A few Pacific islands have applied to the International Criminal Court to treat "ecocide" as a criminal offense in future, i.e. the destruction of habitat through environmental pollution, for example.

The whole thing is to be directed against individuals, not countries. In other words, against the bosses of Chevron, Shell and BP.

(Similarities to any living creatures, such as human beings are strictly accidental and have absolutely nothing to do with our liability.)

 rgio wrote:
I am surprised that you do not understand my difficulty in understanding the comparison.  

Though I do agree with you that carbon capture is not much more than expensive window-dressing.

BTW, carbon capture is being pushed by governments and 'save the world' anti-data, anti-science populists, not oil companies.   But you knew that, right? 

I am not particularly impressed with Joe 'Terrorist' Biden's War on Drugs approach to climate change/disruption.  Are you you?  Perhaps you could explain why targeting supply is more effective than targeting consumption.  

 westslope wrote:
https://www.theatlantic.com/po...

Low tar cigs were "invented" as the safe alternative.  They aren't.   Carbon capture isn't going to make fossil fuels safe to consume.

Surprised you struggled to connect the dots.

 rgio wrote:
Tobacco and oil?   

Seriously.   Please explain the metaphor.

As Al Franken noted on "The Daily Show," we Baby Boomers get the feeling that maybe we caught the last helicopter out of Saigon.

 VV wrote:
Carbon capture is the oil industry's latest PR move...now that recycling has been exposed as a fraud.

Carbon capture is the "low-tar" cigarette for big oil.   "Safer"?  Maybe.   But it's still going to kill you.

 kcar wrote:

He's not interested in that. Never was. 

 kurtster wrote:

Jumping into this discussion rather late, but it doesn't look like oil and gas companies are abandoning hydrocarbons for carbon capture/sequestration just yet. They're pumping CO2 into the ground to extract more oil and gas; the net result is that more CO2 is released into the atmosphere. Gas companies are also drilling in areas where CO2 is higher so they can capture more CO2, claim more credits and get more money. But again, more CO2 is released than would occur at sites with less CO2. 

The Biden administration seems to have pushed for this carbon capture/sequestration credits as a way to scale up the process to an industrial scale but the projects aren't storing nearly as much CO2 as promised. The administration also went along with these credits as a way to get the energy industry and politicians like Joe Manchin on board with the Inflation Reduction Act.

How a pricey taxpayer gamble on carbon capture helps Big Oil

The climate bill includes subsidies for projects that are unproven and often promote more fossil fuel extraction

Yet after years of underwhelming results in carbon capture experimentation, this surge of cash strikes many climate scholars as predominantly a gift to fossil fuel, chemical and industrial agriculture companies seeking a lucrative route to rebrand as “green.” The vastly increased tax credit, which lobbyists of every major oil company pursued, will propel a technology that has failed to deliver in several prominent trials.

...

The incentives are already driving forward large oil and gas projects that threaten a heavy carbon footprint, with companies including ExxonMobil, Sempra and Occidental Petroleum positioned for big payouts.

The irony of carbon capture is that the place it has proven most successful is getting more oil out of the ground. All but one major project built in the United States to date is geared toward fossil fuel companies taking the trapped carbon and injecting it into underground wells to extract crude. A Wyoming project from ExxonMobil was designed for oil extraction but has since been rebranded as a key component of the company’s decarbonization strategy, with ExxonMobil boasting it has captured more carbon dioxide than any facility in the world.

Occidental Petroleum would be able to use tens — and possibly hundreds — of millions of dollars of the subsidies in Texas for its plan to trap carbon that will then be injected into wells to extract what it calls “net-zero oil,” branding critics call brazenly misleading.

...

The Australian mining giant Fortescue Metals Group is leaving carbon capture out of its pioneering plan to eliminate emissions from its iron ore business by 2030, focusing instead on powering operations entirely on renewable energy.

Company CEO Andrew Forrest calls Gorgon “an abject failure.”

“They promised to get rid of the carbon by shoving it down a hole,” he said in an interview. “So they got their huge project approved. Now that project is happily pumping carbon dioxide out into the atmosphere and the world is worse off because the carbon sequestration didn’t work.”

