This seems like such an ass-backwards approach. They're making oil and injecting it into the ground using and old oil well. Wouldnt it be way better to just pay Saudi Arabia/Norway to NOT to pump this much oil out of the ground?
These are not mutually exclusive events.
We need to reduce our emissions and stop pumping oil out (develop clean alternatives).
We need to remove the existing excess of emissions in our atmosphere to get down to more natural levels.
That is a weird sort of anti-symmetry. If we burn novel carbon fuel it is better to burn energy dense ones (natural gas vs coal) but if we want to sequester it the filthiest fuel for the energy is best in the situation.
> Conscious consumers and companies are moving towards engineered carbon removals after carbon registries, verification bodies and trusted brands have sold fraudulent carbon offsets with abandon. Research from Oxford, Stanford and Berkeley has found that 85% of nature-based carbon offsets sold today are not “additional”, meaning nothing happens as a result of the carbon offset purchase. This has triggered a momentous shift towards permanent removals beginning in 2019 with Stripe’s landmark carbon removal RFP, followed by Shopify’s later in 2019 and then Microsoft’s in 2020.
However there is no good way to buy the rights to permanent sequestration of a given oil resource. It would, however, be optimal to tax oil burning from stored reserves.
"Gilets jaunes" riots two years ago were caused in part by a relatively minor fuel tax increase. Actually taxing oil so much as to significantly reduce its consumption would be a huge impact on population and cause much larger resistance, probably violent.
Efforts like this are the only way we make a dent in climate change.