Exxon Holds Back on Technology That Could Slow Climate Change (bloomberg.com) 94
Carbon capture can make money for oil giants, and scientists say we need it. Is the industry willing to invest enough? From a report: Elk and pronghorn antelope migrate each fall through southern Wyoming, where the sparsely vegetated landscape slowly gives way to the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. Interrupting this serene vista is a dense web of steel pipes, tanks, and pumps owned by Exxon. The industrial complex provides a clue about what lies beneath: an ancient sea of coral and marine life, petrified by time and pressure into a thick layer of rock. Known as the Madison formation, this geologic structure is miles wide and reaches more than 10 Empire State Buildings below the ground. It contains natural gas, helium, and carbon dioxide. Two of these gases are consistently valuable to Exxon's business. The third is not -- and that's a problem for everyone on the planet. For three decades, the American oil titan has been pumping up these gases, separating them, selling some, and dumping the remainder into the atmosphere. Exxon produces more CO2 than it can sell or use, so the company lets a lot float away -- as much as 300,000 cars' worth of emissions a year.
Exxon was set to embark on a project to do the reverse: pump the unwanted gas back down where it came from. The plan was technically and strategically straightforward. By capturing CO2, transporting it to an injection site, and burying it, Exxon would have locked away enough of the planet-warming gas to almost eliminate the climate harm caused by the facility. The captured carbon may not have made much money for Exxon on its own, but a recent change to the U.S. tax code would help overcome that hurdle with lucrative credits for safe storage. The company put the total cost of construction at about $260 million, 1% of its capital budget for 2020. LaBarge, as the gas operation is known, would have become one of the world's foremost examples of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), a technology most climate-modeling experts view as essential to slowing down global warming and, eventually, reversing it. The project would also help Exxon clean up its image as one of the foremost corporate climate polluters. Construction was set to begin over the summer. But in April, Exxon told Wyoming officials that the project would be delayed indefinitely, because of fallout from Covid-19. The company's share price at one point during the pandemic dropped to an 18-year low, as oil prices cratered, throwing many plans across the industry for this year and beyond into turmoil.
Exxon was set to embark on a project to do the reverse: pump the unwanted gas back down where it came from. The plan was technically and strategically straightforward. By capturing CO2, transporting it to an injection site, and burying it, Exxon would have locked away enough of the planet-warming gas to almost eliminate the climate harm caused by the facility. The captured carbon may not have made much money for Exxon on its own, but a recent change to the U.S. tax code would help overcome that hurdle with lucrative credits for safe storage. The company put the total cost of construction at about $260 million, 1% of its capital budget for 2020. LaBarge, as the gas operation is known, would have become one of the world's foremost examples of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), a technology most climate-modeling experts view as essential to slowing down global warming and, eventually, reversing it. The project would also help Exxon clean up its image as one of the foremost corporate climate polluters. Construction was set to begin over the summer. But in April, Exxon told Wyoming officials that the project would be delayed indefinitely, because of fallout from Covid-19. The company's share price at one point during the pandemic dropped to an 18-year low, as oil prices cratered, throwing many plans across the industry for this year and beyond into turmoil.
Slow climate change ... you mean like ... (Score:1)
... NOT digging fossil fuel out of the ground no matte what?
I think they already made up their mind about that.
Corporate culture doesn't change quickly (nor is it any better of an idea to do so).
I'm sorry... you need to shoot the horse.
(Ane thankfully, this kind of horse is easily reassembled into new animals. Only the brain hat to be thrashed.)
Re: (Score:3)
whoa now!!! are you suggesting that Exxon in any way minimize profits by investing in the future?
you do realize that you are pushing against the past 50 years of business education...
Re: Slow climate change ... you mean like ... (Score:2)
Well, it won't be 50 more years, the way they're educating. ;)
The planet won't care much. Life comes, life goes.
This is a troll post (Score:1)
This is a shit post designed to stir up extremist thinking and community infighting. Don't fall for it. Learn to spot these kind of trolls and downmod them. While you're at it down mod me too. Kill the entire thread so that we can have a useful discussion.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
obvious troll is obvious, please take your fallacious semantics somewhere else
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for demonstrating Projection
This is a troll post...says the guy who, (Score:2)
in a story about the threat of climate change [slashdot.org] to the Great Barrier Reef and other natural World Heritage sites, posted that climate change won't happen for years. [slashdot.org]
The guy who now says BAReFO0t should be modded down because he "generally pushes a right wing agenda" - when his own far left posts grace the pages of Slashdot on a daily basis.
The guy who is so incapable of responding to words/ideas he doesn't like with his own word/ideas, he is now asking readers here to silence others FOR him.
The guy who
Another troll (Score:2)
Please mod both me and parent down so this thread can die. It's a bunch of trolls trying to spread discord in the community. Learn to spot these kind of trolls and shut them down.
Re: (Score:2)
please continue to mod the thread down.
Check your OP. Literally the only post in this thread currently marked "Troll" is YOURS.
Parent is lying about what I said. I said average people will block meaningful attempts to address climate change because they fear those changes will impact them economically and drive them into homelessness ("Climate Change is years from now, rent's due at the end of the month").
I haven't lied one little bit. I linked to your post. People are free to read it. "Climate change is years from now" is it's subject. You posted that disgusting nonsense in a discussion about climate change threatening the world's greatest natural treasures RIGHT NOW. If that doesn't constitute a troll post, I don't know what does.
Now you're telling readers here to mod other people down because of what you percei
Re: (Score:3)
Damn, you are right. Those overflowing hospitals with Covid patients are merely locking them down....or something. Do I get my Right Wingnut brownie point now?
Re: (Score:2)
Red states, mostly. You know where the virus is a hoax.
Re: (Score:1)
Can you give a link to a news article on this? I just did a web search for news on this and I see that there is a shortage of medical staff. I heard on the radio this morning of a governor (NY?) that asked for retired surgeons and nurses to go back to work.
I have to wonder how much of the shortage is from the lock downs discouraging people to go to medical school. It's hard to go to school if the school is closed to contain the spread of disease. It's hard to go to school if people can't travel, can't f
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a handy chart for you https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/... [umn.edu]
Lincoln Nebraska is at 200% ICU capacity right now. Cities in Texas and Alabama too.
How many cars is one empire state building, by the (Score:3)
I want to know my height in amount of CO2!
Re: (Score:2)
I want to know my height in amount of CO2!
I only accept measurements of that kind in association football fields.
Seriously, I have no fucking idea how tall the Empire State Building (or any building) is. Why can't they use some standard form of measurement? Any standard.
Re: (Score:3)
I want to know my height in amount of CO2!
I only accept measurements of that kind in association football fields.
Seriously, I have no fucking idea how tall the Empire State Building (or any building) is. Why can't they use some standard form of measurement? Any standard.
Libraries of Congress would be much more appreciated and well understood.
Re: (Score:1)
1 ESB = 260.42 Smoots.
Treat life like a sport, it is the American Way! (Score:1)
Never say you are sorry, even if you had made a mistake.
Never back down from an argument, even if you have been proven wrong.
If you are loosing, you will just need to try harder.
Because Winning is everything.
Exon, has put so much effort into denying climate change, that if they admit that they can do better, they will loose all of their stances. Because they are trying to Win profit for themselves. Not actually work for society.
Sure if they changed direction fessed up, and moved towards what the directio
Re: (Score:2)
If you are loosing, you will just need to try harder.
/quote> What does your wife have to do with this?
Re: (Score:2)
..and nobody at all, is shocked in the least, that business intransigence to change for the "public good" is couched in language that was used to describe Hitler by the precursor the CIA
His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a
Score 1 for capitalism! (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Exploit a natural resource and replace it with cesspool of pollution.
2. Promise to clean it up said cesspool sometime in the future.
3. Declare bankruptcy and let the government deal with the problem.
Re:Score 1 for capitalism! (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations are people, they have freedom of speech and religious rights.
Money is speech and so people, which means corporations, can spend money in lobbying
When 2008 financial meltdown made people lose their jobs and their homes are threatened with foreclosure, there should be no debt relief because "its moral hazard, it will encourage all people to default on their loans"
When it comes to the finance executives who caused the melt down, their bonuses have to be paid because contract is a contract.
When contract made by the city/state government to retirees cost too much money, they should not raise taxes to meet the contract but renege on the contract because these are dumbass retirees, not gee whiz financial executives who can destroy the whole financial system in a minutes
All profits and assets are privatized. All losses and liabilities are socialized. There are morons who hold up signs saying, "Get a brain Morans!" [kym-cdn.com]. So our country is doomed.
Re: (Score:1)
Did you even read the article? None of your points make any sense.
1) Cesspool of pollution: I suppose you can call out CO2 as a "cesspool". So I could see that, just not a good word analogy.
2) They never promised to "clean it up". What you don't think COVID shutdowns are not hurting everyone? Including Exxon? That is the reason they stated for the halt.
3) Uh, Exxon? They've been around most likely longer than you've been alive, and I don't see them going out of business any time now.
But of course
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, the Alberta way!
But I wanted to hear more about.. (Score:5, Insightful)
-I remember Wild America on PBS
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. The Empire State building shouldn't have been used. They should have used how many Everest. That would have cleared things up much more.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, now that we have agreement on the height of one Everest, sure. But that just came out. We should use the height of the World Trade Center the day before 9/11. That should clear it up for everyone - I even remember seeing a graphic defining the height of the WTC in Boeing 747 lengths.
Not Surprising (Score:3)
Exxon is in hunker down survival mode right now. Little wonder that they are cancelling capital intensive projects now.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah this. I already had my torch lit and grabbed my pitchfork at the headline, but the entire industry absolutely cratered. Most major oil companies are financially suffering. No I don't mean they making losses and that you should cry for them. I mean that their market cap has plummeted to the point where they are worth nothing more than their base assets, a situation that leaves very little room to invest in capital projects.
Exxon like a few other companies borrowed huge amounts of money this year just to
Re: (Score:2)
I'd also add that you can't blame Exxon for what they've done to the environment without looking at yourself in the mirror. They wouldn't be drilling and refining if you weren't filling your car's gas tank, getting on airplanes, or heating your house with natural gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. Fundamentally I am the one polluting the environment when I drive. However:
a) there are better and more greener ways to produce oil and gas, e.g. you start by capturing methane instead of flaring it during production (but that costs money).
b) the industry has lobbied hugely against the decarbonatisation of energy and transport, and while not all companies are equal in this I think the worst offenders (in the west) here are the Kochs.
c) and one specifically for Exxon: they knew about global warmi
Simple question (Score:2)
Good luck getting them to bite on tax cuts anyway. They already pay little to no taxes. I guess if we paid them directly via tax credits, but again, why?
Re: Simple question (Score:2)
Why aren't they paying for it, if we take out their thrash?
I'd like to see the Exxon CEOs if we shit in their bed(room) and expect them to pay us to wash the sheets.
Re:Simple question (Score:5, Interesting)
CO2, problematic as it is, is a trace gas. Getting enough of it out of the atmosphere to make a difference after it's been mixed in is a huge financial challenge.
The cheapest place to capture carbon is where it gets emitted. I agree tax credits may not be the best solution. The best solution is to charge them for the carbon they emit. By dumping it in the air they take what should be *their* problem and make everyone else's. Market solutions to pollution don't work unless the cost of pollution can be internalized into the market.
Re: (Score:1)
Market solutions to pollution don't work unless the cost of pollution can be internalized into the market.
I don't know about that. There's a market for LED lighting even though they don't (or didn't, things may have changed) qualify for government subsidy. CFL lighting has a subsidy but I'll never buy another. They give horrible colour of light, take too long to get to full brightness, interfere with IR remotes, and far too many fail far too soon.
CFL failed, LED use is growing because they are awesome. The market did that, not the government.
People lower their energy use, by choosing more efficient options,
Re: (Score:3)
The lower operational costs of LEDs accrue directly to the consumer. If they cost so much more than incandescent bulbs that the net present value of the savings were completely offset, people wouldn't buy them if they had a choice. This would be true if the externalized costs (pollution) still justified replacing old bulbs with LEDs.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's Exxon's energy pipe... we just need to manage it.
Re: (Score:1)
Exxon would have to be paid for this because it is a cost that Exxon would carry. Just like incentives to lower CO2 emissions with EV subsidies there needs to be enough of an incentive to lower the cost of the decision. Did you even read the article? The plan is to collect this CO2 and inject it into the oil wells. Exxon is sitting on the wells and the CO2 comes out of the wells. To "do this ourselves" means drilling a different well to inject the CO2 into the same oil deposits that Exxon is using. We
What will it take? (Score:1)
At which point does it become a crime against humanity? The people at the top of polluting companies will be the first against the wall when the environmental revolution comes.
Re: What will it take? (Score:3)
Well, it always is a crime by the simple straightforward definition that it causes harm. Scientifically verifiable by anyone.
The question is what it takes, for somebody to care more about his continued unharmedness than about what Exxon will do to him.
And the answer is: Something that only happens when it's already way too late. Like immediate in-your-face-visible risk of death. Like *today*.
