So a fossil fuel company that bought a CO₂ removal (CDR) startup for $1.1 billion plans to use the CO₂ captured from the atmosphere to get more oil out of the ground. It's…not great at all.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
We need the majority of people to be convinced, that quick decarbonization is the way to go.
Only then, legislation can be pushed throught which curbs emissions effectively.
But the most most most important thing is the media. They have to be thoroughly de-monopolized.
This is the only economic use case for CRC. Even here it only makes economic sense when they include the PR value of saying they are "doing something to reduce CO2."
It's better to use DAC to create, for example, Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs) by mixing captured CO2 with Green Hydrogen (from renewable-energy powered electrolysis of water) to make a fuel that uses C02 already in the atmosphere, and not dredge up more from the earth.
It's better than drilling deep into the Earth to find pockets of trapped CO₂ to use for EOR, and might drive investment to make it more cost-effective...but yeah, this is awful.
EOR w DAC CO2 could result in use of costing fields & lower GHG intensity O&G.
Plus provides an avenue to improve CCS tech.
Plus, you could eventually pump enough underground to (more than) offset what you’re burning right?
O&G companies are doing worse things…
EOR happens in production wells, so they are not selected the same way a storage well would be.
So it's a legit question on how leaky they might be, and how much end of life care is needed to ensure that.
I don't know the answer there...
EOR wells are almost definitionally not designed for storage. It's likely some CO2 stays down there for some amount of time, but given that sequestration permanence >>100yrs is needed for meaningful removal that's not enough. There's a reason EPA permits Class II and Class VI wells differently.
If you want truly permanent storage the CO2 has to be stuck down there with no way up. If there is a big hole in the reservoir you are using to suck up oil that counts as a way up!
This may sound oversimplified but it's basically accurate
No it’s not great. Carbon capture is a vile con, just like Sustainable Aviation Fuel, designed to distract us and enable the fossil fuel companies to continue planet wrecking business as usual.
As someone is very passionate about CDR and has other long-term goals for my life, the thought of having to do CDR basically forever just to keep the oil industry in check makes me want to riot.
I’m afraid that enhanced oil recovery using gas pumped into depleted reservoirs has been used for years. This is just a new take and “greenwashing “ by using CO2 obtained by DAC ( direct air capture).
I plant 5 local plants every week. That's about 250 plants a year. 2500 plants in 10 years. I also add a trash bag of green waste underneath it. That's 2500 bags of compost.
10,000,000 adults did that, that would be 250,000,000,000 local plants and 250,000,000,000 bags of carbon absorbing top soil.
If the entire world decides to pause all wars for 10 years and every soldier and military industrial complex turns into eco restoration experts, every violent computer game and films are about earth restoration, we sing and dance about it, worshipped nature, we might survive.
Nuts. Our planet is finished. Life that thrives in carbon will survive until it's too hot. Humans are done. Then the rest with it. The best thing to do is to convert every war into coral planting, local plant plating, turning every roof top, parking lot, into carbon absorbing native green space.
Fossil fuel companies really don't give a damn about the future do they? It's all about profits in the short term and damn what happens after the CEO and shareholders have all gone to the grave. It's a scorched Earth policy in every sense given that's what it'll result in.
Just to add some grey, on paper enhanced oil recovery with injected CO2 is a lot less GHG intense than standard conventional extraction, & if demand is limited by an outside factor (eg EVs) it could be argued it allows use of older partially depleted fields instead of new frontier reserves. 🤷♂️
Genuine question:
What % of the overall GHG impact of oil is down to the extraction process, and what’s the % associated with burning the stuff?
I don’t know the answer, but my gut tells me it’s probably something like 10/90. So ‘enhanced recovery’ might take 5% off the total.
It’s more like 20/80, with another 10 for refinement and processing. However, it has been increasing through time as we progress through light through medium and heavy crudes to unconventional ones.
EOR can also keep workforces and communities that have already been established near existing reserves employed through the transition. @noahqkaufman.bsky.social
If (and only if) the CO2 can be made to stay down the well permanently, from talking to some people who work with EOR, the amount of CO2 that goes down is on the same order as the *combustion* CO2 from using that oil recovered. That offsets more than just processing...
This has always been the case. The vast majority of CCS to date has been used for EOR and sweeping to stimulate productivity in secondary and tertiary recovery. In addition to the costs, there is no way it’s carbon negative with respect to the atm.
I talk about Oxy at length in my book — as well as the CDR advocates who have praised her for being a first-mover, getting people comfortable w buying "decarbonized oil." You should read it.
CCS is sold as methadone to soften the withdrawal as the heroin is taken away slowly. Really it's just for keeping the addict alive longer so you can sell them more dope. The only active geological CCS business that is CO2-negative is CarbFix in Iceland, with a tiny number more on the way.
Countries depending heavily on ruminant livestock (Ethiopia, Madagascar, Mongolia, Somalia, some in West Africa) will, after drastic décarb elsewhere, be targets for large scale CDR.
But the quantities of GHGs on global scale will be small.
Oxy: cunning, but not very smart. Known during the 70s-80s by industry insiders as "Accidental." I have no idea of how well justified, but that quip didn't come out of nowhete.
Comments
Only then, legislation can be pushed throught which curbs emissions effectively.
But the most most most important thing is the media. They have to be thoroughly de-monopolized.
The only thing that matters in this war is eliminating fossil fuels *demand* - we should stop concerning ourselves with fossil supply entirely.
Plus provides an avenue to improve CCS tech.
Plus, you could eventually pump enough underground to (more than) offset what you’re burning right?
O&G companies are doing worse things…
A leaky EOR well is just bad though...
I say this as not a fan of EOR, and think O@G need to be better with leaks and end of life treatment.
But storage wells built in smart geology don’t simply just leak.
So it's a legit question on how leaky they might be, and how much end of life care is needed to ensure that.
I don't know the answer there...
This may sound oversimplified but it's basically accurate
10,000,000 adults did that, that would be 250,000,000,000 local plants and 250,000,000,000 bags of carbon absorbing top soil.
What % of the overall GHG impact of oil is down to the extraction process, and what’s the % associated with burning the stuff?
I don’t know the answer, but my gut tells me it’s probably something like 10/90. So ‘enhanced recovery’ might take 5% off the total.
But the quantities of GHGs on global scale will be small.