Connect with us

Published

on

World’s First Commercial CCS Plant Owned by Shell, Equinor, and TotalEnergies Injects CO2 in North Sea

Norway has opened the world’s first commercial-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) facility, marking a turning point in global climate action. The project captures carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from a cement plant and stores them deep beneath the seabed in the North Sea. This is the first time a CCS project has been built and operated with a complete value chain: capture, transport, and permanent storage.

The facility, known as the Northern Lights, is part of Norway’s Longship initiative. This $3.4 billion program aims to prove that carbon capture can go beyond pilot projects and become commercially viable.

Shell, Equinor, and TotalEnergies owned the CCS plant. By proving the technology works at this level, Norway hopes to inspire other nations and industries to follow.

Transitioning from small demonstration projects to full-scale deployment is significant. Cement, steel, and chemical production are tough to decarbonize. CCS is one of the few methods that can directly reduce the industry’s emissions.

Norway’s success provides a real-world example that these industries can lower their carbon footprint without shutting down production. CEO of Equinor, Anders Opedal, remarked: 

“With CO2 safely stored below the seabed, we mark a major milestone. This demonstrates the viability of carbon capture, transport, and storage as a scalable industry. With the support from the Norwegian government and in close collaboration with our partners, we have successfully transformed this project from concept to reality.”

Beneath the North Sea: How CO₂ Is Locked Away

The captured CO₂ comes from the Brevik cement plant in southern Norway, operated by Heidelberg Materials. Cement production is a major emitter because CO₂ is released both from burning fuel and from the chemical process of turning limestone into clinker, the key ingredient in cement.

At Brevik, the gas is captured using a chemical process with amines that separate CO₂ from other gases. Once purified, the CO₂ is cooled and compressed into liquid form.

Special ships then transport the liquefied gas to the Northern Lights terminal on Norway’s west coast. From there, it is pumped through pipelines into a geological formation about 2,600 meters beneath the seabed.

Northern Lights CCS project scope
Source: Northern Lights

This deep saline aquifer, a porous rock layer sealed by thick caprock, ensures the CO₂ stays underground permanently. Geologists have studied the area for decades, and monitoring systems are in place to track the stored gas. The technology is designed to provide long-term security, with storage capacity estimated to last for hundreds of years.

What This Means for Carbon Storage

The project’s first phase can handle 1.5 million metric tons of CO₂ per year, already fully booked by customers. Phase two, planned in the coming years, aims to expand that capacity to 5 million tons annually.

For perspective, 5 million tons of CO₂ equals the annual emissions of about 2.5 million cars. While this is still a fraction of Europe’s total emissions, it shows how large-scale CCS can make a measurable impact.

The CCS project will store 127.8 million tonnes of CO₂ over its lifetime. It will emit only 3.3 million tonnes of CO₂e throughout its entire process, which includes capture, transport, and storage. This results in a net abatement rate of 97.4%. That means almost all the CO₂ captured is stored permanently and not released back into the atmosphere.

Carbon footprint of the Northern Lights JV
Source: Northern Lights

Many companies in Europe have agreed to use the Northern Lights system. This includes fertilizer makers, energy firms, and district heating providers. Interest is growing quickly, as industries see CCS as a way to meet tightening climate targets while continuing production.

The Brevik cement plant itself will capture about 400,000 tons of CO₂ per year, equal to half of its annual emissions. This captured carbon will flow directly into the Northern Lights storage system.

Heidelberg Materials will sell a special product named “evoZero.” It’s marketed as net-zero cement, made possible by CCS. All 2025 production has already been pre-sold, showing strong customer demand for low-carbon building materials.

Why It Matters for Hard-to-Decarbonize Industries

Cement, steel, and chemicals account for about 30% of global industrial emissions. These sectors are considered “hard-to-abate” because their emissions come from chemical reactions and processes, not just from burning fossil fuels. Switching to renewable electricity alone cannot eliminate them.

Cement production alone contributes nearly 8% of global CO₂ emissions. With global infrastructure demand rising, the sector cannot simply stop producing. That is why CCS is seen as one of the only practical solutions for cutting emissions while keeping production steady.

Billions in Backing: The Role of Public Funding

The facility is backed heavily by the Norwegian government, which provided $2.2 billion in subsidies for its first 10 years of operation. This covers nearly two-thirds of the total cost. Government support was critical to getting the project off the ground because CCS remains more expensive than simply emitting CO₂.

Critics argue that CCS will not scale without either higher carbon prices or continued government subsidies. At today’s carbon prices in Europe—around €60 to €80 per ton—the economics are still challenging. However, as technology improves and facilities grow, costs may fall.

Norway also sees this investment as a long-term opportunity. The country aims to be Europe’s “carbon storage hub” by creating the first complete CCS value chain. This will allow it to offer storage services to nations and industries that need them.

CCS on the Rise: Global Market Outlook

Globally, CCS capacity is still very small. As of 2024, about 50 million tons of CO₂ were captured worldwide each year, according to the International Energy Agency. To meet net-zero targets, this number needs to grow to more than 1 billion tons per year by 2030, and to several billion by 2050.

Several other large projects are under development. In the United States, the Inflation Reduction Act provides tax credits for CCS, spurring dozens of projects across the Midwest and Gulf Coast. The European Union also supports CCS as part of its Green Deal Industrial Plan, providing funding and regulatory support.

DNV_CCS_forecast_2050_CCS_uptake_in_selected_regions
Source: DNV

Analysts expect the global CCS market to reach a value of $10–15 billion annually by 2030, with steady growth beyond that. Cement, steel, and power generation would be the largest users. Shipping and aviation, which face limits on electrification, may also turn to CCS for synthetic fuels.

Companies are also exploring how CCS can pair with carbon dioxide removal (CDR), such as bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) and direct air capture (DAC). These technologies not only prevent new emissions but also remove existing CO₂ from the atmosphere. Norway’s Northern Lights project could eventually serve as a storage hub for such methods.

Hurdles Ahead: Can CCS Scale Fast Enough?

Despite its promise, CCS faces challenges. The technology is expensive, requires large-scale infrastructure, and depends on public acceptance of storing CO₂ underground. Environmental groups warn of risks, but studies over decades show the storage process is safe.

Another challenge is ensuring CCS does not delay the transition to renewables. Some critics worry that industries may use CCS as an excuse to keep burning fossil fuels longer. A Stanford University professor of environmental engineering, Mark Jacobson, stated in an interview: 

“You have to think about who’s proposing this technology. Who stands to benefit from carbon capture and direct air capture? It’s the fossil-fuel companies…They’re just saying, ‘Well, we’re extracting as much CO2 as we’re emitting. Therefore, we should be allowed to keep polluting, keep mining.”

Supporters argue that it should complement, not replace, clean energy deployment. Norway’s project is an important proof of concept. If it succeeds commercially, it could encourage similar hubs in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the United States. 

The launch of the Northern Lights facility shows that CCS is moving from theory to practice. With capture, transport, and storage now working at scale, it represents a breakthrough in reducing industrial emissions.

The post World’s First Commercial CCS Plant Owned by Shell, Equinor, and TotalEnergies Injects CO2 in North Sea appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Want a simpler way to buy carbon credits? Discover our carbon marketplace

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Climate-Linked Supply Chain Risk Is Already in Your P&L

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Where should an SME start with a carbon action plan?

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com