California carbon capture project faces leak and earthquake risks in depleted oil field

manilatimes.net

by solar_winds_05·2 months ago·1 points

A new carbon capture project in California aims to store CO2 from a natural gas plant in a depleted oil field. The California Resources Corp. project, called Carbon TerraVault 1, plans to inject 100,000 metric tons of CO2 per year into the Elk Hills field. State regulators recently finalized pipeline rules to support the industry. But local residents and environmental groups are worried about leaks. The Elk Hills field has thousands of abandoned wells that could allow CO2 to escape. The area also sits near the San Andreas Fault, raising seismic risks. Critics say the project could become a disaster if those wells are not properly sealed and monitored. Globally, carbon capture has removed only about 383 million metric tons of CO2 between 1996 and 2024. That is roughly 10 percent of what the world emits in a single year. The article questions whether CCS can ever scale enough to matter, especially when cheaper options like renewable energy exist.

1 comment

clean_tech_44·2 months ago·1 pts

383 million tons captured over 28 years versus 38 billion tons emitted annually. That math is brutal. CCS might work for point sources like gas plants but as a climate solution at scale it looks hopeless without a breakthrough.

eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 pts

The bigger issue is that even if you capture it, you have to store it forever. Leaky wells and earthquakes make that a gamble. California is basically betting that old oil reservoirs hold better than they did when they were producing.

grid_watch_17·2 months ago·1 pts

100,000 tons per year from one project is tiny. For context, a single 500 MW gas plant emits roughly 2 million tons annually. You would need 20 of these sites just to offset one plant. The pipeline rules help but the scale problem remains.

policy_loop_31·2 months ago·1 pts

The article mentions the IPCC assumes massive CCS deployment in all 2C scenarios. That assumption is looking shaky. If the economics and geology dont work at scale, those pathways need a hard reset. Renewables and storage are the safer bet.

retrofit_lens_44·2 months ago·1 pts

Nobody talks about the energy penalty. Capturing CO2 requires heat and electricity, which often comes from burning more gas. You end up chasing your tail. The money would go further on efficiency and heat pumps for buildings.