In the rapidly evolving landscape of global energy, solutions that promise a bridge between fossil fuel dependency and a cleaner energy future are not just welcome but ardently pursued. CCUS is one such contender.

Billed as a groundbreaking technology, it offers the allure of capturing emissions at source – allowing for the continued use of carbon-intensive processes while potentially offsetting the environmental cost. However, the narrative surrounding CCUS is far from monolithic or definitive. Some view it as a pivotal tool in the fight against climate change – a potential ‘silver bullet’. Ohers caution against viewing it as a panacea, highlighting potential risks that could render it a double-edged sword.

The promise  
In the mosaic of solutions proposed to curb the surge of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, CCUS is a formidable contender. By capturing CO₂ before it gets a chance to permeate the atmosphere, we can potentially make massive strides in reducing global emissions. The International Energy Agency (IEA) suggests that by 2050, CCUS could potentially curb up to 19% of global CO₂ emissions. Such reductions are pivotal if we are to stand a chance in the race to prevent global temperatures from rising above the 1.5°C mark.

CCUS offers a potential ‘bridge’ for existing fossil fuel infrastructure. Rather than dismantling and starting anew, fossil fuel-based industries can retrofit and adapt, safeguarding investments and jobs.

In addition, fusing CCUS with renewable energy sources, such as in biomass with CCUS (BECCS), brings us closer to coveted ‘net-negative emissions’. CCUS’ versatility further extends its reach, with applications in hard-to-abate industries ranging from cement and steel production to chemicals.

Lastly, CCUS offers the proposition of converting captured carbon into a plethora of ‘valuable’ commodities, which improves the economic viability of a costly process and also nudges industries closer to a circular carbon economy.

At what cost? 
Financial considerations lie at the forefront of the CCUS discourse. While a number of factors can explain the slow uptake of CCUS, high cost is one of the most frequently heard.

The cost of setting up and operating a CCUS facility differs considerably based on the CO₂ source. Industrial processes that yield ‘pure’ or highly concentrated CO₂ streams, like ethanol production or natural gas processing, typically incur costs between $15–25/t of CO₂. In contrast, operations with dilute gas streams, such as power generation or cement production, face expenses between $40–120/t of CO₂.

When it comes to the transportation and storage of CO₂, prices are subject to variation. For example, in the US, the cost spectrum for onshore pipeline transportation of CO₂ spans from $2–14/t. Storage costs for onshore facilities have a wider range, but more than half of this storage can be procured at less than $10/t of CO₂. Interestingly, when CO₂ is used to enhance oil recovery (EOR), storage expenses may be offset against increasing oil sales.

While these massive initial investments and significant ongoing operational costs might be justified if viewed through the lens of potential carbon reductions, the question persists: Would these vast funds yield a more immediate impact if redirected to mature renewable technologies, like solar, wind or hydro? Established renewables, with their decreasing cost curves and mounting efficiency, arguably offer a more predictable return on investment both economically and environmentally.

An emerging technology 
The operational maturity of CCUS also invites scrutiny.

While the theoretical underpinnings of CCUS are robust, its real-world application is still in its infancy. Only 40 commercial capture facilities are in operation globally, with a total annual capture capacity of more than 45mn tonnes of CO₂, including seven new large-scale capture facilities that have come online since January 2022. These pioneering installations have not been without their share of teething problems – from technical malfunctions to scaling inefficiencies. Their sporadic performance raises red flags about the technology’s readiness for global deployment.

Storage complexities form another intricate strand in the CCUS web. Once carbon is successfully captured, the colossal challenge of securely storing this captured carbon arises. Commonly proposed solutions, like deep saline aquifers or repurposed oil and gas fields, are still being studied for long-term viability. Concerns range from potential leakages to unforeseen geological reactions that might compromise the storage integrity.

CCUS’ role in the energy transition narrative is double-edged. CCUS offers a means to reduce carbon emissions while leveraging existing fossil fuel infrastructure. But there is concern that it offers a convenient reprieve to fossil fuel sectors, slowing down the momentum towards renewables.

The symbiotic relationship between CCUS and EOR is a case in point. At a glance, it looks counter-intuitive as captured carbon is used to extract more oil. The economic logic – using captured CO₂ to boost oil production and thus offsetting CCUS costs – is clear. However, the environmental rationale is murky, leading many to question the net environmental gain of such endeavours.

Furthermore, CCUS isn’t a universal solution. It is constrained by technological and practical bounds. Certain sectors and emission types remain beyond its reach as a tool for carbon management.

