Carbon capture is primarily used to promote increased oil and gas recovery
Most of today’s existing carbon capture projects – and most of the projects planned (according to the Global CCS Institute) – are intended to increase oil or gas production. This is done either by using CO2 as pressure to get more oil out of old fields (so-called “ Enhanced Oil Recovery,” EOR) or by using carbon capture to reduce the CO2 content of gas in production, which does not reduce emissions from combustion (which accounts for the majority of emissions from gas). Similarly, interest in carbon removal technologies is largely driven from the petroleum industry.
In other words, carbon capture has been used mostly to extend the fossil fuel age and delay climate change. In the worst case, this could extend oil extraction for many decades.
Norway’s carbon capture effort can be used to continue with oil and gas
The government’s website states that the CO2 captured through Longship/Northern Lights will not be used for direct oil extraction, yet it is used as an argument for continuing oil and gas production.
This is particularly evident when the government writes that Longship can enable the production of so-called blue hydrogen. This is hydrogen produced from gas, where emissions are reduced by using carbon capture. Blue hydrogen has been promoted by several Norwegian politicians as something that can reduce emissions from Norwegian gas. They claim that this means that we can not only continue with gas production for many more decades, but must actually increase production and exploration for more gas to supply Europe with hydrogen as a crucial input factor in industry. The government and Equinor entered into cooperation agreements with Germany and German energy companies on blue hydrogen.
In autumn 2024, Equinor and Shell/Aker canceled their blue hydrogen ventures in Norway, while Gassco halted plans for a hydrogen pipeline to Germany. The companies admitted that there was no market for blue hydrogen in Europe and that hydrogen could be produced without gas and carbon capture. In 2025, the only remaining major blue hydrogen project, Barents Blue, was also shelved. This illustrates how carbon capture is used to postpone and avoid a real climate transition.
The oil industry’s extensive lobbying for carbon capture
Carbon capture technology is closely linked to the oil industry. Through extensive lobbying, the industry has managed to convince many politicians – but the technology has so far captured far fewer emissions than subsidies.
Oil companies say one thing about carbon capture in public and something completely different behind closed doors. Revelations from the US show that several oil companies in internal documents describe carbon capture as a means for increased use of fossil energy sources.
Norway’s pro-oil politicians have worked for carbon capture in various international contexts. Norway has promoted a more positive view of carbon capture at the IPCC, where representatives of states can propose changes to the summaries of the scientific reports that form the basis of the panel’s findings. The oil lobby has increased its lobbying efforts at climate summits, with almost 500 carbon capture lobbyists at the climate summit in Baku in 2024. This strongly impacts which voices and solutions are heard on the international stage.
Equinor and Norwegian governments have worked in particular to make EU countries less skeptical about carbon capture. The EU’s new carbon capture policy has been heavily influenced by a body, the Industrial Carbon Management (ICM) Forum, where oil companies, including Equinor, dominate and there is little participation from civil society. The EU’s more positive approach to carbon capture could be very profitable for the industry; the subsidies needed to capture 13% of the EU’s annual emissions (by 2022) could be as high as €140 to €520 billion. In the UK, Equinor has also spent significant resources promoting carbon capture, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised carbon capture subsidies to Equinor in exchange for increased taxes on oil activities.
Carbon capture is greenwashing with low risk for oil companies
Carbon capture technology gives the impression that polluting activities can continue into a future where we must resolve the climate and natural crises. It thus offers cheap greenwashing to the oil industry – the costs allow oil companies to demand huge subsidies, while at the same time allowing them to appear as part of the climate solution. They risk little in their own resources and are usually not held accountable when projects fail. Legal responsibility for carbon storage is transferred to the public after a few years (for example after 20 years in the HyNet project in the UK), and it is left to future generations to ensure that there are no leaks.
When investments are directed to carbon capture, less is left for better measures that actually transition the world away from oil and gas. Carbon capture then becomes a shield for the oil and gas industry, allowing it to continue as before. Carbon capture is not only an expensive, highly risky crutch for climate policy, but a direct diversionary maneuver for fossil fuels and other polluting industries.