I'm not quite sure what you mean by "can be carbon negative". Are you referring to sequestring some of the biomass in soil or other formations?
That's possible, yes.
The principle limitation though is net primary productivity, and the human use of that, HANPP (human appropriation of net primary productivity), a/k/a the photosynthetic ceiling.
Humans already account for about 20% of all NPP, with considerable economic impacts. Our fossil fuel consumption equates to another large share (from memory, I believe another 40 percent). The likelihood of substituting for even a small share of that is small.
Humans initially switched from biomass (wood and biowaste) to fossil fuels because rates of consumption of current biomass productivity exceeded replacement, as well as for degredation of ecosystems in which they were produced: "forests proceed us, deserts follow us".
I've yet to see a biofuel proposal which even remotely pencils out in theory, let alone when considering the likely practical obstacles. This includes woodfuel, plant-oil plantations, peat harvesting, various grasses, pickleweed (a brackish-estuary fast-growing plant), or algae farming. There's some marginal contribution possible, but even that comes at extreme cost.
Human populations, per-capita energy consumption, or both, would have to fall dramatically.
So isn't it negative surface area by this metric? Similar to rooftop solar.
Despite this being a ridiculous metric, I feel oil probably loses on it still, if you did a proper well to wheels analysis.
Particularly the step when you turn it into electricity, oil/biomass is going to take a major hit in both energy and and surface area.