Re: What will it take? (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly it's not all that many people (Score:2)
I think we can dig our way out with some voter reform. Do universal vote by mail and automatic voter registration for a start. Make it difficult if not impossible to suppress the vote so that young folk (who still have a future to look forward to instead of desperately hoping to die before th
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I can't wait for President McPresidentface to solve all our problems. Nothing like making Weimar era inflation the new normal b/c the young folk are so wise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you not know that globalism and "neo-liberal capitalism" are the
Re: (Score:2)
Well the old peoples idea of cutting taxes and increasing spending doesn't seem too bright.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
oh, the same incumbents who receive millions from their corporate masters to ignore the will of the people.
Re: Honestly it's not all that many people (Score:2)
You're out of date. Two generations, actually.
The new scheme is to have true believers in the first place. So you don't even have to pay them (much) anymore. They will *want* to do it, out of conviction.
Before that, they tried to convince existing politicians by controlling their perceived reality (via news, conference speakers, classic lobbyism, etc.).
But they found revolving door to be far easier.
"They" is mostly military industry, Mont Pèlerin Society, fossil fuel industry, pharma industry, and th
Re: (Score:2)
However, lobbying $$ continue rise, though the total number of lobbyists have decreased somewhat from their highpoint in 2007.
https://www.opensecrets.org/fe... [opensecrets.org]
There's no way, for example, Ajit Pai could have killed net neutrality if the communications industry had not collectivly dolled out $100M sprinkled across every single "elected" on both sides of the
Re: (Score:2)
But hey, they also call a career devoted to worming one's way into the heart of political power as, "a lifetime of public service".
Re: (Score:1)
The country is fairly evenly divided politically. Distribution skews between urban and rural, but the total numbers even out. The vast majority are fairly moderate to either the left or the right. The moderates are the ones that swing the votes depending on what issues get emphasized in an election and how far away from center the given candidates are (or in the case of Biden how well a candidate hides, doesn't state any policy and is never asked anything other than softball, pre-approved questions from
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Almost everything Trump says is factually wrong, yet, almost 1/2 the voting populate believes it without question...
It's pretty unlikely that everyone who voted for Trump believes everything, or anything, that he says. For two elections in a row the democratic party's strategy was "run the worst possible candidate who isn't quite bad enough to lose to Trump" and they've had a 50% success ratio on that strategy which they probably consider good enough.
There are plenty of people who despise Trump but didn't consider "(s)he's not Trump" sufficient reason to vote for the person the democratic party leaders chose to run. The
Re: (Score:1)
but because of how we organize our political system (giving rural voters between 10 and 40 times the voting power of city voters because that's where the wealth lived in the late 1700s) we end up with minority rule.
The USA is a federation, and it is set up to vote for the President and VP by states. To avoid the problem of small states like Delaware having the same influence as Texas a compromise was struck. Each state got 2 votes for being a state, then the states got votes based on population from the last census, and there can be no less than one vote from the population. This means a vote in Delaware carries nearly twice the weight for President as a California vote. That's not 10 times the voting power. No s
Re: (Score:2)
There is exactly nothing preventing any legally eligible v
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What will it take? (Score:2)
Yeah, 1. I'm not from the US. ... You're clearly feeding the opposite.
2. I'm going for a positive self-fulfilling prophecy.
For something to change, first of all, your mindset and expectations have to change.
But maybe you're German too, and *don't want* it to improve, because otherwise you would have nothing to complain about anymore, and could not blame any scapegoat for the disappointment that is most people's life.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it always is a crime by the simple straightforward definition that it causes harm.
Err no. No where in the world is a crime defined by the fact that harm is caused. Crimes are very specific instances of harm associated with very specific circumstances.
ExxonMobil still matter? (Score:1)
I've noticed here in MA that many Exxon/Mobil station signs such as those seen on the Mass Pike and in the community have been replaced by Gulf signs... and some stations have been forced out by cheaper completion from a Gulf station near by.
Does this mean ExxonMobil's price control is about to fail?
Re: (Score:2)
Behold the Tree (Score:5, Interesting)
A tree is the most efficient terraforming machine ever built -- created through an evolutionary process over millions of years to be perfect at the task. What we actually need to do is reduce our carbon consumption (EVs are a good start, moving to less carbon-intensive farming would be another) and to plant more trees, stop cutting them down and/or burning them to produce burgers or as part of ill-conceived gender reveal parties.
The whole carbon sequestration is just noise generated by people who would profit off selling us a solution to a problem they made. Plan a tree and be responsible. It's not that hard.
Re: (Score:2)
stop cutting them down
Wouldn't cutting and replacing an old tree with a young tree make it absorb more CO2? As long as the old tree is not burned, we could stack the captured CO2 (in the form of wood) underground or maybe even make things from it, like houses or paper...
Re:Behold the Tree (Score:4, Informative)
Wouldn't cutting and replacing an old tree with a young tree make it absorb more CO2?
It depends on the species. As long as the tree is still growing, a larger tree fixes more carbon because it puts on more growth.
Re: (Score:2)
Like any type of farming, eventually the soil gets depleted.
Re: (Score:2)
As I recall, some forests (like the Amazon) are so efficient that the soil doesn't accumulate nutrients, but that doesn't bother the jungle.
Re: (Score:2)
It's when you start removing stuff like wood when the soil gets depleted. Otherwise you get a situation like the rain forests where the nutrients are tied up in the bio-matter.
Think of the 3 major requirements, N,P, and K. While the nitrogen can be restored by nitrogen fixers like alder trees here, the phosphorous and potassium is limited to what is contained in the soil and bio-mass. Remove enough bio-mass and you've removed much of the P and K which is only slowly replenished through weathering and/or dee
Re: (Score:2)
False. You can't plant enough trees to sequester the carbon we're putting out. And even then it's a temporary solution since fully grown trees aren't carbon sinks. So even if you could plant trees you're only kicking the can down the road.
Ironically cutting them down and burning them to produce burgers is actually carbon neutral providing you plant a tree to make up for it. Which is not the case of say digging up coal or propane to cook your burger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So cut them down and bury them, or plant something that works better, even if we have to engineer it. Problem solved, right?
Or you could just not pump CO2 into the air.
The really boneheadded thing about your comment is that you're still under the impression that there's a "single solution" to this problem that lets the world keep turning the way it always has. My friend, that ship has sailed so long ago it has since sunk and been turned into a tourist attraction for divers. We need to plant more trees, AND we need to sequester emissions of our energy consumption, AND we need to reduce our primary energy consumption.
Pretending yo
Inflammatory article title (Score:1)
But how many football fields? (Score:2)
Why is it always "X number of empire state buildings" or "X football fields"? Why can't Americans use standard units of measurement? I find it much easier to understand 4 KM vs 10 empire state buildings. Is it the height to the observation deck (which most people's visual perspective would be from when thinking of the height of the building) or from the very tip? According to Google the height of the Empire State Building to the tip is 443m or 381 to the observation deck.
443 x 10 = 4430m or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I want to say that you're right, they should have used the much better recognized and international standard: Libraries of Congress.
But I find myself having a helpful answer that I think will clear it up. Yes, journalists suck, as other posters claim. 4km (not KM's, unless that's a foreign notation standard I'm not familiar with, I'm curious on this one) is difficult for most people to visualize. Some of us Americans will recognize it quite easily as ~2.5 miles. That's over 13,000 feet, which is over 4000
Not that water-driven car again! (Score:2)
Please!
Propaganda (Score:1)
Better Idea... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
On a per BTU (or kWh or whatever unit suits you) basis Exxon gets pennies compared to solar power. We can demand that they "do the right thing" but we need to define what is "right". We also need to prioritize what it is that we consider "right".
One thing that is "right" is low costs. People aren't going to bankrupt themselves to lower CO2 emissions.
I did the math and a new EV is still more expensive than a used fuel efficient gasoline burner. There's lots of used gas burners on the market. There's som
Carbon capture is not a solution (Score:1)
Carbon capture basically means we expend energy to put the emissions of other energy back into the ground, it's the definition of a perpetuum mobile. And we don't even know if it will work, what happens when someone else drills into these repositories or its effect on groundwater or vegetation or simply what upsetting the balance of just capturing carbon from the atmosphere will do. With government subsidies, it's almost guaranteed to continue well beyond the point of no return if there are any issues becau
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Carbon capture is not a solution to whatever problem it is supposed to solve. It appears from the article the problem is global warming.
What will lower CO2 emissions in a large way is building more nuclear fission power plants. That doesn't mean we not invest in other solutions, only that we reverse the nonsense bans on nuclear fission power in Australia, France, Germany, USA, and other nations. Germany and Denmark has some of the highest electricity prices, driven high by their insistence of relying on
Isn't that what trees are for? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The short answer is that even if we planted every tree the earth could support right now, it wouldn't be enough to fix all the CO2 we've emitted in a timely fashion.
If you want to fix all that CO2 with plants you're going to need to use something much faster-growing, like bamboo. And then you're going to have a bamboo problem. That still might be preferable to the CO2 problem, though.
Exxon bad (Score:1)
Exxon bad. Bad, bad, Exxon. Baaaad. You must use this silver bullet, or I won't eat my broccoli.
Should-a... (Score:1)
Now you want us to feel sorry for ya?!