The notable underachievement of a majority of CCUS projects to date underscores the importance of not placing all our carbon-reducing hopes on this one solution.

The broader canvas  
The allure of CCUS lies in its promise – a world where carbon footprints are mitigated while still engaging with familiar energy sources. But this allure carries with it the seeds of a dilemma.

As a process dealing with emissions after they are produced, CCUS might be fostering a perception that we can ‘fix’ any excesses of carbon output. This could detract from more immediate and essential steps required for emissions reduction, and mislead public expectations about the urgency to transition to greener practices.

On the international front, addressing climate change requires a united front. While CCUS represents a frontier technology, its true power can only be harnessed when there is a global commitment. However, challenges of intellectual property rights, economic interests and nationalistic policies could stymie the free flow of CCUS technology and knowledge, especially between developed and developing nations.

Regulatory landscapes further muddy the waters. Policymakers grapple globally with defining the rules of engagement for carbon capture, especially the intricacies of storage, potential environmental impacts and long-term liabilities. The shifting sands of policy, influenced by changing governments and volatile public sentiment, can deter steadfast commitment from industries that need stability for multi-billion-dollar investments.

Then, there is the broader socioeconomic fabric. In regions historically tethered to fossil fuels, CCUS might be seen as a beacon of hope, potentially preserving jobs and economies. However, it is a delicate dance to ensure that this doesn’t compromise the broader push toward renewables.

Lastly, from an international perspective, the role of CCUS in climate accords and treaties could become a point of contention, requiring complex negotiations.

CCUS in practice 
Across the globe, the recent Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) report of 13 CCS projects concluded that 10 are under-performing or have failed (two of which are outlined below). Just two of the 13 (both in Norway) are successful, mostly due to the country’s unique regulation of oil and gas companies.

Shute Creek 
Situated in Wyoming and run by ExxonMobil since 1986, Shute Creek stands as the largest and third oldest CCUS project globally. The project was initially driven by the prospect of selling the captured CO₂ for EOR due to high oil prices. However, the prolonged bearish oil market led the project to either sell the CO₂ or release it back into the atmosphere when prices were non-profitable.

Gorgon  
Located off the Western Australian coast, Gorgon is the world’s largest CCUS project associated with an LNG initiative. It was planned to capture and store vast amounts of CO₂ underground, potentially reducing the project’s GHG emissions by 40%. A collaboration between energy giants Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell, Gorgon promised much but has faced significant technical setbacks.

Even with significant financial backing, including an A$60mn ($38mn) grant from the Australian government, Gorgon’s CCUS project faced hurdles. The launch was delayed by more than three years due to issues like leaking valves and water buildup in pipelines, which led to corrosion. Further complications arose when sand blocked a crucial well, impacting the system’s pressure management. But the biggest concern was the project’s inability to meet its five-year CO₂ capture targets, achieving only about half of what was expected.

Missing the targets led Gorgon to invest in GHG offsets, adding an estimated additional cost of A$250mn ($158mn). With a projected life cycle of 40–45 years and a subsequent 15-year closure period, the project’s post-closure liabilities will eventually be transferred to the Western Australian government.

The Gorgon CCUS plant in Western Australia is associated with a large LNG operation and has been dogged by problems
Photo: Chevron

Balancing the promise and peril of CCUS 
The narrative surrounding CCUS is a tale of two worlds. On one side, the technology offers a potential bridge between present carbon-intensive systems and a sustainable future. On the other, it is entwined with the complexities and uncertainties of a nascent technology that is still trying to prove global scalability and viability.

There is no denying the potential of CCUS to make significant inroads in the fight against climate change. Yet, the multifaceted challenges, from the economic and technical to the political and social, cannot be brushed aside. As seen with Shute Creek and Gorgon, CCUS is not immune to the pitfalls of under-performance, unforeseen technical issues and the ripple effects of global market dynamics.

The notable underachievement of a majority of CCUS projects to date underscores the importance of not placing all our carbon-reducing hopes on this one solution. It is crucial not to let the promise of CCUS overshadow its intricacies. Relying predominantly on this solution could steer us away from the pressing need to diversify our climate action toolkit. Renewables, energy efficiency and societal behaviour change need to occupy centre stage.

Furthermore, it is essential that governments and policymakers recognise the multifaceted nature of CCUS. Clearer policy frameworks are essential, without hindering the adoption of other sustainable solutions. While CCUS can be part of this picture, continuous research and innovation are pivotal to mitigate its challenges. The global community must remain committed to a diverse approach with a holistic strategy that harnesses the power of every sustainable solution at our disposal.