How the Biochar Lobby Pushed for Offsets, Tar Sands, and Fracking Reclamation Using Unsettled Science

For the past several years, a well-organized, well-funded campaign has worked to include biochar in prospective carbon markets as an approved offset for greenhouse gasย emissions.

The ardent push has occurred even though the non-partisan Government Accountability Office gave biochar a Technology Readiness Level of two out of nine in a July 2011 reportย and a 2015ย National Research Council study on geoengineering came to similar conclusions about biochar. It also unfoldedย even though the climate change mitigation potential of sequestering biochar into the ground is far from a settled fact and long-term field trials are sorely lacking.

And then there’s the science of offsets in and of itself, which isย also rife withย contention.

Supporters say offsets have the ability to curb the climate change impacts tied to emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Detractors, meanwhile, say they only further encourage more greenhouse gas pollution and are,ย at their core,ย a โ€œrip offsetโ€ for economic reasons and an ecological public relations โ€œgreenwashingโ€ tool.

Couple the dubious science behind biochar with the fact offsets are also scientifically questionable, and you get a perfect pseudo-science storm.ย Still, none of this has stopped the biochar lobby from making a big marketing push forย the acceptance ofย biocharย offsets.

Several oil companies have also promoted using biochar as a reclamation tool for cleaning up damaged lands in Alberta, Canada, home of the tar sands boom, even though tar sands reclamationย โ€”ย like offsetsย โ€”ย is scientifically unproven. Similarly, some biochar advocates say biocharย could reclaim oil and gas hydraulic fracturing (โ€œfrackingโ€)ย sites upon completion ofย drilling.

Biochar Offsetsย Bet

One cannot understand the biochar lobby’s offset-centric policy strategy and its attempt to place biochar within climate agreements without first closely examining the International Biochar Initiative (IBI).

IBI was formed in June 2006 as an offshoot of theย World Soil Science Congress, just a few months after Natureย published a major feature article about biochar featuring IBI Board Chairman and Cornell University Professor Johannes Lehmann.ย At the time, IBI was known as theย International Agrichar Initiative. Here’s how IBI explains its genesis:

At the 2006 meeting, individuals and representatives from academic institutions, commercial ventures, investment bankers, non-governmental organizations, federal agency representatives, and the policy arena from around the world acknowledged a common interest in promoting the research, development, demonstration, deployment (RDD&D) and commercialization of the promising technology of biocharย production.

IBI immediately set out to formulate a mass-marketing strategy for biochar. Thus far, that strategy has centered around offset protocols for biochar on both domestic and international scales, even as hard scientific proof of the substance as a climate change mitigation device awaits the crucible of fieldย trials.ย 

Since its inception, the IBI has made several pushes to have biochar included in bothย international climate agreementsย as well as in domesticย climate agreements in various countries around the world.

The group has had some modest success, getting biochar insertedย into:

a)ย Various negotiating documents in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Changeย in the carbon trading andย sequestration sphere. None of these made it beyond the negotiatingย phase.

b) Aย carbon offset billย in the United States, theย Clean Energy Partnerships Act of 2009, specificallyย calling on the U.S. governmentย to โ€œestablish and maintain a list of types of offset projects eligible to generate offset credits under the program.โ€ The bill ended upย dead on arrival.

c) A stand-alone biochar subsidy bill in the U.S., the WECHAR Act of 2009 (H.R. 3748/S. 1713). WECHAR is shorthand for โ€œWater Efficiency via Carbon Harvesting and Restoration.โ€ The environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) employedย the head of its water program, Ed Osann, to lobby on behalf of the bill for twoย lobbying quarters.

