Hi.
I'm Olivia Rodgaard, a reporter for Bloomberg Green. I'm currently working on a piece about climate anxiety, and I have request for zero listeners.
Climate change can.
Cause stress, both of people directly affected by it and for those concerned about its effects on others and their future. If you're okay to share your experience of this, we would love to hear from you. Tell us what makes you worry, how your worries affect your life, and what helps you feel better. Take our short survey. There's a link in the show notes.
Thank you, Welcome to Zero. I'm Akshatrati. This week corraling carbon Carefully. This is a climate solutions podcast, and I've talked with experts about all kinds of weird and wonderful solutions, everything from stuff that got to start in a garage to things that make billions of dollars in profit every year. Deploying these solutions means avoiding carbon pollution in the first place. Deploying a solar panel means someone has to burn less coal.
But there is a type of climate solution that directly manages those emissions. It's called carbon capture and storage or CCS. As a commercial technology, is being exploited for more than fifty years by the oil and gas industry. Its use for climate purposes is more recent and has often failed.
Some say carbon capture is an expensive and misguided distraction in the fight against climate change.
The fundamental problem of this industry, which is that it lacks revenue.
Carbon capturing storage is a priority for this administration.
Over the next two episodes, we will explore the different ways in which carbon pollution can be managed using CCS technologies. It's a crucial time to talk about carbon capture because there's a resurgence in interest. This year, the United Nations Climate Conference COP twenty eight will be hosted in oil dependent United Arab Emirates, and the COP twenty eight president is the CEO of the country's national oil company. He has promised that oil and gas companies will come with
credible climate promises at COP twenty eight. Carbon capture and storage has been the oil industry's favorite solution. As you drive out of the Dubai Airport, you are greeted with billboards put up by oil companies advertising CCS. Carbon capture technologies can be put in two big baskets. Those that capture emissions from smokestacks of power plants or industry, and those that attempt the harder challenge of trapping carbon dioxide
directly from the air. In all climate models, point source carbon capture from smokestacks is supposed to play a much bigger role in helping the world reach net zero emissions by twenty fifty. After that, carbon capture from the air is supposed to play the bigger role to undo climate damages. This technology is often referred to as carbon dioxide removal, which we will look at more closely next week. For this episode, we will look at coin source carbon capture.
It's the technology that's been used by the oil industry since the nineteen seventies to extract more oil. The same process can also be used for climate good if the trap pollution is simply put into the ground without extracting more fossil fuels. The US is a country that has deployed csious technologies the most under President Donald Trump and
Joe Biden. There has been growing support for the technology in the form of billions of dollars in new incentives, But given the string of failures that have dotted the use of carbon capture for climate good, is it a waste of money.
Carbon capture technologies are precious, They're incredibly energy intensive. They involve a lot of demand for storage that takes a lot from the communities that host it. We really need to be extremely pointed with where we're talking about deploying this.
This is Emily Grubert, a professor at the University of Notre Dame and one of the leading experts on CCS. I wanted to ask her whether point source carbon capture will work this time, which sectors deserve the use of ccs, and whether the oil and gas industry is necessary for
deploying this technology. So I first got into writing about climate solutions back in twenty seventeen, and I started with carbon capture and it was just sort of an idea that my editor had, Well, Trump's talking about it, What is this thing? Can you write about it? And it became so quickly, so complicated. Yeah, but I ended up spending in an entire year just trying to understand and write about the set of technologies that exist within this sphere.
What's your story about getting interested in carbon capture.
Yeah, carbon capture specifically is an interesting one. I think a big piece of how I got this involved with thinking about carbon captures that I was asked to run the Office of Carbon Management for the DOE a couple of years ago. But I think that happened because I've been kind of a fossil oriented academic that works on climate mitigation for a long time. Where that really comes from is I grew up around the oil industry. So
my dad's a petroleum engineer. On the other side, my grandfather and my great grandfather also were in oil kind of going way back in California, and so I grew up around the industry and kind of understood it from that perspective, and really as it became a lot more clear that climate change was this massive, massive thing as I was kind of getting into high school and beyond.
Bringing those two things together has kept me really interested in what transition looks like, and particularly in what phase out looks like. So a lot of the work that I do is around how you kind of safely transition away from fossil fuels in a way that allows us not to have a bunch of industrial explosions and things like that.
Now we're going to talk about a number of things that are going to involve many acronyms like CDR, CCS, CCUS E R DAC. Before we get into all that complication, let's just define the large umbrella term that is carbon capture. What set of technologies come underneath it. How do you think about that technology set?
Yeah, absolutely so carbon capture. The way that I think about it is when you have some sort of mechanical or chemical intervention to separate carbon dioxide from some other set of gases. Sometimes it's at very very high concentration, as with ethanol, where you may have essentially a ninety nine percent pure CO two stream coming off of a process. Sometimes it's directly from the air, where you know you're
about four hundred and twenty parts per million. Basically, I think a lot of other kinds of technologies or approaches that we think about that can take CO two out of the I typically don't define as carbon capture. So, for example, when you have like a reforestation project, we consider that as something where the trees are pulling CO two out of the air. But I typically wouldn't call that carbon capture, even though it can provide some of the similar functions.
So let's do the abbreviations right. CCS is carbon capture and storage, but then there are all these other variations. What are the other acronyms you come across? And why is there such a plethora of abbreviations in this industry?
Yeah, I mean the kind of silly answer I feel like is a lot of these are really long words, and people get tired of writing them a bunch of times. But carbon capture and storage, like you say, typically is how we would define CCS. People will also sometimes say carbon capture and sequestration, same thing. Essentially. CCUS often also comes up as even more of an umbrella term. So
carbon capture, utilization and storage. That also gets very complicated because some utilization is storage, some utilization is not storage. But that's another term that you'll see a lot. Then CDR carbon dioxide removal is an interesting one because it doesn't really refer to technologies. It refers to an atmospheric function where you're taking CO two out of the atmosphere and storing it away. It includes a number of CCS technologies though, and so you often kind of see it
in this category. One of those is direct air capture DAK. Usually we talk about it as direct air capture with carbon capture and storage, So DAX is a term that you'll often see, and then I think one of the ones that shows up quite frequently that isn't really about the CCS element is ER or enhanced oil recovery. EOR. Can be done in a number of different ways. This is basically usually referring to using a fluid to increase pressure and kind of drive oil out of a reservoir.
When you do it with CO two, that's considered to be kind of a direct working fluid utilization for CO two, and so you'll see it pop up around CCS as well.
Today we are talking about point source carbon capture, which is basically capturing carbon pollution from smokestacks. When first used commercially, the oil and gas industry used it for something called enhanced oil recovery or EOR. It's when compressed carbon dioxide can be used as a perfect lubricant to push out the hardest to reach oil in aging wells. I asked Emily why that origin has affected the development of the technology.
CO two e R or enhanced oil recovery, has been around, I think even longer than we've been talking about CCS
as a climate mitigation technology in the United States. When we use CO two EO r. Most of that is actually using natural CO two that we extract from domes, and so because that was already something people were doing basically to give new life to certain oil fields, and actually finding that CO two underground, putting it in a pipeline and moving it to your oil field is not cheap particularly, and so once the climate conversation started to get a little bit louder, kind of you know, in
the nineties or even a little bit longer after that, there was a lot of interest in the notion that you might be able to do some pollution control that would also allow you to do this oil production via er.
So because there was this existing structure, there's an existing demand for CO two associated with oil production, and there seemed to be an opportunity where a lot of capital might be available to do this, most of the projects that really got going were associated with you are also because somebody was willing to pay for the CO two. That paying for the CO two bit has been quite relevant for a long time and is part of the reason why people are excited about alternative ways to make this viable.
Point source carbon capture. The technology has been around for fifty years and clearly the urgency of using it for climate purposes has been growing, especially in the recent decades. But just to situate the listener, where are we on that progress metric of being able to use this technology for putting us on the track to be net zero?
So the technologies have been around for around fifty years, but they haven't been around in a climate oriented way for that long. But yeah, in terms of where they actually are and how they putent contribute to net zero, I think there's a couple of things going on here.
One is that the kinds of carbon capture and storage that we use for emissions mitigation in the sense that we're reducing emissions from something that's creating them, whether that's a power plant or a cement factory or a stealel mill or something like that that has the potential to reduce emissions. Hypothetically, it has the potential to eliminate emissions.
But generally speaking, when we look at those types of mitigative carbon capture on point sources, they're not going to get the CO two all the way down to zero.
So they've typically been thought of as a way to decarbonized processes that kind of fundamentally have CO two associated with them, largely power, but increasingly we look at this maybe more for industrial applications where there aren't obvious other mitigation strategies, especially because power has a lot of other decarbonization options now that we have things like wind and
solar kind of readily available. The other big piece of this, though, is carbon dioxide removal, which actually takes CO two that's already in the air out of the air and stores it out of the end atmosphere. That one is exceptionally relevant to net zero strategies because it basically generates a negative emission. Direct air capture with storage is actually a really potentially important technology when we think about net zero
because it does create these negative emissions. You can't have net zero without a negative.
If you look at the next thirty years, say between now and twenty fifty, when we need to reach net zero. What we see in climate models is that the bulk of the work that is done towards mitigation first starts off with point source carbon capture, and none of the technologies that we have towards mitigation right now, CCS being one of them, are things that we are on track for net zero. Solar and wind and electric cars their
adoption is growing pretty rapidly. Point source carbon capture, on the other hand, has been around for fifty years, and yet the gap between where we are, which is about thirty to forty million tons of capture globally versus what we should be on for net zero by time twenty and fifty, there's a ten x difference. Why is that?
Yeah, I think part of the reason is that carbon capture on something like a powerplant, on something like a cement plant is a pure cost. You are not getting any benefits from those types of things really beyond the CO two reductions, and so if you're not required to do it, you're not going to do it. Probably generally, when you talk about retrofitting a plant with CCS, you're talking about kind of a hundreds of millions of dollars to billions of dollar retrofit that involves your plant being
down for maybe years. It's not an easy thing to do and it's not required. Looking at CCS in particular is an interesting one because in many cases where models suggest that CCS could be helpful, there are probably alternatives, and so you can have a wind farm instead of a coal plant, you can have a solar plant with batteries instead of a gas plant. Those are alternatives that
we could do. If CCS is not really showing up in areas where there's not really a lot of other mitigation options, then I think those are the places we probably need to be focusing on deployment. Potentially, this varies a lot from country to country. There's a lot of dynamics like that around just what it means to retrofit a plant and whether you have other alternatives for mitigating those emissions.
The nice thing, if there is one nice thing about all this, is that all these experiments have been happening around the world in different places. But let's focus on the US, because the US is where carbon captures of technology, both for climate purposes or for other purposes, has been scaled up. It is the country with the largest deployment of carbon capture technologies. It has the largest carbon dioxide
pipeline network. It also has some of the most generous incentives now, both under Donald Trump's administration and under Joe Biden's administration. So what are the thorny issues that have still held this back?
Yeah, no, fascinating question, And I think one of the things about the US that I just want to make super clear to people that might not be pre familiar with this. Also, I'm a little not caught up quite exactly on where China is with some of their projects that have been announced versus whether they're online. But we are definitely top tier in terms of projects that have been deployed. That still means there's like ten of them. This is not something that exists in a real way.
We have never done a full demonstration of carbon dioxide capture on a full scale power plant. We have one operating slipstream on a single unit, so it's part of one unit of a multi unit plant that was offline for a while because of a fire and some other issues. But this is not something that's widely deployed. It exists, We've tested it, We have a couple of examples, like on ethanol plants and things like that, but this is not something that's widely deployed, even if it's more than
what a lot of other places see. But I think really the core reason why we haven't seen a lot more of it is this issue of it not being required. You alluded to the CO two pipeline network in the US being very large comparatively. That's true, but it's oriented around the CO two that we're producing naturally from ground resources.
It's not really about the climate pieces of this, and so a lot of the infrastructure we have is kind of cobbled together because of these historical associations with oil production. And now we do expect to see more deployment exactly like you say, because there have been some really big incentives announced in the last couple of years. But we'll see what that uptake looks like, because again it's it's not required, and it is something where even with that incentive,
it's still pretty disruptive for a lot of people. I will say too, it's interesting because we talk a lot about the increased incentive for carbon storage, which is really what we're paying for. There's the incentive is per ton of CO two that you put underground for the most part,
but that incentive has been around for a while. I think it was initially introduced in around two thousand and eight, and what the Inflation Reduction Act did was jump that value for that tax credit from about fifty dollars a ton to about eighty five dollars a ton when you
look at inflation over that period. Though it's really not that big of an increase, and so it's an interesting question to see exactly where people go with this, and probably it does incentivize the people with the highest concentrations of CO two most.
