Column: Energy industry charging ahead with emissions reduction technologies — A preferred route to tearing up the world in search of minerals


January 13, 2022 6:45 AM Terry Etam

The start of a new year is often a time of reflection, quiet, and goal setting. Minus 30 temperatures and pants that no longer fit do make a person contemplative, and we look back to learn from the year past, calibrate where we are at, and put ourselves vigorously on a new path, to the extent that there is not a new year’s bonanza on Netflix. 

The hydrocarbon sector is more aptly described as shell-shocked rather than reflective. Despite rebounding commodity prices, the ground-shift beneath over the past two years has been monumental. The sector is supposed to be dying like a stabbed Shakespearean character. It is supposed to be the seventh mass extinction. That was the plan – divest fossil fuels, starve the industry of capital, retrain the workforce, “strand some assets.”

Mark Carney, former investment banker and head of the Bank of England, announced in November that he had aligned financial institutions with $130 trillion of capital towards net-zero pledges, aligning that monetary firepower with the International Energy Agency’s roadmap to net-zero by 2050. That roadmap stated quite clearly that there could be no new hydrocarbon investments, period.

That storyline was firmly entrenched in the media. Six months ago, leading up to COP26, pretty much the whole world could see the planned roadmap. Build Back Better, European Green New Deal, Trudeau’s new Greenpeace-trained economic termite in place…all the pieces were coming together. Armchair energy quarterbacks declared oil consumption had peaked in 2019, and that stranded assets should be the hydrocarbon industry’s most pressing concern.

Yet here we find ourselves in the new year sitting under desks, nuclear-fright style, wearing helmets, scouring the web for supplies, watching the world bid to unfathomable prices every hydrocarbon molecule, watching the greenest of nations introduce ‘fossil fuel subsidies’ to prevent civil unrest, and watching one country literally dissolve into anarchy for not doing so (Kazakhstan – though the anarchy appears to be part of a much deeper story). The only thing keeping Europe from following suit is newly introduced fossil fuel subsidies.29dk2902l

That’s right, the world is now upside down, at least compared to the view from a year ago. Not only is oil consumption heading for record heights, but so is coal, and natural gas. Coal, in particular, had a noose placed around its neck at COP26, but it broke free and is running wild –  a scant few months after its planned global demise, we see major exporters like Indonesia halting exports to preserve critical supplies, and consumption in Europe and North America increasing substantially over prior years. 

Renewed interest in coal is just the tip of the iceberg. Europe and Asia are outbidding each other for scarce LNG cargoes. Rising energy costs have decreased production of a vast array of industrial products from textiles to aluminum to fertilizer. These shortages and price hikes are destabilizing supply chains for everything, including renewable energy and EV components that were the lynchpin of reducing hydrocarbon demand in the first place.

Even if the supply chains were functioning properly, Europe has shown with savage proof that the idea of reducing emissions by abandoning hydrocarbons and embracing renewables is a recipe for disaster.

On that note, here is some fairly significant irony.  Despite the ‘bring out your dead’ hydrocarbon sector diagnosis, the sector is adapting rapidly – making massive strides towards global emissions reductions by developing new technology. The irony comes from the fact that renewable-heavy jurisdictions are heading in the opposite direction. Consider the two trajectories.

Setting the stage for hydrocarbon sector emissions reduction initiatives, it should be perfectly clear by now that meaningful emissions reduction will come from emissions mitigation techniques and technologies as opposed to supply strangulation. (First and foremost, countries should switch from coal to natural gas, the biggest bang for the emissions reduction buck, as the US has shown, but that’s another story.)

To proceed meaningfully, we must do something about emissions that are part of the system that cannot be wished away. Developments on that front are happening at remarkable speed.

Alberta’s carbon trunk line is operational, and plans have been drafted to capture/sequester CO2 from mega-production sites like the oil sands in a proposed huge CO2 transportation system. New emissions reduction technology is being developed hand over fist; Carbon Engineering, co-founded by oil sands titan Murray Edwards, is currently building its first commercial direct air carbon capture facility in Texas that will sequester 1 million tonnes/year of CO2.

Entropy Inc., a subsidiary of Canadian producer Advantage Energy, is commercializing point-source modular carbon capture/storage equipment that will be economic for relatively small emitters across many industries; Entropy’s geological expertise is pairing new technology with the ability to economically dispose of captured CO2 in underground reservoirs. The company recently announced that they have nine scoped projects that could reduce CO2 by 1.8 million tonnes/year. Entropy’s growth rate is rapid indeed, and the company recently raised $300 million.

Out of the University of Calgary comes something with far more potential. In conjunction with “the gas separation industry”, scientists have developed a new material, a metal-organic framework, that, in one test, captured 95 percent of the emissions from a Vancouver cement plant. If this material really works, and is scalable, we might have the holy grail – the ability to capture emissions without destroying the trillions in infrastructure that currently get the job done.

Compare that progress with the goat rodeo that is the central planning committees of western governments. Renewable energy development – including the at-gunpoint transition to EVs – is going to require, per the IEA’s net-zero 2050 roadmap, four times as many mines as are now in existence to extract the minerals needed for renewable technology. The very idea is absurd; ask anyone involved in permitting a new mine anywhere.

The IEA report itself mentions a historical average of 16.5 years to get a new mine into production, a number that will only increase as regulations tighten against habitat destruction. As but one very current example, Chile’s new leader slammed the brakes on development of a new copper mine, and copper is absolutely critical to renewable transition. At the same time, the IEA report, the one that is becoming the bedrock of nations’ net-zero-2050 plans, notes also that “Today’s supply and investment plans are geared to a world of more gradual, insufficient action on climate change…They are not ready to support accelerated energy transitions.”

The report points out that resource quality is declining, meaning mines will have to be bigger and more environmentally intrusive to get similar yields (“For example, the average copper ore grade in Chile declined by 30% over the past 15 years.”). To cap it all off, China has been playing mineral chess for years and now controls much of the world’s mineral processing capabilities (“China’s share of refining is around 35% for nickel, 50-70% for lithium and cobalt, and nearly 90% for rare earth elements.”).

In other words, if the west wants to pursue a net-zero-2050 pathway by abandoning hydrocarbons and embracing renewables and renewables’ mineral requirements, it will have to not just transition energy systems but create a new mineral production/processing industry – or risk being held captive by Chinese strategic pursuits (In an article entitled “China May Ban Rare Earth Tech Exports on Security Concerns” it is noted that “The Chinese government is currently conducting a review of its rare-earths policy. Officials view the technology needed to refine and purify the raw materials as a more powerful weapon in protecting state interests than the actual minerals.”).

Here’s the energy transition options in a nutshell: should a transition utilize fully $ trillions of existing infrastructure and leverages the knowledge that comes with it? Or should it rip up the world with new mines, build a vast array of new processing facilities, rewire hundreds of thousands of miles/facilities for EVs/wind/solar, pay much higher prices, and pretend that intermittent power is not so bad?

Yeah yeah, I can hear it already – the choice need not be binary. Well, that’s the rational view, and it’s correct, but that doesn’t mean the world is acting that way. COP26 “excluded polluters from the summit”, though hydrocarbon companies sent delegates anyway to hear what their fate would be.

Germany just shut down three nuclear reactors at the start of 2022 in their drive to go all renewable, which is irrational on any plane, never mind when the continent is in the midst of an energy crisis. That very European energy crisis is leading for improbably loony calls to accelerate the rush to renewables, despite the fact that there are no minerals to make that possible. Prime Minister Trudeau unilaterally pledged to reduce Canadian emissions by 40-45 percent by 2030, one-upping the lunacy of the IEA’s projections, and at the same time put green-energy exec Jonathan Wilkinson in charge of the natural resources portfolio and the aforementioned Greenpeace-addled Steven Guilbeault in charge of the environment/climate change file, which is the same thing as granting Kim Jong Il authority-levels over the economy. 

The truth will indeed be in the middle, though governments will run the world to the ragged edge of meltdown before admitting it (see Europe for proof – after demonizing oil/gas to the point of a catastrophe, leaders in mittens are now starting to see the value of natural gas). New-energy architects have convinced leaders that hydrocarbons are no longer relevant, and the divest-fossil-fuels campaign grew unchecked with the encouragement of the likes of Mark Carney. So the binary aspect was, at a minimum, implicit.

The hydrocarbon industry’s solutions then will be the building blocks of the path forward, once reality sweeps aside the false prophets. So hats off to everyone that is putting the wheels of progress in motion. 

Come 2050, the hydrocarbon industry will be sequestering carbon all over, will have developed new emissions reduction technology, will coexist with a reasonable level of wind and solar, and will still be fuelling the world.

How did we get in such an energy quagmire? Find out how, and how to get out – pick up  “The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity” at, or Thanks for the support.

Read more insightful analysis from Terry Etam here.

3.8 13 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rafe Champion
January 14, 2022 10:09 pm

Lets see how it all goes! The International Energy Agency calculated that the needs for “energy transition minerals” such as lithium, graphite, nickel and rare-earth metal would rise by 4,200%, 2,500%, 1,900% and 700%, respectively, by 2040.

In cautious and bureaucratic language the report noted that the world doesn’t have the capacity to meet such demand and there are no plans to fund and build the necessary mines and refineries. 
The agency received a lot of publicity for their recommendation about putting a stop to coal and gas projects but there has been less attention to their 287-page report on The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions.

January 14, 2022 10:14 pm

There would be more substance to the idea of sequestering carbon dioxide, installing solar panels, and clear-felling for wind turbines if there was any evidence that CO2 had any dangerous effect on World Temperature.  

Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
January 14, 2022 10:57 pm

To ask politicians to question the absolute destructive power of CO2 is on the level of asking all the spiritual leaders of Islam to call a convocation to decide if anything at all is really the will of Allah.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  AndyHce
January 14, 2022 11:40 pm

But since Allah only became what he is due to climate change (late Justinian cooling) and an early appearance of the plague decimating both the byzantians and the Persians, maybe they will listen

Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
January 15, 2022 2:29 am

“There would be more substance to the idea of sequestering carbon dioxide, installing solar panels, and clear-felling for wind turbines if there was any evidence that CO2 had any dangerous effect on World Temperature.”  
Agreed – and there is ample evidence that CAGW was a false crisis from its inception decades ago – there is NO global warming (aka climate change) crisis – the entire subject is the prattling of scoundrels and imbeciles.
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., October 20, 2021, Update November 8, 2021, Update January 14, 2022
A Climate, Energy and Covid Primer for Politicians and Media
By Allan M.R. MacRae, Published March 21, 2021, Update 1e published May 8, 2021
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., January 10, 2020

Peter W
Reply to  Allan MacRae
January 15, 2022 7:56 am

And, of course, the reason why we are able to continue to feed our increased population is because of the significant increase in plant growth due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. For an indication of what we would be faced with otherwise, see the book with the title “The Population Bomb” published in the 1960’s.

Reply to  Peter W
January 20, 2022 8:59 am

Re: “The Population Bomb” published in the 1960’s.

Author Paul Erlich was entirely wrong in his alarmist tomb.
“[i]n the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”[4][5] Among the solutions suggested in that book was population control, including “various forms of coercion” (wiki)

Erlich’s predictive track record was dismal, yet some people still think he has credibility. Amazing! On the brighter side, this nonsense got him a best-selling book and a senior tenured position at Stanford U.

Maybe I should try this tactic:
“You’re all going to die! Where’s my money?”

My latest paper:
“The ability to correctly predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence.”

Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
January 28, 2022 5:38 pm

Just plant a trillion trees

Coeur de Lion
January 15, 2022 12:23 am

Given ECS at 0.5degsC, the whole exercise is pointless. Rise will continue at 2ppm a year nevertheless.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
January 15, 2022 7:11 am

Except the IPCC says numbers a lot higher than 0.5, and uses those numbers to make their RPC pathways sound like valid analysis….

