This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Tariq Siddiqui's picture
COO, Upstream EP Advisors LLC

Oil & Energy | Business Development | Capital Projects | Offshore Wind -  Proven leader in offshore development and operations, with 25+ years’ expertise in managing business through cycles...

  • Member since 2021
  • 136 items added with 95,478 views
  • Dec 5, 2022

CCUS is recognized as a necessary and relatively low-risk piece of the decarbonization puzzle, but the technology is not moving fast enough to achieve a 1.5° or even 2.0° pathway.


  1. Policy is uneven and uncertain
  2. Revenue streams are not well established
  3. Projects are large and unproven
  4. Cost benefits of scaled projects come with coordination complexity
  5. Controversial public perception.


The following actions can help industry players, regulators, and investors determine the next steps:


  1. CCUS business cases need to rely on more than just subsidies
  2. Need to collaborate and coordinate
  3. Reduce capture costs
  4. Advocate for carbon taxes, higher ETS levels, or other tariff barriers


  1. Decide whether CCUS can be a major feature of industrial policy
  2. Create the regulatory, tax, and reporting frameworks that will allow the industry to scale
  3. Accept that early projects will need subsidies and direct support


  1. Insist on bold ESG commitments from the companies they invest in
  2. Understand how investing in CCUS can create value


Industry need to abate about 40 GTonne per annum globally to achieve net-zero by 2050. Most of it should come from Avoidance projects (solar, wind, Hydrogen etc) and Reduction projects (efficiency) and only about ~5 Gt/y can be avoided from Removal projects (CCS i.e underground storage). Only hard to abate industries (cement, steel, refining etc.) that have no other alternatives should target CCS (emissions ~about 3.5 Gt/y). The low cost and profitable capture industries (Ex: natural gas processing, ethanol, hydrogen, fertilizer etc) although have a small foot print (~ 0.5 Gt/y),  will also benefit. The power generation industry, that has massive emission foot print (~ 12 Gt/y) should look for other alternatives; focus on avoidance and reduction projects, only a small fraction (~about 1.0 Gt/y) can benefit from CCS.

Julian Silk's picture
Julian Silk on Dec 5, 2022

This is a reasonable summary of the report.  Two things are left out (of the report, not the summary).

1)  There is no mention at all of direct air capture.  While expensive (close to $500/ton CO2 captured), it may be a possibility for certain sites, especially if there is a payment for CO2.

2)  Biorefineries the produce fuel (especially transportation fuel)  are the preferred method for the algae producers who try to use the captured CO2.  But they are not the only one.  A discussion of other uses that biorefineries can provide is at


Tariq Siddiqui's picture
Thank Tariq for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »