Is carbon capture and storage viable?

billanole

HR Legend
Mar 5, 2005
11,316
12,014
113
Or is it the next money grab?


Troy Coons, founder of the Northwest Landowners Association, believes property owners need to be brought to the table.

“Good things still have to be done in a thoughtful way – not the wild, Wild West approach that we just got done with in the Bakken oil field,” says Mr. Coons, whose organization recently sued the state over a new law governing “pore space,” where carbon would be stored.

Questions still linger about how well carbon storage works. In 2020, a $1 billion coal carbon-capture plant in Texas sequestered 15% less carbon than was projected. The project was mothballed after three years because it wasn’t economically viable.

“You’ve got to develop the technology so you can make it pay in the free market,” says Sen. John Hoeven, who as the GOP governor of North Dakota laid the regulatory groundwork for carbon storage and later advanced tax credits for the technology. “We’ve got about a 10-year head start on everybody else.
 

HROT

HR Heisman
Nov 5, 2006
5,145
8,925
113
Does it matter with the list of GOP celebs the company has signed on? Branstad. jr. Bruce Ratsetter
 

flyfishstout_CO

All-Conference
Gold Member
Aug 28, 2018
377
624
93
It’s a ridiculous boondoggle. Currently get about $50/ton of investment tax credits and they’ve convinced politicians they need $85. Absolutely insane. I do a lot of work in this area and can’t say I’m surprised by what is happening. There’s even the potential that the electricity needed to power the pumps to dump the co2 in the ground produces more co2 than they’re “sequestering”.

Rastetter is the ultimate at finding an opportunity to exploit and getting all of the political leverage behind you to make it happen.

I also think they’ll erode any market value they’re positioning for which is the LCFS market in CA. The credit price has already dropped substantially - from ~$200/mt to almost ~$100/mt.
 

billanole

HR Legend
Mar 5, 2005
11,316
12,014
113
You are gonna have a hard time convincing me that sandstone will not leach.

The $4.5 billion carbon storage project is not yet approved, and there are plenty of skeptics. In order to get the necessary permits, Summit Carbon Solutions is drilling three wells and bringing up core samples from thousands of feet underground, then shipping them to Denver for analysis. Its goal: prove that the sandstone layers can hold carbon, and that the cap rock just above them is impermeable enough to keep it from escaping.

If insurance won’t cover leakage, what fool would live next to the pipeline?

“The state could overrule it,” says Todd McMichael, an electric utility salesperson who led the effort. “But it sends a message.”

Mr. McMichael is not opposed to pipelines. But the idea of highly pressurized, odorless CO2 running across his property concerns him. He says his insurance wouldn’t cover an accidental leak or its effects, including on livestock grazing nearby.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flyfishstout_CO

flyfishstout_CO

All-Conference
Gold Member
Aug 28, 2018
377
624
93
They’re paying for the analysis to determine if they project they want to fund will work or not… of course the analysis will say yes…

look up summit carbon solutions to see the people they’ve hired as mgmt and “advisors” and you’ll see that they’re loading up on influencers that will make sure the law is set up for them to succeed.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
121,441
114,129
113
Or is it the next money grab?


Troy Coons, founder of the Northwest Landowners Association, believes property owners need to be brought to the table.

“Good things still have to be done in a thoughtful way – not the wild, Wild West approach that we just got done with in the Bakken oil field,” says Mr. Coons, whose organization recently sued the state over a new law governing “pore space,” where carbon would be stored.

Questions still linger about how well carbon storage works. In 2020, a $1 billion coal carbon-capture plant in Texas sequestered 15% less carbon than was projected. The project was mothballed after three years because it wasn’t economically viable.

“You’ve got to develop the technology so you can make it pay in the free market,” says Sen. John Hoeven, who as the GOP governor of North Dakota laid the regulatory groundwork for carbon storage and later advanced tax credits for the technology. “We’ve got about a 10-year head start on everybody else.

I don't really see it as viable; simply because for every 1 gallon of gas you burn (about 6 lbs) you create about 20 lbs of CO2 waste. In other words, you have to "stash" >3x more CO2 waste than your product starts out at. And that's really a losing proposition.

The way to eliminate that waste is to not create it in the first place, OR create it from non-fossil sources, where it comes from the biosphere and returns to the biosphere.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
16,584
16,703
113
Or is it the next money grab?


Troy Coons, founder of the Northwest Landowners Association, believes property owners need to be brought to the table.

“Good things still have to be done in a thoughtful way – not the wild, Wild West approach that we just got done with in the Bakken oil field,” says Mr. Coons, whose organization recently sued the state over a new law governing “pore space,” where carbon would be stored.

Questions still linger about how well carbon storage works. In 2020, a $1 billion coal carbon-capture plant in Texas sequestered 15% less carbon than was projected. The project was mothballed after three years because it wasn’t economically viable.

“You’ve got to develop the technology so you can make it pay in the free market,” says Sen. John Hoeven, who as the GOP governor of North Dakota laid the regulatory groundwork for carbon storage and later advanced tax credits for the technology. “We’ve got about a 10-year head start on everybody else.
I never imagined carbon sequestration would be literally pumping the gas into the ground. Seems like it could only seep out under pressure.
I always imagined it would involve production of carbon related materials that could use the gas as a raw material.
That’s the only way you’re going to see an ‘economically viable’ or ‘free market’ solution to CO2 sequestration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: billanole

billanole

HR Legend
Mar 5, 2005
11,316
12,014
113
I never imagined carbon sequestration would be literally pumping the gas into the ground. Seems like it could only seep out under pressure.
I always imagined it would involve production of carbon related materials that could use the gas as a raw material.
That’s the only way you’re going to see an ‘economically viable’ or ‘free market’ solution to CO2 sequestration.
Anything close to current carbon usage rates world wide are a very easily seen disaster. All of the proposed “fixes” run up against this truth.
It would be scary to see charts showing how much the Russian war is spiking carbon release. Scary.
 
Last edited:

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
16,584
16,703
113
It would be scary to see charts showing how much the Russian war spiking carbon release. Scary.
Not sure I follow.
Demand for oil had reached global pre-pandemic consumption levels in December. 2022 was expected to see growth in demand.
I will actually be surprised if the price increase didn’t function to curb some of that demand.
What are you seeing as the carbon spike release catalyst?
 

billanole

HR Legend
Mar 5, 2005
11,316
12,014
113
Not sure I follow.
Demand for oil had reached global pre-pandemic consumption levels in December. 2022 was expected to see growth in demand.
I will actually be surprised if the price increase didn’t function to curb some of that demand.
What are you seeing as the carbon spike release catalyst?
Heavy use of very inefficient weaponry and transport. Bombing of fuel depots. Heavy, heavy acreage of burning buildings. and innumerable burning spots of heavy weaponry, many with large fuel tanks.
The spike in carbon release during this war would be a very interesting study and one that brings the tipping point ever closer.