Last edited 1 year ago by DMacKenzie
Peter W
Reply to  DMacKenzie
January 15, 2022 7:57 am

Which shows why we should not trust anything from the IPCC!

January 15, 2022 12:39 am

“Come 2050, the hydrocarbon industry will be sequestering carbon all over, will have developed new emissions reduction technology …”. There is no printable word that represents the total insanity of that statement.

All ‘carbon sequestration’ is an additional cost. The energy industry has had a whole sequence of major additional costs foisted on them, and this is just one more.

The reality is that all fossil fuels are in increasing demand as reality little by little breaks through the green chains that are holding it back. My prediction is that by 2050 all today’s politicians will be out of power and the countries that replace them with climate realists will power ahead (pun intended) while the rest sink into a stinking green morass.

Provided China has not already taken over and sunk everyone into their stinking red morass.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Mike Jonas
January 15, 2022 10:52 am

Agreed. Does anyone have a reliable reference for how much of the energy in fuel is wasted to capture and sequester CO2?

As always, what’s technically possible is not always economically feasible.

Reply to  Rich Davis
January 15, 2022 2:48 pm

The following might help Rich.

04-PEIR-Chapter-04-Proposed-Development.pdf (

Paragraph 4.3.1: 800MWe unabated power station drops to 700MWe abated.
Paragraph 4.3.17: 95% of the CO2 is captured.
Paragraph 4.3.26: CO2 produced at 12 to 20 bars pressure.

It will take about 20 MWe to compress CO2 to the hydrostatic pressure of geologic storage (150 bars or more).

100MW plus 20MW for storage = 120MW for 95% of the CO2. This is equivalent to a 126MW for a notional 100% capture.

Loss for capture and storage is then 126/800 = 15%.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Jordan
January 15, 2022 3:23 pm

Thanks for the data, Jordan.

Imagine that the government made a law that you need to put 15% of the food you buy directly into the garbage as a sacrifice to ward off evil spirits.

Pretty much the same idea.

Last edited 1 year ago by Rich Davis
Reply to  Rich Davis
January 15, 2022 4:14 pm

Agreed Rich. It’s very expensive in both monetary terms and in terms of utilisation of limited resources.
An equally valid objection is the vast volume of CO2 which needs to go into reservoirs to make even the slightest dent on annual CO2 emissions. We will need CO2 reservoirs measured in gigatonnes of CO2 capacity. Where exactly are these reservoirs? Enquiring minds would like to be told.
All this puts additional emphasis on demonstrating CO2 is a genuine problem. Until now, governments and financial institutions seem to be happy to put their faith in the word of some left-leaning career academics.
That’s called “bad governance” in my book. Governments and banks – they seem to be unable to learn from past mistakes.

January 15, 2022 1:25 am

Germany just shut down three nuclear reactors at the start of 2022 in their drive to go all renewable,

No, they shut them down as part of a separate programme to phase out nuclear power. Unrelated to green ambitions.

Two things going on there, not one (I’m not defending their nuclear shut down)

Reply to  griff
January 15, 2022 2:23 am

The only thing going on there is lunacy

They need power so they close it down

Ron Long
Reply to  griff
January 15, 2022 2:24 am

griff is close to being right on this comment. Angela Merkel participated in a nuclear power plant shut-down scheme in 2011, due to noisy Green Delusion Members citing Fukashima and Chernobyl. The last 3 reactors in Germany will be shut down in late 2022 (they had 17 in 2011). Germany has switched to wind and solar, whoops, they have desperate to import gas from Russia to power the stand-by gas-fired power plants, and they have otherwise spiraled into dysfunction, and seem to be proud of it. Shivering in the Dark, anyone?

Joao Martins
Reply to  griff
January 15, 2022 3:41 am

No, griff, you are wrong: There is only one thing going on: political decisions based in ideology,based on fiction, not based on science and the analysis of real observations.

