Conservative peer and prospective GB News board member Lord Theodore Agnew. Credit: GB News / YouTube
Lord Agnew is a shareholder in Equinor, the Norwegian oil and gas firm behind the ‘carbon bomb’ Rosebank oil field.
A Conservative peer who is expected to join the board of broadcaster GB News has shares in Equinor, the oil and gas multinational behind the Rosebank oil field in the North Sea.
According to his parliamentary register of interests, Lord Theodore Agnew has shares of at least £100,000 in Equinor, the Norwegian state-owned energy producer. Equinor has a majority stake in the Rosebank North Sea oil field, which has been dubbed a “carbon bomb” by environmental law charity ClientEarth.
Agnew is set to replace hedge fund millionaire Paul Marshall on the board of GB News’s parent company All Perspectives Ltd, according to Sky News.
Marshall is one of the key backers of GB News, holding a 45 percent stake in the company. He is reportedly planning to step back from GB News in order to launch a bid for the Telegraph Media Group, which includes The Telegraph newspaper and The Spectator magazine.
His withdrawal could potentially throw GB News into turmoil. The startup broadcaster has lost £76 million since its launch in 2021 and relies on the resources of Marshall and its other big stakeholder, UAE-based investment firm Legatum, to survive. Sky News reported that GB News is now preparing to make job cuts as part of a “corporate reorganisation”.
This may have implications for how climate change is covered in the UK. An investigation by DeSmog found that one in three GB News presenters had spread climate science denial on air in 2022, while more than half had attacked climate action.
“It comes as no surprise that members of the GB News board have ties to the oil and gas industry, given the way its presenters have championed continued oil and gas expansion,” said Tessa Khan, director of environmental non-profit Uplift.
Agnew, a former Cabinet Office minister under Boris Johnson, was in October appointed chair of UnHerd Ventures, another Marshall media vehicle. The company runs UnHerd, a publication founded in 2017 to give a platform to marginalised views.
Agnew also has shares in Carbon Plus Capital, a private investment company which specialises in carbon offsetting “based on the protection of forests”. This involves companies paying to plant trees to “offset” their greenhouse gas emissions.
Carbon offsetting is a controversial idea that has been criticised by climate campaigners as a form of greenwashing. An investigation published last year by newspapers The Guardian, Die Zeit and non-profit SourceMaterial found that 90 percent of rainforest carbon offsets approved by the world’s largest certifier Verra were “largely worthless” and could actually increase global heating.
Carbon Plus Capital partner Robin Warwick Edwards is a trustee of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) think tank and the chair of its advisory council. The IEA, a free market group that has advocated for more fossil fuel extraction, received funding from BP for at least 50 years.
Agnew and Edwards declined to comment. GB News did not respond.
“Climate denial and investment in the fossil fuel industry go hand in hand”, said Carys Boughton of campaign group Fossil Free Parliament.
“It makes complete sense that an expected new board member of GB News – a channel absolutely committed to attacking climate science and policy at every turn – is invested in Equinor, a company that, according to research by Oil Change International, ranks eighth worst in the world for its commitment to expanding oil and gas production.”
She added: “By spreading disinformation about the climate crisis, GB News is feeding into the fossil fuel industry’s licence to operate and thus helping to line the pockets of the industry’s shareholders.”
GB News in Turmoil
GB News hosts regularly attack climate policies and the science behind them.
Numerous GB News presenters have also been vocal about their support for policies that would maintain and even extend the UK’s reliance on oil and gas.
On 9 December 2022, host Mark Dolan praised West Cumbria Mining’s plan to open a new coal mine in Cumbria. He said the UK should “drill, baby, drill” for coal, oil and gas, adding: “I think the push for net zero here is another element of liberal progressivism which is infecting the West.”
DeSmog revealed in October that Marshall Wace, the hedge fund run by Paul Marshall, had £1.8 billion invested in fossil fuel companies as of June 2023. This included Chevron, Shell, Equinor, and 109 other fossil fuel companies.
Marshall reportedly invested £10 million in GB News when it first launched two years ago and, in August 2022, joined the Dubai-based investment firm Legatum Group in a £60 million capital injection and buyout of GB News’s other major investor, Discovery.
If he joins the All Perspectives board, Agnew would become the latest Conservative politician to be adopted by the right-wing broadcaster. GB News hosts include Jacob Rees-Mogg, who was business and energy secretary under Liz Truss, Lee Anderson, a former Tory deputy chair who defected to anti-net zero party Reform UK last month, as well as Conservative MPs Esther McVey and Philip Davies.
The All Perspectives board also includes Tory peer Baroness Helena Morrissey and George Farmer, a Reform UK donor and the son of Conservative peer Lord Michael Farmer.
GB News reported losses of £42 million in the year to May 2023, and £76 million since its launch in 2021. This comes as rival populist channel TalkTV is closing its TV operation and switching to YouTube, having suffered losses of £90 million since it launched in 2022.
Agnew’s appointment has not been confirmed by Marshall, Agnew or the company.
“With advertisers steering clear, GB News is haemorrhaging cash – yet they continue to push misleading messages on climate change,” said Richard Wilson, director of the Stop Funding Heat campaign.
“In the last month alone, GB News commentators have claimed climate change is a ‘social mania’, dismissed climate harms as ‘hypothetical’, and attacked United Nations warnings about the need for urgent climate action as ‘hysteria’.
“Now we learn that a prospective GB News board member has fossil fuel investments”.
He added: “Britain urgently needs a media that supports the public interest – not the interests of a toxic industry that is putting all of our futures at risk”.
Fossil Fuel Projects
Equinor claims it supplies 27 percent of the UK’s energy from oil and gas, and is currently investing $6 billion (£4.8 billion) a year in fossil fuel exploration and drilling. It also says that it powers one million homes in Europe via renewable offshore wind.
Rosebank is the UK’s largest undeveloped oil and gas field, and could produce around 300 million barrels of oil over its lifetime, emitting 200 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.
In October, DeSmog revealed that Equinor urged the UK government to help promote the oil and gas industry, and was one of several companies which lobbied to water down the windfall tax on oil and gas company profits following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The UK government controversially approved the Rosebank project in September, despite the International Energy Agency stating that new oil and gas exploration is incompatible with the ambition to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Green Party MP Caroline Lucas labelled the decision “morally obscene”.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak used his address at the COP28 climate summit in December to claim that “climate politics is close to breaking point”, while stating that the UK will meet its net zero targets, “but we’ll do it in a more pragmatic way, which doesn’t burden working people”.
However, a 2023 court case found that the government’s plans only added up to 95 percent of the reductions needed to meet its net zero targets. The Conservative government has said it plans to “max out” the UK’s North Sea oil and gas reserves.
Tessa Khan added: “Those pushing for new oil and gas drilling, whether that’s the UK government, GB News or Equinor, are making things worse for the millions struggling with high energy bills and for those now struggling to cope with the impacts of climate change such as UK farmers – and all just to make a few oil and gas companies and their shareholders even richer.”
DeSmog has previously revealed that the Conservative Party received £3.5 million in donations from fossil fuel interests and climate science deniers in 2022, while two-thirds of the directors in charge of the party’s multi-million-pound endowment fund have a financial interest in oil, gas, and highly polluting industries.
Image of InBedWithBigOil by Not Here To Be Liked + Hex Prints from Just Stop Oil’s You May Find Yourself… art auction. Featuring Rishi Sunak, Fossil Fuels and Rupert Murdoch.
30+ young people, scientists and supporters occupy Science Museum’s new climate gallery in protest over its sponsorship by coal-producing conglomerate Adani
Group announce plan to remain over weekend ahead of the opening to school groups next week
Naturalist Chris Packham says sponsorship deal is “beyond greenwash – it’s grotesque” and attends to support the protesters
Science Museum criticised over ties to conglomerate involved in manufacturing drones for the Israeli military amidst bombardment of Gaza and destructive coal mining operations in India and Australia opposed by Indigenous groups
This evening, more than 30 protesters led by young people from Youth Action for Climate Justice and members of Scientists for Extinction Rebellion have occupied the Science Museum’s new climate gallery, Energy Revolution, over its sponsorship by the coal giant and arms manufacturer, Adani. Naturalist and broadcaster Chris Packham joined the group as they began their protest, with scientists and young people now intending to remain in the museum over the weekend, with the first school visits to the gallery beginning on Monday.
Chris Packham, who famously claimed that peacefully breaking the law is the ethically responsible thing to do when it comes to protecting the planet, told the protesters: “For me science is the art of understanding truth and beauty and a lot of that beauty lies in the natural world. Science tells us that the fossil fuel industry is responsible for the accelerating destruction of our natural world. The Science Museum is a place to spark imagination, to provide answers but also to encourage us to ask questions. The question I’m asking today is a big one, “why on earth are we allowing a destructive industry to sponsor an educational exhibition whilst simultaneously setting fire to young peoples futures?” This is beyond greenwash – it’s grotesque. We urgently need an ‘Energy Revolution’ to steer us away from the course of planetary destruction on which we are heading. We need a rapid, just transition to renewables – that revolution means an end to coal, and starts with the young people and scientists occupying this space this evening. Science tells us the truth, and the truth is that we must change.”
Naturalist Chris Packham at the Science Museum occupation 12 April 2024. Image: Extinction Rebellion.
The Energy Revolution gallery opened to the public just a few weeks ago amidst protest, with over 150 people taking part in a day of creative action. A few days earlier, guests arriving for the private VIP launch were greeted by protesters as they arrived, as well as the museum throwing a lavish dinner for the Adani Group’s billionaire chairman, Gautam Adani, with the Adani Group’s logo plastered on screens around the room.
To coincide with today’s protest, activists have released a new video exposing the truth behind the misleading claims made by Gautam Adani during his speech at the opening of the gallery. While he discussed the energy transition from oil and gas, he neglected to mention coal, the industry from which the Adani Group derives 60% of its revenue. The Science Museum has attempted to defend its sponsorship deal by claiming it has only partnered with the Green Energy division, although evidence clearly shows that it is directly linked to Adani’s coal business and that the museum has maintained a relationship with the main Adani Group.
At 2pm on Saturday, the occupiers will invite members of the public to join them for an interactive assembly inside the gallery to discuss alternatives to toxic fossil fuel sponsorship at the Science Museum. The group plans to tell the public the truth about the gallery’s sponsor and the urgency of keeping fossil fuels in the ground for a liveable future. Throughout their occupation, the protesters are also constructing sculptures of fragments of coal as a poignant reminder of Adani’s core polluting business.
Ian McDermott, a Chemistry teacher who will no longer organise school trips to the museum, has said: “For decades I ran a couple of trips to the museum a year, but I just don’t think it’s in the students’ interests to engage with the greenwashing of the companies destroying their futures.”
Protest placard reads Greenwash detected
Adani is the world’s largest private developer of new coal mines and coal-fired power plants, including Australia’s largest, the Carmichael Coal Mine built on Wangan and Jagalingou ancestral land. This ongoing investment in coal mining and power flies in the face of the scientific warning that most fossil fuel reserves cannot be burned and emitted if global warming increase is limited to 1.5°C, or even 2°C above pre industrial levels.
Anya, a young person occupying the gallery said: “To have a coal company sponsoring an exhibition on the future of energy is blatantly deceiving. Through this sponsorship deal, the Science Museum is helping Adani attach itself to the image of a positive and sustainable future when in reality it is a coal giant, weapons manufacturer and genocide supporter. It’s plain wrong for the Science Museum to be deceiving visitors, including young people like me, when it comes to the climate crisis.”
This is not the only instance of the museum welcoming fossil fuel companies to sponsor and influence its science education programmes and galleries. The Museum’s STEM Training Academy, which aims to support teachers in delivering science education, is sponsored by oil and gas giant BP, while the Museum’s interactive children’s gallery is named after Norwegian oil and gas company, Equinor.
Dr. Aaron Thierry, a scientist, who has researched climate impacts in the Arctic, is among those currently occupying the museum: “It’s not just Adani’s brand that the science museum is greenwashing, they’re also allowing the oil and gas giants BP and Equinor to sponsor their exhibits, disregarding the fact that these companies continue to expand fossil fuel production against the warnings of climate scientists. The latest science has shown we must leave the majority of fossil fuels unburned to prevent catastrophic changes to our climate. That an institution like the Science Museum is working with such rouge companies is a disgrace. The museum’s management needs to follow the example of Britain’s other leading cultural institutions and drop all ties to the fossil fuel industry.“
Scientists for Extinction Rebellion and Youth Action for Climate Justice (who have led this action) are members of Fossil Free Science Museum Coalition who are campaigning for the Science Museum to end its sponsorship by fossil fuel companies.
Youth Action for Climate Justice (formerly UKSCN London) is a radical youth organisation mobilising for climate justice. YACJ aims to create a new generation of young activists who are educated about society and the change we need, in order to work with other movements to change the system we live in. The group was previously part of Youth Strike for Climate Movement and coordinated the London youth climate strikes in 2019 and 2020, which brought thousands of young people to the streets of London. Instagram | Twitter
Other groups involved are: International Solidarity for Academic Freedom in India (InSAF India), India Labour Solidarity (UK), Students for Survival; and numerous Extinction Rebellion groups.
Rishi Sunak offers huge fossil fuel subsidies to develop fossil fuel extraction in UK.
Rishi Sunak awards a huge tax break to further destroy the climate.
It’s called a windfall tax – it’s a further windfall for fossil fuel companies on top of their windfall of higher prices following the invasion of Ukraine.
Back in May 2022, the UK government announced the energy profits levy, as a response to the growing pressure for a ‘windfall tax’ on the massive profits being generated by companies pumping oil and gas in the North Sea. These profits were fuelled by skyrocketing fossil fuel prices in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The levy raised the effective rate of corporation tax paid on oil and gas profits from 40% to 65%, and again to 75% in November 2022.
But, it came with a caveat. Despite the UK’s urgent need to kick its addiction to expensive fossil fuels, this government didn’t want to discourage investment in more oil and gas extraction. So they included a tax loophole to ensure that companies investing in new projects to pump fossil fuels out from under the North Sea would see their tax relief (already generous by most standards) rise to 91%. In other words, fossil fuel companies could deduct 91% of their capital investment costs from their corporation tax bill. The ‘windfall tax’ may have, on the surface, attempted to tackle the grotesque profits being raked in by massive companies in the midst of the cost of living crisis – but it also made it cheaper for these companies to extract the fossil fuels contributing to the sky-high cost of living in the first place.
At NEF, we analysed last week’s new OBR data, and found that the loophole included in the energy profits levy has massively increased the amount of tax relief which fossil fuel companies will potentially receive. We estimate that oil and gas extractors could receive up to £18.1bn in tax relief between 2023 and 2026. That’s a massive increase of £10.5bn, or 136%, from the £7.6bn they were expected to receive before the energy crisis. This is an enormous amount of lost revenue that could go to the government to be spent on lowering our energy bills or improving our public services. The OBR expects the UK oil and gas industry to pay £24.3bn in tax between 2024 and 2027, meaning that closing the tax loophole in the energy profits levy could almost double the amount of tax revenue our government could receive – and the businesses in question would still walk away with billions.
…
Even if you accept the government’s warped logic, which seeks to encourage greater North Sea extraction, the policy appears to be failing. While total potential for tax relief has risen by £10.5bn, total forecast investment has risen by just £3.4bn. This would represent an abysmal return on a government tax measure. Relief has largely been extended to investments which were expected to occur anyway, suggesting the policy is (intentionally or not) little more than a vehicle for oil and gas companies to keep most of their explosive profit growth, while the windfall tax sustains an illusion of fairness.
The energy profits levy helped pay for the government’s emergency cost of living support measures – in theory. But our energy bills remain extortionate, costing 50% more than they did in early 2022, prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. With the poorest households over £200 a week short of the amount they need for an acceptable standard of living, this government has still not provided enough support. Looking forward, removing the perverse tax reliefs extended to the oil and gas industry could free up almost £13bn of tax revenue between 2024 and 2026: enough to give every household in the country three £150 annual payments to help cover their energy costs.
…
It’s reasonable to compare the so-called windfall tax to Norway’s windfall tax since they are both taxing fossil fuel activities in the North Sea. The Uk’s Labour party has repeatedly said that it intends to impose a “proper windfall tax”. There was further brief mentions of this during the Labour Party’s reformulation and massive restriction of it’s green policies yesterday 8th February 2024 but it remains unclear what is intended.
What’s obviously clear is that Norway’s windfall tax has made and continues to raise huge sums for Norway. There is still a disguised fossil fuel subsidy for exploration and extraction – from what I can see it appears to be 78%. That’s a long way from Sunak’s 91% and since we’re dealing with vast sums of money, 91 – 78 = 13% of vast sums of money is still vast sums of money (as any Chancellor should realise).
Investment in an offshore operating asset in Year 1 is 100.
In the ordinary tax base (22%), 100 must be capitalized and depreciated linearly over 6 years. The depreciation in Year 1 is 100 / 6 = 16.7, i.e., a deduction of 16.7. This results in a tax amount in Year 1 of -16.7 * 22% = -3.7.
In the special tax base (56%), the entire amount of 100 can be deducted directly. The special tax base will therefore initially be -100. However, we must deduct the tax amount from the ordinary tax base of -3.7 from the -100. The special tax base will thus be -100 – (-3.7) = -96.3. To calculate the special tax amount, we must use the technical special tax rate of 71.8%. The special tax will thus be -96.3 * 71.8% = -69.3.
Hence, total tax on the investment of 100 in the offshore operating asset in Year 1 is
-3.7 + (-69.3) = -73, i.e., a tax deduction of 73.
In Years 2 – 6, the linear depreciation continues in the ordinary tax base. For each of these years, the tax on the investment of 100 in Year 1 is thus -3.7 in the ordinary tax base. At the same time, this tax is treated as “income” in the calculation of special tax, as the amount must be deducted in the special tax base. The special tax will thus be 3.7 * 71.8 = 2.7 in each of the years. Total tax per year will therefore be -3.7 + 2.7 = -1.
Looking at the entire period Year 1 – Year 6 as a whole, the total nominal tax for the investment of 100 in Year 1 is the sum of -73 in Year 1 and -1 for each of Years 2 – 6 (5 years), i.e., -73 + (-5) = -78, resulting in a total deduction of 78 over the period.
Despite windfall tax and record profits, Shell paid just £15 million to UK, 22p per Brit last year
By comparison Norway received £6.3 billion from Shell, over a grand per Norwegian
28th March 2023, London – Energy giant Shell paid just £15 million in taxes and fees to the UK last year on their drilling, compared to over £6.3 billion to the Norwegian government over the same period, according to Global Witness analysis of Shell’s latest tax reporting, released today.
This means Shell paid around just 22p per UK citizen, compared to the £1,171 it paid for every citizen of Norway. This £15 million is much closer to the £9.7 million it awarded its CEO in 2022, than the considerably more it paid to most other countries in which it drills.
The UK ranks 19th out of 25 countries for taxes received by Shell last year, with the likes of the USA, Germany, Qatar and Italy all receiving far more from Shell than the UK. It comes despite the introduction of a UK windfall tax that Rishi Sunak, as Chancellor, described as a “significant set of interventions”.
…
Rishi Sunak on stopping Rosebank says that any chancellor can stop his huge 91% subsidy to build Rosebank, that Keir Starmer is as bad as him for sucking up to Murdoch and other plutocrats and that we (the plebs) need to get organised to elect MPs that will stop Rosebank. [3rd version of image has same text].
In the ‘coming soon’ notice announcing this article I said that “[t]here aren’t any real climate deniers anymore”. I was mistaken and there are a very few people like Jeremy Corbyn’s brother Piers Corbyn. I’ve only met and spoken with him once but I’m satisfied that he’s genuine in his beliefs despite them being misguided. He and others like him have the right to believe whatever they like and he’s harmless enough – while he may persuade a few people the vast majority will understand that he’s mistaken and wrong.
Image of UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak reads 1% RICHEST 100% CLIMATE DENIER
So apart from Piers Corbyn and a few similar people, there is no such thing as a climate denier nowadays. The Capitalists profiting from climate destruction have known for 60 years of more that they were profiting from destroying the planet and were forcing future generations to endure intolerable climate conditions, annihilating many thousands of species of plants and animals and generally totally fekking everything.
Governments are controlled, directed, owned by a very few extremely rich and powerful people, the very people that are profiting and maintaining their wealth, power and influence from destroying the planet. According to this perspective we do not exist in a democracy and it is instead a pretence hiding the influence of the rich and powerful. We exist in a plutocracy – we have a wealthy ruling class that politicians serve.
It cannot be accepted that politicians like UK’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak or our expected next Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the like are mistaken true believers like Piers Corbyn believes. Rather they are climate deniers in the sense of the fossil fuel industries – Exxon, Shell and BP – who know fully well that they are destroying the planet but deceive and mislead to continue making a filthy profit. It’s obvious to see that these politician cnuts serve this rich elite’s interests – Tory and Labour UK governments have answered to media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, sucking up to him, grateful to accept his orders.
Image of InBedWithBigOil by Not Here To Be Liked + Hex Prints from Just Stop Oil’s You May Find Yourself… art auction. Featuring Rishi Sunak, Fossil Fuels and Rupert Murdoch.
Sunak, despite being fully aware of the climate crisis is continuing to destroy the planet. Announcing the go-ahead for the Rosebank oil field he said that he intends to get every last drop of North Sea oil.
A DeSmog review of 12 large-scale projects reveals a litany of cost-overruns and missed targets, with a net increase in emissions.
Most of the 12 largest carbon capture and storage projects around the world are in the United States. Credit: Sabrina Bedford.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) was high on the agenda at New York Climate Week last week, where critics of the technology raised concerns it would be used to extend the life of the fossil fuel industry.
For years, experts have pointed out that CCS has been primarily used to pump more oil out of the earth, using a process known as enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Burning that oil emits far more carbon dioxide (CO2) than what is captured, and therefore CCS doesn’t represent a viable solution to tackle climate change, critics argue.
At a news conference after the one-day UN Climate Ambition Summit on September 20, Tzeporah Berman, chair of the Fossil Fuel Nonproliferation Treaty Initiative, said: “The oil companies acknowledged this year that they will not meet their bogus net zero commitments. The data showed us that their carbon capture plans are not working at scale.”
Below is a DeSmog review of the climate impact of 12 large-scale CCS projects around the world; what the fossil fuel industry promised, and what actually happened. Findings include a litany of missed carbon capture targets; cost-overruns, and billions of dollars of costs to taxpayers in the form of subsidies.
The data is drawn from various sources, including the Global CCS Institute; the International Energy Agency; the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis; the Geoengineering Monitor, and DeSmog research. Data on subsidies was provided by Oil Change International, which plans to launch a database of government support for CCS in 2024. Currency conversions were made in respect to exchange rates when subsidies were first announced or given.
1. Terrell Natural Gas Processing Plant (“Val Verde”)
Operator: Occidental Petroleum, 1972-present
Location: Southeast of Ft. Stockton, Texas, USA
Stated maximum capacity: 0.5 million tonnes of CO2/year
Storage method: Enhanced oil recovery in the Permian Basin
Public subsidies: None
What they said would happen: More crude oil would be extracted using injected CO2.
What actually happened: It worked.Val Verde’s success served as a replicable model enabling the oil industry to pump more oil while claiming to be helping the climate.
Background: The world’s first industrial carbon capture facility began siphoning CO2 from a complex of West Texas gas processing plants in 1972. The gas was then piped across the region to boost the productivity of oil wells. Now owned by Occidental Petroleum and re-named the Terrell Natural Gas Processing Plant, the facility has aided in the production of millions of additional barrels of crude.
Val Verde’s success helped the oil and gas sector develop a business model enabling them to profit long into the future. It simultaneously acted as a potential solution to the worsening greenhouse gas crisis, while still remaining the biggest source of that pollution.
The first dedicated facility to use injected CO2 to produce more oil, Val Verde was instrumental in pioneering enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The technique proved so successful that within a decade drillers had built thousands of miles of dedicated pipelines sending naturally occurring CO2 into oil fields in Texas, elsewhere in the U.S., and eventually other nations.
Based upon Val Verde, since the 1970s, U.S. oil firms have led in the development of ever more efficient EOR-CCS technologies. Though now practiced globally, Texas’ Permian has the largest concentration of EOR operations.
As awareness grew that burning fossil fuels was increasingly harmful to the environment, petroleum scientists began looking for industry-friendly solutions. Given that a fraction of the CO2 injected during EOR remains underground, as early as 1977 proponents suggested rebranding EOR into climate-friendlier carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Envisioning installing capture units on fossil fuel-burning generation plants, particularly coal-fired power stations, backers saw this as an elegant response to growing concerns over carbon emissions.
Fifty years later, Val Verde still serves as the industry’s model for “beneficial” CO2 usage, and EOR remains the main driver and successful business model for CCS.
2. Shute Creek Treating Facility
Operator: ExxonMobil, 1986-present
Location: East of Kemmerer, Wyoming, USA
Stated maximum capacity: 7 million tonnes of CO2/year
Storage methods: Enhanced oil recovery in Wyoming and neighboring states, limited geologic storage.
Public subsidies: None
What they said would happen: ExxonMobil points to Shute Creek to demonstrate its commitment to capturing ever more carbon.
What actually happened: Almost half the captured CO2 has been used to pump more oil; the rest has simply been vented into the atmosphere, in part because the plant failed to meet about a third of its capture targets.
Background: Owner ExxonMobil claims to have “cumulatively captured more anthropogenic CO2 than any other company” and estimates that its Shute Creek plant is responsible for 20 percent of the world’s yearly sequestered carbon. However, the plant — at Wyoming’s LaBarge gas field — wasn’t designed with climate targets in mind, but rather to produce gas, oil, and a fifth of the world’s helium supply.
Most of the C02 captured in CCS plants are used to pump more oil. Credit: Buchsbaum Media.
Wyoming’s LaBarge gas field remained unexploited for decades due to its very high levels of CO2, making it a less than ideal source for natural gas production. Nonetheless, in the 1980s Exxon found that capturing carbon during gas processing and selling it for enhanced oil recovery in the surrounding region would make the Shute Creek operation profitable. As global oil prices fluctuated over the following years, carbon capture was paused at the plant during periods when CO2 demand for oil extraction dropped.
According to a report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEFFA), a nonprofit think tank, 47 percent of all CO2 captured by the plant has been sold for enhanced oil recovery over its lifetime, with only three percent of CO2 sequestered. The remaining 50 percent of CO2 produced by the plant — 120 million tonnes — has simply been vented to the atmosphere, making it a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. While some of this venting was planned, the plant has failed to meet about a third of its total carbon capture targets throughout its history, according to IEEFA.
3. Sleipner and Snøhvit Projects
Operator: Equinor (Statoil),1996-present; Snøhvit since 2008
Location: Offshore (North Sea Sleipner West field), Norway
Stated maximum capacity: Sleipner 1 million tonnes of CO2/year
Stated maximum capacity: Snøhvit 0.7 million tonnes of CO2/year
Storage methods: Geologic storage in the North Sea
Public subsidies: $175,000
What they said would happen: Often cited as evidence that the oil industry has already perfected carbon capture and storage techniques.
What actually happened: Studies suggest the projects’ CO2 storage modeling is faulty, underscoring concerns that CO2 behavior remains highly unpredictable.
Background: The world’s first industrial-scale CCS project constructed for supposed carbon emissions abatement, Sleipner went into operation in 1996 after Norway’s pioneering carbon taxes came into effect.
Given the relatively high CO2 volume contained within raw gas from the Sleipner West field, to ensure profitability under the new carbon taxes it became necessary to bury the gas. Storing this waste product underground continues to save Equinor hundreds of millions in annual taxes.
In near continuous operation since the mid-90s, and the largest CCS project yet conceived in the North Sea and Europe, Sleipner has a capacity to sequester almost a million tonnes of CO2 annually.
However, stripping out and pumping all this CO2 back underground doesn’t render the refined gas as carbon neutral. Just the opposite: By some estimates, burning it has created roughly 25 times more CO2 than all that Equinor has sequestered.
Envisioned as a model enabling long-term oil and gas exploration despite emissions, since conception Sleipner has served as an international center of learning and a laboratory for generations of petroleum engineers. The knowledge gained continues to help Equinor and partners such as ExxonMobil expand and implement more CCS and EOR projects worldwide.
However, though Sleipner was used as a guide for the 2009 EU directive on geological storage of carbon dioxide — now being reviewed to enable expanded CO2 storage and usage, IEEFA studies based on Norwegian reporting reveals evidence that both Sleipner and Snøhvit’sCO2 storage modeling is faulty, showcasing how CO2 behavior remains highly unpredictable, with potentially disastrous consequences.
4. Kemper Project
Operator: Mississippi Power (Southern Energy Company), 2010-2021 (closed; renamed Plant Ratcliffe)
Location: North of Meridian, Mississippi, USA
Stated maximum capacity during operations: 3 million tonnes of CO2/year
Storage method: Enhanced oil recovery in the Gulf of Mexico
Public subsidies: $407 million
What they said would happen: Coal would be burned “cleanly” to produce power.
What actually happened: Costs more than doubled from initial estimates to $7.5 billion; leaks were found during testing and the carbon capture plant was eventually mothballed, then demolished.
Background: As climate policies began to call for a coal power phase-out in the early 2000s, carbon capture became a means to keep the coal industry alive in a “cleaner” form. Building upon a Bush Administration program, in 2008, the Kemper CCS facility was proposed as the flagship project of the U.S. government’s Clean Coal Power Initiative, receiving $407 million in federal subsidies. The plant, operated by Southern Energy company, was designed to gasify lignite (brown coal) and capture the carbon before combustion.
However, the plant never reached its target of capturing 65 percent of its carbon emissions, which would have amounted to 3.0 million tonnes of CO2 per year. First, construction was delayed, and the initially estimated cost of $3 billion ballooned to $7.5 billion. Despite this massive increase in investment, the project’s coal gasification process did not operate reliably during testing as leaks were discovered.
In 2017, carbon capture operations were suspended as ongoing problems made the venture unprofitable. In 2021, the mothballed carbon capture unit was demolished. Today, the remaining Kemper power plant simply burns fossil gas, and “clean coal” remains an expensive and unproven emissions-reduction measure worldwide.
5. Century Gas Processing Plant
Operator: Occidental Petroleum, 2010-present
Location: East of Fort Stockton, Texas, USA
Stated maximum capacity: 8.4 million tonnes of CO2/year
Note: The industry-backed Global CCS Institute says five million tonnes of CO2/ year, which was the plant’s actual operating capacity in 2022.
Storage method: Enhanced oil recovery
Public subsidies: None
What they said would happen: The project will help usher in a new era of “net-zero oil.”
What’s actually happening: The plant could enable the development of approximately 500 million barrels of oil reserves more cheaply.
Background: With 25,000 miles of CO2 pipelines; 6,000 carbon injection wells spread over 1.4 million acres; and over 50 years of experience, Occidental Petroleum is perhaps the global leader in enhanced oil recovery.
Boasting a capacity of over eight million tonnes of CO2 per year following a 2012 expansion, the $1.1 billion Century Gas Processing Plant in West Texas has the most storage potential in the U.S., though only about 60 percent of this was used last year, according to the Global CCS Institute.
Despite its ambitions to expand its oil operations — Occidental Petroleum claims that its CO2-enhanced oil recovery could release the energy equivalent of two billion barrels of oil – the company is billing itself as a climate leader. Citing its “vast legacy” and core competency of CO2-enhanced oil recovery operations, the company says that using new technologies to capture carbon capture could be a “game changer” for the climate. Last year, Occidental started selling its first “Net Zero” oil to a Singapore-based commodities trader, based on direct air capture capacity yet to be installed, and earlier this year it began pre-selling carbon credits based on its eventual “low carbon” jet fuel to Airbus.
The legacy of EOR-linked facilities, including the Century Gas Processing Plant, has so far been a net increase in global emissions. Various sources show that the oil and gas operations in the Permian Basin, where the plant is located, is the largest “climate bomb” in North America, and one of the world’s leading contributors to climate change.
According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s research entry on the Century Gas Processing Plant, it allows Occidental Petroleum to “develop approximately 500 million barrels of reserves from currently owned assets at an attractive cost.”
6. Petra Nova
Operator: Previously NRG Energy in partnership with JX Nippon Oil, 2017-2020; shut down in 2020 and now wholly only owned by JX Nippon, restarted September 2023
Location: Attached to one unit at the WA Parish Power Plant, Richmond, Texas, USA
Stated maximum capacity during operations: 1.4 million tonnes of CO2/year
Storage method: Enhanced oil recovery in the West Ranch oil field
Public subsidies: $190 million
What they said would happen: Game-changing solution to fossil emissions.
What actually happened: Failed to meet capture targets; barely reduced overall carbon pollution.
Background: Petra Nova restarted just this September, two years after it was shut down in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic when the price of West Texas crude oil crashed. The only CCS unit attached to a coal-fired power plant in the United States, during its first short operating period it proved adept at EOR. However, independent analyses reveal that it both failed to meet its capture targets and, when taking lifecycle emissions into consideration, it barely reduced any overall carbon pollution.
Hailed as a game-changing solution to rising greenhouse emissions from the fossil fuel industry, co-owners NRG Energy and Japan’s JX Nippon promised at the time that Petra Nova would revolutionize the sector and rescue the future of fossil fuel electricity generation.
The $1 billion project (including a $190 million U.S. Department of Energy grant under the Clean Coal Initiative and a $250 million loan from the Japanese government) is attached to one 654 megawatt coal-unit of the monster NRG-owned W.A. Parish power facility near Houston, Texas.
Ranked in 2019 as the ninth most carbon-emitting power plant in the U.S., Parish’s combined eight coal and fossil gas units annually belch over 15.1 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
After capture and compression, CO2 is piped over 80 miles away to the West Ranch oil field for EOR. Before Petra Nova came online, only a measly 300 barrels a day were oozing from the field. But during Petra Nova’s first year of operations, that figure jumped to 4,000 a day. As pressure built, production soared by a factor of 50 to over 15,000 barrels per day.
But when West Texas oil prices crashed at the end of March 2020, capturing and sequestering CO2 for EOR stopped making economic sense, and its owners mothballed the plant until oil markets improved.
As to whether Petra Nova itself was actually capturing at 90 percent as project-backers claim, IEEFA’s research shows it rarely captured as much as 75 percent of passing CO2. Officially the U.S. Department of Energy states it captured only approximately 3.9 million short tons of CO2 during its first three years, shy of the 4.6 million tons developers had expected.
The Petra Nova CCS plant just restarted in September. Credit: NDLA, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
Sole owner JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration Corp., Japan’s largest oil producer, proudly states that the restarted project will simultaneously achieve a dramatic increase in production from aging oil fields as well as cut atmospheric CO2 emissions in Texas.
Continuing to masquerade as a climate-benefitting project, with oil prices currently inching towards $100 per barrel, the finances of running Petra Nova once again make sense. Going forward, EOR operations will again pay for CCS system operations while extending another chance to demonstrate how the technology can be viable at scale in what many see as a major test of efforts to sequester CO2 and store it permanently underground.
That Petra Nova did virtually nothing previously to actually reduce overall CO2 emissions — more likely increasing them, is not seen as a bug, but a feature given that its sole purpose is to capture a portion of the plant’s pollution in order to produce more oil — a task it has demonstrably excelled in doing.
Location: Barrow Island, Western Australia, Australia
Stated maximum capacity during operations: 4 million tonnes of CO2/year
Public subsidies: $60 million Australian ($47 million U.S.)
What they said would happen: A flagship plant to store CO2 produced by drilling for offshore gas.
What actually happened: Project started years after drilling began; plagued by technical problems that meant it captured less than a quarter of what was promised.
Background: Chevron and its partners were allowed to build the $5.5 billion Gorgon LNG plant on the Barrow Island nature reserve for one reason only: to bury millions of tonnes of produced CO2 from offshore gas reservoirs into a formation deep under the island.
Although Gorgon’s gas plant produced its first LNG cargo in March 2016, the first CO2 injection didn’t begin until August 2019 — three and a half years behind schedule. And since then it’s only sequestered, on average, less than 1 million tonnes per year.
With barely a day going by when all elements of Gorgon’s CO2 injection system worked at the same time, a 2022 report by IEEFA found that Gorgon had missed its storage and emissions targets by some 50 percent during its first five years of operation.
With CO2 leaking out of Gorgon’s assigned CO2 storage reservoir, in December 2020, regulators cut the permitted injection rate to 30 percent of maximum capacity until Chevron could fix its pressure management system without fracturing the rock around the injection wells and permanently damaging the system’s performance.
According to Australian and other publications: Gorgon failed to bury 9.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in its first five years of operations. In response to the shortfall, in 2021 Chevron announced it would buy 5.23 million tonnes of carbon offsets (many of which have subsequently proven to be junk).
By all accounts Chevron continues to fall even further behind on its CO2 capture and storage targets, but the fossil fuel behemoth is being less than open about by how much.
What is certain is that Chevron’s gas refining has produced tremendous volumes of CO2 — little if any of which have been “sequestered”.
Nevertheless, the Australian government has since approved two new massive offshore greenhouse gas storage areas, saying CCS “has a vital role to play” to help the country meet its net zero targets.
Stated maximum capacity during operations: 0.8 million tonnes of CO2/year
Storage method: Enhanced oil recovery
Public subsidies: N/A
What they said would happen: Asteel plant would be made climate-friendly.
What actually happened: The captured CO2 was used to pump more oil.
Background: The world’s only large-scale facility to capture emissions from steel production, the project promises to store up to 90 percent of all CO2 originating from the Emirates Steel plant near Abu Dhabi. From there, a pipeline carries the compressed gas to onshore oil fields, where it is used for enhanced oil recovery. The plant follows a trend of focusing carbon capture technology on “hard-to-abate” emissions from industrial sectors such as steel, cement and chemical production.
“The success of this project will definitely be a catalyst for similar projects in the UAE and across the region,” said ADNOC head Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, during a video interview promoting the project in 2014. Since the construction of the Al Reyadah Project, the UAE has announced new projects which would increase the country’s carbon capture capacity by over five times. ADNOC states that it will invest $15 billion in “low-carbon solutions,” with a heavy focus on CO2-enhanced oil recovery.
ADNOC’s plans are helping to drive a CO2-enhanced oil recovery boom on the Arabian Peninsula. In 2019, Qatar announced a large-scale project to capture CO2 from liquified natural gas refining and storing it in geologic formations, but which has also been linked to eventual use for oil extraction. Neighboring Saudi Arabia built its first carbon capture plant in 2015 to extract oil from declining oil wells, and declared last year that a new carbon capture facility planned to start operations in 2027 would become the world’s largest, eventually aiming to capture 44 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year by 2035.
9. Boundary Dam
Operator: Saskatchewan Power, 2014-present
Location: Estevan, Saskatchewan, Canada
Stated maximum capacity during operations: 1 million tonnes of CO2/year
Storage method: Enhanced oil recovery in the Weyburn oil field (90 percent), geologic storage (10 percent)
Public subsidies: $240 million Canadian ($217 million U.S.)
What they said would happen: A world-leading “clean coal” facility.
What actually happened: Consistent failure to hit capture targets; captured CO2 used to pump more oil.
Background: When a carbon capture unit was attached to an aging section of a lignite-burning power station in Canada, expectations were high that the plant would become a world-leading “clean coal facility.” To fund the construction, the Canadian government gave $240 million CAD for the carbon capture venture. The plant would also solve the problem posed by a Canadian law passed in 2012, which mandated that all 50-year and older coal power stations be shut down unless they had a carbon capture retrofit. In the case of the targeted Boundary Dam unit, its operating life would have expired by 2019.
Rather than meeting its yearly target of one million tonnes of CO2 captured per year, the plant has consistently underperformed. By the company’s own accounting, the plant is on track to capture 750,000 tonnes of CO2 in 2023, matching similar results from 2022. In 2021, the carbon capture facility stored only about 442,000 tonnes, less than half of its intended annual capacity.
This follows a similar trend of underperformance since Boundary Dam started running in 2016, according to an analysis from IEEFA. The report authors identified the project as “struggling” and found that it had barely reached its targeted 90 percent storage target on “any single day.” Most CO2 that was captured was sent to the nearby Weyburn oil field for enhanced oil recovery.
10. Quest CCS
Operator: Shell PLC, 2015 – present
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Stated maximum capacity during operations: 1.3 million tonnes of CO2/year
Storage method: Enhanced oil recovery
Public subsidies: $745 million Canadian ($654 million U.S.)
What they said would happen: Touted as a “thriving example” of oil industry success in reducing emissions.
What actually happened: Less than 50 percent of emissions captured, relative to 90 percent target; overall emissions offset the carbon captured.
Background: Designed to capture carbon emissions from Canadian Tar Sands operations and store them underground, Shell’s Quest plant is the world’s first to commercially produce so-called “blue hydrogen.” Blue hydrogen is the industry’s term for hydrogen produced by burning fossil gas through steam methane reformation. The process itself produces tremendous volumes of CO2 — hence the need to turn the hydrogen “blue” by burying the produced pollution underground.
With $654 million of the $1 billion cost of Quest coming from Canadian government subsidies, the plant’s operator, Shell, claimed it would help them reach its “net zero” target by 2050 while heralding the “exciting work” there to reduce emissions from industrial sources.
Though touted as a “thriving example” of how CCS is working to significantly reduce carbon emissions, a 2022 investigation by Global Witness showed that despite 5 million tonnes of CO2 capture from 2015 to 2021, Quest released a further 7.5 million tonnes of GHG over the same period, and that just 48 percent of the plant’s carbon emissions were being captured, far short of the 90 percent carbon capture rate promised.
Global Witness’ study found that the capture rate drops to only 39 percent when including other greenhouse gas emissions from Shell’s project.
11. Great Plains Synfuels Plant
Operator: (Basin Electric), 2000 -to present
Location: Near Beulah, North Dakota, USA
Stated maximum capacity during operations: 3 million tonnes of CO2/year
Storage method: Enhanced oil recovery in the Weyburn and Midvale oil fields
Public subsidies: $1.5 billion from the U.S. Department of Energy
What they said would happen: World’sbiggest project to capture carbon produced by burning coal.
What actually happened: The captured CO2 is being used to extend the life of oilfields in Canada by 25 years.
Background: Dakota Gasification Company’s Great Plains Synfuels Plant boasts that it captures more CO2 from coal conversion than any facility in the world.
Starting with 18,000 tonnes of regionally mined lignite, the dirtiest of all coals, the Great Plains Synfuels Plant cooks and converts the lignite into methane gas, which it then transforms into ammonia for fertilizer, as well as other chemical products, while stripping out produced CO2 for eventual use in enhanced oil recovery.
Since 2000, Great Plains Synfuels Plant remains the only CCS project to sell its CO2 cross border, compressing CO2 into a liquid and transporting it via a 320-kilometer pipeline to the Weyburn and Midale oil fields in Alberta. Each ton of injected CO2 increases oil production in Weyburn by almost three barrels.
CO2 enhanced oil recovery operation will enable an additional 130 million barrels of oil to be produced, extending the field’s commercial life by around 25 years.
Inside the Great Plains Synfuel Plant in 2009. Credit: Buchsbaum
One of the most Republican-leaning states in the U.S., where many consider climate change a hoax, North Dakota’s state government has been more than happy to take advantage of the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, given its tax credits for capturing and storing CO2 emissions.
Seeking to take advantage of those credits to increase revenue, North Dakota’s Industrial Commission recently unanimously approved a 32-square-mile expansion of the subterranean storage area for carbon from the synfuels plant.
Even though Great Plains sends 2 million tonnes of CO2 a year into the Weyburn Field for EOR, “there’s another 1.5 million potential of CO2 that’s produced at that plant today that’s not being captured, so they have the opportunity to capture that extra 1.5 million right there and get paid,” North Dakota Governor and State Industrial Commission Chair Doug Burgam has argued.
State Department of Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms also said that more CO2 will be needed to sustain regional oil production for the long term. Calling for more CCS or CO2 pipelines, Helms lamented that current CO2 production only meets about 10 percent of what is needed for enhanced oil recovery.
“We’ve got to find a way for carbon capture and utilization to become a part of North Dakota’s economy or we will leave billions of barrels of oil in the ground,” Helms said in August.
12. Santos Basin Pre-Salt Oil Field CCS
Operator: Petrobras, 2012-present
Location: Atlantic Ocean (300 km west of Rio de Janeiro state), Brazil
Stated maximum capacity during operations: 10.6 million tonnes of CO2/year
Storage method: Enhanced oil recovery in the offshore Santos Basin
Public subsidies: N/A
What they said would happen: World’s biggest offshore CCS project would slash industry’s carbon footprint.
What actually happened: Successful use of captured CO2 to dramatically expand offshore oil production is triggering a new oil boom.
Background: Operating at over a hundred wells in Brazil’s vast ultra-deep water oil fields, Petrobras boasted the highest amount of CO2 stored in 2022, about a quarter of total human-built carbon sequestration capacity The first project of its kind globally, the company claims that offshore carbon capture has reduced the lifecycle carbon footprint of a barrel of oil by 39 percent. The CO2 used to extract oil in the Santos Basin comes from the natural gas also produced by the field, which is separated on specialized floating platforms, and repurposed for additional profit.
Petrobras’ experiment has paid off handsomely. CO2 injection has boosted productivity in the Santos Basin, even though it once was deemed a difficult area to extract oil due to hard-to-drill salt formations on the ocean floor. In 2022, Petrobras reinjected a world-leading 10.6 Mt of CO2 directing the gas to extract more oil, which will be refined, transported, and burned to emit more CO2 into the atmosphere. Recently, the company announced its new target of approximately 80 million metric tonnes of CO2 reinjection by 2025 in CCS projects.
Other major oil companies operating in the deep sea region might be taking notes, leading to an offshore oil boom in Brazil. These international firms include Norway’s Equinor, which aims to boost its Brazil-based oil production by more than fivefold over the next 10 years.
Additional reporting by Dana Drugmand in New York.
Synopsis by dizzy: Enhanced Oil Recovery rebranded as Carbon Capture and Storage as a public relations exercise.
As awareness grew that burning fossil fuels was increasingly harmful to the environment, petroleum scientists began looking for industry-friendly solutions. Given that a fraction of the CO2 injected during EOR remains underground, as early as 1977 proponents suggested rebranding EOR into climate-friendlier carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Envisioning installing capture units on fossil fuel-burning generation plants, particularly coal-fired power stations, backers saw this as an elegant response to growing concerns over carbon emissions.
