Science alone cannot sell CCS

The 20 chapters contributed by nearly 60 authors dwell mainly on carbon capture and storage (CCS) research and case studies, presumably because this is where geoscientists are seen to have the most relevance and opportunity in the changing energy landscape. That assumption is certainly borne out by the numerous major events that continue to be held specifically on CCS. For example, later this year in Europe, we can look forward to next month’s 2026 World CCUS Conference in Edinburgh, Scotland (powered by EAGE) and the EAGE GET 2026 Carbon Capture and Storage Conference in Hannover in November; the Geoscience Energy Society of Great Britain (GESGB) CCS4G Symposium in London in December; and the Global CCS Institute Capacity Building Workshop in Poland in September. There are doubtless other meetings and of course many in other parts of the world.

These scientific outpourings are founded on the belief in the value of the role of CCS as part of the mix of solutions to reduce CO2 emissions, and who can argue with the impressive evidence and energy being exerted to present the case? There is general agreement that CCS technology can play a vital part in reducing hard-to-abate emissions in heavy industries such as cement and steel and in power plants; facilitating the production of ‘blue hydrogen’ from the conversion of natural gas into hydrogen, capturing and storing the CO2 emissions generated; and removing CO2 from the atmosphere through BECCS (Bioenergy with CCS) and DAC (Direct Air Capture). In addition, the role of CO2 injection in mature oil fields (resulting in some storage) as part of the enhanced oil recovery process is well understood and practiced worldwide.

'..widespread adoption of CCS is still obstinately slow.'

Yet, despite all the effort and discussion, widespread adoption of CCS to help meet net zero or similar targets is still obstinately slow. This research note in S&P Global Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) — Navigating Uncertainty and Viability summarises a story that can be found in many recent studies: ‘CCS is a mature and scalable technology for decarbonising hard-to-abate sectors. However, despite over 50 years of operations, CCS remains at early stages of deployment — only 34 active large-scale projects corresponding to a capture capacity of 59.6 MMtCO2 per year are currently in operation (as of June 2025). Moreover, many of these projects are in support of enhanced oil recovery (EOR). For CCS to play a meaningful role in addressing climate change, this level of CO2 capture capacity will need to scale up by at least 50 times.’

Most authoritative reports suggest a turning point of sorts, investment incentives if not actual adoption, may be happening at more industry and government levels in certain countries like Norway, the UK, Denmark, Canada, and the USA. A THINK analysis from ING, the Netherlands-based bank, concurs to a degree—'In 2026, significant momentum exists on the supply side of CCS, with progress in storage and transport infrastructure, often state-backed. However, the major challenge is securing commitments from heavy industries to adopt CCS. By 2030, Europe is set to have much greater CO2 transport and storage capacity than actual CO2 capture.’

The International Energy Agency and many other studies conclude that CCS will contribute around 6-8% of annual global CO2 emission reduction by 2050; it’s not clear whether CCS should be achieving more. Such projections depend on issues that the geoscience community can do little to address. In other words, demand for CCS is not driven by technology; it depends on a market that still has to be created and made profitable. Take the word of an insider like David Forecast, business development manager, Shearwater Geosciences, in an online comment of what’s holding CCS back. 

Forecast states the incontrovertible that ‘capturing and processing of emissions at the source requires specialised equipment and energy; transportation of CO2 needs repurposed or new pipelines and shipping infrastructure; storage of CO2 demands site preparation, injection systems and subsequent monitoring to ensure integrity, safety and compliance.’ He concludes what we already suspect is the truth, that ‘the cost and complexity cannot be met solely by companies emitting CO2. Without broader support, these costs will ultimately be passed down to the consumer—individuals, families and businesses … To make CCS viable on a scale, we need collaborative funding models, policy incentives, and public-private partnerships that reflect the shared benefits and responsibilities of climate action.’

'Not spelled out is the public relations challenge, even when the world is on fire.'

Not spelled out is the public relations challenge, even when the world is on fire. If electorates need to be on board with scaling up CCS project investment, seemingly dependent in part on public funding, then appreciating what is involved is crucial. Opinion polls (focused mainly on Western industrialised countries) suggest there is a widespread lack of knowledge although, when explained, there is often said to be no objection in principle to the concept. However, it is psychologically much harder to embrace than spending on decarbonisation options such as wind power and solar, which produce easily understood, measurable results. Any association of CCS with the oil and gas business is of course an immediate negative in many people’s minds, and it is easy to stoke up local community fears of underground leaks, pollution and big industry in general.

Bottom line, the selling of CCS to the public at large as a viable investment, particularly beyond developing countries, remains a huge obstacle. How to tackle this needs serious attention if the ingenuity of CCS geoscientists and engineers is not to be squandered. No one yet has come up with a winning strategy.

Views expressed in Crosstalk are solely those of the author, who can be contacted at andrew@andrewmcbarnet.com.