re: Was no one concerned about Letlow being Pro-Carbon capture?

quote:

---

the original post is assuming the Carbon capture is bad, Also CO2 pipelines are bad.

---

I took it that carbon capture is nothing more than a grift to get the taxpayers to pay for a technology that if it were, indeed, profitable, the energy companies would not need tax dollars to do it.

quote:

---

There are already millions of miles of co2 pipelines in this country.

---

CO2 pipelines? Where?

quote:

---

Cool, tax payers do not need to be funding it. The only way it is profitable is via tax subsidies.

---

If you want $2 gasoline, it's subsidizing you.

quote:

---

If you want $2 gasoline, it's subsidizing you.

---

So the only way to get $2/gallon gasoline is by subsidizing carbon capture?

This is a strange one. You have people that care about the environment for and against it.


On one side, it's the only way to reduce carbon for certain industries and the only way to pull existing emissions out of the atmosphere. People believe it's really the only way to combat climate change for some industries.

On the other side, it requires pipelines that leak and some of this carbon is used to get more oil and allows oil companies to keep destroying the planet by just complying with carbon capture.

quote:

---

So the only way to get $2/gallon gasoline is by subsidizing carbon capture?

---

If it's used in EOR because nobody is going after tight shale if crude is that cheap and they cannot pay for the cost. All drilling in those fields stopped in August 2025. There is recent activity when price of oil rose.

Is your driving subsidized by streets and highways built by governement?

Is crude oil refined the last few years as removed from the SPR subsidizes with free storage for decades?

quote:

---

What fields and where?

---

All tight shale for oil unless a hole was required to keep a lease.

Rig count for oil went to almost zero

As for subsidies, look at ethanol. The Feds are not subsidizing the ethanol plants. The states subsidized them at different rates from 20 to 30 cents per gallon of ethanol produced but only when local farmers owned 51% of the plant. It doesn't make a rat's arse who the operator it. The subsidies generate enough revenue and taxes on that revenue to more than make up for the cost of the subsidies.
What the Feds subsidize is the companies who blend the ethanol with gasoline. It's a fuel blender credit. Ethanol meets the EPA fuel oxygenation requirements enacted in the 1980's.. MTBE was cheaper but declared hazardous. The build out of the modern dry milling ethanol plants did not occur until MTBE was banned. This left ethanol as the low cost alternative.

quote:

---

Guess it wasn't that big a deal, huh?

---

They made a deal with Saudi Arabia for Green Ammonia to sell to Norwegian Yara. CF is already doing CCS. Japan is building 4 new ships for liquid ammonia transport from Donaldsonville to Japan with Blue Ammonia at 80,000 tons per shipment.

Sounds a lot like Elon Musk buying a used ASU from Brazil for his Starbase just to make a deal with a major supplier to build a new plant there, then tore down the ASU and gave everything to the contractor dismantling it

The companies supply liquid oxygen by barge were screwing SpaceX is how it all began. That is nothing new with that cabal

FTR, I have seen a number of brand new chemical plants with new processes be cancelled after completion of the first commercial plant then dismantled. That is how I moved from Lake Chuck to BR over 25 years ago. Shell Chemical built new plant with new process at Geismar $110 million to build the first plant for a new plastic after $800 million in R&D then decided to cancel the entire thing before completed. They ran 43 batches to screw around with formula to see what would happen.

Dismantlement started 3 years after costruction began.

I saw the accounting as explained by one of their accountants. They got a write off for the entire ball of wax, including a double write off for building the plant.