页岩气生产商 BKV Corp. 已进军美国碳捕获与封存 (CCS) 领域，成为最新一家挑战“只有行业巨头才能在这一新兴领域取得重大进展”这一观念的上游公司。

BKV 成立于 2015 年，是泰国煤炭和能源集团 Banpu 的私人控股子公司，其不到 400 名员工已迅速将公司打造成美国第 17 大天然气生产商。除了 Barnett 和 Marcellus 页岩的上游业务外，BKV 的业务模式还借鉴了其泰国能源根源，包括拥有德克萨斯州的两家天然气发电厂。

但该公司在上游技术圈内更为人所知的是其在 Barnett水平井重复压裂方面的领导地位，无论是面积还是自喷井数量，该公司都是该地区最大的运营商。

BKV 对多元化并不陌生，现在正将其重点转向 CCS 市场，预计到本十年末，该市场将增长近五倍，从 30 亿美元增至超过 140 亿美元。美国新立法​​推动了这一增长，每封存一吨 CO ₂提供 85 美元的税收抵免，有效地将温室气体转变为有价值的商品。

该公司的首个 CCS 项目与总部位于达拉斯的 EnLink Midstream 合作，于去年 11 月在德克萨斯州布里奇波特启动。BKV 及其合作伙伴的目标是“Barnett Zero 项目”，每年封存约 210,000 公吨的 CO ₂ e。达到这一目标意味着每年可能产生超过 1,780 万美元的税收抵免，这笔钱可以为那些能够管理成本的人提供快速的投资回报。

BKV 还建立了一个名为 dCarbon Ventures 的新业务部门，该部门领导着位于 Barnett 矿区的一家名为 Cotton Cove 的独立 CCS 合资企业。该项目耗资 1,760 万美元，其中 900 万美元将由 BKV 出资，预计到明年年底将开始注入高达 45,000 吨/年的水量。除此之外，BKV 及其子公司还获得了邻近路易斯安那州一个占地 21,000 英亩的大型项目的权利，该项目的排放源来自新奥尔良地区周围的工业和石化工厂。

BKV 首席执行官 Chris Kalnin 和该天然气公司 dCarbon Ventures 副总裁 Lauren Read 负责指导这些雄心勃勃的项目。在他们的领导下，BKV 希望明年实现范围 1 和范围 2 的净零排放，比大多数行业减排目标提前数十年。该公司并没有就此止步，而是雄心勃勃地做大多数美国运营商迄今为止都没有做的事情，即在下个十年的某个时候抵消其范围 3 排放。

在接下来的问答中，Kalnin 和 Read 讨论了 Barnett 零项目背后的动机、其在独立制片人背景下的重要性，以及它对 BKV 更广泛战略的暗示。

编者注：为了篇幅和清晰度，本次采访经过编辑。

JPT：巴尼特零项目对于中型石油和天然气生产商在一个由大型到超大型公司主导的领域中的作用有何看法？

BKV Corp. 首席执行官 Chris Kalnin (CK)：对此我要说几句话。首先，我们通常会看到更多的创新来自小公司而不是大公司。这并不是说大型生产商和大型企业无法创新，但就上市速度和快速迭代创新的能力而言，您必须将中小型企业视为最适合做这些事情的人。对于较小的公司来说，最大的劣势当然是他们可以带来的资本，有时还包括交付此类项目所需的端到端专业知识。

这里还有另一件事需要了解碳捕获空间的发展方向。如果您使用二乘二的矩阵来考虑它，就会发现有大型轴辐式项目，即休斯敦地区的大型项目塑造陆上和海上的大型干线和涉及多个发射器。虽然这些项目通常由大型石油公司管理，但我们认为还有一类项目未受到大型勘探与生产公司的关注，但为了应对气候变化，这些项目仍然需要进行。这些是点对点项目，涉及小容量但高浓度的来源，CO ₂量为每年 200,000 至 500,000 公吨。这些是最经济的项目，实施速度最快，并且相对于更大的轴辐式项目而言，它们可以让您建立动力。

