6 ms·

Exxon bets carbon will be the new oil

88 points by mfiguiere 3y ago

throw0101a 3y ago
Current refrigerants (e.g., R-410) have large global warming potentials (GWP) when they inevitably leak into the atmosphere, so there's a move to other chemicals. On of the leading contenders (at least in the commercial/industrial space) is actually CO2 (R-744): * https://www.hpacmag.com/features/co2-as-a-refrigerant-yesco2/ https://www.hpacmag.com/features/co2-as-a-refrigerant-yesco2... * https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/Applied/Chapt.7_11/Chapter9.html https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/Applied/Chapt.7_11/Ch... * https://blog.isa.org/why-co2-is-the-most-promising-refrigerant-in-the-cooling-industry https://blog.isa.org/why-co2-is-the-most-promising-refrigera... * https://plumbingandhvac.ca/co2-refrigeration/ https://plumbingandhvac.ca/co2-refrigeration/ * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Refrigerant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Refrigerant CO2 has GWP=1, and just about everything else is higher.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  A disadvantage of CO2 as a refrigerant is the operating pressure required, much higher than CFC or HFC type refrigerants. This is probably not a big issue for industrial applications but for home and auto use it will probably affect cost and/or reliability.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Don't forget propane, a historically common refrigerant with a GWP less than 1.
  - throwawaymobule 3y ago
    It's a shame it's flammable, or it'd be a no-brainer to use it everywhere.
photochemsyn 3y ago
The real rationale is a few paragraphs down: > "For now, Denbury’s pipeline network isn’t really low carbon, but instead will function as an extension of Exxon’s normal oil business. Today the CO2 carried in the pipelines is used for “enhanced oil recovery,” a process in which it is injected into oil wells to push out the last few drops." All the DOE-funded 'clean coal' and similar CCS schemes were all conveniently set up near end-of-life oilfields, and whatever CO2 they produced was used to help get the last few barrels out. Of course the CO2 is carrying the oil so it's mostly lost to the atmosphere during the processing/refining stage. Carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels has been nothing but a massive fraud; capturing and burying 100% of the carbon from coal would take significantly more energy than you can get from burning that amount of coal. Notably, data about this key ration (energy cost per ton of buried carbon vs. energy cost from burning the source fuel) is hidden on the private side of DOE public-private partnerships and can't be accessed by the public, even by FOIA requests. CCS is literally one of the biggest scientific frauds perpetrated on the public in the history of the DOE.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- chmod600 3y ago
  “capturing and burying 100% of the carbon” What about 50%? Does the cost go up as you try to capture a larger percentage?
  - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
    From my understanding the cost is in the technology and energy required. Essentially, you burn more fossil fuels trying to inject it at any level than the carbon you put in. And something like this couldn’t be run on renewables as is, you’d need a rather large amount of batteries which is so incredibly expensive at this point in time. So cost and carbon output make geological sequestration impractical. However, when used for “enhanced oil extraction”, it easily covers the costs and carbon output worries. They wouldn’t do it if it wasn’t profitable, and despite the article’s claims they are not in the business of carbon neutrality.
luhn 3y ago
> Exxon’s vision is that eventually these pipelines will ferry CO2 captured from industrial point sources like cement and steel plants, and potentially from natural gas power plants, and transport it to underground rock formations or old oil wells where it could be buried (Denbury also owns a number of large sites for carbon sequestration). Color me skeptical. The article offers no supporting evidence that this is Exxon's "vision", and then hits us with this: > For now, Denbury’s pipeline network isn’t really low carbon, but instead will function as an extension of Exxon’s normal oil business. Today the CO2 carried in the pipelines is used for “enhanced oil recovery,” a process in which it is injected into oil wells to push out the last few drops. Sounds like they made the acquisition for their current fossil fuel business, not a bet that "carbon will be the new oil." And as a cherry on top: > The company plans to double the size of its liquefied natural gas business by 2030, an executive said this week, with a focus on buyers in Asia.
- throwaway33381 3y ago
  It sounds more like an excuse to continue to output oil while doing absolutely nothing to stop the further degradation of out environment.
  - azinman2 3y ago
    It shouldn’t be a surprise. They’re an oil and gas company, with gigantic investments in that space, a culture that supports it, knowledge to do it, politics solved for it, and a crap ton of inertia. The expectation that they’d pivot is far less likely than likely. This isn’t a sector known for disruption outside of new ways to extract.
    - csnover 3y ago
