Petra Nova, Kemper, Gorgon
Like an ancient incantation, the names of CCS projects that have "failed" ring through the air anytime the technology is discussed
But none of these projects failed because of carbon capture.
My latest: open.substack.com/pub/carbonmi...
Shale gas has hugely increased global available reserves & likely use. A 1st priority is normalizing & requiring ultra-low fugitives, which is becoming more feasible & economically viable due to innovation. Really enjoyed working on this with @columbiauenergy.bsky.social @jack-cavanaugh.bsky.social
Upstream methane mitigation is relatively low-cost, and can often be cost-saving for operators
EQT has shown this in the field
@chrisbataille.bsky.social and I highlight their success and more in our latest on upstream methane mitigation
open.substack.com/pub/carbonmi...
Clean firm heads are going to love this
@kspokas.bsky.social and @wilsonar.bsky.social cover the 101s and 201s
Click, read, become smarter
www.catf.us/2026/02/what...
In essentially all net-zero analyses, we still have +15mBbl/day of oil demand
What's it being used for? Where is it coming from? How do we limit emissions while we're using it?
All that and more in the conversation with Sebastian Manhart👇
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpnM...
Two of the best around!
Listen in and learn!
This graph from Shells latest decarbonization report is sticking with me
Even in the most ambitious scenario oil demand is 30 million barrels a day largely driven by industrial processes
We either need lots of CCS (short to medium term) or even more CDR (long term)
To be clear, Foley is alleging is that DOE committed fraud, to make numbers look better for “DAC, CCS, Hydrogen, SMRs etc.”
His evidence? Something he heard from one ex-DOE policy analyst
If you’re going to publicly accuse someone of fraud, you should have more evidence than that.
This is basically 5 projects in the UK (Teeside, Keadby 3, Peterhead, Connah’s Quay, Staythorpe CCS)
It could also include the Google project in the US? Would need to see the data.
It depends on what investment means and if this is FID or just planned.
But it terms of popular and passable policy in DC, tax credits and loans are great!
We have a whole toolkit, contracts for differences, LPO, tax credits, procurement, standards, regulation we should do all of it!
Clean product standards are great! A tech-neutral policy is generally the most politically advantageous move. In agreement with you!
EPDs and government procurement are two great places to start that were in IRA/IIJA!
Looking forward to the last piece in his series and would note I'm not speaking specifically to Australia in this thread. I am no expert on the climate policy/politics of the country.
I welcome any and all CCS criticism, and think Ketan makes good points, my push is for critics to explain their net zero future, how CCS fits in, and what policy/regulations get us there.
And of course, all that has to fold into politics. It's not easy, but plenty of us are doing it!
have no interest in using CCS as a tool. And you also have constant criticism as any support for CCS is a fossil fuel hand out, continuing the use of fossil, it's a technology that doesn't work etc.
That's the horseshoe of CCS, both the left and right hate it. And yet we need it!
environment that incentivizes those deployments! And all policy and regulatory discussions flow downstream from politics, which is challenging.
You have incumbent interests in continuing to emit CO2 without pollution controls, you have politicians who don't believe climate change is real and so...
And this leaves me with my biggest frustration with many of the folks who, in some cases, rightly criticize CCS: all problems no solutions.
If you agree that we need CCS for some emissions, especially in industrial processes in the near to medium term, we need a policy/regulatory...
doesn't explain why that is true. It's true because producing a barrel of oil gives you a commodity you can sell that decreases the cost of doing CCS.
We can create policies to incentivize dedicated storage over EOR, but again, the economics have to pencil, and currently, they're better with EOR.
In part two Ketan claims "Gorgon is the biggest and ‘best’ CCS project in the world" I do not know anyone who makes this claim, but I understand the editorial decision to paint it like that.
He is again correct that most capture carbon has been used for enhacned oil recovery (EOR) but again...
carbon removal! Another technology that has drawn Ketan's critical eye.
Again here Ketan breaks out the failure rate by use case, which is a total fair point to make, but again no discussion on why they have failed.
We should both provide support for new technologies that avoid using CCS like direct electrification, hydrogen (which is cheapest to produce without emissions using CCS), thermal batteries, etc and support CCS
Because for everyone emission from cement and ammonia today, we need even more...
different approaches, the EU uses the ETS, CBAM and some catalytic capital from the commission to help incentivize deployments. The US uses a tax credit (45Q) and capex grants.
But because CCS is expensive, the support needs to match the cost. This often draws the ire of CCS detractors.
CCS is expensive, and yet for many sectors it is the best way to decarbonize right now (cement, ammonia).
So if you want to decarbonize these sectors, amongst others, you need to provide long-term incentives or regulations that lead to deployments.
Many ways you can do this and countries have....
First Ketan notes that CCS has failed to deploy at scales in projections. This is absolutely true.
But there is no discussion of why we have not seen more deployments, which is a very important question.
The reason is because we don't have adequate, long-term policy support for CCS.
Perhaps shocking, but I agree with most of what @ketanjoshi.co has written in both installments of his CCS series
You'll never catch me defending Gorgon (the focus of this series), it's a bad project for all the reasons Ketan highlights
But the broader CCS narrative I find lacking, a quick🧵
Absolute banger from @noahqkaufman.bsky.social on the limits of economic models for climate and the resultant policy, narrative and discourse they create
www.theatlantic.com/science/2026...
It’s simple: cheap and abundant electricity is good!
In our January Book, @janeaflegal.bsky.social discusses the growing need for energy, the policy challenges thwarting new supply, and how we move towards more cheap AND clean energy.
www.statesforum.org/january-book...
This article gets at a main tension on CCS between proponents/opponents: the industrial sector
Whether or not you like CCS, the cheapest, fastest way to decarbonize cement and ammonia today is with CCS
No way around that, unless you want to emit more and need more CDR!
www.ft.com/content/ef69...
Thrilled to join the board of Trustees @carbongap.bsky.social
I've been a long-time admirer of the work of the team, and of the banter skills of Christoph Beuttler
Let's get these tons, in Europe and the UK
carbongap.org/team-member/...
