Equinor, long viewed as a global leader in carbon capture and storage (CCS), is slowing its near-term investment plans. The company said market conditions are not yet strong enough to support new large-scale CCS commitments, even though it has decades of technical expertise in the field.
As per reports, during its latest earnings call, CEO Anders Opedal acknowledged that CCS demand is developing more slowly than expected. As a result, Equinor will wait before approving new projects. The company remains willing to invest, but only when it sees clear customer demand, stable policy frameworks, and commercially viable contracts that can deliver solid returns.
In short, the technology is ready. The market signals are not.
Equinor Shifts Focus From Carbon Capture to Core Oil and Gas Returns
The reassessment is now visible in the company’s capital allocation plans. Equinor confirmed it will reduce capital expenditure by about $4 billion across 2026 and 2027 in its latest earnings report. Most of the reductions will affect its low-carbon solutions and power segment, which includes CCS, hydrogen, and ammonia.
At the same time, the company is sharpening its focus on profitability and cash flow. It plans to further develop the Norwegian Continental Shelf, pursue targeted growth in international oil and gas, and build an integrated power business.
- Equinor also aims to reduce operating costs by 10% in 2026 and deliver around 3% oil and gas production growth that year.
- For 2026 and 2027, it is targeting a return on average capital employed of roughly 13%.
However, the company’s financial performance has been solid. It reported 6% production growth in the fourth quarter and 3.4% growth for the full year. Portfolio “high-grading” and cost discipline remain central to its strategy. In this context, projects must compete for capital based on returns and risk. At present, large-scale CCS expansion does not yet meet those thresholds.
Low-Carbon Growth and Net-Zero Path
In its sustainability report, the company revealed that it has plans to keep investing in strong upstream projects while cutting emissions. It will prioritize existing infrastructure and factor carbon intensity into every portfolio decision. By producing cost-efficient barrels with lower emissions, Equinor aims to protect long-term value and maintain its license to operate responsibly.
At the same time, the company is investing in the energy transition. It is building renewable power, expanding low-carbon solutions, and applying its offshore engineering and subsurface expertise beyond oil and gas.
- It targets10–12 GW of installed renewable capacity by 2030 and aims for 30–50 million tonnes of CO₂ transport and storage capacity by 2035.
- It also plans to reach net zero across Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions by 2050, with a 50% cut in operated emissions by 2030 from 2015 levels.
CCS remains central to these efforts. Equinor has safely stored millions of tonnes of CO₂ offshore Norway and continues developing transport networks connecting European industry to North Sea storage sites. Scaling CCS further will depend on stable policies, strong government support, and clear industrial demand.
Norway’s Storage Potential Remains Strong
Equinor has spent more than 20 years developing CCS capabilities and has participated in over 40 research projects. Norway’s offshore geology provides a natural advantage. The seabed beneath the North Sea is considered highly suitable for long-term CO₂ storage and could potentially hold the equivalent of 1,000 years of Norway’s emissions.
Technically, the country is well-positioned to serve as a major European CO₂ storage hub. However, geology alone does not guarantee investment. Storage capacity must match real and committed capture volumes. Without enough industrial CO₂ flows secured under contract, storage sites cannot operate at scale.
Carbon Capture and Storage: A Growing Market With Real Barriers
As per Fortune Business Insights, the global carbon capture and sequestration market is still projected to expand. In 2025, the market was valued at around $4.51 billion. It is expected to approach $20 billion by 2034, reflecting strong long-term growth projections. North America currently leads the sector, supported by government incentives and operational CCS facilities.
CCS technology captures carbon dioxide from industrial sources or power plants, transports it by pipeline or ship, and stores it deep underground in geological formations. Storage often takes place in saline aquifers or depleted oil and gas reservoirs. In some cases, CO₂ is used for enhanced oil recovery, increasing oil production while storing emissions underground.
Despite this momentum, the industry faces clear challenges. CCS infrastructure requires high upfront capital. Projects involve complex regulation, long development timelines, and cross-border coordination. Most importantly, they require dependable revenue streams backed by firm customer commitments.
Equinor’s decision reflects these economic realities.
Decarbonization Delays Weaken Near-Term CCS Demand
The company emphasized that one of the biggest challenges is changing customer timelines. Just a few years ago, many industrial buyers of natural gas were actively exploring hydrogen supply and CO₂ transport and storage services. Decarbonization plans appeared urgent.
Today, that urgency has softened. Many of those same customers continue to buy gas, but they have pushed major emissions reduction commitments further into the future. Instead of focusing on projects before 2030, companies are now extending targets beyond that date.
This shift has weakened near-term demand for CCS services. Large storage projects depend on aggregating significant volumes of captured CO₂ under long-term contracts. Without those volumes, it becomes difficult to justify multi-billion-dollar infrastructure investments.
Although regulatory frameworks for CO₂ transport and storage have improved, progress on capture facilities and permitting has slowed. Policies are advancing, but the pipeline of ready-to-build projects is not growing at the same pace. For CCS to work commercially, capture projects, transport networks, storage hubs, and long-term contracts must move forward together. Right now, those pieces are not fully aligned.
A Reality Check for the CCS Sector
Equinor’s cautious stance highlights a broader reality facing the carbon capture industry. CCS is widely seen as essential for decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors such as cement, steel, and chemicals. Many global net-zero pathways depend on large-scale deployment before 2030.
Yet technical readiness is not enough. Projects require predictable carbon pricing, stable long-term policy support, and customers willing to sign binding agreements. Without those elements, even experienced developers will hesitate.
The slowdown does not signal the end of CCS. Market forecasts still point to significant expansion over the next decade. However, deployment may not move as quickly as earlier expectations suggested.
Equinor’s message is clear. Climate ambition must translate into commercial commitment. Until customer demand strengthens and revenue visibility improves, capital will remain cautious. And for now, it is choosing discipline over speed. The company stands ready to invest when the economics make sense. But it will not move forward on optimism alone.
The post Is Carbon Capture Losing Steam? Equinor Reassesses CCS Investments appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits