New perspectives on CO2 storage safety and monitoring

At the Global CCS Institute, we balance our deep technical expertise of all things carbon capture and storage with advocacy and information. Today, we are publishing two informative perspectives, led by Siti Aishah Mohd Hatta on the safety of CO2 storage and a review of CO2 storage monitoring. Download below.

Whenever I talk about CCS, be it on panels, in classrooms, even over coffee, one question always comes up: “But how do we know the CO₂ will stay underground?” It’s a fair question. Safety and trust sit at the heart of CCS. That’s why I like to share the perspectives, written simply and for broader audience as part of our advocacy efforts. With all the kiasuness we Asians are known for 🤭, we produce not one but two perspectives at once: 1) The Safety and Permanence of CO2 Geological Storage 2) The Monitoring of CO2 Geological Storage

🌲One project reports: “43 hectares restored.” - Another: “3,200 trees planted.” - Another: “2,400 tonnes biomass.” They might describe the same outcome. But without a common grammar, the data can’t be compared. 💡That’s where ontologies come in: ->Define terms with precision ->Map relationships between concepts ->Build shared meaning across projects and domains 📍In IXO Studio, ontologies and protocols are authored. 📍In the IXO Protocol, they become part of the Spatial Web’s knowledge fabric - ensuring consistency and interoperability at scale. 📖 Learn more: https://lnkd.in/dfm7HgDV 💭What risks have you seen when projects describe the same reality in different ways?

We assembled a high-fidelity, end-to-end CI baseline covering ~85% of global LNG trade in 2022, linking operations to emissions and economics across the entire chain. Our comprehensive analysis included 2,500 oil & gas fields, over 1,000 gas processing plants, 33 liquefaction terminals, 123 regasification terminals, approximately 1.25 million km of transmission pipeline, and 948 unique LNG trade routes. What's new in this research includes enhanced, open-source modeling with stochastic fugitives and proxy models for processing emissions, along with a novel statistical approach that integrates remote sensing to estimate global methane super-emitters. We developed a field-specific, optimization-based global gas transmission model and created process- and location-specific models for liquefaction, shipping, and regasification. Additionally, we established a tight link between GHG emissions and LNG economics using unprecedented data integration. 📄 Preprint: https://lnkd.in/gEPi2QNJ 🔗 DOI: https://lnkd.in/gN4sgnPt 🆓 CC BY 4.0 Thanks to Wennan for leading this incredible work! Proud to collaborate with this amazing research team!

The primary goal of OptimESM is to develop the next generation of Earth system models, bringing together increased model resolution and process realism to deliver long-term climate projections that better support policy and societal needs. Researchers in OptimESM are continuously publishing scientific papers 📑 — this is one of the articles published in 2025. Weiwei Xiong, Katsumasa Tanaka, Philippe Ciais, Daniel J. A. Johansson, and Mariliis Lehtveer present emIAM v1.0 in Geoscientific Model Development (2025) 🖥️ — an emulator for Integrated Assessment Models. 🔗 Read the article: https://lnkd.in/d5s5An9F #ClimatePolicy #IAM #Modeling #EarthSystemModels #HorizonEurope #OptimESM

🔥 🌍 Hot off the press: How much carbon can be stored geologically, considering safe planetary limits? This is a challenging question in global mitigation pathways relying on capturing and storing CO₂ underground. 🎓Researchers estimate a risk-based global limit of ~1,460 GtCO₂ (1,290–2,710) for storage in sedimentary basins, far below headline “technical potential” figures (10,000–40,000 GtCO₂). 🗂️ New, model-ready dataset: Country-resolved storage estimates + open data released for the community, including an interactive explorer (see comments). Ideal for #IAMs, #EnergyModels, and policy analysis. ⚠️ Risk changes the story: When you factor in seismic, environmental, human, and policy risks, usable storage drops dramatically. Why it matters? 👉 We should treat geologic storage as a “limited, intergenerational resource”, not a blank check for more fossil fuel use. 👉 Even fully using this storage for carbon removals would reduce global temperature by ~0.7 °C (0.35–1.2 °C). Aggressive near-term emissions cuts remain unavoidable. Kudos to the authors: Matthew GIDDEN, Siddharth Joshi, John Armitage, Alina-Berenice Christ, Miranda Boettcher, Elina Brutschin, Alexandre Koberle, Keywan Riahi, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, and Joeri Rogelj International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) #CCS #CDR #NetZero

This is an interesting paper, but with a political purpose of arguing that geological storage capacity is a limited resource. Very strict assumptions are made (needed) to prove that. Much stricter eg than for oil and gas production and water injection at the moment. Eg much of the dutch gas production and planned CO2 storage is at reservoir depths of 3 to 4 km (the Porthos project starting up soon is an example). The paper excludes all resources deeper than 2.5 km. Why would you exclude these depleted gas fields from storage? The only argument in the paper I could find is 'seismic hazard/risk'. But a) most of these fields have never experienced any seismicity b) most of these fields are seriously under-pressured at the time of abandonment, and therefore filling with CO2 would actually restore pressures to close to the original reservoir pressure, thereby stabilising the subsurface and avoiding decades/centuries of very slow fluid movement from surrounding aquifers to these reservoirs (which could be argued to be a more hazardous situation than a CO2-stabilised reservoir). From the sensitivity analysis it is clear that this has a large impact on the usable resources. Wrt political support....that also impacts wind energy, nuclear energy, grid expansion, battery farms, etc, etc..... I agree that we need to consider all issues, but we need to push on all fronts because the alternatives are also severely restricted in their capacity to scale up quickly.

𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐒𝐰𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐠𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐢𝐨𝐱𝐢𝐝𝐞? This was the theme of a “knowledge and dialogue day” recently organized in Lund by SGU and KLIMPO . Authorities, companies, researchers, and lawyers gathered to discuss CCS/CCUS as a key ingredient in the climate transition puzzle. Both geological conditions and legal obstacles were presented. SGU presented its ongoing investigations, including seismic studies and the analysis that forms the basis for the government's assignment on carbon dioxide storage. The discussions showed that Sweden has opportunities for storage, but that the current regulations create challenges that need to be resolved for us to move from theory to practice. Unlike Norway and Denmark, which have had a natural springboard through the oil and gas industry, Sweden faces a more complex legal and administrative journey. Several companies have already taken steps forward. Stockholm Exergi, Heidelberg Materials, Öresundskraft, Sysav, Renova, and Halmstads Energi och Miljö AB shared their experiences from ongoing or planned CCS projects. These examples show the extensive organization, long-term investments, and cross-functional collaborations required to succeed. Representing RISE Research Institutes of Sweden on this day were Sara Kilicaslan and Gry Møl Mortensen, both of whom are working on CCS related projects at RISE. Says Sara Kilicaslan: –    CCS in Sweden is not just about geological conditions or technical solutions, but at least as much about regulations, law, logistics, and the entire supply chain perspective. We need to build a system, and that is how the future will be decided. AI-generated image below

🧪 New Nature study redraws the carbon map. 📉 A “prudent” global CO₂ storage cap of 1,460 Gt has been set — slashing earlier technical estimates by 88%. 🌍 This isn't just a number — it redefines how we allocate a finite, strategic resource: geologic CO₂ storage. 🔎 Key takeaways: • Only 12% of theoretical storage is realistically usable • Global net zero could require ~8.7 GtCO₂ injected annually • CO₂ storage ≠ bottomless pit — it’s the new oilfield in scale & complexity • Legal, geographic & tech constraints will reshape global carbon strategies • Some regions (India, EU, Norway) may face sharp limitations 📦 CCS & CDR must now be treated as competing use cases — with industrial emitters likely taking priority over removals. 🚢 Expect shifts in CO₂ transport routes, cross-border pipelines, and new offshore storage financing challenges. 🗣️ "It’s not a bottomless solution,” says Dr. Robert Sansom of the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET)’s Sustainability and Net Zero Policy Centre,. “We must treat it as a strategic and finite resource." ⚠️ But not all experts agree — critics argue it underestimates mineral storage & alternative reservoirs. 🔗 Read the full breakdown via Carbon Herald: https://lnkd.in/duYUy7NJ

MethaneAIR is proving to be a game-changer for methane science. A new peer-reviewed study in Atmospheric Measurement Techniques presents an in-depth assessment of the potential of MethaneAIR's high resolution spectrometer for the detection of methane point sources. Highlights:  💡 Introduces the “matched filter” retrieval technique, optimized for plume detection  💡 Applied for the first time to 1650 nanometer methane absorption data  💡 Hundreds of point sources detected in the Permian Basin at levels above 100–200 kilograms per hour  💡 Detection limit of ~120 kilograms per hour from 12 km flying altitude  💡 Results validated with controlled-release experiments Why it matters: It showcases MethaneAIR's capability in large-scale surveying of methane emissions, demonstrating the application of the matched-filter retrieval for both MethaneAIR and MethaneSAT. 📄 Read the full study by Luis Guanter, Jack Warren, Mark Omara, Ju Chulakadabba, Javier Roger, Maryann Sargent, Jonathan Franklin, Steven Wofsy, Ritesh Gautam / European Geosciences Union (EGU): https://lnkd.in/dhMnNdm3