Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): Norway’s most important climate measure or another Mongstad disaster?

Longship, Norway’s flagship investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS), will be formally launched on 17th and 18th June 2025. Langskip and Northern Lights (the transport component of the policy, run by oil companies Equinor, Total, and Shell) are described by the government as Norway’s most important climate measures, but the truth is rather different: 

• The technology is immature and uncertain, requires huge (and increasing) subsidies and results in very modest emission reductions;
• CCS involves major risks for society and nature; and
• There are more effective solutions that Norway must focus on in order to fulfil its fair share of the Paris Agreement.

Very unrealistic targets are being set for how much CCS can contribute to fulfilling Norway’s climate commitments. In reality, CCS plays a central role as greenwashing for the oil and gas industry and an excuse for the lack of climate change action. Instead of hoping for a technological miracle, the government should focus more on a real, just transition, which involves phasing out oil and gas, and other structural reforms, especially reduced consumption.

Rising costs and reduced emissions cuts

• Rising costs: The costs of Longship have already increased from 25.1 billion to 30 billion Norwegian kroner. The state is subsidising around two-thirds of these costs (up from 16.8 billion to 20 billion kroner), which could increase further, as they did at the failed CCS project at Mongstad, once described by then-prime minister as Norway’s “moonlanding,” over 10 years ago.
• Reduced emissions reductions: As part of measures to prevent further budget shortfalls, the expected capture rate at Klemetsrud has been reduced from 0.4 to 0.35 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Mt CO2 pa). Even these modest expectations are very optimistic. No CCS plant in the world has managed to capture more than 78% of the emissions of the facility to which the technology is connected and most projects capture far less.
• Immature technology: A new report from Cicero and WWF shows that several of the most important measures that Norway depends on to meet its climate goals are based on immature technologies, including CCS.
• Transport component not in place: As investigative journalists have revealed, Northern Lights only has two ships. Each of the ships has a capacity of 8,000 tonnes (0.008 Mt) of CO2. This is not enough for the various projects under Longship and Northern Lights, especially as the ships’ storage tanks have to be cleaned after each trip, which takes around three days. Two new ships have been ordered, but experts warn that it is unlikely that enough ships can be built in the future to meet the projects’ goals.

• Huge expenses, modest emissions cuts: Only the US has given larger subsidies to CCS than Norway. Yet the storage capacity of Longship’s first phase is a maximum of only 1.5 Mt CO2pa. This corresponds to 3.3% of Norway’s emissions (45 Mt CO2pa in 2024). Since phase 2 is about importing CO2 from Europe, this will have no impact on Norway’s climate goals.
• A long history of budget shortfalls, with little capture: Rising costs and very small emission reductions are the norm for the very few CCS projects in the world that are actually in operation. Almost 80% of large CCS pilot projects in the last 30 years had to be postponed or canceled. The global CCS capacity of 50 Mt CO2pa amounts to only 0.1% of the world’s annual emissions – but actual capture/storage is probably even less (up to 30% less according to one research article). That is why the IEA has downgraded its CCS expectations by 40% in the net zero emissions scenario. According to research from Oxford, future climate scenarios with high levels of CCS will cost $30 trillion more than less CCS-dependent roadmaps. In a future with high levels of CCS, annual costs from continued emissions, air pollution, and increased energy needs could be $60-80 trillion globally.
• Equinor caught exaggerating capture rates: In addition to reporting incorrect figures to the Norwegian Environment Agency, Equinor had to apologise after the company was revealed to have exaggerated how much CO2 had been stored at the Sleipner CCS project.

Major risks to people and nature

• Threats to Oslo fjord: To enable transport of CO2 from Oslo by ship, blasting and dredging in Oslofjord is required, which will have “very large and significantly negative consequences for nature and the environment” according to the Planning and Building Agency. 
• Dangerous leaks: Although there are few CCS projects in the world, there have been several leaks that have caused major poisoning accidents in the USA. Leaks at sea will threaten vulnerable marine ecosystems through, among other things, increased acidification.

Better alternatives

• CCS infrastructure opens up for more fossil fuel extraction: Although the government website states that Longship/Northern Lights will not be used for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), the website also mentions that Longship could enable the production of blue hydrogen from gas. Although all major blue hydrogen projects were cancelled in 2024, there are no binding obstacles to CCS infrastructure being used for fossil fuel production in the future. Most of today’s existing CCS projects go to EOR and processing emissions from gas production – and most of the projects planned also have increased fossil energy as a goal (according to the Global CCS Institute). 
• Reduced consumption is more realistic than uncertain technologies: Reduced consumption would have numerous positive ripple effects. It seems difficult because it challenges business-as-usual approaches, but it is more realistic than depending on very risky, expensive and immature technologies. Norway’s economy is only 2% circular.
• Promoting CCS ahead of a real transition is unjust: As a rich oil country, Norway should lead the way in the transition away from fossil fuels that all parties to the Paris Agreement supported at the climate summit in Dubai two years ago. With transport, the petroleum industry is Norway’s largest domestic source of emissions, and leads to enormous emissions in the countries to which the oil and gas are exported. Instead of real emission cuts, Norway is still focusing on the most expensive climate policies that benefit the oil companies that engage in CCS.
• Waste incineration and cement production will not become emission-free: CCS at the waste incinerator in Oslo will not reduce emissions close enough to zero. CCS at the cement factory in Brevik will at best only capture half of the emissions. Therefore, additional measures are needed even if Norway invests in (very expensive) CCS technology.
• Waste incineration is bad for people and the environment: Oslo must reduce the waste sent to incineration. Waste incineration is very bad for health and the environment. Reduced consumption and increased recycling are more important measures than CCS. Similarly, cement can and must be replaced by more sustainable materials with lower emissions, rather than relying on CCS.

Click here to read in Norwegian.