There is another problem researchers see at Gorgon and other operations like it, including ExxonMobil’s Shute Creek project in Wyoming, the 36-year-old natural gas extraction project the company boasts has captured more C02 than any place else.

The subsidies give companies lucrative incentives to drill for gas in the most climate-unfriendly sites, where the concentration of C02 in the fuel is especially high. The CO2, a potent greenhouse gas, is useless for making fuel, but the tax credits are awarded based on how many tons of it companies trap.

“The perverse effect is to develop fields that are extraordinarily high in CO2,” Robertson said. “The net result is more CO2 gets into the atmosphere, not less.”

———————————————————-

You shouldn't worry so much about Big Oil profits and production, Kurt, as you should about the survival of life on the planet. Something you might want to read up on: 

World is on brink of catastrophic warming, U.N. climate change report says

A dangerous climate threshold is near, but ‘it does not mean we are doomed’ if swift action is taken, scientists say

The world is likely to pass a dangerous temperature threshold within the next 10 years, pushing the planet past the point of catastrophic warming — unless nations drastically transform their economies and immediately transition away from fossil fuels, according to one of the most definitive reports ever published about climate change.

The report released Monday by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that the world is likely to surpass its most ambitious climate target — limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures — by the early 2030s.

Beyond that threshold, scientists have found, climate disasters will become so extreme that people will not be able to adapt. Basic components of the Earth system will be fundamentally, irrevocably altered. Heat waves, famines and infectious diseases could claim millions of additional lives by century’s end.

 haresfur wrote: 
No the bolded is not bullshit. And no it is not a tiny amount.  The % increase is huge.

From March 21, 2021, two years ago tomorrow

Insider Q&A: Occidental wants to be Tesla of carbon capture
 
and next

Occidental sees profits in carbon capture, downplays oil production growth -CEO
October 7, 2021

U.S. oil and gas producer Occidental (OXY.N) wants to raise margins and re-establish dividend payments with new businesses such as carbon capture rather than producing more oil and gas, Chief Executive Vicki A. Hollub said on Thursday.

Head of one of the largest U.S. producers, with a daily output of 1.2 million barrels of oil equivalent (boe), Hollub said oil companies can best contribute to the energy transition by producing just enough oil to meet the world's demand in a way that generates more cash and fewer emissions.

"We don't see that in 2022 and beyond that we need to grow (production) significantly," Hollub said at an online event by the Energy Intelligence Forum.

"Our growth in the period, and maybe over the next 10 years, will more be to reestablish dividend and grow that dividend".

Occidental has one of the most ambitious programs of the industry to capture carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and reinject it in the ground as a way to mitigate global warming.

Next year, the company will start construction of a direct air capture plant*, of up to 1 million metric tons of CO2 annually, a business Hollub says should generate returns for shareholders in the future.

A bipartisan carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) tax credit amendments act that increases the value of carbon credits and facilitate project financing has support from the White House and should pass the U.S. Congress, she said.

"I think it is going to happen and will happen soon," Hollub said.

The bill proposes increasing the so-called 45Q credit value from $50 to $120 per metric ton for direct air capture facilities that capture and store CO2 in saline geologic formations.

Finally, it's a done deal ... a way better deal then mentioned above ...

The Inflation Reduction Act creates a whole new market for carbon capture
August 22, 2022

Nine months after Clean Air Task Force wrote that the proposed enhancements to the 45Q tax credits offered a “once-in-a-generation” opportunity to advance carbon capture, removal, use, and storage, these enhancements are no longer proposals: they are law.

What are the 45Q enhancements in the Inflation Reduction Act?

CATF has outlined the specific 45Q provisions in a fact sheet.

The major changes to 45Q are:

Raising the credit values to $85 and $180 for both point source and direct air capture* respectively;

...
Likewise, $50/tonne represented a paltry incentive for DAC. Though advanced market commitments continue to fuel growth in the industry, a 12-year fixed price of $180/tonne will likely be rocket fuel for the industry to takeoff.  


So my friend, this is rather old news, not something I pulled out of thin air.  Surprised that with all of your knowledge, insight and abilities you are not aware of this, which based on your blowback at me, you were not.

