Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Science

Exxon Mobil To Invest $3 Billion In Carbon Capture and Other Projects To Lower Emissions (nytimes.com) 83

Posted by BeauHD from the that's-a-start dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: Exxon Mobil, which has long been criticized by environmentalists and some investors and elected leaders for not doing enough to curb climate change, said on Monday it would invest $3 billion over the next five years in energy projects that lower emissions. The company said the first area it would work on is capturing carbon dioxide emissions from industrial plants and storing the gas so it does not enter the atmosphere, where it contributes to global warming. Many climate experts have said that such carbon capture and sequestration will be critical in the fight against climate change. Exxon said it was creating a new business called ExxonMobil Low Carbon Solutions and is working on 20 carbon capture projects around the world, including in Texas, the Netherlands, Singapore and Qatar.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Exxon Mobil To Invest $3 Billion In Carbon Capture and Other Projects To Lower Emissions More

Exxon Mobil To Invest $3 Billion In Carbon Capture and Other Projects To Lower Emissions

Comments Filter:

  • 3 Billion to Exxon (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rossdee ( 243626 ) on Monday February 01, 2021 @11:22PM (#61017950)

    is small change found under couch cushions

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 )

      is small change found under couch cushions

      It's a start.

      How much would they have to spend for you to not complain about it?

      • It's a start.

        How much would they have to spend for you to not complain about it?

        How about enough to covert entirely to renewably synthesised fuel within the next 10 years. If they do that cheaply and keep most of their money we're not going to complain. If they make their new technology available to everyone else then we can even forgive them most of the damage they already did.

        • It's a start.

          How much would they have to spend for you to not complain about it?

          How about enough to covert entirely to renewably synthesised fuel within the next 10 years. If they do that cheaply and keep most of their money we're not going to complain. If they make their new technology available to everyone else then we can even forgive them most of the damage they already did.

          You don't answer a question with another. Or better yet, just answer the question and give a number.

          You stated a goal for the next 10 years. Good, put a number and answer the question.

          And mind you, I like your goal, but your delivery (based on fallacies of excluded middle) is problematic.

          There's nothing that prevents meeting this goal by starting in increments. This is a good start, could be better, could be worse. Take it from there and appreciate it for what it is (and put a number to satisfy the O

          • You don't answer a question with another. Or better yet, just answer the question and give a number.

            You stated a goal for the next 10 years. Good, put a number and answer the question.

            The quest for simple answers is the second hobgoblin of little minds. There is no simple concrete answer because the damage done by Exxon is unknowably huge. They may have just caused millions to starve to death. They may have caused the death of humanity. There is no simple concrete answer because Exxon has caused damage which cannot be trivially and easily reversed.

            You don't destroy someone's planet, offer them some spare change and expect them to be satisfied. Exxon needs to fix the problem that they

            • The quest for simple answers is the second hobgoblin of little minds.

              *poster hand waves quasi-philosophical bullshit to pretend he didn't engage in "begging the question" fallacies.*

              Carry on.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        How about putting all their profit into fixing the problems they helped to create?

        Do it for say 10 years, spend a decade doing nothing but rebuilding the company into one that combats climate change. At the end it will probably have some great technologies and businesses to show for it.

        • How about putting all their profit into fixing the problems they helped to create?

          Well, that's one way to set up the bar high enough to make any argument fail. If you have no profit, you can't operate. This is absurd absolutism.

          Do it for say 10 years, spend a decade doing nothing but rebuilding the company into one that combats climate change.

          Ok, put a number to answer the OPs question, don't just pull deadlines into thin air. A 10-year goal like this, even when pursued, it would start in increments. You folks are working really hard at not seeing that this increment is in the right direction to take us to the goal you just described.

          At the end it will probably have some great technologies and businesses to show for it.

          That, I can agree.

          • Also, to your question about Exxon's profits, they are in the negative (in the hundreds of millions). So this move is the start towards rebuilding the company into that which you just described. It isn't a PR stunt, it's a move to surviving profitably while changing direction (towards eco-sustainability.)

      • is small change found under couch cushions

        It's a start.

        How much would they have to spend for you to not complain about it?

        Not a specific amount - but an actual plan that will make a real substantial reduction in the carbon emissions they profit from every year. Anything else is just PR.

        TFA actually provides a specific example of what is required:

        "General Motors said it aimed to stop selling petroleum-powered cars and trucks by 2035 and only sell zero-emissions vehicles."

        Now, one can criticize this statement by GM from various points of view - "It isn't their decision, it will happen anyway" and so forth, but this is a specific plan that if/when it comes to pass will reduce carbon emissions by a significant and definite amount and should come close to

    • A lot more than last year's profit (Score:4, Informative)

      by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2021 @01:37AM (#61018116) Journal

      To get a sense of the scale of $3 billion in their newest carbon capture projects in relation to Exxon, last year Exxon's profit was negative $800 million.

      In 2019, it was about $14 billion.

      So to Exxon, the $3 billion for these newest carbon capture projects is roughly the difference between making a "small" profit vs having a "small" loss.

      Of course these aren't Exxon's only carbon capture projects.
      Exxon has been capturing millions of tons of CO2 every year for several years. Carbon capture is an area where Exxon has been active for a while.

      On the other hand, BP has been moving toward renewable energy in fits and starts over the last 20 years. Exxon has focused on capturing the carbon instead.

      • To get a better since of the scale of that $3 billion over five years divide that number by five - $600 million a year - since you are comparing it to annual profit and loss figures.

      • I'm assuming that the major dent in their profits are from the pandemic. But in reality, the accelerating transition over to EVs, muni-scale batteries over peaker plants, wind and solar are going to cut even deeper into their business model at the end of ten years. Solar remains an exponential technology. Batteries, too, and there's evidence that their doubling period has been cut from 11 years down to a much smaller number.

        They have waited far too long.
        They lied about the damage they did.
        They pai

  • give me the $3bn (Score:3)

    by Anonymouse Cowtard ( 6211666 ) on Monday February 01, 2021 @11:27PM (#61017962) Homepage
    ... and I'll save them 5 years. Carbon capture and sequestration can't be done on large enough scales to offset a significant amount of emissions by any definition. It just can't be done.

    • Re:give me the $3bn (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Monday February 01, 2021 @11:39PM (#61017992)

      You are missing the point. These projects are happening in Texas, Qatar, and the Netherlands.

      What do these places all have in common?

      Answer: Gas fields.

      The CO2 will be compressed into a supercritical fluid and injected into gas wells. The liquified CO2 will displace the gas upward where it can be recovered. The CO2 will be permanently sequestered and over time, will bind to rock, forming carbonate minerals.

      Exxon isn't working on CSS out of the good of their hearts. They are seeking profits. That is a GOOD THING. If something is profitable, that means it can be rapidly scaled.

      • Netherlands does not have any gas fields. There are no gas fields anywhere near the south of England or East of NL. Gas fields are further north between Scotland and No.

        • Groningen gas field [wikipedia.org]

          The Groningen gas field is a giant natural gas field located near Slochteren in Groningen province in the northeastern part of the Netherlands. Discovered in 1959, it is the largest natural gas field in Europe and the tenth-largest in the world.

      • Exxon isn't working on CSS out of the good of their hearts. They are seeking profits. That is a GOOD THING. If something is profitable, that means it can be rapidly scaled.

        Exactly. Also, Exxon's profits have been negative, in the hundreds of million... and that's BAD.

        We can all find catharsis in blaming the oil industry for environmental calamities (without ever taking our own responsibility into account.) But any move towards renewables *must* include energy behemoths (for they have the technical and financial wherewithal to make it happen.)

      • This seems ridiculous, even at face value. You risk any surrounding water tables. It's a finite resource, so when it runs out, you're boom-to-bust in those communities. And when the gas boys pull out, they leave the mess for everyone else to clean up. But the bottom line is that it requires huge amounts of energy to get CO2 gas to compress to a liquid, and pump it down to those depths. Sure, you could use some chemistry and combine the CO2 with other readily available atoms. One option would be to com

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      ... and I'll save them 5 years. Carbon capture and sequestration can't be done on large enough scales to offset a significant amount of emissions by any definition. It just can't be done.

      Well, it may be possible to do it, but it most certainly cannot be done in the time we have left to contain this mess. If anything, this will make the mess worse because it delays other measures.

  • Problem already solved (Score:3)

    by BlackBilly ( 7624958 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2021 @12:00AM (#61018018)
    1. Grow tree
    2. Cut down tree
    3. Bury tree
    4. Rinse repeat
    But these days it's considered green if you burn the trees [wikipedia.org] instead

    • Trees don't solve the problem.

      You would need to grow a forest twice the size of Eurasia to offset all the carbon humans emit.

      Unfortunately, Eurasia is already mostly desert, arid grasslands, tundra, or already forested.

      • Trees don't solve the problem.

        You would need to grow a forest twice the size of Eurasia to offset all the carbon humans emit.

        Unfortunately, Eurasia is already mostly desert, arid grasslands, tundra, or already forested.

        Terraform the Sahara.

        I don't know how serious such a plan should be taken. It is a plan though.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gtall ( 79522 )

          "Terraform the Sahara." Okay Einstein, show us a plan on how to do that. Please include research showing you aren't just blowing smoke. That will mean actual data, not something scraped from Fox "News".

          • My call to "terraform the Sahara" is my answer to those that say the answer to carbon sequestration is to plant trees. Much of the Earth's surface can be defined as cropland, land occupied by people, land already forested, exposed rock or topsoil to shallow for trees, land too high for trees to grow, frozen, or water. The surface area that is left is desert on which is possible for people to put enough effort for it to sustain trees. Given time these trees could become a self sustaining forest.

            You want a

            • Given time these trees could become a self sustaining forest.

              Nope.

              If you plant trees in the Sahara, water them everyday until they are mature, and then stop watering them, they die.

              The Sahara lacks trees because it is a desert. It isn't a desert because it lacks trees.

              • Type "terraform Sahara" into your favorite internet search engine and you will find plenty of plans to turn the Sahara into a forest. This isn't a new idea and so people have thought of the problem of how to keep the water retained in the forest so it can be self sustaining.

                The suggestion to terraform the Sahara is the answer to the idiots that think it's a simple matter of planting enough trees to sequester the CO2 we've emitted. The level of trees we'd need to plant is on the level of foresting the Saha

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Whibla ( 210729 )

                The Sahara lacks trees because it is a desert. It isn't a desert because it lacks trees.

                In absolute terms you're right, but there are strong links between forests, water retention in soils, and rainfall patterns.

                Trees transpire vast amounts of water, as well as producing volatile compounds that act as 'seeds' for raindrops.

                The above is a large part of the reason why clearing coastal rainforests for farmland and pasture is so concerning. Whereas that area of land would previously have acted as a huge 'atmospheric water recycling system', essentially the rollers underneath a conveyor belt, shift

            • My call to "terraform the Sahara" is my answer to those that say the answer to carbon sequestration is to plant trees.

              The person you replied to didn't make that claim.

            • When people have ownership of land then they take care of it.

              hahahahaha no.

              Some of them do, and that's great. But most of them just exploit it and move on to the next piece of land.

              Productivity is not a measure of how good care someone is taking of land if you just ignore all the times they packed up and moved somewhere else after they fucked it all up.

        • Trees don't solve the problem.

          You would need to grow a forest twice the size of Eurasia to offset all the carbon humans emit.

          Unfortunately, Eurasia is already mostly desert, arid grasslands, tundra, or already forested.