      The insane thing about this is to me that Exxon did seem to have ideas about pivoting away from oil and gas in the 1970s[0]. They funded research that brought down the cost of solar panels five-fold and started manufacturing and selling their own panels[1], they developed the lithium-ion battery[2], and they created subsidiaries for servicing the nuclear power industry[3], among other things. I’ve never understood the obstructionist position of these oil execs. If you want to make a shitload of money, why not push for development of some emerging industry like renewables where all the infrastructure has to be built up from nothing? That could be money you are getting paid to build it. Instead, now it’s money going to some other company. [0] https://www.desmog.com/s1ep1-bell-labs-energy/ https://www.desmog.com/s1ep1-bell-labs-energy/ [1] https://www.npr.org/2019/09/30/763844598/how-big-oil-of-the-past-helped-launch-the-solar-industry-of-today https://www.npr.org/2019/09/30/763844598/how-big-oil-of-the-... [2] https://www.bupipedream.com/news/49390/prof-whittingham/ https://www.bupipedream.com/news/49390/prof-whittingham/ [3] https://www.nytimes.com/1976/03/14/archives/exxons-innovative-little-offshoots-the-offshoots-of-exxon.html https://www.nytimes.com/1976/03/14/archives/exxons-innovativ...
arbuge 3y ago
Key points: "Carbon management is becoming increasingly popular with oil companies, since it plays to their know-how in trading, transporting, and storing molecules (as opposed to electrons from renewable energy, which are an entirely different business). ... It also allows Exxon to tap one of the most lucrative tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act: $85 per ton of CO2 that is permanently stored underground. "
collaborative 3y ago
Summary: https://tinyurl.com/22452u66 https://tinyurl.com/22452u66
zitterbewegung 3y ago
Isn’t it more likely to be water (and probably more like fresh water ) ? It’s hard to desalinate already and we have been more and more heat and droughts that keep on being said they are of the century or historic and those words are losing their meaning
formulathree 3y ago
Get paid for selling oil for people to burn. Get paid for capturing carbon from burned oil. It's not exactly in conflict with their current business model.
kdamica 3y ago
I would bet that this is not going to happen unless someone finds an industrial use for all that carbon. I’m not an expert but it seems like it would be much more efficient to invest in low carbon energy and manufacturing tech than to build a ton of infrastructure for sequestration.
- ckrapu 3y ago
  If the story of Earth were a novel and the current chapter introduced both global warming and the advent of carbon-based manufacturing, it would almost feel too contrived of a setup.
- notJim 3y ago
  The issue is that some things are difficult to decarbonize because they emit carbon directly due to chemical processes or use gas for process heat. There is a lot of investigation into whether these can be decarbonized economically, but a lot of it is still fairly early stages. It makes sense to have a variety of solutions available, especially for the short term.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ckrapu 3y ago
When I think about carbon extraction and storage, I get the same feeling as when I read about the ancients discovering oil seeps and surface deposits of hydrocarbons. They knew that they could be harnessed for keeping fires lit and even sometimes associated them with the supernatural. They just lacked the tech and industrial background to use them. We know that carbon is essential for life and if we ever engineer useful organisms to build structures or produce macroscale goods (as opposed to pharmaceuticals or food), then clearly carbon will be one of the main limiting factors, along with energy and water. It just feels like we will one day look back at this and think “why didn’t we just try to use it instead of burying it?”
- IX-103 3y ago
  I don't see how "carbon will be one of the main limiting factors". Carbon is abundant in our environment -- it's around 0.03% of it and is spread evenly enough that you can always find it. It's even relatively common in the universe. What is hard to find - and has always been hard to find is cheap energy. And carbon dioxide is essentially the lowest energy state for carbon. It's a dead end as far as energy goes. That's why it's a waste product. If you want to build useful structures then you're still subject to thermodynamics, whether you're using "organisms" to do it or not. So using graphite or any other form of carbon would be a better source of carbon than CO2. The only reason to use CO2 is that it is commonly available (which is why plants use it). And again, no one is proposing removing all the CO2, just enough to keep us in this little ice age we have been enjoying. So there's no reason to worry about running out.
- throwawaymobule 3y ago
  At least it could be unburied if it's needed in the future. Same with many landfills, when the value of non-recycled junk in there is higher than reprocessing it.
jokoon 3y ago
oil made those companies rich, but there is no proof that the vision of a rich company will have any value or offer an worthy insight into the future. important reminder: CO2 is an oxide and requires A LOT OF ENERGY to break down. so unless they can genetically engineer some kind of moss like in Robinson climate trilogy, it's highly doubtful they will achieve anything worthwhile
geonaut 3y ago
“ExxonMobil… [acquired]… a smaller Texas oil and gas company with the U.S.’s largest network of pipelines designed to carry carbon dioxide.” There was a great episode of the Volts podcast, about a startup aiming to make synthetic shipping fuel (methanol), where waste CO2 was one of the main inputs. Some good discussion of where they sourced their CO2, and the practicalities of CO2 distribution. https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/volts/id1548554104?i=1000618646271 https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/volts/id1548554104?i=1...
ttonkytonk 3y ago
Asking Exxon to take action to prevent global warming is like asking the foxes to guard the hen house: https://tz.linkedin.com/posts/alisheridan_assessing-exxonmobils-global-warming-projections-activity-7019746574750613504-dFWm https://tz.linkedin.com/posts/alisheridan_assessing-exxonmob...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
juujian 3y ago
They're going to charge us twice. Once for emitting it, second time for sequestering it. The fight for subsidies up here in Canada is insane. The electricity generated is already more expensive then renewables, and soon they can pad their margins with novelty projects that may or may not pan out, while telling us in their annual reports how great they are.
- gruez 3y ago
  >They're going to charge us twice. Once for emitting it, second time for sequestering it. The local water utility charges you once for providing the water, and another time for treating it (ie. sewers). Are you similarly outraged?
  - acdha 3y ago
    Did the local water utility know sewage was a problem half a century ago but spend decades denying that, encouraging excessive use, and preventing development of treatment systems or alternatives? That’s why this analogy doesn’t work: water is a hard requirement. Fossil fuels can be replaced easily in many applications.
philips 3y ago
It is important to remember how poorly the first experiments in carbon transport and storage have gone. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36021530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36021530 https://ieefa.org/resources/norways-sleipner-and-snohvit-ccs-industry-models-or-cautionary-tales https://ieefa.org/resources/norways-sleipner-and-snohvit-ccs...
- rotexo 3y ago
  This is a really good point. I wasn’t at all aware of this case study. Makes me suddenly very pessimistic about carbon dioxide removal efforts as well.
jansan 3y ago
Stupid question, can't the CO2 just be dissolved in (deep) sea water?
- Kye 3y ago
  CO2 dissolving into water is killing the ocean as we speak.
  - jansan 3y ago
    That is just on the surface, right? The mass of CO2 relased into the air per year compared to total sea water on earth is approx 1/35000. Does is really make such a big difference if dissolved in deep sea water?
    - Kye 3y ago
      We know basically nothing about the ocean other than it's where almost all our oxygen comes from, and we have no way to know what the tipping point is. Assuming we're too small to affect the environment is how we got here. And we know from effects of climate change above the surface that it doesn't have to be cataclysmic to cause trouble. There could be all kinds of nasty things in store that are even harder to predict with how hard it is to explore and study the oceans. We don't even have an accurate map of it.
      - jansan 3y ago
        That sounds like "I just don't want that!". We don't need a map to know how dissolved CO2 influences acidity of sea water. Trust the science, bro.
        IX-103 3y ago
        "Trust the science, bro." There is much more involved than how dissolved CO2 affects ocean acidity. CO2 has a number of other affects on both biological and chemical systems that shift equilibriums. Understanding how injecting CO2 would affect deep ocean ecosystems (and indirectly upper ocean layers and climate through layer interchange) when we only have a rudimentary understanding of the deep sea ecosystem is not a matter of science. It's the realm of prophecy and hubris. I'm not saying that deep-water injections of CO2 are dangerous. But that at the current level of science we don't even know what we don't know about the possible affects that would have. And with the large amounts of energy required to sequester and pump carbon dioxide into the sea, it would be best if we understood the costs as well as the benefits of such an approach before we started.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
I feel like this title is the definition of "anti-clickbait" to me (i.e. I don't even want to read the article because of the title), because it makes no sense. Oil is primarily an energy source. When we talk about "carbon" in the context of climate change we're usually talking about carbon dioxide, which is a byproduct of energy generation that itself contains no consumable energy. Saying "carbon will be the new oil" is like saying my poop will be my new food source - it just doesn't make sense.
- xNeil 3y ago
  To be honest, I think "poop will be my new food source" makes perfect sense. But that might just be me.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    Remind me to pass on any of your dinner parties...
    - xNeil 3y ago
      Haha :) I meant in a grammatical sense.
1letterunixname 3y ago
Too little, too late by the fox guarding the henhouse. I hope government subsidies and the insurance industry bitch slap manufacturing and petrochem to drive rapid deployment of substantial projects involving oceanic bio-GMO CCS at scale because they won't by so-called "invisible hand" market forces alone until billions are on the move, hypercanes are obliterating continents, and waves are lapping at the NYSE building. It's an emergency, and delay, half-measures, and planting trees isn't going to cut it.
lincon127 3y ago
Carbon Capture from industrial point sources is extremely expensive and extremely ineffective. so I doubt that's going to be a thing. The only way I could see CC paying off is if big companies keep lobbying for government grants and taxpayers money to go towards their shite projects so they can abandon them halfway through anyway. This'll keep the prospect of "clean methods" of operating dirty industries in everyone's brain space through political and astroturfed mouthpieces, people will start to believe it and oil companies will once again reap the rewards of mass confusion
- nukeman 3y ago
  It’s still a point source, and thus cheaper and easier than direct air capture. I don’t think it will be as significant as some think it will be (we will likely move toward different processes for the remaining limited petrochemical production), it is likely to still be important for some industries.
hannob 3y ago
It's nonsense like this that makes a more rational debate around carbon capture difficult. Yes, CCS will likely have to play some role in a future decarbonized society, e.g. for cement production. But it's not a plausible lifeline for fossil fuel companies. The vast bulk of emission reductions need to come from phasing down fossil fuel use, and that is fundamentally incompatible with their business model. (shameless self plug: I tried to write down my view on the whole CCS issue recently: https://industrydecarbonization.com/news/can-ccs-escape-from-its-fossil-fuel-industry-roots.html https://industrydecarbonization.com/news/can-ccs-escape-from... )
- bushwik 3y ago
  > It's nonsense like this that makes a more rational debate around carbon capture difficult. such a great point and couldn't agree more. in the US, I'm seeing more ethanol & chemical companies adopting carbon capture right now, not fossil fuel companies. it will be interesting to see how it evolves in the next couple years. > (shameless self plug: I tried to write down my view on the whole CCS issue recently: https://industrydecarbonization.com/news/can-ccs-escape-from https://industrydecarbonization.com/news/can-ccs-escape-from... ) subscribed! and you can follow some of the north america projects at https://decarbonfuse.com https://decarbonfuse.com
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
coffeeshopgoth 3y ago
Exxon is a behemoth that spreads its money over everything just to catch something - and even that is done poorly over there. They do have a number of legacy fields that if not already on CO2 flooding, may become candidates in their eyes soon. But that is where "being done poorly" comes in again. CO2 flooding, like water flooding, should start sooner than later to catch a certain pressure and oil/water amount/quality regime in the reservoir. Guaranteed, they will try to make it look like they are being sustainable by showing off how they are using the CO2, recycling it and, at some point, sequestering it, but it will be done in the most inefficient manner possible and probably result in losing a good amount of CO2 to the atmosphere due to poor field oversight of the equipment. Challenges that will come up due to whatever stage a reservoir might be in: https://www.mdpi.com/energies/energies-10-00345/article_deploy/html/images/energies-10-00345-g001.png https://www.mdpi.com/energies/energies-10-00345/article_depl...
fwungy 3y ago
Climate Change is the essence of "Intractable Problems". There is tremendous wealth in oil reserves that is outside the control of the G7 countries: Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia. There is also demand for this oil from non-G7 nations who simply don't have the money to go carbon free without descent into starvation, poverty and chaos. Going carbon free on a big enough scale to impact the climate, according to existing models, requires getting these petroleum reserve holders to give up their massive wealth in exchange for little to nothing, and large developing economies to destabilize themselves to go carbon neutral. IT ISN"T GOING TO HAPPEN. Poor Indians and Chinese aren't going to give up their opportunity to secure better lives for themselves for the sake of the climate. We need to be thinking in terms of mitigations and technologies that reduce climate impacts while being economically sensible. Yes, it's not optimal, but choices made in the real world rarely are, and as adults we must learn to make them.
- briantakita 3y ago
  > Going carbon free on a big enough scale to impact the climate, according to existing models, requires getting these petroleum reserve holders to give up their massive wealth in exchange for little to nothing, and large developing economies to destabilize themselves to go carbon neutral. The climate will continue to change even if humanity goes carbon free. When it comes to climate, the only constant is change. > Poor Indians and Chinese aren't going to give up their opportunity to secure better lives for themselves for the sake of the climate. Or fall for the NeoColonialist trap of paying taxes to financial markets to "save the world". Instead, the producer nations will leverage their positions as commodities become more valuable.
bushwik 3y ago
Carbon is definitely not the new oil. My hope is that carbon becomes the feedstock of the future (with a long way to go). Exxon is an easy target in this but there are many other companies and industries that are working towards carbon capture. I'm working with ethanol producers, co2 utilization companies, direct air capture, and other capture technology companies to move the carbon management industry forward. Exxon will be a player but not THE player in carbon management. The article fails to mention that Denbury has several Class VI well permits (these are the wells where CO2 is injected) in areas near Denbury pipelines. Everyone will talk about the Gulf Coast as the strategic reason but Denbury's pipeline in Wyoming will be key to advancing the industry since Wyoming and North Dakota have authority over the Class VI wells today. I've heard estimates of 40 million tons of CO2 storage capacity in one of the Wyoming projects (that's just one of several projects). Disclosure: I monitor carbon management at https://decarbonfuse.com https://decarbonfuse.com by tracking the ccus, dac, and beccs projects in North America.

