site yet but are looking at several different locations where companies have Class 6 permits with the Louisiana Department of Energy and Natural Resources for deep well injection.
Posted on 9/24/24 at 10:33 am to ragincajun03
You've got to be in a good position to benefit from carbon capture credits to make them remotely profitable. We just dropped a project to inject co2 into a salt dome at one of our frac plants because the economics weren't there.
Posted on 9/24/24 at 10:48 am to ForeverLSU02
quote:
interesting considering no Class VI permits have been issued in Louisiana yet
None approved yet, I don't think, but some could be getting close. Several test strat wells have been drilled.
LINK
Posted on 9/24/24 at 10:49 am to GumboPot
quote:
Multiply 3,000,000 per year times $85 and that is the potential federal tax credit for this project. Crescent Midstream will be the CO2 pipeline operator and will get about 20-30% of that (depending on how well they negotiate) and the emitter (like Entergy) will get the rest.
You’re correct, $255MM/yr is the potential tax credit. However, the operating cost for CCS is very high and would eat into that $255MM.
I’d expect a project like this to have a 10 yr payback period which I don’t understand how investors are accepting such slow returns.
Posted on 9/24/24 at 10:58 am to Virgo
quote:
I’d expect a project like this to have a 10 yr payback period which I don’t understand how investors are accepting such slow returns.
DOE has 1.2 trillion in capital to spend.
Trump said he would reallocate that money to road and bridges if he wins. He might need congress to help here.
There is a mad rush right now to get some of these projects approved.
This post was edited on 9/24/24 at 10:59 am
Posted on 9/24/24 at 11:45 am to GumboPot
But even with the current admin, the IRA tax credit is only valid for the first 10 or 12 years of your project. After that, the bottom falls out on the economic justification of these projects. Idk how anyone is making these investments
Posted on 9/24/24 at 11:49 am to Virgo
quote:
You’re correct, $255MM/yr is the potential tax credit. However, the operating cost for CCS is very high and would eat into that $255MM.
They do this by starting a JV with a bank that has a high tax load. They contribute project capital and get the tax credits while the operator gets the operation and servicing fees. Bank gets to run from taxes and the operators gets more enterprise value.
Posted on 9/24/24 at 11:50 am to Virgo
quote:
But even with the current admin, the IRA tax credit is only valid for the first 10 or 12 years of your project. After that, the bottom falls out on the economic justification of these projects. Idk how anyone is making these investments
They leverage the credits to get cheaper capital and end up with a wholly owned asset by the time the credits sunset.
Posted on 9/24/24 at 11:53 am to billjamin
Yes but what I’m saying is there is negligible sellable product from a carbon capture plant other than the tax credits. So once the tax credits dry open, all you are doing is paying OPEX.
Maybe I’m missing something very basic.
Maybe I’m missing something very basic.
Posted on 9/24/24 at 11:53 am to GumboPot
quote:
DOE has 1.2 trillion in capital to spend.
Are you talking about the infrastructure bill? DOE isn't getting all of that.
Posted on 9/24/24 at 11:55 am to Virgo
quote:
Yes but what I’m saying is there is negligible sellable product from a carbon capture plant other than the tax credits. So once the tax credits dry open, all you are doing is paying OPEX.
Maybe I’m missing something very basic.
Biggest thing is you have a really expensive asset that you own out right and get to fluff your value. As long as you can cover OPEX plus maybe get a little margin it's a win.
ETA: some of the biggest operators will have their own tax liability to offset, but i doubt any of them take it all. It's always better to play with someone else's money.
This post was edited on 9/24/24 at 11:57 am
Posted on 9/24/24 at 11:56 am to el Gaucho
quote:
I would rather them put the co2 in the ground than it be in the air. I’ve heard of people running generators in their house and dying of co2 poisoning and gas plants are basically just a big generator
Uhhhh.....I believe you're referring to Carbon Monoxide from generators not Carbon Dioxide.
Posted on 9/24/24 at 12:07 pm to lsu777
quote:
that is all this bullshite is
Well, it’s a method for Entergy to generate revenues to offset rate increases, so it’s gaming the system for something that at least benefits us.
Posted on 9/24/24 at 12:12 pm to Cajun75
quote:
I believe you're referring to Carbon Monoxide from generators not Carbon Dioxide.
I have a very sneaky suspicious ole El Gaucho knew that when he typed it out.
Posted on 9/24/24 at 12:14 pm to billjamin
quote:
Are you talking about the infrastructure bill? DOE isn't getting all of that.
I literally sat in a meeting with a DOE PI (principle investigator). Just parroting what she said.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News