Reply to  griff
January 15, 2022 4:30 am

You are defending, lie spewing liar, you have repeatedly called for exactly that.

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
January 15, 2022 11:24 am

Only one thing going on there. The long-term goal to make Germany dependent on Russian gas and subservient to Russian tyrants. (Whether they call themselves Soviets or just mourn the passing of the Soviet Union).

Vincent Causey
January 15, 2022 1:26 am

It is out of the hands of governments – they are only sock puppets anyway – and is now controlled by the finance giants like Black Rock and Vanguard who are starving the fossil fuels of capital for their own enrichment.

Reply to  Vincent Causey
January 15, 2022 6:11 am

How is Vanguard enriching itself as you say?

Reply to  Ragnaar
January 15, 2022 7:27 am

Step 1. sell a bunch of green investors on enviro stocks gaining high profits on IPO’s and market demand you have created.
Step 2. slowly invest in energy stocks in the background through sister subsidiaries.
Step 3. start a pro-energy investment strategy based on green pipelines buying the electricity for their pumps from wind mills or some such virtue signalling.
Step 4. insist that governments stop subsidizing eco-energy companies cuz their stocks are showing wonderful value and resiliency…
Step 5. short the enviro stocks and sell them bigly when the time is right.
We’re only at step 1….

Reply to  Ragnaar
January 15, 2022 12:17 pm

They don’t have a specific climate change fund. They have this: Vanguard Energy ETF. Vanguard is mostly index funds. I agree Black Rock is a mistake and people should me their money from there to Vanguard. I don’t thank Vanguard cares what you buy. They never suggested I buy anything.

January 15, 2022 1:28 am

I work in mining, we’re chomping at the bit for the coming electric car revolution. If folks thought we dug lots of big holes in the ground before, they aint seen nothing yet. Electrification will be the dawn of a mining golden era.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Klem
January 15, 2022 2:42 am

Just be sure your monster mining trucks are electric.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 15, 2022 7:07 am

All diesel electric except for the Caterpillar which is hydraulic.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  DHR
January 15, 2022 9:38 am

not sure what you mean by diesel electric – the engines burn diesel and the truck bed probably uses hydraulic and maybe the steering – same for large logging machines which have blades for pushing dirt around, cutting + log lifting mechanisms using hydraulics

Caterpillar machines don’t use diesel? Their logging machines do. And hydraulics of course.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 15, 2022 9:57 am

sure. got that covered!

Electric Mining Truck – World’s Largest Electric Vehicle (

and on the smaller scale
Electric Mining Truck | Better for the World | Epiroc

With the electric drive, Battery mine trucks will outperform diesel equivalents, especially on grade. ‘

Reply to  griff
January 15, 2022 2:38 pm

And the reason why nobody is buying these things is …

Reply to  MarkW
January 15, 2022 4:54 pm

The Electric Mining Truck is a downhill-only concept. From the link:
Here’s how it works: The dump truck, itself, weighs 45 tons and ascends a hill at a 13 percent grade, in one scenario. On the way back down, it’s more than twice as heavy, carrying 65 tons of ore. To rectify that scenario, the truck’s “regenerative braking system” actually recaptures the energy created by going downhill, refilling the battery’s charge for the next time the truck travels uphill.”
I’d like to see the Electric Mining Truck carry 65 tonnes of ore UPHILL, to be able to compare with the diesel electric/hydraulic designs which fulfil that role.

Reply to  griff
January 16, 2022 12:18 am

How is that covered, mate?

From your link:

The idea is to replace the vehicle’s diesel engine with a retrofitted high-power modular lithium-ion battery.

So it’s not electric it’s diesel

On the rare occasion you post links, do you actually read them beyond the headline, Griff?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Klem
January 15, 2022 10:07 am

Yes, hence the canadian mining industry supporting Trudeau insane energy policy.

