Norway opens the world’s first commercial carbon dioxide storage facility

A consortium of oil companies, backed by the Norwegian government, has released groundbreaking carbon dioxide (CO₂) storage project known as Northern Lights. The initiative aims to capture CO2₂ emissions from industrial sources across Europe and stores them deep under the seabed in geological reservoirs. This marks an important step in the global drive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The project is part of Norway’s long-term climate strategy, which aims to store liquefied carbon instead of allowing it to escape into the atmosphere, where it would contribute to global warming. But while supporters of the initiative tout it as a key tool in the fight against climate change, others are more skeptical.

Carbon capture

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is one of the few practical methods of reducing emissions from some of the world’s most polluting industries. It works by capturing CO₂ directly from the source – usually industrial plants or power plants burning fossil fuels. After the capture of CO₂ it is compressed, liquefied and transported to the storage site. From here it can be injected deep underground, often into depleted oil and gas fields or other geological formations.

The idea is simple: prevent carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere, where it contributes to climate change. CCS is particularly important because many industrial sectors – such as cement, steel and chemicals – will remain dependent on fossil fuels for years. Even as renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power develop, there will be delays. So as these sectors transform, CCS offers measures to reduce their carbon footprint without completely stopping their operations.

In theory, CCS presents a win-win scenario: it reduces industrial emissions and keeps global supply chains moving. But the reality, as always, is more complex.

Gambling Norway

Norway, the largest oil producer in Europe after Russia, is strongly relying on CCS technology as part of its climate strategy. The government supported 80% of the Northern Lights bill, which is still highly subsidized in its early stages.

The first phase of the project can store 1.5 million tons of CO2₂ annually. The second phase, scheduled to come online in the coming years, is expected to increase capacity by an additional 5 million tonnes.

The Northern Lights facility is already fully booked by customers in Norway and continental Europe looking to sequester their carbon emissions. Other CCS projects are also emerging across Europe, particularly in the North Sea, where depleted oil fields offer prime locations for storing captured CO₂. The existing extensive network of pipelines enables relatively easy transport of gas for injection into geological formations.

While the storage capacity of such projects is promising, the economics of CCS remain unclear.

The economic justification for CCS

Despite the potential to reduce emissions, CCS is expensive. This technology is much more difficult and expensive to implement compared to other climate initiatives such as wind or solar energy. For now, the industry is heavily reliant on government subsidies and incentives such as those offered by Norway.

One of the main drivers behind the adoption of CCS in Europe is the regional carbon credit system. The European Union has a cap and trade system, known as the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which sets a price for carbon dioxide emissions. Companies are allocated a certain number of carbon credits, representing the right to emit a certain amount of CO2₂. If they exceed this limit, they will have to purchase additional credits, which could become increasingly costly as governments tighten emissions regulations.

In industries such as cement, steel and chemicals, where reducing emissions is particularly difficult, CCS offers a way to meet regulatory requirements without having to purchase additional credits. In some cases, companies may even be able to sell excess credits if they manage to capture enough of their emissions. It therefore provides a potential revenue stream that offsets some of the technology costs.

However, without these carbon markets and subsidies, CCS would likely be financially unviable for most companies. Moreover, critics say the technology is simply a stopgap measure, allowing the industry to continue polluting the environment while avoiding the more difficult and costly work of switching to greener alternatives.

In fact, some see it as simply counterproductive.

Is this greenwashing?

Not everyone is convinced this is a good idea.

The controversy surrounding CCS depends largely on whether it represents a real effort to combat climate change or a form of greenwashing. “Greenwashing” refers to any attempt by companies to appear environmentally friendly without making significant changes to their core practices. The fact that this project is largely backed by oil companies is already reason enough for skepticism, given the long-term disinformation practices that many such companies have engaged in in previous decades.

Critics say CCS allows industry to continue emitting huge amounts of CO2₂. To meet regulatory requirements, they only need to capture a fraction of their emissions. For example, although the Northern Lights project is of impressive scale, 1.5 million tonnes of CO₂ that it can store per year is a drop in the ocean compared to 33 billion tons of CO₂ the world emits every year. Even in the case of Norway, this only accounts for about 4% of the country’s CO emissions₂ emissions.

Moreover, CCS does nothing to reduce demand for fossil fuels, which remain the leading cause of global emissions. By allowing oil and gas companies to continue extracting and selling fossil fuels while capturing some of the resulting emissions, the technology is likely to delay the transition to cleaner energy sources. As a result, some environmentalists see it as a distraction from the urgent need to decarbonize the global economy.

“The northern lights are ‘eco-blackness,'” said the head of Greenpeace Norway, Frode Pleym, noting that the project was led by oil companies.

“Their goal is to be able to continue pumping oil and gas. CCS, platform electrification and all such measures are being used by the oil industry in a cynical way to avoid doing anything about huge emissions,” he said.

What does this mean for climate change?

Not so much yet. This could be a turning point. A hundred years from now we might look back on this as a historic moment. However, the main requirement at the moment is lower emissions, not carbon storage.

Ultimately, the success of CCS will depend on whether we can scale it up quickly and cost-effectively. As governments around the world tighten regulations and carbon prices rise, the economic case for CCS may improve. For now, however, this technology remains an expensive and irrelevant piece of the climate puzzle.

However, the Norwegian carbon capture experiment will be an important testing ground for this technology. In the coming years, we will soon see whether this technology will live up to its promise or whether it will be a costly distraction from the deeper changes needed to solve the climate crisis.