Love the effort but I generally disagree with nearly every aspect of this article. Co2 In The air is a problem and thermodynamics does not care how it got there. I don't either. I am developing a co2 capture system and I will take money however I can. I seek to create technology that gives policy makers better options. I'm all for using fossil fuel money to help me achieve my goal.
Just on the "fossil fuel companies actually make very little profit per metric ton" point. The carbon gap piece that's linked talks about heavy-emitting companies having low profits per tonne of emissions and while that is true for heavy industry and the like isn't the case for actual O&G companies. If you take Exxon they produced somewhere between 100-300 Mt of CO₂e emissions in 2022 but with a profit of $56bn. Which would give them somewhere between $190-$560 of profit per tonne of emissions which doesn't look all that low.
I'm counting Scope 3 emissions in these calculations, as certain oil companies engaging in EOR might be doing so with the intention of canceling out emissions from eventual combustion (see the net-zero oil link) and the vast majority of emissions from fossil fuels come from their use instead of their refining. If a company like Exxon used real CDR to cancel out all Scope 1 and 2 emissions while not touching Scope 3, we'd still be in big trouble in terms of emissions.
According to https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/news/reporting-and-publications/advancing-climate-solutions-progress-report, Exxon's 2022 Scope 3 emissions (using the sales method) were 720 Mt. Adding to their Scope 1 CO2 emissions of 91 Mt, CH4 emissions of 120 Mt (4 Mt CH4 multiplied by a GWP100 factor of 30), and location-based Scope 2 emissions of 7 Mt, this is a total of 938 Mt. This would translate to a profit per ton of only around $60/t, which is far from being able to afford meaningful CDR as an offset for these operations, other impacts and externalities aside.
Also, 2022 is an outlier. Oil company profits were greatly inflated due to the war in Ukraine and associated supply shocks. Looking at older data will show even lower profits per ton and even losses per ton. They won't be able to afford meaningful, permanent CDR to offset all, or even a meaningful portion of, the emissions associated with fossil fuel production and use.
I think the article raises important questions and I agree that in terms of sustainability emissions isn't the only problem of the fossil fuel industry. However, oil and gas companies have a strong motivation to advance carbon removals and that's why they may be more willing to invest in CDR startups than any other industry. And I guess it's also importat for such startups to ensure that their supply chains are sustainable, and that Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions are addressed properly.
Love the effort but I generally disagree with nearly every aspect of this article. Co2 In The air is a problem and thermodynamics does not care how it got there. I don't either. I am developing a co2 capture system and I will take money however I can. I seek to create technology that gives policy makers better options. I'm all for using fossil fuel money to help me achieve my goal.
Just on the "fossil fuel companies actually make very little profit per metric ton" point. The carbon gap piece that's linked talks about heavy-emitting companies having low profits per tonne of emissions and while that is true for heavy industry and the like isn't the case for actual O&G companies. If you take Exxon they produced somewhere between 100-300 Mt of CO₂e emissions in 2022 but with a profit of $56bn. Which would give them somewhere between $190-$560 of profit per tonne of emissions which doesn't look all that low.
I'm counting Scope 3 emissions in these calculations, as certain oil companies engaging in EOR might be doing so with the intention of canceling out emissions from eventual combustion (see the net-zero oil link) and the vast majority of emissions from fossil fuels come from their use instead of their refining. If a company like Exxon used real CDR to cancel out all Scope 1 and 2 emissions while not touching Scope 3, we'd still be in big trouble in terms of emissions.
According to https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/news/reporting-and-publications/advancing-climate-solutions-progress-report, Exxon's 2022 Scope 3 emissions (using the sales method) were 720 Mt. Adding to their Scope 1 CO2 emissions of 91 Mt, CH4 emissions of 120 Mt (4 Mt CH4 multiplied by a GWP100 factor of 30), and location-based Scope 2 emissions of 7 Mt, this is a total of 938 Mt. This would translate to a profit per ton of only around $60/t, which is far from being able to afford meaningful CDR as an offset for these operations, other impacts and externalities aside.
Also, 2022 is an outlier. Oil company profits were greatly inflated due to the war in Ukraine and associated supply shocks. Looking at older data will show even lower profits per ton and even losses per ton. They won't be able to afford meaningful, permanent CDR to offset all, or even a meaningful portion of, the emissions associated with fossil fuel production and use.
I think the article raises important questions and I agree that in terms of sustainability emissions isn't the only problem of the fossil fuel industry. However, oil and gas companies have a strong motivation to advance carbon removals and that's why they may be more willing to invest in CDR startups than any other industry. And I guess it's also importat for such startups to ensure that their supply chains are sustainable, and that Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions are addressed properly.