Any time I write a piece about the future of carbon capture and storage (CCS), a bit of a backlash ensues here from some readers here who generally question my sanity for saying anything positive about this sector.
I am 100% against any/all companies involved with CCS projects. They are simply bending the knee to the climate change industrial complex and riding a wave of profits which has nothing to do with saving the planet.
It never ceases to amaze me how billions of carbon-based lifeforms are being convinced that carbon is the enemy. Net Zero = DEATH. If you look back millions of years at the historical values of CO2 levels, we are currently in a period of perilously low levels at approx 180 PPM. All plants die at 150 PPM. If anything, life thrives at higher levels of CO2 than we are at now, so any CCS project is essentially contributing towards our own demise.
Please watch and share this video of a Keynote Address given by Dr. Patrick Moore, Co-Founder and former President of Greenpeace, Director of the CO2 Coalition, and Senior Fellow of The Heartland Institute. Dr. Moore is the ultimate environmental warrior who has walked his talk throughout his entire life. He is among many experts that threaten the industrial climate change complex agenda. https://youtu.be/2H0OxmF7fak
It’s all about politics not science. I was in the oil and gas industry for 45 years. Man made climate change is total BS! The climate changes all the time on this planet all by itself, always has and always will and it has nothing to do with CO2! What caused the last ice age to end and warm the planet back up? It damn sure wasn’t us! According to the real climate scientists the next big climate change is going to be cold not hot and cold is way more dangerous to us warm blooded animals than hot!
Even if you don't believe that carbon and methane are modifying the climate, there is no doubt scientifically speaking that there is increasing carbon in the atmosphere and that a lot of this carbon is then being absorbed by the oceans. This contributes to ocean acidification.
Climate Scientist Roger Pielke Jr., who has gone out of his way to stand up to the climate alarmists, would likely not agree with the statement that "climate change is total BS!".
I get your point that Exxon Mobil simply looks at this from a business perspective. Good for them (regardless of the climate alarmists). But they are scientists and engineers. I suspect that a lot of them are aware of the ocean acidification data. Texas has a big coastline and a fishing industry. Even in Texas, and even at Exxon Mobil, at least a few people must be aware that increased carbon in the atmosphere is contributing to ocean acidification.
As someone who has no expertise in this area, I found this post to be incredibly clarifying. I am far more trusting of carbon capture technology when I see it being praised by someone who is not a climate change alarmist and who genuinely understands the energy sector in an intellectually honest way. If Exxon is putting billions into this area, then I have to agree with Mr Blackmon that there is something to the technology.
And the other beauty about CCS is that it is not an economically regressive policy, like so much that has introduced by the so-called "progressive" Green New Dealers.
The only reason Exxon is putting money into it, besides the giant taxpayer subsidies, is to greenwash their products while pretending someday we will put the CO2 back in the ground, ain't happening. And it helps their ESG score which was on the top 10 vs Tesla was not even in the top 500.
I would agree that’s it’s all BS from a science standpoint, he’ll I asked David if they could reduce some to warm it up here in the northeast, but after representing Big Oil and countries downstream companies, no one knows how to make money like ExxonMobil. If they’re doing it, it’s because they will make money doing it. And if you don’t believe me, listen to Tommy Norris!
I swear i heard that there are government incentives, but Exxon knows these will be finite. I also think i heard that 20-30% of power generated is used in the co2 process. If injected in an old oil reservoir as a CCUS project so that you can recover your lost energy cost with the incremental oil then it’s really good. I hope that long term storage volumes are as high as hoped and that we do not end up with failed cap rock and plumes of deadly co2 at the surface. Standard stuff for Exxon but…
I have been in the upstream industry for 25 years. I have recently had some exposure to CCS in the Gulf of America and along the Louisiana and Texas Gulf coasts. I have seen behind the curtain as to how these CCS projects might be “profitable.” XOM is the only company who has secured CO2 source, transportation and injection sites/facilities. They are to be respected. But the entire model is based on receiving an arbitrary tax credit. No company will squawk louder than XOM if the tax credit went away. IMHO, it’s a house of cards.
I would like to see Trump make the credit for CO2 injection for EOR purposes on par with CO2 for CCS and then let’s see what happens.
Yes, the enhanced investment tax credit is key to the viability of these projects. If it goes away, then XOM will reevaluate and move on. The thing is, it's really hard to see that EITC going away anytime soon since it is now such an enormous driver of U.S. economic growth.
Spot on David. While the notion of a climate crisis is nonsense. The reality is that government is moving in the direction of forcing industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The 2024 election granted the industry a 4-yea (hopefully 12-yr) reprieve from regulatory onslaught. However, this reprieve is unlikely to be permanent.
CCS is the only way we can continue to produce and consume fossil fuels while reducing net GHG emissions. The technology is sound, the geology in the Gulf of America and Gulf Coast region is ideally suited for CCS and CCUS. High quality 2d and 3d seismic data are widely available. The region has more than adequate well control to map competent seals and saline aquifers. CO2 pipeline infrastructure is already present in the region. And the Gulf Coast is home of the highest concentration CO2 emissions sources. The Williston Basin is similarly suited for CCS/CCUS.
No there are lots of ways of reducing GHG emissions without CCS. i.e. reforestation, de-desertification, methanol production from wildfire causing forest overgrowth, or flue gases or seawater carbonic acid, which can directly replace oil & gas products for transportation, electricity and heating applications.
And building floating nuclear power plants in the vast majority of our oceans that are basically deserts due to lack of nutrients. The NPPs can pump up nutrient rich sediment from the seabed causing phytoplankton blooms which intern feed zooplankton & a entire marine ecosystem. Which would greatly increase wild fish stocks.
Also a paper on detonating a large nuclear explosive below the deep seabed which fractures basalt rock leading to a vast increase in CO2 absorption in the ocean, enough to displace dozens of years of fossil emissions.
All of these methods are almost certain to be far lower cost than CCS or CCUS. As well as being a whole lot more effective.
That's not what they've been claiming, they've been investing in wind & solar industrial sites so as to reduce their "net GHG emissions", largely illusory reductions but make good publicity and earn ESG points.
It would be irrational to spend $300/tonne of CO2 sequestered directly, when you can pay $10/tonne to sequester the same CO2 by tree planting, since it all ends up in the atmosphere anyway
"Illusory reductions" aren't net reductions. "Illusory reductions" are greenwashing. There are many CO2 sources that can be sequestered for less than $50/t (ethanol, gas processing and LNG ). With the 45Q tax credit at $85/t, the "low hanging fruit" are at least marginally economic.
If the Class VI UIC permitting process wasn't so arduous, it wouldn't be too difficult to produce oil & gas with a Scope 1 and 2 carbon-negative footprint. Scope 3 might even be possible. Denbury (now Exxon) has quite a few Scope 3 carbon-negative fields... Although this is through CCUS (CO2 EOR), which falls under Class II UIC, a much easier perming process.
You can speculate that $50/tonne is achievable but that is not proven. At any significant scale I would say that is dubious and there are a lot of unknowns, including earthquake causation, potentially deadly leakage, leasing problems, EPA monitoring requirements etc.
The reality is there is no way CCS can compete with other methods of carbon avoidance, including seawater extraction for $20/tonne, and therefore deserves no subsidy whatsoever apart from possibly some R&D funding.
Carbon capture for enhanced oil recovery, however, is likely viable in certain optimal locations.
This is part of what makes the Class VI permitting so arduous: "earthquake causation, potentially deadly leakage, leasing problems, EPA monitoring requirements." As long as you know where the old wells are, leakage isn't a significant risk. With modern 3d seismic data, it's not too difficult to place injection wells far enough away from faults.
Proper siting of the injection wells easily mitigates the geophysical and leakage hazards. Onshore, leasing is a huge headache. Offshore, it's much less of a headache because the surface and mineral/pore space owner is one in the same - the government. In Texas state waters, it's the General Land Office, which is actively promoting CCS projects.
When an oil company already has the 3d data, knows the geology, knows how to drill wells in a particular area and has a shot of at least a marginally economic project, why would it spend money planting trees?
Fortunately, it's pretty well a mot point for the next 4 years, hopefully 12 years.
We would like to see more thermodynamic and economic (thermo-economic) evidence of CCS. Just want to make sure that oil and gas companies are not getting subsidies, grants, forgivable loans from the government to build these projects.
well then I look forward to Exxon detailing the business case for CCS - what exactly are the cost savings or revenue associated with these massive expenditures - remember when Exxon went whole hog into the typewriter business in the 90's - they are not infallible
I am doing a lot of work in the CCS and methane capture space, mostly related to the associated tax incentives.
CCS can also be used for enhanced oil recovery. Methane capture is primarily focused on processing into CNG.
The capture-reprocessing space is all about ensuring that a large percentage of all energy generated is repurposed into useful forms rather than floating around in the atmosphere.
I am hosting a webinar in a couple of weeks with some representatives from the CCS industry
You mention Shell, BP, and Equinor (as well as Exxon). I'd be curious to know your thoughts and interactions with with Chevron, Suncor and Sinclair, both generally, and with respect to CCS.
I really don't have any first-hand interactions with Suncor or Sinclair. Chevron is very healthy although currently challenged with this Hess-related arbitration with XOM. Assuming that takeover finally does go through, Chevron will be poised for tremendous growth in the coming decade. If it doesn't, it's a big problem.
Chevron is at war with Gruesome Newsom at this very moment. Wirth has stated that if Newsom prevails, Chevron will shut down entirely.
This illustrates quite clearly what happens when you feed the “sustainability” and “Net zero” baby crocodiles. They grow up and eat you and your kids.
I ask this: When the debt piling 45Q is expended, and it will be, where will carbon revenues come from then? This mass validation will absolutely lead to carbon control, fees, taxes and tariffs AS INTENDED!
Being a globalist tool is wrong, regardless of short term gains.
Thank you for that very detailed and concise answer since I'm the guy that started this! And it was a sincere question from somebody who's not in your industry. So thanks for your very succinct and considered response.
I'm not a Petroleum Engineer, but my understanding is that injecting CO2 into formations helps to reclaim more oil. If that's the case, then they can blow Gore's hot air down there and get paid for it.
What I'm against is to buy into the lie of man-caused climate change, and help propagate that lie which is going to eventually turn the free world into a third world, if that lie is not put down like a rabid dog.
Its much like someone playing along with a misguided soul's assertion that they are some other gender than what they were born. Playing along with lies never ends well. Its like how Target was making money selling clothing specially designed for "trans-gender" young adults. Just because they wear really tight clothing to hide body parts doesn't make them the opposite gender. But it fuels the lie they are believing.
And when Exxon plays into the "climate change" lie, that give the liars something to say, "See, even the oil companies know its true!"
I am 100% against any/all companies involved with CCS projects. They are simply bending the knee to the climate change industrial complex and riding a wave of profits which has nothing to do with saving the planet.
It never ceases to amaze me how billions of carbon-based lifeforms are being convinced that carbon is the enemy. Net Zero = DEATH. If you look back millions of years at the historical values of CO2 levels, we are currently in a period of perilously low levels at approx 180 PPM. All plants die at 150 PPM. If anything, life thrives at higher levels of CO2 than we are at now, so any CCS project is essentially contributing towards our own demise.
Please watch and share this video of a Keynote Address given by Dr. Patrick Moore, Co-Founder and former President of Greenpeace, Director of the CO2 Coalition, and Senior Fellow of The Heartland Institute. Dr. Moore is the ultimate environmental warrior who has walked his talk throughout his entire life. He is among many experts that threaten the industrial climate change complex agenda. https://youtu.be/2H0OxmF7fak
Moore is great, sad that his name is tainted with his former Greenpeace affiliation.
It’s all about politics not science. I was in the oil and gas industry for 45 years. Man made climate change is total BS! The climate changes all the time on this planet all by itself, always has and always will and it has nothing to do with CO2! What caused the last ice age to end and warm the planet back up? It damn sure wasn’t us! According to the real climate scientists the next big climate change is going to be cold not hot and cold is way more dangerous to us warm blooded animals than hot!
I don't disagree but that's not my point.
Even if you don't believe that carbon and methane are modifying the climate, there is no doubt scientifically speaking that there is increasing carbon in the atmosphere and that a lot of this carbon is then being absorbed by the oceans. This contributes to ocean acidification.
Climate Scientist Roger Pielke Jr., who has gone out of his way to stand up to the climate alarmists, would likely not agree with the statement that "climate change is total BS!".
I get your point that Exxon Mobil simply looks at this from a business perspective. Good for them (regardless of the climate alarmists). But they are scientists and engineers. I suspect that a lot of them are aware of the ocean acidification data. Texas has a big coastline and a fishing industry. Even in Texas, and even at Exxon Mobil, at least a few people must be aware that increased carbon in the atmosphere is contributing to ocean acidification.
The ocean isn't being acidified, that's false. The ocean is alkaline and will remain alkaline. Watch Dr. Patrick Moore who explains that BS, @ 41m47s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H0OxmF7fak
I like it for squeezing more oil out of the ground and puttin' the fizz in Bubble Up.
I think I can honestly say that this is the first Bubble Up! reference to ever appear at my Substack. LOL!
Merle Haggard sang about free Bubble Up! and Rainbow Stew. Throw in a solar panel and a windmill and you've a Green New Deal.
As someone who has no expertise in this area, I found this post to be incredibly clarifying. I am far more trusting of carbon capture technology when I see it being praised by someone who is not a climate change alarmist and who genuinely understands the energy sector in an intellectually honest way. If Exxon is putting billions into this area, then I have to agree with Mr Blackmon that there is something to the technology.
And the other beauty about CCS is that it is not an economically regressive policy, like so much that has introduced by the so-called "progressive" Green New Dealers.
The only reason Exxon is putting money into it, besides the giant taxpayer subsidies, is to greenwash their products while pretending someday we will put the CO2 back in the ground, ain't happening. And it helps their ESG score which was on the top 10 vs Tesla was not even in the top 500.
I would agree that’s it’s all BS from a science standpoint, he’ll I asked David if they could reduce some to warm it up here in the northeast, but after representing Big Oil and countries downstream companies, no one knows how to make money like ExxonMobil. If they’re doing it, it’s because they will make money doing it. And if you don’t believe me, listen to Tommy Norris!
https://youtu.be/fmbZwxEnAFc?si=sK1-QWDwGanLy_vA
Yeah, make money in giant subsidies, subsidies not given to rational methods.
I swear i heard that there are government incentives, but Exxon knows these will be finite. I also think i heard that 20-30% of power generated is used in the co2 process. If injected in an old oil reservoir as a CCUS project so that you can recover your lost energy cost with the incremental oil then it’s really good. I hope that long term storage volumes are as high as hoped and that we do not end up with failed cap rock and plumes of deadly co2 at the surface. Standard stuff for Exxon but…
I have been in the upstream industry for 25 years. I have recently had some exposure to CCS in the Gulf of America and along the Louisiana and Texas Gulf coasts. I have seen behind the curtain as to how these CCS projects might be “profitable.” XOM is the only company who has secured CO2 source, transportation and injection sites/facilities. They are to be respected. But the entire model is based on receiving an arbitrary tax credit. No company will squawk louder than XOM if the tax credit went away. IMHO, it’s a house of cards.
I would like to see Trump make the credit for CO2 injection for EOR purposes on par with CO2 for CCS and then let’s see what happens.
