storeCO2

This is a first-class piece of work from Sergey Martynov and the team. Particularly valuable to see: • conditioning energy emerging as a major driver of both cost and impact • and the way construction delay can change the relative economics between pipelines and shipping Both are often treated as secondary considerations, but this work shows how central they are to outcomes. A very useful contribution — and a helpful reminder that system-level assumptions matter more than is often acknowledged.

At storeCO2, we see a similar pattern emerging. While cluster-based CCS systems can be effective where scale and proximity exist, a significant proportion of emitters are geographically distributed and constrained by local infrastructure. Connecting these emitters to storage is not just a transport question it is a system design challenge. It requires balancing: • cost • flexibility • infrastructure constraints • storage access As CCS scales, the focus is likely to shift from individual projects to how the overall system is designed to connect emitters to storage efficiently and reliably.

The CCS industry isn’t struggling with capture technology. It’s struggling with logistics. Over the past week alone: • Europe approved €260 million for a new CCS project in Antwerp. • New concepts for CO₂ transport by ship and barge are being unveiled. • Governments are debating whether offshore oil infrastructure should be repurposed for CO₂ storage instead of removed. Momentum is clearly building. Yet the uncomfortable reality remains: Hundreds of CCS projects are planned globally… but only a small fraction are operating. Why? Because CCS isn’t just a technology problem. It’s a systems problem. Capture plants can be built. But scaling CCS requires something far harder: • transport networks • storage access • cross-border logistics • commercial risk allocation In other words, CCS is starting to look less like a technology sector and more like a logistics industry. Which raises a bigger question: Will CCS scale through pipeline clusters or through flexible shipping networks? #CCS #CarbonCapture #EnergyTransition #CO2Transport #Decarbonization

As CO₂ disposal scales, verification and policy timing increasingly determine system cost. In many industrial corridors, capture and storage technologies are technically mature. What drives delay — and cost — is misalignment between verification requirements, policy timelines, and access to disposal infrastructure. When disposal access is binary or delayed, projects wait. When projects wait, capital waits. And when capital waits, costs rise — regardless of how robust the underlying engineering may be. Architectures that concentrate disposal access into single basins and single timelines tend to amplify this delay risk. Architectures that distribute access and sequencing tend to reduce it. As disposal becomes a prerequisite rather than an option, the question shifts from whether systems work to whether they align with the timelines industry and policy are actually operating on. That alignment is increasingly where cost is made — or avoided. #CO2 #Infrastructure #IndustrialDecarbonisation #CarbonRemoval #CDR #Verification #Compliance #ClimatePolicy

💡 Disposal corridors emerge first where emitters are remote — and constraints are structural. When CO₂ emitters look through a disposal lens rather than a value-chain lens, certain sectors surface early because their emitters are distributed across geographies rather than clustered around storage basins. ⭐ Energy Recovery facilities are fixed in place, policy-bound, and frequently located away from storage basins. For many operators, access to disposal is the gating factor — not capture technology. ⭐ BECCS follows a similar pattern. Many sites sit where biomass supply makes sense, not where basins are. Verified disposal is essential for removals, and delays in disposal access directly delay CDR issuance. ⭐ Cement appears further along the curve, but the constraint is familiar: large volumes, fixed assets, and plants that are rarely co-located with storage. Where pipeline access is uncertain or delayed, disposal architecture becomes a timing and access question. Across these corridors, the practical challenge is consistent: how remote emitters access disposal, how volumes are sequenced, and how projects scale without waiting for CO₂ to behave like a commodity. #CO2 #IndustrialDecarbonisation #CarbonRemoval #Infrastructure #EnergyRecovery #BECCS #Cement #Compliance #CDR

💡 CO₂ disposal can be built - the harder question is what architecture we build. Today, most disposal pathways are designed as megaprojects — single-basin, binary-access, state-anchored, decade-timeline infrastructure. These work, but they inherit long sequencing cycles and political timelines. An alternative architecture is modular, basin-optional, portfolio-access, emitter-anchored and distributed across timelines. Modularity creates more room for compliance, CDR and removals without requiring CO₂ to behave like a commodity. As disposal becomes a necessary part of decarbonisation, architecture matters.

💡 CO₂ is a waste with a destination problem For decades, CCS has been framed as a “CO₂ value chain,” implying commodity dynamics and market exchange, but the majority of industrial CO₂ doesn’t trade. It must be permanently disposed — and the emitters creating it are rarely co-located with the basins capable of storing it. This creates a structural gap between: Emitters → Midstream → Storage Basins Compounded by constraints in geography, geology, permitting, policy, sequencing, and social license, disposal becomes the real bottleneck for both compliance decarbonisation and negative removals. A more accurate architecture is the emerging CO₂ disposal chain — purpose-built midstream infrastructure that links emitters to basins and enables verified disposal, independent of capture technology or vertical integration. As emissions markets mature, disposal shifts from an environmental choice to an infrastructure requirement, and basin access becomes a portfolio variable rather than a binary constraint. Over the coming weeks, we’ll outline how disposal chains enable early removals, negative emissions, and compliance alignment — particularly for cement, BECCS, ERF, and other distributed industrial emitters. #CO2Disposal #CarbonRemoval #CDR #CCS #EnergyTransition #IndustrialDecarbonisation #Compliance #NegativeEmissions #Infrastructure #StoreCO2

💡 Net-Zero Costs Are Rising — But Waiting Isn’t an Option. There’s a Smarter Path Forward. A just-released report highlights what too many in policy and industry already feel: the economic cost of achieving net-zero is even higher than previously feared — pushing long-term investment bills into the trillions and sparking legitimate concerns about competitiveness, household bills, and industrial resilience. But here’s the hard truth: the real cost isn’t decarbonisation itself — it’s delaying climate solutions and sticking with legacy approaches that don’t deliver scalable, permanent emissions reductions. That’s where storeCO2 comes in. 🚀 We’re not just another carbon tech company — we’re a category creator. At storeCO2, we’re pioneering a practical, scalable, and cost-efficient pathway to permanent CO₂ removal — one that: 🔹 Delivers measurable climate benefit today rather than theoretical benefit decades from now 🔹 Provides corporates and national economies with a hedge against volatile fossil-fuel exposure and regulatory uncertainty 🔹 Translates climate ambition into economic value — not just cost As the net-zero dialogue evolves from “how much it will cost” to “how do we make it affordable and real,” solutions like permanent carbon storage must be at the center of every credible climate transition strategy. We help organisations close the gap between aspiration and impact — reducing risk and unlocking new value for investors, supply chains, and regulators. 🌍 Climate targets shouldn’t be aspirational checkboxes — they should be business opportunities with quantifiable returns. Let’s build solutions that don’t just add cost — but create real value. Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Department for Transport (DfT), United Kingdom, Department for Business and Trade, Carbon Capture and Storage Association Chris McDonald, Keir Mather, Luke Myer, Henry Tufnell, Josh Newbury, Michelle Scrogham, John Whitby MP, James Wharton, #CarbonRemovals #NetZero #Innovation #CarbonDisposal

Happy New Year! - At storeCO2 we are looking forward to 2026 and the huge opportunity that we have to build on the success that our industry has achieved in 2025. As CCS moves from strategy into delivery, one of the clearest lessons from complex infrastructure systems is that "optionality reduces risk". The UK has made a serious commitment to CCS, and the challenge now is execution — particularly for emitters and storage assets that sit outside tightly defined clusters. Small, targeted investments in new ideas, that test alternative transport and disposal pathways to Net Zero can provide government with valuable data on: 💡 Cost 💡 Logistics 💡 Delivery timelines This can easily be completed well in advance of the requirement to commit large amounts of capital budgets. These initiatives don’t replace existing plans — they strengthen them, reduce exposure, and increase system resilience. With relatively modest support, industry-led pilots can quickly answer questions that would otherwise require orders of magnitude more public capital later. As we enter the next phase of CCS delivery, the question isn’t how big systems look on paper — it’s how cheaply and confidently uncertainty can be reduced. #CCS #CarbonCapture #NetZero #EnergyPolicy #UKEnergy #Decarbonisation #Infrastructure #SystemDesign #Innovation #Delivery #ClimateAction

As we close out 2025, is it time for a reality check? CCS isn’t slow because the technology is hard — it’s slow because the system design is wrong. Over the past three years, the team at storeCO2 has been deeply involved in the tough conversations — project reviews, engineering sessions, workshops, policy consultations — and what we see repeatedly is industry-wide frustration. After a decade of repeated patterns, the truth is unavoidable: 👉 CCS isn’t struggling because capture technology is immature. 👉 It isn’t delayed because geological storage can’t be made ready. 💡 It’s delayed because the disposal pathway doesn’t work — and it doesn’t work because it’s too expensive. For years, guided by familiar oil and gas thinking, industry and policy built CCS as a value chain, assuming CO₂ would move like a commodity through an integrated system, with each participant playing their traditional role and taking their share of profit. But this decade has proven something different: Most CO₂ that must be collected, transported, and disposed of has no market value. It’s a by-product of combustion — an industrial waste stream with little or no revenue attached. 💡 And waste streams need disposal chains — not value chains. A disposal chain that is: ✔ modular ✔ flexible ✔ financially realistic ✔ scalable without billion-pound taxpayer commitments ✔ not dependent on single mega-project timelines ✔ lower-risk, lower-cost, lower-regret ✔ capable of starting today, not “after everything else is built” This is the mindset shift the CCS sector has resisted — and the shift that will determine whether CCS can scale in the 2030s. At storeCO2, we founded the company on the conviction that a different mindset had to exist — and we’ve challenged ourselves every day to design a different solution. We’ve listened to future customers, interrogated conventional assumptions, and leaned into the hard conversations that shaped our fit-for-purpose, marine-enabled CO₂ disposal chain — a system designed around real project behaviour and real cost constraints, not the idealised assumptions of the last decade. A system that works when timelines slip. A system that keeps moving when mega-projects stall. A system that finally makes CO₂ disposal affordable enough for emitters, clusters, and storage operators to commit — and stay committed. 👉 There is no silver bullet for CCS. Every solution has challenges. However if you’re open-minded and still searching for a cost-effective pathway to real decarbonisation by 2030 — not another decade of delays — let’s talk. #CCS #CarbonCapture #CO2Transport #CO2Shipping #DisposalChain #IndustrialDecarbonisation #ClimateTech #EnergyTransition #NetZero #CarbonManagement #CCUS #Decarbonisation #CleanEnergy #HardToAbate #SustainableIndustry #CementCCS #BECCS #EfW