JPT：我很想更多地了解“端到端”专业知识的含义以及它如何影响您所谈论的大局。

CK：这是所有这一切的一个重要维度。你必须审视自己在整个价值链中发挥作用的能力——你会只是一个隔离者还是一个捕获者？你们也是中游公司吗？这一切决定了您参与各种CCS商业模式的能力。你会发现，有很多小企业试图进军这个领域，但他们正在选择比我们更复杂的项目，或者他们拥有一些能力，需要寻找合作伙伴来获得其余的能力。这包括从融资到管道和压缩的一切。BKV 的独特之处在于我们非常专注于这些点对点项目，然后我们提供所有功能。

虽然在这个最新项目中，EnLink 正在捕获 CO ₂，​​但我们确实在 Cotton Cove 站点捕获 CO ₂，​​然后用管道输送、压缩并注入。我们还负责所有水库管理工作。所有这一切说明的是，那些能够创新、在整个价值链上发挥作用并拥有足够资产负债表的人们将把碳捕获视为一项巨大的业务。

JPT：这些碳捕获项目将为明年实现范围 1 和范围 2 以及范围 3 净零排放的宏伟目标做出多大贡献？

dCarbon Ventures 副总裁 Lauren Read (LR)：简单来说就是很多。但我们打算通过我们所谓的“未来垫”项目和其他排放项目来解决大部分范围 1 和范围 2 排放（约 60%）。然后，我们的排放量平衡将被碳捕获、储存和利用 (CCUS) 业务所抵消，因此它代表了将范围 1 和范围 2 排放量降至零的总体战略的重要组成部分。此外，我们的范围 3 排放量每年还有 14 至 1500 万吨，我们将仅通过 CCUS 业务来抵消，我们计划到 2030 年代初期实现净零排放。

JPT： CCUS 业务——跟我讨论组建新的全资风险实体。为什么要走这条路，而不是简单地在组织内创建一个更传统的业务部门？

CK：正如许多人所知，中小型碳捕集利基企业目前面临的最大挑战之一涉及其财务生存能力。目前资本市场确实受到了干扰，民间融资越来越难了。

你面临着拥有高增长商业机会的难题，但它是资本密集型的​​，并且存在资金来源的问题。我们如何解决这个问题反映在我们的结构中。我们有风险投资集团，它位于母公司，仍然从上游业务获得资金，但它也是一个定制业务，可以使用各种不同的合资模式。

LR：我想补充一点，该模型提供了两全其美的优点，因为我们与上游企业共享服务，支持 dCarbon 企业的各个方面——克里斯提到的所有陆地、中游、管道和地下能力。但我们认为这种关系是共生的，因为 dCarbon Ventures 也确实在为上游业务提供服务，帮助其实现净零目标。与此同时，我们将其视为一项独立的业务，可以不断发展并为投资者和股东带来回报。

JPT：在增长方面，您如何平衡捕获和储存自己的排放量与净零目标的需求，同时吸引愿意付费让您为他们做同样事情的工业客户？

CK：今天我们的管道输送量约为 30 吨/年，这不是双关语。这代表了我们正处于不同工作阶段的视线项目。这些卷中的绝大多数涉及其他人（CO _2）而不是我们的。因此，我们看到 CCUS 服务存在巨大的增长机会。但这并不像您建议的那样线性，我们从首先存储我们的卷到然后存储他们的卷。显然，当我们控制大部分变量时，我们就能更快地启动项目。这就是巴尼特零号和棉花湾项目实施得非常快的原因。但这些其他项目同样重要，我们也在这些项目上取得了实质性进展。

