The Great Carbon Capture Debate: Is Australia Being Misled?
In a world desperate for climate solutions, carbon capture and storage (CCS) was touted as a savior. But has it fallen short of its promises? Let's dive into this controversial topic.
Chevron, a US energy giant, proudly labels its Gorgon project as the world's largest industrial carbon dioxide injection endeavor. However, there's a catch. Despite the hype, the results are not living up to expectations, and the situation is worsening.
The Gorgon CCS project, located off Western Australia's Pilbara coast, was supposed to be a game-changer. With a price tag of $3 billion and federal funding of $60 million, it aimed to capture and inject 4 million tonnes of CO2 annually from an underwater gas field. This was projected to reduce direct greenhouse gas emissions from the Gorgon liquified natural gas (LNG) development by a significant 40%.
But here's where it gets controversial: nearly a decade later, we're still waiting for those promised results. The LNG facility was completed in 2017 and even received a $3 billion expansion, yet the CCS project has faced repeated delays due to technical issues. It only began operations in August 2019, and since then, the amount of CO2 being injected has been shrinking year after year.
Data released by Chevron last month paints a concerning picture. Only 1.33 million tonnes of CO2 were injected under Barrow Island in the last financial year, down from 1.59 million tonnes in 2023-24 and 1.72 million tonnes the year before. Critics argue that this is further proof that CCS is not delivering, despite billions of dollars in funding and political support.
And this is the part most people miss: Chevron attributes the problem not to the technology itself, but to managing pressure levels in the geological reservoir. A spokesperson for Chevron Australia states that they are working on optimizing the pressure management system, but progress has been halted at two CO2 injection sites to ensure safe operations.
"While we continue to store as much carbon dioxide as we can safely, injection rates have decreased," the spokesperson explained. "Once project works are complete, we will increase injection rates over time."
Kevin Morrison, an analyst with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, believes that regardless of the cause, the Gorgon CCS project is now only half as effective as it was five years ago and is getting worse annually. "The results are underwhelming, to say the least. It raises questions about the viability of all CCS projects at scale."
Even if the issues are resolved, Morrison points out that the Gorgon CCS development will bury less than 3% of the total emissions resulting from the LNG development, including those released after the gas is shipped and burned overseas. "It emphasizes that CCS should not be considered a climate solution," he adds.
Gorgon is not alone. There's also the Santos Moomba project in South Australia, which injects CO2 into depleted onshore oil and gas wells, and the proposed Bonaparte CCS development by Inpex off the Northern Territory, which aims to pipe and store up to 10 million tonnes of CO2 annually through Darwin Harbour. These projects have received federal support, but experts and climate advocates are skeptical.
The Australian government supports CCS, but it has cut and redirected funding for it. Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen has warned that CCS is "not the answer to all our problems." Resources Minister Madeleine King, however, sees it as "part of the solution" and believes reaching net zero will be virtually impossible without it.
But experts have doubts. According to a report by the Global CCS Institute, there are 77 CCS projects in operation, with about half used for "enhanced oil recovery," which further contributes to the climate crisis. A separate report by academics at Imperial College London found that only 383 million tonnes of CO2 have been stored underground since 1996, which is a mere 10 days' worth of global pollution.
Dr. Martin Jagger, a consultant and CCS supporter, argues that while the technology can work technically and safely, it remains a marginal solution. "It barely registers on the climate scoreboard," he says.
Over 700 CCS developments have been announced, but most lack financial support, and cancellation rates are accelerating. Operating systems often fail to capture the promised amounts of CO2. The Climate Change Authority, a government agency, considered CCS's role in its advice on a national emissions-reduction target but found that the technology's ambitions did not match its potential contribution.
So, is CCS a viable solution, or is it just greenwashing? The debate continues, and we want to hear your thoughts. Do you think CCS has a place in our climate action strategy, or is it a distraction from more effective solutions? Let us know in the comments!
