Carbon capture technology was once hailed as a game-changer in the fight against climate change, promising to drastically reduce our carbon emissions. But has this revolutionary idea been nothing more than a cleverly disguised form of greenwashing? Let’s dive into the story of Australia’s experience with carbon capture and storage (CCS) and uncover the truth behind the hype.
The Gorgon CCS project, located on Barrow Island off Western Australia’s Pilbara coast, was touted as a groundbreaking initiative. Backed by a staggering $3 billion investment and $60 million in federal government funding, it was supposed to capture up to 4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually from an underwater gas field and inject it into a reservoir over 2 kilometers beneath the island. This ambitious plan aimed to slash greenhouse gas emissions from the Gorgon liquefied natural gas (LNG) development by 40%. Sounds impressive, right? But here’s where it gets controversial: nearly a decade later, the project has fallen far short of its promises.
Despite the LNG facility being completed in 2017 and recently securing a $3 billion expansion, the CCS project has been plagued by delays and technical issues. It didn’t even begin operations until August 2019. After a somewhat promising start, the amount of CO2 being injected has steadily declined year after year. Data from Chevron, the project’s lead, reveals that only 1.33 million tonnes of CO2 were injected last financial year, down from 1.59 million tonnes in 2023-24 and 1.72 million tonnes the year before. And this is the part most people miss: even if the project were operating at full capacity, it would still capture less than 3% of the total emissions generated by the LNG development, especially when accounting for emissions released overseas after the gas is shipped and burned.
Chevron claims the issue isn’t with the technology itself but with managing pressure levels in the underground reservoir. They’re working to optimize the system, but progress has been slow, and two injection sites have been temporarily shut down. Critics argue that this is further proof that CCS is failing to deliver, despite decades of funding and political backing. Is CCS truly a viable solution, or is it just a costly distraction from the urgent need to transition to renewable energy?
Australia isn’t alone in its CCS endeavors. The Moomba project in South Australia and the proposed Bonaparte CCS development in the Northern Territory are also part of this global push. Yet, experts remain skeptical. Climate advocates and analysts argue that CCS has largely been used as a tool for greenwashing, allowing fossil fuel companies to justify expansion while capturing only a fraction of emissions. According to the Global CCS Institute, only 77 projects are currently operational, with about half serving enhanced oil recovery—a process that actually exacerbates the climate crisis.
Dr. Martin Jagger, a CCS supporter and former Shell consultant, admits that while the technology works technically, its impact on global emissions is negligible. In nearly 30 years, CCS has stored just 383 million tonnes of CO2—equivalent to only 10 days of global pollution. Here’s a thought-provoking question: If CCS captures just 0.1% of global emissions annually, is it worth the billions invested, or should we focus on scaling up renewable energy instead?
The Australian government continues to support CCS, with Resources Minister Madeleine King calling it ‘part of the solution’ to reaching net zero. However, even Climate Change Authority chair Matt Kean admits that the technology’s potential has been overstated. Could the political backing for CCS be influenced by the powerful lobbying of the oil and gas industry? As renewable energy becomes cheaper and more efficient, the case for CCS grows weaker.
So, what’s the takeaway? While CCS may have a role to play, it’s far from the silver bullet it’s often portrayed as. Is it time to shift our focus and resources toward solutions that truly address the scale of the climate crisis? Let us know your thoughts in the comments—this is a conversation we all need to have.