Yes, the enhanced investment tax credit is key to the viability of these projects. If it goes away, then XOM will reevaluate and move on. The thing is, it's really hard to see that EITC going away anytime soon since it is now such an enormous driver of U.S. economic growth.
Spot on David. While the notion of a climate crisis is nonsense. The reality is that government is moving in the direction of forcing industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The 2024 election granted the industry a 4-yea (hopefully 12-yr) reprieve from regulatory onslaught. However, this reprieve is unlikely to be permanent.
CCS is the only way we can continue to produce and consume fossil fuels while reducing net GHG emissions. The technology is sound, the geology in the Gulf of America and Gulf Coast region is ideally suited for CCS and CCUS. High quality 2d and 3d seismic data are widely available. The region has more than adequate well control to map competent seals and saline aquifers. CO2 pipeline infrastructure is already present in the region. And the Gulf Coast is home of the highest concentration CO2 emissions sources. The Williston Basin is similarly suited for CCS/CCUS.
No there are lots of ways of reducing GHG emissions without CCS. i.e. reforestation, de-desertification, methanol production from wildfire causing forest overgrowth, or flue gases or seawater carbonic acid, which can directly replace oil & gas products for transportation, electricity and heating applications.
And building floating nuclear power plants in the vast majority of our oceans that are basically deserts due to lack of nutrients. The NPPs can pump up nutrient rich sediment from the seabed causing phytoplankton blooms which intern feed zooplankton & a entire marine ecosystem. Which would greatly increase wild fish stocks.
Also a paper on detonating a large nuclear explosive below the deep seabed which fractures basalt rock leading to a vast increase in CO2 absorption in the ocean, enough to displace dozens of years of fossil emissions.
All of these methods are almost certain to be far lower cost than CCS or CCUS. As well as being a whole lot more effective.
"CCS is the only way we can continue to produce and consume fossil fuels while reducing net GHG emissions."
The "we" in my statement refers to the oil & gas industry.
That's not what they've been claiming, they've been investing in wind & solar industrial sites so as to reduce their "net GHG emissions", largely illusory reductions but make good publicity and earn ESG points.
It would be irrational to spend $300/tonne of CO2 sequestered directly, when you can pay $10/tonne to sequester the same CO2 by tree planting, since it all ends up in the atmosphere anyway
"Illusory reductions" aren't net reductions. "Illusory reductions" are greenwashing. There are many CO2 sources that can be sequestered for less than $50/t (ethanol, gas processing and LNG ). With the 45Q tax credit at $85/t, the "low hanging fruit" are at least marginally economic.
If the Class VI UIC permitting process wasn't so arduous, it wouldn't be too difficult to produce oil & gas with a Scope 1 and 2 carbon-negative footprint. Scope 3 might even be possible. Denbury (now Exxon) has quite a few Scope 3 carbon-negative fields... Although this is through CCUS (CO2 EOR), which falls under Class II UIC, a much easier perming process.
You can speculate that $50/tonne is achievable but that is not proven. At any significant scale I would say that is dubious and there are a lot of unknowns, including earthquake causation, potentially deadly leakage, leasing problems, EPA monitoring requirements etc.
The reality is there is no way CCS can compete with other methods of carbon avoidance, including seawater extraction for $20/tonne, and therefore deserves no subsidy whatsoever apart from possibly some R&D funding.
Carbon capture for enhanced oil recovery, however, is likely viable in certain optimal locations.
This is part of what makes the Class VI permitting so arduous: "earthquake causation, potentially deadly leakage, leasing problems, EPA monitoring requirements." As long as you know where the old wells are, leakage isn't a significant risk. With modern 3d seismic data, it's not too difficult to place injection wells far enough away from faults.
Proper siting of the injection wells easily mitigates the geophysical and leakage hazards. Onshore, leasing is a huge headache. Offshore, it's much less of a headache because the surface and mineral/pore space owner is one in the same - the government. In Texas state waters, it's the General Land Office, which is actively promoting CCS projects.