          Terraform the Sahara.

          I don't know how serious such a plan should be taken. It is a plan though.

          It's not even a plan, it's just a brain fart dude.

      • You would need to grow a forest twice the size of Eurasia to offset all the carbon humans emit.

        1. We don't need to offset all of it.
        2. Plants can also been grown in lakes/rivers/oceans too.
        3. It depends on how fast a tree grows and its rate of CO2 consuption doesn't it? 4. If smaller faster growing trees could be grown and buried every couple of years it reduces the amount of overall land required
        5. How does it compare to carbon capture?
        I haven't done any numbers, but TFA solution is pie in the sky, so this isn't any worse.

    • Yup smart plan. Sounds almost as good as digging a hole outside your house and filling it with mercury then covering it back up.

    • 1. Grow tree
      2. Cut down tree

      2a. Turn the trees into valuable products like furniture, books, houses, etc.

      3. Bury tree
      4. Rinse repeat

      Nobody can fund such an endeavor without a means to profit from it.

      But these days it's considered green if you burn the trees instead

      These days it's considered "green" to cut down the trees to make room for solar panels. I suggest we remove the government subsidies that make it profitable to turn cropland into solar "farms". I'm sure some solar energy advocate is just jumping at this as a chance to post, "End the fossil fuel subsidies first!" I agree, we should end all energy subsidies.

      Oh, and

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Well, if you have 10'000 years to solve the problem, sure.

      • Well, if you have 10'000 years to solve the problem, sure.

        What is the problem? (actual clearly defined specific problem, not hand-wavy the-world-will-end type statements).
        TFA mentioned "lower emissions". More tress solves that problem today, so it depends on scale, which isn't clearly defined.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          That is just sophistry. It is on the same level as "we already have trees on thins planet, hence we need to do nothing".

          • That is just sophistry. It is on the same level as "we already have trees on thins planet, hence we need to do nothing".

            It's exactly the opposite which makes me wonder do people actually read comments before replying?
            In order to solve a problem you need to define it, and importantly the scale of it. If the problem is simply defined as "lower emissions", the planting one extra tree achieves that goal.

  • If they wanted to lower emissions all they have to do is substantially raise the price of their oil. Seriously, that's all it would take. However, we both know this is mere PR and no doubt they are going to make everything a tax write off. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if their carbon capture plants were powered by fossil fuel based power plants.

    This is all a bad faith effort and it's transparent because they've done this bullshit for decades.

    • If they wanted to lower emissions all they have to do is substantially raise the price of their oil.

      Exxon doesn't set the price of oil.

      If they could unilaterally raise the price, they would have already done so.

      I wouldn't be surprised if their carbon capture plants were powered by fossil fuel based power plants.

      Energy is fungible. So it is irrelevant how their carbon capture is powered.

      • Energy is fungible.

        I'm amazed how many people fail to understand this.

        If we drive up the price of gasoline through carbon taxes then that means electric cars get more expensive to buy and to drive. If electricity rates are driven down with more wind and solar then the price of natural gas falls too.

        This isn't a perfect correlation so it is possible to get electricity so low that natural gas and transportation fuel could be replaced. That would take a lot of effort in building the wind and solar capacity while natural gas c

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ichijo ( 607641 )

          Luckily, taxes are fungible, too. Every dollar taken in gas taxes is a dollar not needed in sales taxes to build and maintain roads [taxfoundation.org]. Which do you think harms commerce more, a tax on the amount of carbon the business emits of their own choosing, or an unavoidable tax on every dollar they make?

          Oh, and a higher gas tax also reduces traffic congestion which is another thing that harms commerce. So that's two benefits for the price of one, and who doesn't like two-for-one deals?

    • Actually that would achieve the opposite. By raising the price they charge for their oil the wider market would be unaffected, the consumption on the whole would be unaffected, the only thing this would achieve is that they need to find a place to store the oil they are pulling out of the ground and actually having the result of increasing CO2 emissions (production emissions) to store oil while the rest of the world happily burns at the rate they always have.