88 points by mfiguiere 3y ago

Current refrigerants (e.g., R-410) have large global warming potentials (GWP) when they inevitably leak into the atmosphere, so there's a move to other chemicals. On of the leading contenders (at least in the commercial/industrial space) is actually CO2 (R-744): * https://www.hpacmag.com/features/co2-as-a-refrigerant-yesco2/ https://www.hpacmag.com/features/co2-as-a-refrigerant-yesco2... * https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/Applied/Chapt.7_11/Chapter9.html https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/Applied/Chapt.7_11/Ch... * https://blog.isa.org/why-co2-is-the-most-promising-refrigerant-in-the-cooling-industry https://blog.isa.org/why-co2-is-the-most-promising-refrigera... * https://plumbingandhvac.ca/co2-refrigeration/ https://plumbingandhvac.ca/co2-refrigeration/ * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Refrigerant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Refrigerant CO2 has GWP=1, and just about everything else is higher.

SoftTalker 3y ago
A disadvantage of CO2 as a refrigerant is the operating pressure required, much higher than CFC or HFC type refrigerants. This is probably not a big issue for industrial applications but for home and auto use it will probably affect cost and/or reliability.
Dylan16807 3y ago
Don't forget propane, a historically common refrigerant with a GWP less than 1.
- throwawaymobule 3y ago
  It's a shame it's flammable, or it'd be a no-brainer to use it everywhere.

photochemsyn 3y ago

The real rationale is a few paragraphs down: > "For now, Denbury’s pipeline network isn’t really low carbon, but instead will function as an extension of Exxon’s normal oil business. Today the CO2 carried in the pipelines is used for “enhanced oil recovery,” a process in which it is injected into oil wells to push out the last few drops." All the DOE-funded 'clean coal' and similar CCS schemes were all conveniently set up near end-of-life oilfields, and whatever CO2 they produced was used to help get the last few barrels out. Of course the CO2 is carrying the oil so it's mostly lost to the atmosphere during the processing/refining stage. Carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels has been nothing but a massive fraud; capturing and burying 100% of the carbon from coal would take significantly more energy than you can get from burning that amount of coal. Notably, data about this key ration (energy cost per ton of buried carbon vs. energy cost from burning the source fuel) is hidden on the private side of DOE public-private partnerships and can't be accessed by the public, even by FOIA requests. CCS is literally one of the biggest scientific frauds perpetrated on the public in the history of the DOE.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
chmod600 3y ago
“capturing and burying 100% of the carbon” What about 50%? Does the cost go up as you try to capture a larger percentage?
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago
  From my understanding the cost is in the technology and energy required. Essentially, you burn more fossil fuels trying to inject it at any level than the carbon you put in. And something like this couldn’t be run on renewables as is, you’d need a rather large amount of batteries which is so incredibly expensive at this point in time. So cost and carbon output make geological sequestration impractical. However, when used for “enhanced oil extraction”, it easily covers the costs and carbon output worries. They wouldn’t do it if it wasn’t profitable, and despite the article’s claims they are not in the business of carbon neutrality.

luhn 3y ago

> Exxon’s vision is that eventually these pipelines will ferry CO2 captured from industrial point sources like cement and steel plants, and potentially from natural gas power plants, and transport it to underground rock formations or old oil wells where it could be buried (Denbury also owns a number of large sites for carbon sequestration). Color me skeptical. The article offers no supporting evidence that this is Exxon's "vision", and then hits us with this: > For now, Denbury’s pipeline network isn’t really low carbon, but instead will function as an extension of Exxon’s normal oil business. Today the CO2 carried in the pipelines is used for “enhanced oil recovery,” a process in which it is injected into oil wells to push out the last few drops. Sounds like they made the acquisition for their current fossil fuel business, not a bet that "carbon will be the new oil." And as a cherry on top: > The company plans to double the size of its liquefied natural gas business by 2030, an executive said this week, with a focus on buyers in Asia.