When an oil company already has the 3d data, knows the geology, knows how to drill wells in a particular area and has a shot of at least a marginally economic project, why would it spend money planting trees?
Fortunately, it's pretty well a mot point for the next 4 years, hopefully 12 years.
We would like to see more thermodynamic and economic (thermo-economic) evidence of CCS. Just want to make sure that oil and gas companies are not getting subsidies, grants, forgivable loans from the government to build these projects.
They are. It is entirely uneconomic, except possibly CCUS in some cases.
well then I look forward to Exxon detailing the business case for CCS - what exactly are the cost savings or revenue associated with these massive expenditures - remember when Exxon went whole hog into the typewriter business in the 90's - they are not infallible
They do this in their quarterly investor disclosures. Their investors are extremely happy these days. BP's and Shell's investors aren't.
Those cost savings are entirely due to subsidies. Although I'm not sure what the ROI on enhanced oil recovery is, in areas that is viable.
I am doing a lot of work in the CCS and methane capture space, mostly related to the associated tax incentives.
CCS can also be used for enhanced oil recovery. Methane capture is primarily focused on processing into CNG.
The capture-reprocessing space is all about ensuring that a large percentage of all energy generated is repurposed into useful forms rather than floating around in the atmosphere.
I am hosting a webinar in a couple of weeks with some representatives from the CCS industry
I followed you. I will look out for the information about your webinar.
Carbon capture technology (different from the method used by Exxon Mobil) by injecting C02 into brucite deposits:
https://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/local-news/site-near-prince-george-picked-to-launch-carbon-capturingsequestering-project-10077267
You mention Shell, BP, and Equinor (as well as Exxon). I'd be curious to know your thoughts and interactions with with Chevron, Suncor and Sinclair, both generally, and with respect to CCS.
I really don't have any first-hand interactions with Suncor or Sinclair. Chevron is very healthy although currently challenged with this Hess-related arbitration with XOM. Assuming that takeover finally does go through, Chevron will be poised for tremendous growth in the coming decade. If it doesn't, it's a big problem.
Chevron is at war with Gruesome Newsom at this very moment. Wirth has stated that if Newsom prevails, Chevron will shut down entirely.
This illustrates quite clearly what happens when you feed the “sustainability” and “Net zero” baby crocodiles. They grow up and eat you and your kids.
I ask this: When the debt piling 45Q is expended, and it will be, where will carbon revenues come from then? This mass validation will absolutely lead to carbon control, fees, taxes and tariffs AS INTENDED!
Being a globalist tool is wrong, regardless of short term gains.
Thanks for this information. I will look into the Hess/XOM arbitration. Good to know.
Because I drive a diesel fueled car, I appreciate that most Chevron gas stations have diesel and that their stations are very well maintained.
I had a look at the one year and five year stock performance of Exxon Mobil, Suncor and Chevron. Quite good for all three.
Sinclair's performance is not quite as good, but the sentimental in me loves their dinosaur logo.
Thank you for that very detailed and concise answer since I'm the guy that started this! And it was a sincere question from somebody who's not in your industry. So thanks for your very succinct and considered response.
I'm sure Ford executives thought the same thing about EVs
How does a company make money with CCS? Sell CO2? Is this more tax payer funded grift?
I'm not a Petroleum Engineer, but my understanding is that injecting CO2 into formations helps to reclaim more oil. If that's the case, then they can blow Gore's hot air down there and get paid for it.
What I'm against is to buy into the lie of man-caused climate change, and help propagate that lie which is going to eventually turn the free world into a third world, if that lie is not put down like a rabid dog.
Its much like someone playing along with a misguided soul's assertion that they are some other gender than what they were born. Playing along with lies never ends well. Its like how Target was making money selling clothing specially designed for "trans-gender" young adults. Just because they wear really tight clothing to hide body parts doesn't make them the opposite gender. But it fuels the lie they are believing.
And when Exxon plays into the "climate change" lie, that give the liars something to say, "See, even the oil companies know its true!"