@45Q tax credit: I had a whole section in it that I needed to shelf because of email length, but don't worry, it's not forgotten. To your question: Oxy was & is a big proponent of 45Q, and aims to be a big benefactor: https://energycapitalmedia.com/2021/04/06/oxy-rejects-carbon-tax/
Oh interesting, were there other interesting things like the 45Q tax credit that you left out? And I'm also curious why you ultimately decided that it wasn't important enough to keep.
Also, I can't quite figure out how those links validate your statement. What you said:
"Oxy recently pocketed half of the U.S. government's $1.2 billion carbon capture fund, which they promptly used to acquire Carbon Engineering."
There are three statements in this:
a) There exists a U.S. government fund for carbon capture that is $1.2 billion
b) Oxy was awarded half of that
c) Oxy has already received the money, such that they could use it to acquire Carbon Engineering
I believe none of these are true or stated by those documents, from what I can read.
a) The carbon capture fund is $2.5 or $3.5 billion. I'm not sure, but the $1.2 billion is just part of that fund.
b) I don't see the specific half you've mentioned, though it does seem likely that it might be the case, or close to it
c) The company was selected for the award, but these articles don't include the timelines of the dispersal of the money
I'm nitpicking because I find that there is a huge amount of disinformation in the climate field. I have hope that you might be able to uphold this level of clarity and precision, because you were one of the few willing to touch on both sides of the story!
I appreciate the nitpicking to be honest, as it holds me to the standard we should hold the whole climate field too. So:
@Other things left out: For each essay I write a version that goes as deep as I feel works for the intended audience (both experts & people reading about the topic for the first-ish time). This normally amounts to 15ish pages. Email length (and Substack) limit me to 5 pages however, so then I start cutting, and shelfing parts for later use.
So: there is a lot left in my notes. 45Q falls under "Government Subsidies" & "Incentives" for example - for both I have upcoming posts (no idea when I will post these though).
If you want we can jump on a quick call and I can show you some of the other leftovers - in the middle to long term I had the idea to make the potential topics of essays public, and want people to vote on what is most interesting to them.
You are also right that my statement is too inferring - obviously the timelines don't match up - the US didn't wire Oxy money that they then immediatly took and used to purchase CE. Subsidies take time to arrive & deals like this take time till the money is wired too.
But my thesis stands that the US is directly subsidising a fossil giant (with around $20b in annual revenue), and that the money (in the complex web of financials of Oxy and its subsidaries) will also be partially used to purchase CE (over the long term).
@Other random note: TBH I also struggle to find a good way to include sources without appending another page to the essay (post sending it out, because email limits) - so how would you like to read the
15 pages, wow, that's incredible! Yeah I'm not sure what the preferred way to include sources for your audience would be. My main thought is to figure out a way to not be limited by post length. I.e. you could have this post, and then a link to a non-emailed appendix that can be as long as you want. I don't know all the considerations to determine if this is a good idea or not, though.
Thanks for writing this! Where’s the source for “Oxy recently pocketed half of the U.S. government’s $1.2 billion carbon”.
Also, I notice in both articles you didn’t mention the 45Q tax credit, will they also be benefiting from that?
Hey Chase!
Thanks for the feedback, hope you like the other articles too ;)
@Sources: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-awards-12-bln-oxy-climeworks-led-carbon-air-capture-hubs-2023-08-11/ & Oxy's own PR: https://www.oxy.com/news/news-releases/1pointfive-selected-for-u.s.-department-of-energy-grant-to-develop-south-texas-direct-air-capture-hub/
@45Q tax credit: I had a whole section in it that I needed to shelf because of email length, but don't worry, it's not forgotten. To your question: Oxy was & is a big proponent of 45Q, and aims to be a big benefactor: https://energycapitalmedia.com/2021/04/06/oxy-rejects-carbon-tax/
Oh interesting, were there other interesting things like the 45Q tax credit that you left out? And I'm also curious why you ultimately decided that it wasn't important enough to keep.
Also, I can't quite figure out how those links validate your statement. What you said:
"Oxy recently pocketed half of the U.S. government's $1.2 billion carbon capture fund, which they promptly used to acquire Carbon Engineering."
There are three statements in this:
a) There exists a U.S. government fund for carbon capture that is $1.2 billion
b) Oxy was awarded half of that
c) Oxy has already received the money, such that they could use it to acquire Carbon Engineering
I believe none of these are true or stated by those documents, from what I can read.
a) The carbon capture fund is $2.5 or $3.5 billion. I'm not sure, but the $1.2 billion is just part of that fund.
b) I don't see the specific half you've mentioned, though it does seem likely that it might be the case, or close to it
c) The company was selected for the award, but these articles don't include the timelines of the dispersal of the money
I'm nitpicking because I find that there is a huge amount of disinformation in the climate field. I have hope that you might be able to uphold this level of clarity and precision, because you were one of the few willing to touch on both sides of the story!
I appreciate the nitpicking to be honest, as it holds me to the standard we should hold the whole climate field too. So:
@Other things left out: For each essay I write a version that goes as deep as I feel works for the intended audience (both experts & people reading about the topic for the first-ish time). This normally amounts to 15ish pages. Email length (and Substack) limit me to 5 pages however, so then I start cutting, and shelfing parts for later use.
So: there is a lot left in my notes. 45Q falls under "Government Subsidies" & "Incentives" for example - for both I have upcoming posts (no idea when I will post these though).
If you want we can jump on a quick call and I can show you some of the other leftovers - in the middle to long term I had the idea to make the potential topics of essays public, and want people to vote on what is most interesting to them.
@ US Gov Fund for Carbon Capture: You are correct, to be precise the current announced programs to kick-start the CO2 removal industry are $3.7b (https://netl.doe.gov/node/12239), which comes from the $12b earmarked for Carbon Removal CCUS/CO2 transport & storage in the Infrastructure Law (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/04/20/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-catalyze-global-climate-action-through-the-major-economies-forum-on-energy-and-climate/).
The $1.2b are the first allocation of the mentioned $3.7b.
To your b): I had it in my notes, unfortunately I can't find the source for it now (my bad), but as 2 DAC hubs were supported, and both have the same initial removal target, I think it is safe to assume that it was half for Oxy's subsidy & half for Batelles et al project (https://carboncredits.com/us-to-invest-12-billion-direct-air-capture-projects-by-climeworks-and-oxy/)
You are also right that my statement is too inferring - obviously the timelines don't match up - the US didn't wire Oxy money that they then immediatly took and used to purchase CE. Subsidies take time to arrive & deals like this take time till the money is wired too.
But my thesis stands that the US is directly subsidising a fossil giant (with around $20b in annual revenue), and that the money (in the complex web of financials of Oxy and its subsidaries) will also be partially used to purchase CE (over the long term).
@Other random note: TBH I also struggle to find a good way to include sources without appending another page to the essay (post sending it out, because email limits) - so how would you like to read the
Thanks for the thoughtful response 🙏🙏.
I think your comment got cut off at the end?
15 pages, wow, that's incredible! Yeah I'm not sure what the preferred way to include sources for your audience would be. My main thought is to figure out a way to not be limited by post length. I.e. you could have this post, and then a link to a non-emailed appendix that can be as long as you want. I don't know all the considerations to determine if this is a good idea or not, though.
Sent you an email!