Introduced by U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV)ย and U.S.ย Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), the bill calls for the U.S. government to โ€œestablish loan guarantee programs to develop biochar technology using excess plant biomass, to establish biochar demonstration projects on public land, and for otherย purposes.โ€


U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Image Courtesy of Wikimediaย Commons

This bill gained zero traction, with one co-sponsor in the House version and five in the Senate version, respectively.ย ย 

With Big Oil Friends Likeย Theseโ€ฆ

IBI has close financial and personnel ties to companies with a major stake in fossil fuelย development.ย 

In 2007, with IBI in its infancyย as the biochar industry’s lobbying voice, ConocoPhillips Canada gave Iowa State University (ISU) an eight-year $22.5 million grant toย do biofuels research and development work, including on biochar. That grant has run dry, but ExxonMobil has filled its void, giving ISU a two-year, $1 million grant in 2014 to do similar research.ย 

Documents obtained via Iowa’sย Open Records Law by DeSmog reveal that the entire premise of the biochar research ISU did, just aboveย $90,000 of which was set aside for biochar-related matters, was to serve as an impetus to get carbon credits as part of a carbonย market.ย 

Biochar Tar Sands Offsets

Image Credit:ย Iowa Stateย University

The terms of theย research agreement contractย signed between ISU and ConocoPhillips, also obtained by DeSmog, came under fire in a 2010 report authored by the Center for American Progress (CAP) titled, โ€œBig Oil Goes to College.โ€

โ€œThis agreement leaves ConocoPhillips in charge of almost all facets of the research alliance,โ€ wrote CAP. โ€œThe agreement fails to spell out any formal governance structure, method of collective decision-making, or system of voting to guide the management of this eight-year university-industry researchย collaboration.โ€

The agreement also gave ConocoPhillips full patent and commercialization rights over theย research.

ConocoPhillips Biochar

Image Credit:ย Iowa State Universityย 

Furthermore, the same set of ISU researchers now have funding to do biochar research viaย Stanford University’sย Global Climate and Energy Project, part of a broaderย $9.3 million grant announced on August 12, 2015,ย going toward the โ€œstudy [of] the production of biochar for use as a soil amendment that stores carbon underground instead of allowing carbon dioxide to re-enter the atmosphere as the plantย decomposes.โ€

The Stanford research is funded byย ExxonMobil, GE, Schlumberger, DuPont and Bank of America, all of which have financial or operational ties to Alberta’s tar sands and other oil and gasย reserves.

โ€œI guess I would have to say that most of the companies involved saw value in our carbon sequestration proposal,โ€ย ISU engineering Professor Robert Brown told DeSmog via email. โ€œThe project is strictly analysis of the potential for carbon sequestration in the U.S., the costs, and the potential economic potential. The mechanism for deriving benefits [such as carbon markets, carbon systems, etc.] will be considered by ourย economists.โ€

A subset of those same researchers also locked down a $3.5 million grant from Chevron to study advanced biofuels. Among them included on the list:ย biochar.

โ€œThis latest pilot plant at Iowa Stateโ€™s BioCentury Research Farm is a joint project with Chevron U.S.A. University engineers are using the pilot plant to develop and demonstrate an advanced biorenewables technology called solvent liquefaction,โ€ reads an ISU press release from September 2016. โ€œThe technology converts biomass such as quarter-inch wood chips into a bio-oil that can be processed into fuels or chemicals and a biochar that can enrichย soils.โ€

ISU‘s biofuels program is run by Brown, aย mechanical engineeringย professor. He also serves as aย consultantย for Dupont and Syncrude Canada,ย bothย ofย whichย have a major stake in Alberta tar sandsย development.ย 

The consulting firm that helped spearhead and draft the biochar offsets protocol for the American Carbon Registry, which was eventually rejected, got its seed money from ConocoPhillips Canada. That firm, Biochar Protocol Development, no longerย exists.

Beyond pure offsets, several oil companies have proposed using biochar as a reclamation tool for cleaning up ravaged tar sands extraction lands in Alberta, as well as fracking lands, which in turn will count as an โ€œoffsetโ€ once the damage isย done.ย ย 

A Fossil Fuel Champion for Biochar Reclamationย Offsets

Beginning in 2007, natural gas company Encana’sย Subodh Guptaย began a push to include biochar in a sweeping carbon offset plan.ย Today, Gupta is head of technology development at Canadian oil company Cenovus, as well as the manager of research and development of its oil sandsย division.

Guptaย presented the idea in a fall 2007 journal article, published in theย Society of Petroleum Engineers’ย One Petro,ย entitled โ€œWhat Are Our Options for Sequestration of Atmospheric CO2โ€”Some Thoughtsโ€œย on the topic of carbonย sequestration.

The article relies on the assumption that the world is dependent on fossil fuels and will only growย increasinglyย soย overย time.

Guptaย wrote:

Use of fossil fuel ever since the dawn of the industrial age has led to increased level of CO2 in the environment. Our world today is fueled mainly by fossil energy and it is unlikely that this dependence will significantly change in the near future. This coupled with the fact that majority of the developing world is at the beginning of the economic growth which is implicitly energy-intensive, the concentration of CO2 in atmosphere will only increase in the business-as-usualย case.

Business-as-usual for oil and gas extraction, then, is theย working assumption behind Gupta’s scholarship, which makes sense given he works as an industryย researcher.

In that same paper, Guptaย proceeded to extol the virtuesย of sequestration โ€œof biomass through its conversion to charcoalโ€ (akaย biochar).

Later, in anย Octoberย 2009 paper appearing in the same journalย and relying on the same assumptions, Gupta discussed working biochar into an offset plan for the first time. This paper, titled, โ€œAre There Less Costly Ways to Sequester Carbon Than CCS?โ€ was presented at the Society of Petroleum Engineers’ annual conference in New Orleans,ย Louisiana.ย 

Just weeks later, on October 29-30, Gupta traveled to Edmonton for theย Alberta Offset System’s 2nd Round Quantification Protocol Stakeholder Review. That review’s attendee list included representatives from the likes ofย ATCO Pipelines,ย Alliance Pipeline,ย ConocoPhillips Canada,ย Husky Energy,ย Kinder Morgan Canada, Shell Canada,ย Suncor Energy, and TransCanada.ย 

Fast-forward roughly a year and a half to theย 2011 World Heavy Oil Congress.ย At the Congress,ย Gupta championed inserting biocharย into anย offset protocol, such as the Alberta Offset System.ย ย ย 

He also told the audience of Cenovus’ desire to transform industrial lands inย Alberta into a biochar reclamationย project.ย 

โ€œWhat Guptaโ€™s team is tasked with is developing equipment that can convert that waste to biochar at a large enough scale to offset some of the companyโ€™s carbon footprint,โ€ย explainedย Alberta Oil Magazine. โ€œGupta says his project team is perhaps a year or a year-and-a-half away from proving its camp waste-to-biochar technologyย works.โ€

Gupta says he hopes Cenovus will serve as an example to others if this modelย succeeds.

โ€œThis will not solve all the worldโ€™s emission problems,โ€ย he toldย Alberta Oil Magazine. โ€œBut itโ€™s a legitimate baby step in convincing others that this is a viable way to offset carbonย emissions.โ€

Coming full circle, the Foster Creek project, where Cenovus is planning its tar sands โ€œwaste-to-biocharโ€ reclamation project, isย co-owned on a 50-50 basis in partnership with ConocoPhillips, key funder of biochar research and development at ISU and provider of seed money for Gaunt’s firm Biochar Protocolย Development.

The โ€œbaby stepโ€ has convinced others that biochar can also serve as a tar sands land reclamationย tool.

Biochar Solutions and Biocharย Reclamation

Biochar Solutionsย is another company getting in on the rush to โ€œoffsetโ€ tar sands extractionย through biochar development. On Nov. 2, 2011, Biochar Solutions became aย finalist for the $25 million Earth Challenge Prize, an award presented byย Virginย Group.ย 

Headquartered in Carbondale, Colorado, Biochar Solutions announced it would form a subsidiary in Canada โ€”ย Biochar Solutions Canadaย โ€” roughlyย two weeks afterย it became a prizeย finalist.ย 

Biochar Solutions will follow in the footsteps of Cenovus and ramp up efforts to โ€œreclaimโ€ tar sands extraction sites with biochar. The company has already reclaimed one mining site in Colorado calledย Hope Mine, a formerย silver mine.

