14.05 2026 climateviewer.com Jim Lee
Kort informasjon ang CO2 fangst i Norge. Det vil komme et eget omfattende innlegg om dette senere.
CO₂-lagring i Norge er en av de mest avanserte og lengstvarende i verden, med fokus på permanent geologisk lagring offshore i Nordsjøen og Barentshavet. Norge har pionerstatus gjennom prosjekter som Sleipner (siden 1996), Snøhvit (siden 2008) og nå Northern Lights (operasjonell fra 2025). Dette er del av Longship-prosjektet, som demonstrerer full verdikjede for karbonfangst, -transport og -lagring (CCS).Historiske og operative prosjekter
- Sleipner (Equinor-operert, Nordsjøen): Verdens første kommersielle CO₂-lagring offshore. Siden 1996 injiseres ca. 1 million tonn CO₂ per år i Utsira-formasjonen (saltvannsakvifer, 800–1000 m under havbunnen). Over 23–25 millioner tonn lagret totalt. Overvåkes med 4D-seismikk – ingen lekkasjer etter nesten 30 år.
- Snøhvit (Barentshavet): Siden 2008 separeres CO₂ fra gass på Melkøya LNG-anlegg og injiseres i Tubaen-formasjonen (ca. 2600 m dybde). Kapasitet ca. 0,7 millioner tonn per år. Fortsatt operasjonell, med millioner av tonn lagret.
- Begge prosjekter drives av CO₂-avgiften (unngår skatt på utslipp) og viser sikker offshore-lagring i saline akvifere med caprock-barriere.
Northern Lights og Longship (nåværende hovedfokus)Northern Lights (eid av Equinor, Shell og TotalEnergies) er verdens første åpne, kommersielle CO₂-transport- og lagringsløsning (cross-border). Det er transport- og lagringsdelen av Longship.
- Fase 1 (1,5 millioner tonn CO₂ per år): Fullført og operasjonell siden 2024/2025. Første injeksjon august 2025 fra Heidelberg Materials’ sementfabrikk i Brevik. CO₂ fraktes med skip til Øygarden-terminal, pumpes gjennom 100 km rørledning og injiseres i Aurora-reservoaret (2600 m under havbunnen i Nordsjøen). Fullt booket med kunder fra Norge, Danmark, Nederland m.fl. Lagret volum: Ca. 39 000 tonn per slutten av 2025 (ifølge Norwegian Offshore Directorate).
- Fase 2: FID tatt mars 2025 (investering ca. NOK 7,5 milliarder). Utvider til minimum 5 millioner tonn per år fra andre halvdel av 2028. Inkluderer nye tanker, pumper, kai, injeksjonsbrønner og flere skip (fire nye liquefied CO₂-carriers bestilt januar/februar 2026, levering 2028–2029). PDO godkjent juni 2025, støttet av EU-midler (€131 millioner via CEF).
- Overvåking: Robust MMV-system (som Sleipner/Snøhvit) med 4D-seismikk, trykkovervåking og sertifikater for permanent lagring (første utstedt desember 2025).
- Betydning: Cross-border (CO₂ fra Europa via skip), bidrar til EUs klimamål og viser kommersiell CCS-skala.
Andre prosjekter og lisenserNorge har tildelt flere CO₂-lagringslisenser (EXL/EL) siden 2023–2025, hovedsakelig saline akvifere i Nordsjøen. Potensial for milliarder av tonn totalt. Eksempler inkluderer Smeaheia, Luna, Trudvang og nye som Iroko, Kinno. Flere i tidlig fase med FID-mål mot 2028–2030, potensial 5–20 millioner tonn per år hver.Status per februar 2026
- Total aktiv lagring: Sleipner + Snøhvit (ca. 1,7 millioner tonn/år) + Northern Lights fase 1 (1,5 millioner tonn/år, ramp-up).
- Northern Lights: Operasjonell, flåteutvidelse pågår, første sertifikater utstedt, kunder fra flere land.
- Longship: Global breakthrough siden juni 2025, med Brevik-fangst i drift (ca. 400 000 tonn/år) og planer for Celsio (Oslo, oppstart ca. 2029).
- Fremtid: Norge posisjoneres som europeisk CCS-hub, med ambisjoner om 8–10+ millioner tonn/år mot 2040 for å møte klimamål (ifølge Miljødirektoratet).
Her er et oversiktskart over Norges CO₂-lagringsområder, inkludert Sleipner, Northern Lights (Aurora) og potensielle lisenser:Her er et diagram som viser Northern Lights-verdikjeden: fangst → skip → Øygarden-terminal → rørledning → injeksjon i Aurora:Her er en illustrasjon av Aurora-reservoaret og injeksjonsprosessen (2600 m under havbunnen):Norge leder globalt på offshore CCS-erfaring og sikkerhet, med null lekkasjer i operative prosjekter.
Imagine a sprawling network of 48-inch pipelines, paired in twos and pressurized up to 3,000 pounds per square inch (PSI), crisscrossing the United States to transport liquid carbon dioxide (CO2) from capture points to sequestration or reuse sites hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away. This ambitious proposal, part of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) efforts, is pitched as a solution to climate change. Yet, beneath its promise lie significant risks and ethical concerns that demand closer examination.
We’ll dive into the dangers of these high-pressure CO2 pipelines, the contentious use of eminent domain to seize land across all fifty states, the environmental hazards of pumping CO2 into saline formations underground, and the broader debate over whether carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is a viable alternative to transitioning to non-carbon emitting power sources.
Princeton Nza Final Report 29oct2021
107MB ∙ PDF file
Nza Annex I Co2 Transport & Storage
4.1MB ∙ PDF file
Eminent Domain: A Threat to Property Rights and Indigenous Lands
The construction of these massive CO2 pipelines hinges on eminent domain—the legal authority of the government to take private land for public use, with compensation. However, applying this power to CCS projects raises serious questions about fairness and federal overreach.
- Private Citizens’ Lands at Risk: Landowners across the U.S., such as those in Nebraska highlighted by Bold Nebraska, are fighting against what they see as an abuse of eminent domain. They argue that these pipelines primarily benefit private corporations rather than the public, challenging the justification for seizing their farms, homes, and livelihoods. With plans to span all fifty states, the scale of land acquisition could spark widespread disputes and legal battles.
- Endangering Indigenous Lands: For Indigenous communities, the stakes are even higher. These pipelines could cross sacred sites or infringe on treaty-protected lands, echoing a long history of federal disregard for Indigenous sovereignty. The potential violation of these rights adds a profound ethical dimension to the debate, as noted in discussions on sites like Deceleration News.
- Federal Overreach and Explosive Risks: Beyond property rights, the high-pressure nature of these pipelines—operating around 3,000 psi—introduces the danger of explosive failures. A rupture could devastate rural landscapes, homes, and communities, especially in areas ill-equipped for emergency response. This federal push to prioritize CCS infrastructure over citizens’ rights and safety underscores the tension between climate goals and human costs.
The use of eminent domain for such a vast and risky project prompts a critical question: Do the uncertain benefits of CCS justify endangering private and Indigenous lands?
[ NOTE: While I do not agree with some of the assertations of Vice or comments made near the end of this video, I nonetheless submit to you to story of Standing Rock and my native brothers and sisters who fought to oppose pipelines on sacred land, and lost. Water is life! ]
The Dangers of High-Pressure CO2 Pipelines: A Catastrophe Waiting to Happen?
These 48-inch pipelines, designed to carry supercritical CO2 (a dense, liquid-like state), are engineering marvels—but they’re also potential disasters. Operating at extreme pressures, they pose unique and severe risks.
- Asphyxiation Hazards: A stark example unfolded in 2020 in Satartia, Mississippi, when a CO2 pipeline ruptured. The invisible, odorless gas displaced oxygen, hospitalizing dozens of residents who struggled to breathe. As reported in various accounts, including insights from YouTube analyses, emergency services were overwhelmed, highlighting the acute danger of CO2 leaks near populated areas.
- Explosive Failures: The combination of high pressure and large diameter amplifies the threat. A breach could trigger rapid decompression, potentially causing explosions, hurling debris, and creating craters. Unlike natural gas pipelines, CO2 leaks are harder to detect without specialized equipment, increasing the risk of undetected disasters. The Energy.gov report on CO2 pipeline infrastructure notes the need for stringent safety measures, yet questions remain about their adequacy for such an expansive network.
With thousands of miles of pipelines proposed, the potential for human and environmental harm is alarming, particularly in rural regions where response capabilities are limited.
[ See the original video of an 8 inch carbon dioxide rupture here, now imagine an explosion 6 times larger! Starts at 11:18 in the video below ]
Underground Sequestration: Environmental Risks Below the Surface
Once transported, the CO2 is injected into saline formations underground for long-term storage. While this aims to lock carbon away, it introduces significant environmental uncertainties.