JPT： BKV 表示巴尼特零项目可作为未来项目的原型。使其成为理想模板的一些关键组件或概念是什么？

LR：我认为巴尼特零项目对于天然气加工项目具有高度可复制性，特别是因为这些地点的 CO ₂浓度较高。但即使捕获要求不同，封存和运输要素仍然是可重复的。这需要建设管道，拥有运营管道的CO _{2经验，我认为这些经验可以在所有项目中传播。}在封存方面，促进可重复性的因素包括必须遵循的经典行业标准知识以及监管机构的监控、报告和验证要求。

JPT：既然你提到了监管机构，有报道称，由于寻求这些许可的公司大量增加，新的碳捕获项目可能会遇到审批流程缓慢的问题。您在这方面的经历如何？

LR：总的来说，与监管机构的合作非常好。由于大量积压和人员配备问题，目前的许可面临着挑战。但监管机构非常开放，希望与我们合作，让项目顺利完成。我认为进行大量的反复讨论很重要，因为我们确实正在引领我们所认为的 CCS 革命。没有太多历史项目可以依靠，因此监管机构仍然对事情应该如何运作或流程应该是什么有一些疑问。他们仍在解决问题，这意味着与他们合作非常重要。

JPT：您如何决定在 E&P 业务与 CCS 方面的支出？换句话说，采用 CCS 是否会以钻探新井为代价？

CK：这是我们现在正在努力解决的问题之一。一方面，上游业务是我们的面包和黄油，因此你必须继续为该核心提供资金。另一方面，正如我们所强调的那样，碳捕获是该业务的未来，并且正在高速增长。那么如何平衡资金呢？我认为你采取了投资组合管理方法。在传统的勘探与生产中，在页岩革命之前，您有勘探预算以及开发和运营预算。您必须就为增长指定多少高风险资本做出战略决策。

否则，如果您只是在风险调整的基础上进行竞争，那么钻探新井或进行重复压裂就会整天获胜。但这样看是没有意义的，所以我们的思考方式是首先问，能让我们获得业务关键技能的资本范围是多少，然后我们从那里。我们如何安排支出取决于我们所处的周期，但我们总是指定一些资金用于碳捕获业务。

例如，您可以看到 2023 年天然气价格确实暴跌，但我们保持了对 Barnett Zero 的稳定投资。我们这边的项目金额为 3400 万美元，BKV 无论市场环境如何都开出了这张支票。您可以说这是对经营许可证的投资，但我们也相信该业务的未来，并且您可以通过使收入来源多样化，远离不稳定的天然气业务来赚钱。

JPT：在不断变化的能源格局和日益关注气候问题的背景下考虑贵公司的新方向，您希望向正在阅读本文的石油和天然气专业人士传达什么信息或要点？

LR：我直接与大学讨论这个问题，因为碳捕获和封存这门科学并不新鲜。这种炒作是新鲜事，但科学却并非如此。

我们在大学教授的石油工程、化学工程、地球科学、土地、法律等许多技能，所有这些技能都可以转移到碳封存的研究中，并应用于高增长的业务，这也是对地球有益。我发现，在与我交谈的许多年轻一代中，这就是他们真正寻找的职业——可以有所作为并赚钱的职业。所以，这就是 CCS 对我来说的意义，它是良好科学、良好经济学和对地球有益的完美结合。

CK：我的观点是，没有哪个行业比能源行业更适合解决全球变暖的挑战。BKV 试图引领潮流，展示您可以两全其美——您可以提供安全、可靠且负担得起的能源，同时解决全球变暖问题。这不是一个非此即彼的选择。我要告诉人们的是，如果你想真正为全球变暖做点什么，而不仅仅是抗议并向该行业扔烂番茄，而是真正以物质方式解决下一代将面临的挑战，那么你需要与一家认真对待这一问题并找出盈利方法的能源公司合作。

我们在 BKV 所说的是，我们不仅要抵消范围 1 和 2 的排放，我们实际上还要完全抵消我们的范围 3 的排放——这意味着如果你燃烧我们的天然气，你就不会实际上加剧了全球变暖。这就是我们的目标，因为我们认为独立的碳捕获可以赚钱，独立的勘探与生产也可以赚钱，两者结合起来会产生巨大的 ESG 影响。因此，我想说的是，未来 12 到 24 个月内会有更多公告发布，这些公告将反映我们所描述的轨迹。

Shale gas producer BKV Corp. has made the leap into the US carbon capture and storage (CCS) sector, becoming the latest upstream firm to challenge the idea that only industry giants can make significant moves in this emerging arena.

