Decoding CCS: Oil Companies' Role and the Climate Crisis
On Nov. 3rd, we co-hosted Prof. Charles Harvey with Scientists Speak Up for a talk on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).
We did not fully record the talk. However, Harvey gave a similar talk at Cornell University, which is available here.
Note: the talk coincided with the department of Energy Science Engineering’s alumni talk. Last year, they hosted a professor of petroleum engineering (and we hosted world-renowned science historian Naomi Oreskes). This year, they doubled down and hosted a lawyer who represented Shell in Nigeria from 2005 - 2008 (she later worked for ExxonMobil). For context, Shell Nigeria has been in court since the 90s for various abuses including complicity in murder, rape, and torture, the arbitrary executions of environmental activists, a corrupt deal that cost the Nigerian gov’t over $1 billion, and countless devastating oil spills.
Some more information about Charles Harvey’s talk:
Oil companies are ramping up their advocacy for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). On the surface, they appear committed to addressing the pressing climate crisis, emphasizing the need to employ "every tool in the tool chest" to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. However, is this the full story?
Our speaker, Stanford alumnus and MIT Professor Charles Harvey, delves into three key reasons that challenge the proactive stance of these companies on CCS:
Opportunity Costs: Allocating resources to CCS could divert critical funding and focus from more impactful emission reduction methods, particularly the adoption of renewable energy.
CCS's Role in Producing More Oil and Gas: It's revealed that most carbon dioxide used in CCS processes is for enhanced oil recovery and much of it was geologic CO2 co-produced with natural gas. Furthermore, subsidies given to CCS inadvertently support oil and, separately, gas production, highlighting a contradictory agenda.
Augmenting the Market for Fossil Fuels: CCS operations consume vast amounts of energy, inadvertently expanding the demand for fossil fuels. There's also a concern that subsidies dedicated to CCS could deter the growth of innovative technologies that bypass the need for burning fossil fuels altogether.
In addition to these central points, Dr. Harvey sheds light on a concerning trend: the influence of oil companies on academic research. Notable institutions, including MIT and Stanford, have seen their researchers funded by oil giants to produce studies in favor of CCS.