- Earthquakes (Induced Seismicity): Pumping CO2 into geological formations can destabilize fault lines, triggering earthquakes—a phenomenon known as induced seismicity. Similar effects have been documented with fracking wastewater injection, and the Princeton Net Zero America annex warns of comparable risks with CO2 sequestration. Seismic activity could damage infrastructure or release stored CO2, undermining the entire effort.
- Poisoning Aquifers: A major concern is the risk of CO2 leaking into groundwater. When CO2 dissolves in water, it forms carbonic acid, lowering pH levels and potentially rendering aquifers undrinkable. This threat to drinking water supplies, emphasized in critiques from Food and Water Watch, could devastate ecosystems and communities reliant on these resources.
- Additional Risks: Other hazards include land subsidence (sinking ground) and the possibility of CO2 escaping through geological faults, either re-entering the atmosphere or causing unforeseen ecological damage. The long-term stability of these storage sites remains unproven, leaving environmental safety in question.
These risks challenge the narrative that underground sequestration is a clean, permanent solution, revealing a gamble with our planet’s water, land, and stability.
Carbon Dioxide Removal vs. Non-Carbon Emitting Power Sources: Pros and Cons
The debate over CCS and CDR often pits emission reductions through climate engineering against mitigation via non-carbon emitting power sources like renewables. Each approach has its advocates and detractors.
Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and CCS
- Pros:
- CCS allows continued use of fossil fuels while capturing emissions, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors like cement and steel, as championed by the Carbon Capture Coalition.
- Federal incentives, such as the 45Q tax credit, make it economically appealing, supporting rapid deployment.
- It’s framed as a bridge technology to buy time for broader decarbonization efforts.
- Cons:
- It’s costly and energy-intensive, diverting resources from cleaner alternatives.
- Critics, including over 150 groups cited by Food and Water Watch, argue it’s a “false solution” that entrenches fossil fuel dependency rather than eliminating it.
- The safety and environmental risks of pipelines and sequestration cast doubt on its long-term viability.
2021 Blueprint Carbon Capture Coalition
4.37MB ∙ PDF file
Transitioning to Non-Carbon Emitting Power Sources
- Pros:
- Renewables (solar, wind) and nuclear power directly reduce emissions by replacing fossil fuels, offering a sustainable, root-cause solution.
- Long-term benefits include cleaner air, reduced carbon output, and energy independence, as outlined in studies like the Princeton Net Zero America report.
- Cons:
- The transition is slow, costly, and faces challenges like intermittency (e.g., solar and wind depend on weather) and the need for advanced storage solutions.
- Scaling renewables to meet global demand requires significant infrastructure investment and time.
Emission Reductions vs. Climate Engineering
- CDR as Climate Engineering: CCS mitigates emissions post-combustion, a form of climate engineering that manages symptoms rather than curing the disease. It’s a reactive approach with inherent risks, as seen in pipeline and sequestration concerns.
- Mitigation via Renewables: Transitioning to non-carbon sources is proactive, reducing emissions at the source. While slower, it avoids the uncertainties of geoengineering and aligns with a fossil-fuel-free future.
The Zero Emissions Platform highlights CCS’s role in emission reductions, but many argue that investing in renewables offers a safer, more enduring path.
A Trans European Co2 Transportation Infrastructure For Ccus Opportunities Challenges 1
2.53MB ∙ PDF file
Conclusion: A Call for Awareness and Action
A Princeton study found that most Americans are unaware of CCS technologies and their implications. This knowledge gap is dangerous, as decisions about these massive pipelines and sequestration projects will shape our environmental and social landscape for decades.
Before we commit to this vast infrastructure, we must weigh the risks—land seizures, explosive pipeline failures, and environmental harm—against the uncertain benefits. Is CCS a necessary stopgap, or a risky distraction from the urgent need to shift to renewables? The evidence suggests that prioritizing non-carbon emitting power sources, despite its challenges, is the wiser, more sustainable choice.
It’s time for the public to engage, question the establishment narrative, and demand solutions that safeguard our lands, waters, and future. The stakes couldn’t be higher.
Get The Facts!
The real question is: Is carbon capture even necessary?
Additional Resources
- Geoengineering technologies and approaches – Carbon Dioxide Removal | Geoengineering Monitor
- BECCS carbon credit sales hit record levels despite increasing environmental and economic concerns | Geoengineering Monitor
- Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) Geoengineering Map | Geoengineering Monitor
+ There are no comments
Add yours