The mine wasย describedย byย The Colorado Independentย as a former โ€œwasteland of arsenic, cadmium, lead and zinc,โ€ paralleling what tar sands sites may resemble in the aftermath of tapping into the oil found withinย them.

The co-owner of Biochar Solutions, Morgan Williams, is elated with the prospect of utilizing biochar to reclaim tar sands extraction sites. In a press release announcing the launch of the Canadian subsidiary,ย he stated:

We are happy to formally begin our work in Canadaโ€ฆWestern Canada faces massive carbon challenges ranging from standing dead timber from beetle kill in British Columbia, to the carbon emissions associated with mining and oil sands development. Our biochar technologies offer nexus solutions to begin addressing forestry, climate and land reclamation challengesย simultaneously.

Not mentioned by Williams: climate change impacts from tar sands extraction are aย major cause of dead timber from beetle killย to begin with. In January 2017, the Colorado General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the expanded use of biochar in the state, which cited uses paralleling those being deployed by Biocharย Solutions.

Colorado Biochar Resolution 2017

Image Credit: Colorado Generalย Assembly

A depiction of the company’s dedication to using biochar to โ€œoffsetโ€ tar sands development, Biochar Solutions Canada co-ownerย Len Eddyย also has made a career out of promotingย offsets.

Representing his two former employers,ย AgCert Internationalย and The Carbon Basis Company,ย government records revealย Eddy was, like Gupta of Cenovus, involved inย technical reviewย andย protocol developmentย meetings for the Alberta Offsetย System.ย 

Additionally, both of the firms Eddy worked at while he sat at Alberta Offset System review meetingsย were major proponents ofย carbon tradingย andย offset markets. And during his time working for PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), Eddy developed an expertise in emissions-trading offsets markets, according to an archived biography on PWC‘sย website.

Fracking and Biocharย Reclamation

In September 2014, University of Texas-San Antonio (UTSA) researchers concluded in a study that, as others have said with regards to the Alberta tar sands,ย biochar can also reclaim ravaged fracking sites.

Specifically, the researchers said it could be used to treat fracking wastewater, known by some as โ€œflowback.โ€

โ€œThere are many variables that go into making different types of biochar to filter certain chemicals, including the material composition of the biochar and to what temperature it’s heated,โ€ said UTSA mechanical engineering professor Zhi-Gang Feng, one of the study’s co-authors, in a press release. โ€œOur research demonstrates that this is a product that can reduce the environmental impact of drilling in a way that is safe and inexpensive toย industry.โ€

Study: Impossible to โ€œReclaimโ€ Tar Sandsย Sites

The up-and-coming biochar industry’s business model with regards to oil and gas offsets and reclamation rests on a big assumption: that it’s actually doable to reclaim tar sands extraction sites once the damage has beenย done.ย 

Yet according to aย studyย published in March 2012 in the peer-reviewed journalย Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, tar sands reclamation is more fiction than fact. The studyย says:ย 

Claims by industry that they will โ€œreturn the land we useโ€”including reclaiming tailings pondsโ€”to a sustainable landscape that is equal to or better than how we found itโ€ and that it โ€œwill be replanted with the same trees and plants and formed into habitat for the same speciesโ€ are clearlyย greenwashing.ย 

Research on fracking reclamation, given the relative newness of the boom, is also sorelyย lacking.

Some things are scientifically certain, though: industrialized tar sands extraction is one of the most greenhouse gasโ€“intensive methods of fossil fuel production on the planet. And fracking has quite the greenhouse gas emissions footprint itself.

And to date, no scientific evidenceย exists to support that stuffing biochar into the ground after tar sands extraction or natural gas frackingย can actually โ€œoffsetโ€ these processes’ impacts orย greenhouse gasย emissions.

Regardless, in one of IBI‘s responses to a public comment on its biochar offsets development protocolย (shot down by the American Carbon Registry),ย IBI disclosedย that they are still working on drafting up a protocol for the Alberta Offset System.ย 

Continue to Part 5.