Thanks, veev for lighting this up again. Had other things to do since then and forgot.  Now I can close out a bunch of tabs I've had open waiting to getting around to defending myself.

* 1 million tons @ $180 per = 1,000,000 x 180 = $180,000,000.  From the US government on top of the profits earned from trading credits.  Talk about a windfall ...

'Humanity is on thin ice:' Major UN report says 'urgent' action is needed to combat climate change

 kurtster wrote:
Yeah, the bold is bullshit. Paying a tiny amount in the scale of things to partially offset the damage from your operations is anything but a disincentive to production. The oil companies are happy to have government credits to make it even less of a cost to them. 

Not to mention that the US government has poured a lot of money into carbon capture and storage research. I'm all in favour of that - as a new area with complicated technological challenges the research is high risk and that is a good place for government to put their efforts to kick start solutions to the problem. I mean you obviously don't think global climate change is a problem worth addressing, but...

And yeah, the oil companies do have the resources to take on this sort of research but the pragmatic fact is that they won't. They also have the capacity to address releases of methane just like they have addressed former practices like dumping brine and oil to streams. It is just the cost of doing business to reduce the damage that is caused by your business.

 kurtster wrote:

So, the profit is potential profit...right now it's nothing more than capital expenditures...not generating revenue or profit. 
But this is obviously a very important distinction...you can't claim this is profitable, when  they havent even generated a sale off the business.
Don't be so glum chum.  Sometimes we absorb what we put out. 

 black321 wrote: 
I had done some research and had a link to the article and another one specifically about the costs and profits involved with this carbon recovery scheme.  That was last year. I don't know what thread they are in and I'm not going looking. Ask haresfur.  I got called out for posting bullshit, as usual and moved on.  Once again, my bullshit is turning out to not be bullshit.

It doesn't matter.  What matters to me doesn't matter to anyone around here when it comes to stuff like this.

 kurtster wrote:

I'd like to see the data on your profit comment. Right now, it (carbon capture) doesnt even work, so there is no profit. It's more about protecting and offsetting future oil production/consumption. 
ESG is a separate issue, involving all companies, not just oil. 
The lack of a clear path forward creates volatility, and that does impact production planning...but there the real reason for lack of production has to do with over uncertainty over the global economy, and where prices are headed. 

 black321 wrote: 
Yep, this is where the real money is for the oil companies.  It is misleading as it disincentitvises the production of oil, new and old, towards this carbon recapture scheme.  The carbon capturing is more profitable than oil production.

I forget who, but a woman who is a CEO of a Permian Basin producer mentioned this.  At the same time the EPA and other agencies are trying to stifle production in the Permian over methane releases into the atmosphere.

Once again, I brought this up back in my original discussions about what we now are calling ESG's. 

 ColdMiser wrote:
The full article discusses how the oil cos are using the funds to invest in carbon capture, which obviously could support the future of fossil fuels. However, while carbon capture potential, bit's also  highly unproven. But ultimately I agree, even the devil capitalists can help push society along from time-to-time. 

The full story is behind a paywall, but you can register and get a few free articles a month.

 ColdMiser wrote:
The full article discusses how the oil cos are using the funds to invest in carbon capture, which obviously could support the future of fossil fuels. However, while carbon capture potential, bit's also  highly unproven. But ultimately I agree, even the devil capitalists can help push society along from time-to-time. 

The full story is behind a paywall, but you can register and get a few free articles a month.

 black321 wrote:
Corporate welfare queens in limousines sipping lattes and munching avocado toast...

 black321 wrote:
Is this a case of the oil companies getting into the game of low emission energy? Wouldn't be a bad thing if they did. If anyone has the capital to build the infrastructure needed to transition it's them. They employ millions of people, so putting them out of business isn't in anybody's best interest. 
Or is the implication that they are being sneaky and using the tax breaks to double down on dirty energy? 

 black321 wrote:

It is well established that when the government gives away money, there will be people in line to take it. Also pretty sure that for the most part, it will not be ones that need it or will put it to god use, but well connected people who have already won the game and are now attempting to pile on the score.