      Oil companies don't set market prices, it's a fun

    • Actually, long term lower prices might work better. Hear me out:
      low price -> lower revenue.
      Currently drilling and pumping requires rising amount of investment. (Shale gas requires a price > $50/barrel to work)
      At a low enough price, it stops being profitable to drill and pump. Ergo less oil supply.
      Disabled wells seem to be hard an pricey to put back in production.
      This is based on the assumption that supply and demand mechanics don't work on oil prices. Which might well hold, because oil is the underly

    • If they wanted to lower emissions all they have to do is substantially raise the price of their oil.

      If you want to see an environmental disaster then raise the price of oil. The nation will be devoid of trees in short order as people burn wood for heat.

      The market dictates the price of commodities, not Exxon Mobil.

      If you want to see emissions lowered then come up with an alternative so low in cost that Exxon Mobil can't stay in business. The path to a lower dependence on oil is the path where oil becomes so cheap that it is worthless. As oil prices rise companies like Exxon Mobil are willing to spend mo

  • The writing is on the wall and so soon will be the regulation. This is ExxonMobil making the right play to profit from the coming regulation. Their lawyers have likely written significant parts of that regulation. If this stuff actually works and they make a profit, I guess that's better than them making profits on pollution. I'm not thrilled that I'm paying for it either way.

    On the bright side, maybe we will get some rational legislation: just tax carbon and greenhouse equivalents and don't subsidize a

  • We're talking about a company that was forecasting a CAPEX of $65bn for 2020 (which obviously didn't go ahead). Conversely $3bn over the next 5 years is a metaphorical renewable piss in an ocean of oil projects. And a reminder that Exxon is all in on tar-sand production, because nothing quite says "fuck the planet" more than spewing large amounts of CO2 into their, denying climate change exists, and at the same time strip mining the surface off the planet because it's cheaper than drilling.

    Oil companies are

    • Oil companies are some of the worst climate offenders.

      If you want to see some energy production that devastates the environment then look at what solar power does.

      This environmental devastation of the planet in search of energy will continue until people get comfortable with the idea of nuclear fission power.

  • Be careful with carbon capture, especially right now when emissions are reduced due to covid.

    Global warming is an irritating issue over 100-300 years. Compared to what? Compared to inducing a new ice age accidentally, which only takes one summer of non-melting snow and then billions starve inside a year. What if we have a large volcanic eruption that same year?

    Be careful.

  • I've seen a number of papers, articles, YouTube lectures, and more on the world's energy problems and the ones where their math adds up come to a general consensus on the solutions.

    One metric that needs our future energy sources needs to meet is energy return on energy invested, or EROEI. If the EROEI is too low then we spend more time and energy getting the energy that our standard of living drops. It's not the dollar amount of anything that dictates if we can take a flight to Hawaii, eat a steak, or buy

    • Just picking one point - because I suspect the whole is a cut'n'paste from somewhere - I read this with astonishment :

      A windmill doesn't take land in the same way that an open pit for coal or silica might but it does mean the land is no longer safe for habitation, the spinning blades pose a hazard to homes, cars, and such

      The last time I walked under a wind turbine (a whole 3 months ago I admit - old technology??) I distinctly remember needing to take my hat off to avoid being brained by the whirling blades

      • There's laws on keeping homes and streets from windmills because if there is ice built up on them and the wind gets them spinning then this can come flying off and kill someone. If a windmill blade fails for whatever reason then bits of it can come flying off and kill someone. Because the tip speeds on these blades can get rather high the bits and pieces that could come flying off can cover quite a distance before they hit the ground. Current practice is often a half mile of distance from any occupied st

  • Their biggest bang for the buck would be to clean up their act instead of investing in technology whose greatest benefit (for them) is public relations.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close