- 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
re: Was no one concerned about Letlow being Pro-Carbon capture?
Posted on 6/28/26 at 10:34 am to TigerV
Posted on 6/28/26 at 10:34 am to TigerV
quote:
Carbon capture can be very safe and the technology utilized to evaluate locations and to inject have been around for decades. Funny how people just sky scream for no reason at all.
Maybe if all the orphan wells are located and plugged properly.
The problem is the size of the units, losing your minerals forever and properly monitoring the plume.
0
Posted on 6/28/26 at 10:38 am to Big Wes
quote:
this process frees up hydrogen that is very valuable
You sure about that?
I been out of the chemical plant game for a few years but there used to be A LOT of hydrogen flared off up and down the river. You generally dont flare off very valuable stuff 24/7/365
Posted on 6/28/26 at 10:39 am to theunknownknight
Is carbon capture the government paying the oil companies to blow smoke into the ground
This post was edited on 6/28/26 at 10:40 am
Posted on 6/28/26 at 10:41 am to Nevada_Tiger
quote:
what is it about this that makes it scary?
Faults and old wells.
We inject natural gas into salt domes for storage. They want to inject millions of metric tons of CO2 into a formation that has cracks/faults.
CO2 turns into carbonic acid when it touches water.
Posted on 6/28/26 at 10:43 am to theunknownknight
But Trump endorsed her bro
Posted on 6/28/26 at 10:46 am to loogaroo
How is it any different than extracting hydrocarbons out of the ground? They’re going back into the same reservoirs that we produced oil and gas from decades ago.
Posted on 6/28/26 at 10:46 am to Friendly Satan
quote:
Yeah, but Trump likes her and she’s hot
She looks like Rachel dolezal
Posted on 6/28/26 at 10:50 am to theunknownknight
quote:
For those who don't know, carbon capture is being developed in Livingston Parish completely against the will of the overwhelming number of voters there. Many see it as another laundering scam with no real world benefit with only potential dangerous downsides.
And Letlow is for this? Why?
I guess we really do not care about the sovereignty of local voters either. It would be one thing if the locals were for it, but they are not. This development will go directly under their land and they have no vote or way to stop it now.
I can't see how any "conservative" would be for this in principle unless they were bought and paid for (hint: all politicians are).
The majority of the voters did not look past the phrase "Endorsed by Trump" and voted on that alone. I know several people who were going to vote that way and didn't know anything about either candidate or their stance on issues.
Posted on 6/28/26 at 11:07 am to loogaroo
Right but it also calcifies into the surrounding rock formation.
Posted on 6/28/26 at 11:15 am to b-rab2
quote:
How is it any different than extracting hydrocarbons out of the ground? They’re going back into the same reservoirs that we produced oil and gas from decades ago.
It turns into carbonic acid when it touches water. Plus, they aren't going back into the same reservoirs in every location.
Posted on 6/28/26 at 11:40 am to theunknownknight
The consideration of whether oil companies, environmentalists and politicians have combined to come up with a better use of YOUR property and tax dollars should logically (for conservatives) come even before the debates about whether they can be done safely. Which should certainly also happen.
Maybe the fact that oil companies are now for carbon capture ('cause tax dollars) makes people think it is a score against the enviro crowd and their anti business agenda and so it is a score for the economy and citizens.
But in reality it seems the environmentalists have helped the oil industry gain an easier path to eminent domain of private property for pipelines AND get paid by us to store carbon underground, which the oil industry always said was harmless to be released into the atmosphere.
Funny, since our politicians have decided that taxpayers should pay oil and gas producers to store carbon, they now seem to agree with the left that it is a problem in the atmosphere.
Maybe the fact that oil companies are now for carbon capture ('cause tax dollars) makes people think it is a score against the enviro crowd and their anti business agenda and so it is a score for the economy and citizens.
But in reality it seems the environmentalists have helped the oil industry gain an easier path to eminent domain of private property for pipelines AND get paid by us to store carbon underground, which the oil industry always said was harmless to be released into the atmosphere.
Funny, since our politicians have decided that taxpayers should pay oil and gas producers to store carbon, they now seem to agree with the left that it is a problem in the atmosphere.
Posted on 6/28/26 at 11:42 am to loogaroo
we have been using CO2 floods for lifting oil since the 1950s
Posted on 6/28/26 at 11:52 am to supatigah
quote:
we have been using CO2 floods for lifting oil since the 1950s
Yeah, but not enough to fill a 50,000 acre unit. Who knows where that shite is going to go.
That's not my main concern though. Land owners within the unit that don't want to lease will be forced to participate and will effectively lose their minerals forever. It's scummy and a few people will get filthy rich at the expense of others for a climate scam.
Posted on 6/28/26 at 12:08 pm to loogaroo
quote:
will effectively lose their minerals forever
Minerals are not held by a CCS lease tho. Or are you saying they will inject into a producing O&G formation? And that it will prevent future development of minerals?
Posted on 6/28/26 at 1:08 pm to Herschal
quote:
Minerals are not held by a CCS lease tho. Or are you saying they will inject into a producing O&G formation? And that it will prevent future development of minerals?
The unit will be there in perpetuity, and may have to be expanded depending on how the plume expands. No one will risk drilling in it.
Posted on 6/28/26 at 1:08 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
But there is a commonality. BOTH of those things, locals are overwhelmingly against,
Are you talking about private equity and carbon capture? These are the two things “locals” are against?
The issue of carbon capture hinges on whether we are emitting too much CO2 and need to get it under control. If we are, then carbon capture is a great idea, and it’s perfectly reasonable to use the pore spaces under private land. It’s not dangerous relative to many pipelines and other industrial uses that are done without “locals’” permission.
Opposition to private equity in general is the sign of a benighted individual. You can make reasonable arguments against the treatment of private equity under the law - carried interest, for example - but not against private equity in general. It has been extremely beneficial to America.
Posted on 6/28/26 at 2:07 pm to wallowinit
quote:
I’ll NEVER vote for another woman for any reason.
So you’re backing Jamie Davis?
Posted on 6/28/26 at 2:13 pm to theunknownknight
Letlow is for this because their is a TON of government money involved in the carbon capture scam. Many of the major oil companies developed divisions to get involved in the money grab. Now they are coming for your land to make the money on.
This post was edited on 6/28/26 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 6/28/26 at 3:25 pm to WillieD
quote:
I’ll NEVER vote for another woman for any reason.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News