Let's try and take an example of a project to unravel some of these complications, and you already hinted at that project, which is Petronova. This is a point source carbon capture unit set up on a coal power plant south of Houston in Texas. As you said, it takes only a portion of the emissions of that power plant and captures it and then pipes it a few tens of kilometers away for enhanced all recovery, which is essentially using the CO two to extract more oil. It was
built on time, it was built within the budget. It had received direct money from the US Department of Energy towards some of its construction, a small portion, not the majority of the construction cost. It ran for a few years, then it stopped, and now it's been restarted. Us through exactly what this project is, why it worked in the first place, why it stopped, and what does it tell us about the future of CCS projects.
Yeah, it's an interesting one, and I think one of the major critiques of Petronova has been, like you say, it was built on time and on budget, but the climate benefits of that project are quite questionable, both because you know, it's essentially extending the life probably of a coal plant if it's super successful. They had to build an extra natural gas unit to power the capture unit because again this is extraordinarily energy intensive and the CO
two is being used for oil recovery. So that's not really a project that is oriented around massive climate benefits,
but it is a technology demonstration. Essentially. The history is we as a country supported this demonstration project on I think a two hundred and forty megawatt slipstream on a six hundred megawat unit at Parish, which is this coal plant in Texas that was coupled to enhanced oil recovery, and at the beginning of the pandemic, oil price started to fall and they essentially said, we can't afford to keep this plant running anymore because we were counting on
the revenue associated with the oil being produced based on our CO two that we are getting paid for. Essentially closed it as a result of those dropped oil prices, which made a lot of people realize that these projects were highly highly dependent on ongoing oil production in the way that they were set up. About a year and a half ago, I want to say, the unit that the carbon capture project was installed on caught fire, which
delayed their ability to restart. But as of mid September of twenty twenty three this year, they have restarted it from what I understand, and I believe that it is still coupled to enhanced oil recovery.
Technology demonstration is important, so it's not money that is poorly spent, but can you try and separate why having these projects run for a while, even if to show that the tech works is not enough.
Yeah, I'm such a broken record on this, but I think the core point is basically, we're not going to see major progress on climate until we have a requirement to act on climate. We have a bit of a policy history in the United States of saying, go do something before we know the tech works, and then not having that work out, and so it is important to
actually make sure the technologies work. That said, I think one of the major critiques that I have of the way that the US in particular has approached technology demonstrations is that we're not necessarily choosing the things that are going to teach us the most in ways that are useful for long term climate benefits. In particular, the BIPART is an infrastructure law, Infrastructure Investment in Jobs Act that passed a couple of years ago, mandates two demonstrations of
ccs on coal fired power plants. The US's coal fleet is very old, like mostly approaching end of life. There are very few power plants that have even been built in the last decade. I think actually now that it's twenty twenty three, there are no large coal fired power plants built in the last decade. These are old pieces of infrastructure, and so if you demonstrate a retrofit on a fifty year old coal plant, first of all, if that works, you're probably making that plant stick around longer.
Most of these plants closed at around fifty years. But second of all, you're not necessarily learning anything that's going to take you past one technology generation. We're not building new coal fired power plants, and so if you learn how to do this really well, it's not like that's
going to help you on new plants. A lot of the time, the argument as well, if the US does it, maybe other countries can use that, but other countries are not using nineteen sixties and nineteen seventies pulverized coal technologies
and having to do retrofits. So certainly you learn something from it, but if you learn something that you didn't need to know, I'm not sure that that's super super helpful in some of the areas where we're looking at, you know, can we demonstrate this on a natural gas fired power plant, or can we demonstrate this for a
cement facility or something along those lines. I think those are much better oriented around things that might see maybe one or two technology generations as opposed to zero or one. But we have not historically been surgical in the way that we choose tech demos.
After the break, Emily tells me how she would invest the billions of dollars available for point source cobon capture. So, if you were given a blank check and also all the power to be able to make policy, how would you go about trying to build both the incentive system in subsidies but also the policy is required to enable cloun capture technology to play a crucial role, as many of the models say it must to try and reduce emissions for.
The United States, I think i'd move entirely away from CCS in the power sector. On some of the other things, though, I think from a policy perspective, I would move to a much more regulatorily oriented one and out of a market based scenario. Most specifically, what I would do is really go kind of industry by industry, determine which sectors don't have another pathway in the kinds of time frames that we're looking at. Where I land on that is
essentially just the cement industry, which is quite small. It's about forty million tons a year in the United States, about point seven percent of emissions. There are possibilities that we might be able to replace cement chemistries in the maybe even medium term, but I think that those are the ones where there's the least opportunity for alternative mitigation processes and then basically put the rest of attention into CDR oriented CCS projects.
So two aspects of that that I would like to touch upon. One is that among the suite of technologies that can cut emissions, carbon capture has been one of those technologies which in the US has received bipartisan support. And one reason that's happened is because it is said, and that's true just from looking at the numbers, that the oil and gas industry can play a big role in being a part of the solution by scaling up
carbon capture technologies. But then there's a different set of voices that say, well, it is this industry that has stopped us from doing as much as we can on using emissions by delaying, by lobbying against regulations. So why should we expect that this industry will suddenly turn around and actually make use of their skill set for actual climate purposes. So where do you land on the role of oil companies in carbon capture?
Yeah, oil companies themselves I don't think are particularly necessary or needed. I agree that there are some technical skills that people have, and those people may have come through the oil and gas industries. This is largely around subsurface mapping, but it's much more about the technical expertise than about
the companies themselves. I think that what history does kind of show is that there has not been a great track record for oil and gas companies or coal companies for that matter, which are also very excited about ccs, largely because it's so energy intensive that if you add ccs to a coal plant, for example, you're roughly doubling the amount of coal you need. Those kinds of things are real incentives for the extraction industries that I think we overlook. Sometimes a large buildout of ccs on gas
plants would dramatically increase the demand for gas. Large build out for coal would dramatically increase the demand for coal, And so these incentive structures are not very well aligned with climate action. I think we do need to in general separate where we're talking about skill sets and where
we're talking about actual corporate structures and corporate priorities. Though I mean, frankly, I think when we think about the kinds of ccs that are actually sort of quote unquote necessary in the sense that it would be very difficult to reach and at zero without something like direct air capture and storage, It would be very difficult to decarbonize the cement industry without a small amount of mitigative ccs.
Things like that, those are not the kinds of applications that the oil and gas companies are necessarily super good at. So I think when we really look at what this means, Yeah, doing a bunch of deployment in the power sector absolutely would be engaging a lot of the skills that the oil and gas companies already have and that the coal companies to some extent already have, But we don't necessarily need to do that. Who do we need for what
and why? I think is always a really good question to ask in these situations, especially when there are some really really long standing power dynamics that we know have gone a specific direction.
Many times, we know that when you have facilities either processing oil and gas or power plants that are burning fossil fuels, the areas around it do suffer from pollution. This is local pollution that needs to be tackled, and carbon capture doesn't particularly lend itself to making sure that that happens. But what are other environmental justice issues that we should keep in mind as we think about building out carbon capture projects.
Yeah, a couple of really big ones. I think. One is that when you retrofit a facility with carbon capture, the counterfactual might not be that that facility would have continued to operate as it always had. But I think when you look at these a lot of the time, if you didn't install the carbon capture, the alternative would be that the plant would close, eliminating all of those pollutants rather than reducing them. And that's going to a
little bit site by site. But I think that from an environmental justice perspective, recognizing that we're not just talking about marginal pollution levels, we're actually talking about like whether the facility is still there or not, is a really big one. And oftentimes, yeah, like with a retrofit, you're dealing with plants that have not necessarily been good neighbors. Many of them have explicitly not been good neighbors for
a very long time. And so especially when you think about carbon capture coming in a lot of the time, the community kind of recognizes, you know, we finally thought that this thing was going to go away, and now you're saying it's going to be here for another fifty years.
Like that's it's a hard thing to think about. I think the biggest concern that people have expressed is really around pipelines and thinking about moving CO two through communities, especially if they're co located with existing pipelines, because it's easier to get right of ways that way. That sort of thing you do end up adding to burden and
existing overburdened communities. Many times we don't really have CO two pipeline regulations in the United States, and a lot of the time the kinds of things you need to do if there is a rupture or an accident are quite different from what people are trained to do. These are not flammable gases. They freeze. COO two is what we use in fire extinguishers, and so when you can think about a pipeline rupturing, you basically fire extinguishing area.
That means trucks can't run, so like your ems, ambulances, whatever internal combustion engines cannot go through that, you can end up a scuffocation risks those types of issues, and so people are quite worried about that, particularly in the
kind of unregulated space that we exist in. And then there's just a lot of questions about whether development of these kinds of infrastructures also means a lot more industrialization to take advantage of those, and that again kind of concentrates this burden in the same places all over again.
This is an application of electric vehicles that I had not thought about, which is if you have COO two rupture, which means CO two being a heavier gas, is going to sort of displace all other gases. You're going to have no oxygen or low oxygen, which means you cannot burn oiler gas, and thus you can't run an internal combustion engine, and so you can't get the emergency equipment coming to you. Wow, that's a situation I had not
imagined electric vehicles would be like the solution for. But hey, when you have a technology that can do things, it ends up in places you wouldn't think of. But coming back to thinking about the solutions that you raise this idea that we should focus on using carbon capture for what it's really needed, and much of the focus then should be on direct air capture as a technology. Now, that technology requires also a ton of energy. That's why it is so expensive. It requires even more energy than
would be needed from point source carbon capture. And yet it's also a technology without which we cannot reach on at zero goals. And so there is an exuberance currently both from governments but also in private sector to try and scale this technology. And that is well informed in the sense that technologies that will be needed after twenty fifty yet very big scales ought to start to be
developed today. But there's also this sort of fear, which is, if you end up spending a lot of money but also intellectual capital on these technologies, then you're not focusing on the stuff that needs to be focused on right now, which is to reduce the emissions we are putting out today. So how do you think about the development of direct air capture and related Commondact side removal technologies with those caveats in place.
Director capture itself is not necessary for reaching that zero, but CDR in some form is in direct air capture seems to be one of the ones that we're a little bit more able to track and we can say for sure that it's actually potentially removing these emissions, so it is an important one there. I think where I come from on director capture is very much thinking about where it's needed as well. So it's not just sort of, you know, do we need mitigative carabing capture? Do we
need CDR? It's also how much what do we need it for? These kinds of questions, And I think that when you really start thinking about how we minimize the amount of carbon dioxide removal that's actually necessary so that we make sure that we're actually investing in mitigating those emissions as quickly as we possibly can. Because this is a cumulative game, not a kind of marginal game. It doesn't matter if we end up emitting as high as we are now until twenty fifty and then suddenly go
to net zero. Like that's not a great pathway, can't do that anyway. But there are a lot of reasons to reduce cumulative emissions much quicker. But thinking about director capture and how much of it we actually need to reach net zero goals, assuming that we hit all of these mitigation targets, leads you to a very different picture of how much is necessary versus if you think about director capture is a way to kind of offset ongoing emissions from a lot of things that we probably could
be mitigating. So you know, using director capture to offset the ongoing emissions of a coal plant, for example, is kind of a ridiculous thing to do. So really, I think being tactical in understanding how much we need and really thinking about the governance of what carbon dioxide removal and director capture and storage in particular look like, I think is where we really need to be dedicating our time now. I do think that it's easy to forget.
The twenty fifties only about twenty five years away, so it probably is worth really trying to understand whether these technologies can deliver the things that we are counting on them too. Like, if we're going to rely on some CDR, we should probably find out if that works. But I think that we are rushing a little bit too quickly to marketize and commodify carbon credits associated with director capture at a point where it's a lot more important to be thinking about what do we actually do to get
to net zero? Does this technology work, and how can we plug it into an overall regime that gets us there.
If you had a minute, and that's all you have to let somebody know what they must know about carbon capture, what would you say?
Carbon capture technologies are precious, They're incredibly energy intensive, They involve a lot of demand for storage that takes a lot from the communities that host it. As such, I think we really need to be extremely pointed with where we're talking about deploying this, And I think my single biggest point is there are a lot of different ways
this could go. Some of them are much less harmful than others, and really focusing on where this is absolutely necessary and promotes justice is going to get us to a much better place than essentially trying to maximize it.
Wonderful. This has been really fun. Thank you so much for making the time absolutely thank you. If you want to learn more about the limits of carbon capture and storage, you should check out a link in the show notes. It's a story that I recently published alongside my colleagues Natasha White and Kevin Crowley about the oil giant Occidental Petroleum. The US company until recently operated one of the world's largest CCS plants, but quietly sold the asset after a
decade of underperformance. I hope the investigation prompts a reality check for the true potential of CCS. Thank you for listening to Zero. If you liked this episode, please take a moment to rate our review on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. If you write a review, I might read it on a future episode. Share this episode with a friend or your local fossil oriented academic. You can get in touch at zero pod at Bloomberg dot Net. Zero's producer is
Oscar Boyd and senior producer is Christine Riskell. Our theme music is composed by wonderly special thanks to Kira bindrim i'm Akshatrati back next week