The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has approved a California oil company's plans to permanently store carbon emissions deep underground to combat global warming — the first such proposal provisionally approved in the state.
California Resources Corp., the state's largest oil and gas company, requested permission to ship 1.46 million metric tons. of carbon dioxide each year in the Elk Hills oil field, a depleted oil reservoir about 25 miles from downtown Bakersfield. The emissions would be collected from several nearby industrial sources, compressed into a liquid state, and injected into porous rock more than a mile underground.
Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science.
Although this technique has never been done on a large scale in California, the state's climate plan calls for these operations to be implemented widely throughout the Central Valley to reduce carbon emissions from industrial facilities. The EPA issued a draft permit for the California Resources Corp. project, which will be completed in March following public comment.
As California abandons oil production, a new business model has emerged for fossil fuel companies: carbon management. Oil companies have invested heavily in transforming their vast network of depleted oil fields into long-term storage sites for planet-warming gases, including California Resources Corp., the largest non-governmental owner of mineral rights in California.
“CRC has been developing and operating underground fields for decades in the state,” said Chris Gould, the company's chief sustainability officer. “We have a deep and intimate knowledge of the characteristics of the subsurface.”
“It's like reversing the role, so to speak,” Gould added. “Instead of taking out oil and gas, we are adding carbon.”
In California, there are about a dozen applications, all located in the Central Valley, that seek to collectively eliminate millions of tons of carbon emissions in former oil and gas fields in exchange for government tax credits. But Greater Los Angeles is also “being evaluated” as a possible storage site, according to California Resources Corp. spokesman Richard Venn.
The new carbon sequestration sector could mark a drastic transformation for fossil fuel companies and the communities that have built their economies around them.
Carbon sequestration projects capture CO2 from industrial sources and store it deep underground. In California, depleted oil fields are expected to be used to store planet-warming gas.
(United States Environmental Protection Agency)
The transition has been greeted with a mix of cautious optimism and extreme skepticism. But public leaders are struggling to consider what this will mean for the future of their communities, including Kern County, where planning officials have released renderings and economic outlooks for a hypothetical carbon management business park.
“I know there are people who are worried that this is just a way for the oil companies to stay alive. And my answer is yes, that's really true,” said Lorelei Oviatt, Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Director. “At the end of the day, you just want them to reinvent themselves, and no one seems to have any other good ideas about how we're supposed to keep our libraries open.”
Others are more reluctant to welcome such a new industry.
“I worry about the Central Valley becoming the repository for everything bad,” said Dean Florez, a member of the California Air Resources Board and a Kern County native. “Where did all the prisons go in the 80s? Valley. Where are all the Angels? [sewer] mud go? Valley.”
California Resources Corp. has applied for permits for five carbon storage projects across the region, the most of any company in the country. It has partnered with Canada-based Brookfield Corp., which has initially invested $500 million in the joint venture.
For every metric ton of carbon it captures and stores, the company will earn $85 in federal tax credits and possibly more if it qualifies for California state subsidies. The company also aims to encourage other industrial companies to store their carbon emissions in their underground tanks for a fee.
The company said it plans to store emissions from its operations in gas fields, as well as a proposed hydrogen plant and a direct air capture facility. Direct capture facilities use fans and filters to collect carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere.
These operations, California Resources Corp. officials say, are aligned with California's climate plan, which calls for carbon emissions to be captured from the state's oil refineries, cement plants and other industrial facilities that require high levels of heat. that cannot be achieved with renewable energy.
But environmental groups and some valley residents have serious concerns about this strategy. Some argue that it prolongs highly polluting industries rather than encouraging these companies to switch to zero-emission technology.
Although carbon capture equipment collects CO2, other emissions, such as nitrogen oxides or smog-forming particles, would still be released. The San Joaquin Valley is already the most polluted air basin in the country.
Florez, a state air board member, compared the technology to a catalytic converter and said it only addresses greenhouse gas emissions, not lung-damaging pollutants.
Florez said California officials must clearly identify whether carbon capture will serve as a bridge to zero-emissions technology or simply perpetuate the use of fossil fuels.
Environmentalists also say that transporting and injecting CO2 (an asphyxiant gas that displaces oxygen) could cause dangerous leaks. Nationwide, there have been at least 25 carbon dioxide pipeline leaks between 2002 and 2021, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Perhaps the most notable incident occurred in Satartia, Mississippi, in 2020, when a CO2 pipeline ruptured after heavy rain. The leak led to the hospitalization of 45 people and the evacuation of 200 residents.
“Carbon capture and storage simply cannot work as a sustainable climate solution, as it is a prohibitively expensive process that requires significant untested and unproven infrastructure,” said Chirag Bhakta, advocacy director at the nonprofit organization California Food & Water Watch. “In addition, the transport and storage of captured carbon can lead to leaks, accidents and explosions that can release toxic substances into the environment. “This can pose serious health risks, particularly for communities already living on the frontlines of the climate crisis.”
State Sen. Henry Stern (D-Calabasas), a non-voting member of the state Air Resources Board, said the risks associated with carbon capture are reminiscent of the disastrous situation that occurred at the natural gas storage facility of Aliso Canyon in San Fernando. Valley.
SoCalGas injects and stores methane within a depleted oil reservoir in the Santa Susana Mountains, near the Porter Ranch neighborhood of Los Angeles. But in October 2015, one of Aliso Canyon's 115 gas wells developed an uncontrolled leak that lasted nearly four months. About 100,000 tons of methane were released and more than 5,000 homes were evacuated.
“On a visceral and emotional level, as a resident, I'm inherently skeptical of anything injected underground, especially by a fossil fuel company,” Stern said.
However, Stern also acknowledged that underground CO2 storage is outlined in global, national and state climate plans, and that the planet is running out of time to slow global warming.
“I worry that if we debate forever, 10 years from now we'll be sitting here having the same conversation about some future model, and the world will burn,” he said.
Under the EPA's draft permit, California Resources Corp. must take a number of steps to mitigate these risks. The company must plug 157 wells to ensure CO2 stays underground, monitor the injection site for leaks and obtain a $33 million insurance policy.
Additionally, California Resources Corp. needs approval from the Kern County Board of Supervisors. Kern County has already banned carbon storage tanks in underlying residential or commercial areas, and officials intend to keep the pipelines away from homes and sensitive habitats, according to Oviatt, Kern County planning director.
“We are not interested in CO2 pipelines going through residential areas,” he said. “I don't care how far they are from the houses. “These are not things I'm going to recommend.”
From an economic point of view, CO2 injection alone is not expected to generate a significant number of new jobs. New hires would come only from new incoming industries that would be attracted to the area near the injection site.
Kern County officials have also debated how phasing out fossil fuels will affect their tax revenue. They have imposed a $250,000 annual public safety fee and a $200 to $400 annual fee for each acre of land above the injection area, in an attempt to recoup some of what they plan to lose in oil revenue.
“If oil is extracted from there, then we tax it as an oil deposit and we are making money, right? But if you're an oil company and now you're going to use your land for something else, that's fine. That is your right. My question is: when you call 911 about the CO2 leak, where does the money come from for the firefighters to show up?
But California Resources Corp.'s plan has come a long way since its inception more than two decades ago.
At least two previous versions of the proposal planned to capture CO2 and inject it into old oil wells to extract more oil. However, in 2022, the state Legislature passed a bill prohibiting carbon capture projects from boosting oil production.
For Stern, reviews of the project have made him more open-minded about the plan.
“If you overcome all those obstacles, in addition to the new barriers that exist, it is an amazing example of perseverance,” Stern said. “Is this what it looks like to watch the industry evolve in real time? Who knows, after two decades, maybe this is the time.”