Founded in 2015 as a privately held subsidiary of Thailand’s coal and energy conglomerate Banpu, BKV and its fewer than 400 employees have quickly built the company into the 17th largest gas producer in the US. In addition to its upstream operations in the Barnett and Marcellus shales, BKV’s business model borrows from its Thai energy roots and includes ownership of two natural gas power plants in Texas.

But the firm is better known within upstream technical circles for its leadership in refracturing horizontal wells in the Barnett where it is the largest operator both in terms of acreage and flowing wells.

No stranger to diversification, BKV is now shifting its focus to CCS—a market anticipated to balloon almost fivefold from $3 billion to over $14 billion by the end of the decade. This growth is being propelled in the US by new legislation offering $85 in tax credits for each ton of CO₂ sequestered, effectively turning the greenhouse gas into a valuable commodity.

The company’s inaugural CCS project, in collaboration with Dallas-based EnLink Midstream, launched this past November in Bridgeport, Texas. Called the Barnett Zero Project, BKV and its partner are targeting the sequestration of approximately 210,000 mtpa of CO₂e. Hitting that target means potentially generating over $17.8 million in annual tax credits, a sum that offers a swift return on investment for those who can manage costs.

BKV has also established a new business unit called dCarbon Ventures which is leading a separate CCS joint venture in the Barnett play called Cotton Cove. The $17.6-million project, $9 million of which will be put up by BKV, is expected to begin injecting up to 45,000 mtpa by the end of next year. Beyond that, BKV and its subsidiaries have secured rights for a large-scale project spanning 21,000 acres in neighboring Louisiana which would source its emissions from the industrial and petrochemical plants around the New Orleans area.

Steering these ambitious projects is BKV’s CEO, Chris Kalnin, alongside Lauren Read, vice president of the gas company’s dCarbon Ventures. Under their leadership, BKV hopes to achieve net-zero Scope 1 and 2 emissions by next year—decades ahead of most industry reduction targets. The company is not stopping there and is ambitioning to do what most US-based operators have so far refrained from, which is to offset its Scope 3 emissions sometime next decade.

In the following Q&A, Kalnin and Read discuss the motivations behind the Barnett Zero Project, its significance in the context of independent producers, and what it signals about BKV’s broader strategy.

Editor’s note: This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

JPT: What does the Barnett Zero Project say about the role of mid-sized oil and gas producers in an area which is heavily dominated by large to supermajor-sized companies?

Chris Kalnin (CK), CEO of BKV Corp.: I’ll say a couple of things about this. The first is that we typically see more innovations from smaller companies rather than the big companies. That’s not to say big producers and the majors can’t innovate—but in terms of speed to market and ability to innovate at a rapid iterative pace, you’ve got to think about small to mid-cap companies as being the best positioned to do those things. The big disadvantage for the smaller companies is of course the capital that they can bring and sometimes the end-to-end expertise that’s required to deliver these kinds of projects.

There’s another thing to understand here about where the carbon capture space is heading.If you think about it using a two-by-two matrix, there are large hub-and-spoke projects, i.e., the big Houston-area projects taking shape onshore and offshore with large trunk lines and multiple emitters involved. While it’s true that those will typically be managed by the majors, there’s a whole other category of projects that we think are below the radar of the large E&Ps but that still need to happen in order to address climate change. These are point-to-point projects that involve small-volume but high-concentration sources with anywhere from 200,000 to 500,000 mtpa of CO₂. These are the most economic projects, they’re the quickest to implement, and they allow you to build momentum relative to the bigger hub-and-spoke projects.

JPT: I’m curious to hear more about what “end-to-end” expertise implies and how it impacts the big picture you are speaking to.

CK: It’s an important dimension to all of this. You have to look at your ability to play in the overall value chain—are you going to be just a sequesterer or also a capturer? Are you a midstream company too? All this decides your ability to take part in the various CCS business models. What you will find is that there are a lot of small players out there trying to attack this space but they are picking more complex projects than us or they have some of the capabilities and need to find partners to get the rest. That includes everything from the financing to the pipeline and compression. Why BKV is unique here is that we’re very focused on those point-to-point projects and then we bring all of the capabilities.

While in this latest project EnLink is capturing the CO₂, we do capture CO₂ at our Cotton Cove site and then pipe it, compress it, and inject it. We’re also doing all the reservoir management. What all this says is that the folks who can innovate, play along the whole value chain, and have the balance sheet to do it will see carbon capture as a tremendous business.

JPT: How much will these carbon capture projects contribute to that rather remarkable ambition of achieving net zero on Scope 1 and 2 by next year and then with regards to Scope 3?

Lauren Read (LR), vice president of dCarbon Ventures: The short answer is a lot. But we intend to address the majority of our Scope 1 and 2 emissions—approximately 60%—by what we call our “pad of the future” project and other emissions projects. Then the balance of our emissions will be offset by the carbon capture, storage, and utilization (CCUS) business, so it represents a significant component of the overall strategy to getting those Scope 1 and 2 emissions down to zero. Then there are another 14 to 15 million mtpa of our Scope 3 emissions that we will offset solely with our CCUS business, and we plan on hitting net zero by the early 2030s.

JPT: The CCUS business—talk to me about spinning up the new wholly owned venture entity. Why go that route as opposed to simply creating a more traditional business unit within the organization?

CK: As many know, one of the biggest challenges facing small to mid-cap carbon capture niche players right now involves their financial viability. The capital markets have really been disrupted for the moment, and private funding is increasingly hard to come by.

You are left with this conundrum of having a high-growth business opportunity, but it’s capital intensive and there’s a question over what the source of funding will be. How we solved for this problem is reflected in our structure. We have the venture group, it’s in the mothership and still receives funding from the upstream business, but it’s also a bespoke business that can use a variety of different joint venture models.

LR: I would add that the model offers the best of both worlds in that we have shared services with the upstream business that supports all aspects of dCarbon ventures—so all the land, midstream, pipeline, and subsurface capabilities Chris mentioned. But we think of the relationship as symbiotic because dCarbon Ventures is really serving the upstream business too by helping it achieve its net-zero goal. And at the same time, we see it as a standalone business that can grow and provide returns to its investors and shareholders.

JPT: On growth, how are you balancing the need to capture and store your own emissions with respect to the net-zero goals while also bringing in industrial customers who want to pay you to do the same for them?

CK: We’ve got a pipeline today, no pun intended, of about 30 mtpa. This represents line-of-sight projects that we are at various stages of working on. And the vast majority of these volumes involve other folks’ CO₂—not ours. So, we see that there is a tremendous growth opportunity for CCUS-as-a‑service. But it is not as linear as you are suggesting where we go from storing our volumes first to then storing theirs. Obviously, we are able to get projects off the ground sooner when we control most of the variables. That’s why the Barnett Zero and Cotton Cove projects were implemented very quickly. But these other projects are equally important and we’re progressing materially on them as well.

JPT: BKV has said the Barnett Zero Project serves as a prototype for future projects. What are some of the key components or concepts that make it an ideal template?

LR: I see the Barnett Zero Project as highly replicable for natural gas processing projects in particular because of the concentration of CO₂ at these sites. But even where capture requirements are different, the sequestration and transport elements remain repeatable. That entails building the pipelines, having the CO₂ experience in operating the pipeline which I think is transmissible across all projects. On the sequestration side, the things that promote repeatability include knowledge of the classic industry standards that must be followed along with the monitoring, reporting, and verification requirements from regulators.

JPT: Since you mentioned regulators, it’s been reported that new carbon capture projects may suffer from a slow approval process due to the massive jump in companies seeking those permits. What has your experience been like on this front?

LR: Regulators have been, by and large, very good to work with. There are challenges in permitting right now with a significant backlog and staffing issues on their end. But the regulators are very open and want to work with us to get projects across the finish line. I think it’s important that there has been a lot of back and forth because we are really spearheading what we see as a revolution in CCS. There are not a lot of historical projects to lean back on, and so the regulators still have some questions of their own about how things should work or what the processes should be. They are still figuring things out which means it’s important to work with them collaboratively.

JPT: How do you decide what to spend on the E&P side of the business vs. CCS? In other words, does adopting CCS come at the expense of drilling a new well(s)?

CK: That’s one of the things we’re grappling with right now. On one hand, the upstream business is our bread and butter—so you have got to keep funding that core. On the other hand, carbon capture is as we’ve highlighted as the future of this business and it’s high growth. So how do you balance the funding? I think you take a portfolio management approach. In traditional E&P, prior to the shale revolution, you had an exploration budget and a development and operating budget. You have to make a strategic decision on how much higher-risk capital you’re going to earmark for the growth.

Otherwise, if you just competed on a risk-adjusted basis, drilling a new well or performing a refrac would win all day long. But it doesn’t make sense to look at it like that, so the way we’re thinking is to first ask what’s the envelope of capital that would allow us to achieve a critical skill for our business and we work back from there. How we sequence that spending depends on where we are in the cycle, but we are always earmarking some capital towards the carbon capture business.

For example, you can see in 2023 that gas prices really collapsed but we maintained a steady investment in Barnett Zero. Our side of the project was $34 million, and BKV wrote that check regardless of the market environment. You can make a point about this being an investment in the license to operate, but we also believe in the future of the business and that you can make money by diversifying the income stream away from what is a volatile gas business.

JPT: Considering the new direction of your company against the backdrop of an evolving energy landscape and growing focus on climate matters, what message or takeaway do you hope gets across to fellow oil and gas professionals who are reading this?

LR: I speak directly with universities on this question because the science is not new to carbon capture and sequestration. The hype is new—but the science is not.

And a lot of the skills that we teach in universities for petroleum engineering, chemical engineering, geoscience, land, legal, all of these skill sets can be transferred to the study of carbon sequestration and be applied to a high growth business that’s also good for the planet. And I find within a lot of the younger generation that I talk to, that’s what they’re really looking for—a career where they can make a difference and make money. And so, that is what CCS is to me, a perfect intersection of good science, good economics, and good for the planet.

CK: My view is that there’s no industry better suited to solve the challenge of global warming than the energy industry. BKV is trying to lead the way by showing that you can do both—you can provide secure, reliable, and affordable energy and solve global warming at the same time. It’s not an either/or choice. What I would tell people is this if you want to really do something about global warming, and not just protest and throw rotten tomatoes at the industry, but actually fix the challenges that the next generation will face in a material way, then you need to get with an energy company that takes it seriously and figures out the way to do it profitably.

And what we are saying at BKV is that we are not just going to offset of Scope 1 and 2 emissions, we’re actually going to completely offset our Scope 3 emissions—meaning if you combust our gas, you’re not actually contributing to global warming. That is where we are going with this because we think standalone carbon capture makes money, that standalone E&P makes money, and in combination, the two result in an ESG impact that is spectacular. And with that I would say to look for more announcements coming in the next 12 to 24 months that will reflect the trajectory that we’re describing.