throwaway33381 3y ago
It sounds more like an excuse to continue to output oil while doing absolutely nothing to stop the further degradation of out environment.
- azinman2 3y ago
  It shouldn’t be a surprise. They’re an oil and gas company, with gigantic investments in that space, a culture that supports it, knowledge to do it, politics solved for it, and a crap ton of inertia. The expectation that they’d pivot is far less likely than likely. This isn’t a sector known for disruption outside of new ways to extract.
  - csnover 3y ago
    The insane thing about this is to me that Exxon did seem to have ideas about pivoting away from oil and gas in the 1970s[0]. They funded research that brought down the cost of solar panels five-fold and started manufacturing and selling their own panels[1], they developed the lithium-ion battery[2], and they created subsidiaries for servicing the nuclear power industry[3], among other things. I’ve never understood the obstructionist position of these oil execs. If you want to make a shitload of money, why not push for development of some emerging industry like renewables where all the infrastructure has to be built up from nothing? That could be money you are getting paid to build it. Instead, now it’s money going to some other company. [0] https://www.desmog.com/s1ep1-bell-labs-energy/ https://www.desmog.com/s1ep1-bell-labs-energy/ [1] https://www.npr.org/2019/09/30/763844598/how-big-oil-of-the-past-helped-launch-the-solar-industry-of-today https://www.npr.org/2019/09/30/763844598/how-big-oil-of-the-... [2] https://www.bupipedream.com/news/49390/prof-whittingham/ https://www.bupipedream.com/news/49390/prof-whittingham/ [3] https://www.nytimes.com/1976/03/14/archives/exxons-innovative-little-offshoots-the-offshoots-of-exxon.html https://www.nytimes.com/1976/03/14/archives/exxons-innovativ...

arbuge 3y ago

Key points: "Carbon management is becoming increasingly popular with oil companies, since it plays to their know-how in trading, transporting, and storing molecules (as opposed to electrons from renewable energy, which are an entirely different business). ... It also allows Exxon to tap one of the most lucrative tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act: $85 per ton of CO2 that is permanently stored underground. "

collaborative 3y ago

Summary: https://tinyurl.com/22452u66 https://tinyurl.com/22452u66

zitterbewegung 3y ago

Isn’t it more likely to be water (and probably more like fresh water ) ? It’s hard to desalinate already and we have been more and more heat and droughts that keep on being said they are of the century or historic and those words are losing their meaning

formulathree 3y ago

Get paid for selling oil for people to burn. Get paid for capturing carbon from burned oil. It's not exactly in conflict with their current business model.

kdamica 3y ago

I would bet that this is not going to happen unless someone finds an industrial use for all that carbon. I’m not an expert but it seems like it would be much more efficient to invest in low carbon energy and manufacturing tech than to build a ton of infrastructure for sequestration.

ckrapu 3y ago
If the story of Earth were a novel and the current chapter introduced both global warming and the advent of carbon-based manufacturing, it would almost feel too contrived of a setup.
notJim 3y ago
The issue is that some things are difficult to decarbonize because they emit carbon directly due to chemical processes or use gas for process heat. There is a lot of investigation into whether these can be decarbonized economically, but a lot of it is still fairly early stages. It makes sense to have a variety of solutions available, especially for the short term.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ckrapu 3y ago

When I think about carbon extraction and storage, I get the same feeling as when I read about the ancients discovering oil seeps and surface deposits of hydrocarbons. They knew that they could be harnessed for keeping fires lit and even sometimes associated them with the supernatural. They just lacked the tech and industrial background to use them. We know that carbon is essential for life and if we ever engineer useful organisms to build structures or produce macroscale goods (as opposed to pharmaceuticals or food), then clearly carbon will be one of the main limiting factors, along with energy and water. It just feels like we will one day look back at this and think “why didn’t we just try to use it instead of burying it?”

IX-103 3y ago
I don't see how "carbon will be one of the main limiting factors". Carbon is abundant in our environment -- it's around 0.03% of it and is spread evenly enough that you can always find it. It's even relatively common in the universe. What is hard to find - and has always been hard to find is cheap energy. And carbon dioxide is essentially the lowest energy state for carbon. It's a dead end as far as energy goes. That's why it's a waste product. If you want to build useful structures then you're still subject to thermodynamics, whether you're using "organisms" to do it or not. So using graphite or any other form of carbon would be a better source of carbon than CO2. The only reason to use CO2 is that it is commonly available (which is why plants use it). And again, no one is proposing removing all the CO2, just enough to keep us in this little ice age we have been enjoying. So there's no reason to worry about running out.
throwawaymobule 3y ago
At least it could be unburied if it's needed in the future. Same with many landfills, when the value of non-recycled junk in there is higher than reprocessing it.

jokoon 3y ago

oil made those companies rich, but there is no proof that the vision of a rich company will have any value or offer an worthy insight into the future. important reminder: CO2 is an oxide and requires A LOT OF ENERGY to break down. so unless they can genetically engineer some kind of moss like in Robinson climate trilogy, it's highly doubtful they will achieve anything worthwhile

geonaut 3y ago

“ExxonMobil… [acquired]… a smaller Texas oil and gas company with the U.S.’s largest network of pipelines designed to carry carbon dioxide.” There was a great episode of the Volts podcast, about a startup aiming to make synthetic shipping fuel (methanol), where waste CO2 was one of the main inputs. Some good discussion of where they sourced their CO2, and the practicalities of CO2 distribution. https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/volts/id1548554104?i=1000618646271 https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/volts/id1548554104?i=1...

ttonkytonk 3y ago

Asking Exxon to take action to prevent global warming is like asking the foxes to guard the hen house: https://tz.linkedin.com/posts/alisheridan_assessing-exxonmobils-global-warming-projections-activity-7019746574750613504-dFWm https://tz.linkedin.com/posts/alisheridan_assessing-exxonmob...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

juujian 3y ago

They're going to charge us twice. Once for emitting it, second time for sequestering it. The fight for subsidies up here in Canada is insane. The electricity generated is already more expensive then renewables, and soon they can pad their margins with novelty projects that may or may not pan out, while telling us in their annual reports how great they are.

gruez 3y ago
>They're going to charge us twice. Once for emitting it, second time for sequestering it. The local water utility charges you once for providing the water, and another time for treating it (ie. sewers). Are you similarly outraged?
- acdha 3y ago
  Did the local water utility know sewage was a problem half a century ago but spend decades denying that, encouraging excessive use, and preventing development of treatment systems or alternatives? That’s why this analogy doesn’t work: water is a hard requirement. Fossil fuels can be replaced easily in many applications.

philips 3y ago

It is important to remember how poorly the first experiments in carbon transport and storage have gone. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36021530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36021530 https://ieefa.org/resources/norways-sleipner-and-snohvit-ccs-industry-models-or-cautionary-tales https://ieefa.org/resources/norways-sleipner-and-snohvit-ccs...

rotexo 3y ago
This is a really good point. I wasn’t at all aware of this case study. Makes me suddenly very pessimistic about carbon dioxide removal efforts as well.

jansan 3y ago

Stupid question, can't the CO2 just be dissolved in (deep) sea water?

Kye 3y ago
CO2 dissolving into water is killing the ocean as we speak.
- jansan 3y ago
  That is just on the surface, right? The mass of CO2 relased into the air per year compared to total sea water on earth is approx 1/35000. Does is really make such a big difference if dissolved in deep sea water?
  - Kye 3y ago
    We know basically nothing about the ocean other than it's where almost all our oxygen comes from, and we have no way to know what the tipping point is. Assuming we're too small to affect the environment is how we got here. And we know from effects of climate change above the surface that it doesn't have to be cataclysmic to cause trouble. There could be all kinds of nasty things in store that are even harder to predict with how hard it is to explore and study the oceans. We don't even have an accurate map of it.
    - jansan 3y ago
      That sounds like "I just don't want that!". We don't need a map to know how dissolved CO2 influences acidity of sea water. Trust the science, bro.
      - IX-103 3y ago
        "Trust the science, bro." There is much more involved than how dissolved CO2 affects ocean acidity. CO2 has a number of other affects on both biological and chemical systems that shift equilibriums. Understanding how injecting CO2 would affect deep ocean ecosystems (and indirectly upper ocean layers and climate through layer interchange) when we only have a rudimentary understanding of the deep sea ecosystem is not a matter of science. It's the realm of prophecy and hubris. I'm not saying that deep-water injections of CO2 are dangerous. But that at the current level of science we don't even know what we don't know about the possible affects that would have. And with the large amounts of energy required to sequester and pump carbon dioxide into the sea, it would be best if we understood the costs as well as the benefits of such an approach before we started.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

I feel like this title is the definition of "anti-clickbait" to me (i.e. I don't even want to read the article because of the title), because it makes no sense. Oil is primarily an energy source. When we talk about "carbon" in the context of climate change we're usually talking about carbon dioxide, which is a byproduct of energy generation that itself contains no consumable energy. Saying "carbon will be the new oil" is like saying my poop will be my new food source - it just doesn't make sense.

xNeil 3y ago
To be honest, I think "poop will be my new food source" makes perfect sense. But that might just be me.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  Remind me to pass on any of your dinner parties...
  - xNeil 3y ago
    Haha :) I meant in a grammatical sense.

1letterunixname 3y ago

Too little, too late by the fox guarding the henhouse. I hope government subsidies and the insurance industry bitch slap manufacturing and petrochem to drive rapid deployment of substantial projects involving oceanic bio-GMO CCS at scale because they won't by so-called "invisible hand" market forces alone until billions are on the move, hypercanes are obliterating continents, and waves are lapping at the NYSE building. It's an emergency, and delay, half-measures, and planting trees isn't going to cut it.

lincon127 3y ago

Carbon Capture from industrial point sources is extremely expensive and extremely ineffective. so I doubt that's going to be a thing. The only way I could see CC paying off is if big companies keep lobbying for government grants and taxpayers money to go towards their shite projects so they can abandon them halfway through anyway. This'll keep the prospect of "clean methods" of operating dirty industries in everyone's brain space through political and astroturfed mouthpieces, people will start to believe it and oil companies will once again reap the rewards of mass confusion

nukeman 3y ago
It’s still a point source, and thus cheaper and easier than direct air capture. I don’t think it will be as significant as some think it will be (we will likely move toward different processes for the remaining limited petrochemical production), it is likely to still be important for some industries.

hannob 3y ago

It's nonsense like this that makes a more rational debate around carbon capture difficult. Yes, CCS will likely have to play some role in a future decarbonized society, e.g. for cement production. But it's not a plausible lifeline for fossil fuel companies. The vast bulk of emission reductions need to come from phasing down fossil fuel use, and that is fundamentally incompatible with their business model. (shameless self plug: I tried to write down my view on the whole CCS issue recently: https://industrydecarbonization.com/news/can-ccs-escape-from-its-fossil-fuel-industry-roots.html https://industrydecarbonization.com/news/can-ccs-escape-from... )

bushwik 3y ago
> It's nonsense like this that makes a more rational debate around carbon capture difficult. such a great point and couldn't agree more. in the US, I'm seeing more ethanol & chemical companies adopting carbon capture right now, not fossil fuel companies. it will be interesting to see how it evolves in the next couple years. > (shameless self plug: I tried to write down my view on the whole CCS issue recently: https://industrydecarbonization.com/news/can-ccs-escape-from https://industrydecarbonization.com/news/can-ccs-escape-from... ) subscribed! and you can follow some of the north america projects at https://decarbonfuse.com https://decarbonfuse.com

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

coffeeshopgoth 3y ago

Exxon is a behemoth that spreads its money over everything just to catch something - and even that is done poorly over there. They do have a number of legacy fields that if not already on CO2 flooding, may become candidates in their eyes soon. But that is where "being done poorly" comes in again. CO2 flooding, like water flooding, should start sooner than later to catch a certain pressure and oil/water amount/quality regime in the reservoir. Guaranteed, they will try to make it look like they are being sustainable by showing off how they are using the CO2, recycling it and, at some point, sequestering it, but it will be done in the most inefficient manner possible and probably result in losing a good amount of CO2 to the atmosphere due to poor field oversight of the equipment. Challenges that will come up due to whatever stage a reservoir might be in: https://www.mdpi.com/energies/energies-10-00345/article_deploy/html/images/energies-10-00345-g001.png https://www.mdpi.com/energies/energies-10-00345/article_depl...

fwungy 3y ago

Climate Change is the essence of "Intractable Problems". There is tremendous wealth in oil reserves that is outside the control of the G7 countries: Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia. There is also demand for this oil from non-G7 nations who simply don't have the money to go carbon free without descent into starvation, poverty and chaos. Going carbon free on a big enough scale to impact the climate, according to existing models, requires getting these petroleum reserve holders to give up their massive wealth in exchange for little to nothing, and large developing economies to destabilize themselves to go carbon neutral. IT ISN"T GOING TO HAPPEN. Poor Indians and Chinese aren't going to give up their opportunity to secure better lives for themselves for the sake of the climate. We need to be thinking in terms of mitigations and technologies that reduce climate impacts while being economically sensible. Yes, it's not optimal, but choices made in the real world rarely are, and as adults we must learn to make them.

briantakita 3y ago
> Going carbon free on a big enough scale to impact the climate, according to existing models, requires getting these petroleum reserve holders to give up their massive wealth in exchange for little to nothing, and large developing economies to destabilize themselves to go carbon neutral. The climate will continue to change even if humanity goes carbon free. When it comes to climate, the only constant is change. > Poor Indians and Chinese aren't going to give up their opportunity to secure better lives for themselves for the sake of the climate. Or fall for the NeoColonialist trap of paying taxes to financial markets to "save the world". Instead, the producer nations will leverage their positions as commodities become more valuable.

bushwik 3y ago

Carbon is definitely not the new oil. My hope is that carbon becomes the feedstock of the future (with a long way to go). Exxon is an easy target in this but there are many other companies and industries that are working towards carbon capture. I'm working with ethanol producers, co2 utilization companies, direct air capture, and other capture technology companies to move the carbon management industry forward. Exxon will be a player but not THE player in carbon management. The article fails to mention that Denbury has several Class VI well permits (these are the wells where CO2 is injected) in areas near Denbury pipelines. Everyone will talk about the Gulf Coast as the strategic reason but Denbury's pipeline in Wyoming will be key to advancing the industry since Wyoming and North Dakota have authority over the Class VI wells today. I've heard estimates of 40 million tons of CO2 storage capacity in one of the Wyoming projects (that's just one of several projects). Disclosure: I monitor carbon management at https://decarbonfuse.com https://decarbonfuse.com by tracking the ccus, dac, and beccs projects in North America.