Carbon capture sequestere thoughts.

[SharperDingaan]

The basic idea is that the polluter pays to pollute. Savings from reducing the amount paid supporting the business case for investment in carbon removal technology.

 

Not economic unless there is a concentrated flow of CO2, and a disposal facility that can turn it into something inert. Highly economic if the CO2 can also be used as gas flood within an existing reservoir.

 

Best if emission and capture are all local. $ spent stay in the area raised, shorter pipe etc. 

 

Variety of who pays approaches. End user polluter through to source polluter. Pour a lot of concrete, pay a lot for pollution that made the cement.

 

Variety of tech approaches. Nukes to replace coal powered electricity and/or gas powered steam injection to eliminate at source, through to post production reprocessing. 

 

Good for the global macro environment, not so much for those who make a career out of secular micro environment oppositon.

 

Obviously there are business opportunities in here, but what are the thoughts?

 

SD

 

[Hektor]

Isn't OXY offering to do just this?

[SharperDingaan]

All the big six Canadian oil sands partners are a part of this via the pathways alliance. Injectors using the CO2 for gas flood and getting paid to take it. Producers earning carbon credits for sequesture to offset CO2 generated and net out to zero. Keep net emissions at near zero and emmission caps are a non issue. Reduce the gross emissions (via nukes)  and the gain falls to the bottom line as additional revenue. Good business. Same argument for the smaller players such as CJ 

 

The mystery is where the nuke powered electrification is built, the amount of new grid required to carry it to the oilfields, and the capacity of that new wire. Building nukes on Canadian Shield is smart, putting them in the oilfields themselves... not so much. Sizing so as to include forecast electric vehicle use, and green power bolt-ons is smart, thinking small ... not so much.

 

Steel, workers, vision, etc. .... much of it intentionally minimizing US involvement. CAD becoming more of a petro currency over time.

 

SD

 

 

 

[Gamecock-YT]

Lighting capital on fire. If a company I own participates in it, I won’t be a shareholder much longer

[SharperDingaan]

If you see polluter pays as just another cost of doing business, its purely a cost vs benefit thing. If there is more benefit to investing in it, and your project can exceed your  ROI threshold, its a smart thing to do. All about the money.

 

The challenge is what the investment is in. Is the capex less to going with nukes and not produce the CO2, or is it less to produce CO2 as part of production and pay to clean it up afterwards, saving on carbon tax. 

 

The environment aspect is purely driven from the price of carbon. No virtue signaling, no Kyoto Accord, etc. If your community doesn't put a price on CO2, pollute all you want, as there is no cost to it.

 

SD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2025 by SharperDingaan

[John Hjorth]

A similar system already exists within EU, and is in effect :

 

European Union - EUR-Lex : EU emissions trading system.