As if the insane aren’t going to go after mining as well

Bob Hunter
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
January 15, 2022 4:07 pm

For sure, the Mining Industry kept quiet on Trudeau’s Bill C69 (for non Canadians, Natural Resource Development has always been a provincial matter until Bill C69) because they were told Bill C69 would only apply to oil development. First time the Trudeau Govt tried to use Bill C69 to delay a metallurgical coal mine, there was a huge uproar from the Mining Industry. ie the cat was out of the bag, secret discussions with the mining industry re Bill C69 were disclosed.

Doesn’t matter where you live, don’t trust liberals and climate activists.

Last edited 1 year ago by Bob Hunter
January 15, 2022 1:58 am

Net zero is the latest version of the Emperor’s new clothes

Reply to  fretslider
January 15, 2022 12:08 pm

Fretslider …. I was saying the same thing earlier this week but in regards to Bitcon = the Emperor’s new clothes.

Joseph Zorzin
January 15, 2022 2:32 am

“Mark Carney, former investment banker and head of the Bank of England, announced in November that he had aligned financial institutions with $130 trillion of capital towards net-zero pledges…”

Oh really?

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 15, 2022 3:40 am

I think it means that Mark Carney has a scheme for turning $130 trillion into $0. There won’t be any of his own money in the $130 trillion, of course.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Mike Jonas
January 15, 2022 3:44 am

maybe none going in but some coming out

Thomas Gasloli
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 15, 2022 6:28 am

The article read like the prospectus for a pyramid scheme.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 15, 2022 11:28 am

The sum coming out will be prodigious. A hundredth of one percent would be $13 billion.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Rich Davis
January 15, 2022 2:06 pm

1% of 130 trillion is 1.3 trillion

so perhaps the original number in the article meant billion not trillion
but nowadays, who is noticing with the way the Democrats throw around a trillion here- a trillion there…

Rich Davis
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 15, 2022 3:28 pm

Yes, correct but I said a hundredth of 1%. My point is that if somebody gets in a position to direct such unimaginable sums, an almost undetectable percentage skim off the top could still equate to billions.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 15, 2022 8:16 am

Does he do this for free ? Or does he get a brokerage fee ?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  DMacKenzie
January 15, 2022 8:21 am

1% would be fair, he’s probably thinking :-}

Julian Braggins
January 15, 2022 3:38 am

No-one seems to be factoring in the greatly reduced population in the future mineral demand, sorry to put a damper on the miners, but this doesn’t look good,

Perhaps were on the ball with their 2025 population forecasts for the countries of the western world, mostly down by 40 to 60%.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Julian Braggins
January 15, 2022 5:20 am

it doesn’t say population will crash by that amount- it says deaths are up by that amount

Peter W
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 15, 2022 8:04 am

At least partly as a result of “defund the police.”

Reply to  Julian Braggins
January 15, 2022 8:03 am

Even if this is true, it’s only true for the population being covered by this one insurance company. It may not be true for the country as a whole, much less the whole world.
There’s also no evidence that this increase is permanent.

Julian Braggins
Reply to  MarkW
January 15, 2022 11:16 pm

Read the article Mark, it does say it is across the industry in the US. As far as continuing at that rate, I did see a thought provoking T Shirt message yesterday,


January 15, 2022 3:55 am

Mark Carney, former investment banker and head of the Bank of England, announced in November that he had aligned financial institutions with $130 trillion of capital towards net-zero pledges, aligning that monetary firepower with the International Energy Agency’s roadmap to net-zero by 2050.

Perhaps he’s a smart cookie and could foresee it would be needed to fund the power bills-
UK considering bank loan plan to smooth energy cost hit – BBC (

How low can these climate changers sink before they drown for good you wonder?

D. Wolfgang Zernial
January 15, 2022 5:29 am

One of the best CO2 surveys! Would be good if the greens in Germany could read that. I fear they are not able, the climate crisis covers their brains.

January 15, 2022 6:50 am

Who will pay? FYI, tax abatements, unfunded payments, and/or any other back door corporate welfares are just that. Just by more circuitous methods. If it’s worth doing, then it’s worth paying for with a carbon tax equal to the repayment/mass unit of CO2 sequestered. To be used only for this repayment, with the leftovers rebated fully, regularly, equitably to every resident of the entity the CCS project is part of.

FYI. if you’re dead set opposed to any AGW mitigation, this is not where I will argue with you, My only point here is that the current status of CCS in the US features 2 processes that the Repubs profess to hate. Unfunded spending and winner picking. Yes, it’s bipartisan, but this particular hypocrisy is with the Repubs…

Interesting how even Mr. M. has gone radio silent on this, save for the stray, off hand remark. He probably did not like the reaction within this forum from his blatant attempts to pimp the desperate survival plan of his flailing current/former employer.

Last edited 1 year ago by bigoilbob
Reply to  bigoilbob
January 15, 2022 8:04 am

It’s already been proven that it is not needed.

Reply to  MarkW
January 15, 2022 8:16 am

It’s already been proven that it is not needed.”

A “hypothetical”. If it were “needed”, would you want to add to the debt/deficit by picking winners. per CCS? Or would you want to use our free enterprise system to force the CO2 sourcers to pay for the AGW costs they have/will incur in the most efficent ways? Again, just “hypothetical”.

Either way, be sure to tell Mr. M., the next time he tries to use WUWT to goober smooch his current/former employer…

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  bigoilbob
January 15, 2022 10:14 am

Looking online I see a whole pile of ccs proposals tied in with corn to ethanol plants in the USA.
So an already losing process that uses more energy than it created and impinges food supply will now be even less efficient.

I thought ethanol was already carbon neutral, like burning forests, why then bother capturing CO2 from the process?

Endless waste

Reply to  Pat from kerbob
January 15, 2022 11:14 am

Preaching to the choir, w.r.t. ethanol. It’s another bipartisan, unpaid for, wasteful give away.

Reply to  bigoilbob
January 15, 2022 2:44 pm

The same is true for everyone one of the scams that claims to reduce CO2 production.

Reply to  bigoilbob
January 15, 2022 2:43 pm

Since there are no “CO2 costs” why should anyone be forced to pay for them?

PS: I wonder why Bob always assumes evil motives on the part of those who disagree with him?

Reply to  MarkW
January 15, 2022 3:00 pm

Since there are no “CO2 costs” why should anyone be forced to pay for them.”

I never said that there were no CO2 costs. The science tells us different. But that’s irrelevant w.r.t. my point. That, being that unfunded CCS payments are wrong either way.

If CO2 emissions were harmless, why sequester at all? If CO2 emissions are harmful, then why shouldn’t the emitters should be taxed proportionately. What’s left to consider?

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  bigoilbob
January 15, 2022 3:38 pm

Happy New Year, bob! Glad to note your objections to the CCS and RFS boondoggles so beloved by the Misanthropic Marxist Malthusians, who wish to collapse the free market economy, and the Crony Capitalist Cowards, who are too afraid to fight them.

Last edited 1 year ago by Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
January 15, 2022 4:03 pm

No sarc, hopefully. I do indeed object, and for the very reason that they are both boondoggles. Subsidies get intentionally disguised in so many ways. Particularly, as with both CCS and RFS, trickle up varieties.

Bruce Cobb
January 15, 2022 6:53 am

Come 2050, the hydrocarbon industry will be sequestering carbon all over, will have developed new emissions reduction technology, will coexist with a reasonable level of wind and solar, and will still be fuelling the world.

That is just fantasy regarding “sequestering carbon” and “wind and solar”, both having been long-abandoned by then as pure folly based on lies and pseudoscience.

very old white guy
January 15, 2022 6:53 am

They can fix nothing.

Reply to  very old white guy
January 15, 2022 10:02 am

But they can spend vast sums of money on it all the while skimming a little for themselves.

January 15, 2022 7:11 am

As the concentration of CO2 climbs slowly in our atmosphere, when/where is the point reached where we get to “Catastrophic” ppm? Someone needs to figure this out before we waste a lot of money needlessly.

No sense putting in equipment to sequester CO2 if it’s not necessary. We could be well into the next ice age before we hit “catastrophic” ppm.

Reply to  SMS
January 15, 2022 9:59 am

Now. today.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  griff
January 15, 2022 10:17 am

Griff, we are in the best climate in decades so we are going to need proof of your statement.
Hand waving isn’t proof
Models aren’t proof

Reply to  griff
January 15, 2022 11:06 am


You need to explain how C3 plants have already evolved to use over 1000 ppmv of CO2 in photosynthesis.

Then you need to admit that the world didn’t end from run away climate disaster for every living thing while they were evolving.

After that, You need to admit that you hate plants and want to starve them, right?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  griff
January 15, 2022 11:13 am

No. Never.

Reply to  griff
January 15, 2022 2:45 pm


Nothing has happened in the last few decades that hasn’t happened before, hundreds of times.

Frank from NoVA
January 15, 2022 7:12 am

If the US ever again has an executive and legislature that respect the concept of limited government per the Constitution, they’ll have a lot of work to do rolling back the current administrative state, including all the crap downstream from the EPA’s so-called endangerment finding.

While ‘throwing the ring back into the fire’ would eventually require eliminating the ability of the Fed and the banking system to create money ex nihilo that enables the State to bypass political and economic limits of taxation and borrowing, a good place to start would be to ban any bank that ever bought into the defunding fossil fuels meme from ‘serving’ as a primary dealer to the FOMC. After all, why reward those who seek to profit from the destruction of cheap and reliable energy with the additional privilege of front running credit markets?

January 15, 2022 7:52 am

If the west stops funding fossil fuel ventures, the only thing that will happen is that countries like China and Russia will step in and take up the slack, and the profits.

January 15, 2022 7:54 am

Strange, renewable is their clarion call yet the mining needed to support that is not renewable in the immediate sense of their slogan. More important is where the mining should be used now.

To make a shameless quote there is nothing more dangerous than a confident idiot and an even more dangerous one on the take. Or a politician demanding change without the support of the people in a free society.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  griff
January 15, 2022 10:25 am

Great if it works
But I’ve been involved in a couple dozen pilot plants over the last 1/4 century, maybe 1 in 10 end up as a viable process.
They may end up producing quantities of lithium but at multiples of current selling price.
But once government interference in the market completely upends the market with artificial demand driving up the price then maybe it will be viable?

Reply to  griff
January 15, 2022 2:49 pm

Nobody said it couldn’t be done. The question has always been; Should it be done.

And the answer to that is an unqualified, NO.

Reply to  griff
January 16, 2022 12:34 am

It’s not often you post something useful, mate, but this time I think you’ve got it

We’re going to need lithium whether or not you think EV’s are necessary, so making this work is worth pursuing if it is economically viable

One thing to note, Griff, is that lithium, ain’t gonna remain in the ground without the use of fossil fuels (don’t post the link to the diesel-powered electric dumper)

Paul Hurley (aka PaulH)
January 15, 2022 11:02 am

Is there an estimate on how much CO2 was released in the Tonga eruption? Mother Nature at work.

Walter Horsting
January 15, 2022 2:02 pm

There is no justification to spend $150 Trillion fighting the essential trace gas of life that is CO2:

January 15, 2022 2:51 pm

I wonder how Mark Carnegie intends to magic £130 trillion up for investment. It has to come from somewhere and represents some £14.500 from every man woman and child in the world. Also what does he think the return on this investment will be and how long will it take to repay the capital?

Marty Cornell
January 15, 2022 8:29 pm

Ah yes. Carbon capture to save the day. The only ones hurt are the poor who can’t afford this needless increased cost of energy production and plants who are starved for CO2. Sucking CO2 from the air to tuck away 0.001 gigatons out of the 800 gigatons annually emitted. Reality need not apply. All for no measurable impact on climate.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights