Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study proposes the concept of Co-exploration as a diversification strategy that enables oil and gas (O&G) companies to leverage their geoscientific capabilities to jointly assess multiple resources, such as geothermal energy, natural hydrogen, lithium in brines, geological storage, and deep-sea mining. Those resources share a reliance on traditional upstream capabilities, including geological mapping, geophysical data acquisition and interpretation, reservoir characterization, modeling techniques, risk analysis, drilling, operations in remote environments, and the management of complex projects. A compatibility matrix was developed to summarize how well these alternatives fit a Co-exploration strategy. Alternatives such as CCS and CO2-EOR stand out for their technical and operational synergies with O&G upstream operations; however, they rely on tax incentives and an immature carbon market. Conversely, geothermal energy (EGS) and lithium production from brines represent more balanced alternatives for a Co-exploration strategy, combining geoscientific synergies, environmental and climate compatibility. Natural hydrogen offers strong strategic alignment but faces low technological maturity and market uncertainties. Finally, deep-sea mining emerges as the least viable alternative, despite its strategic appeal regarding the supply of critical elements. However, applying legacy O&G methods and tools is not straightforward. Alternative projects can differ from O&G projects in investment scale, time horizons, and risk-return profiles. There are also challenges associated with permitting, resource ownership, environmental and monitoring requirements, long-term liabilities, and social acceptance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Matos et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: