Connecting the Value Chain: Reflections from the IEAGHG International CCS Summer School 2026 (Robert Clarke)

I travelled to Copenhagen for the 2026 IEAGHG International CCS Summer School, arriving on what turned out to be the hottest day on record in Denmark. It was a stark reminder of why we were there in the first place. As the realities of climate change become increasingly visible, the urgency to develop and deploy emissions-reducing technologies, such as CCS, has never been greater.

As a geology PhD researcher, my focus has always been centred on storage: ensuring the safe long-term confinement of CO₂ over geological timescales. Previously, I took the supply of CO₂ for granted. At GHGT-17 in Calgary, I realised capture researchers rarely questioned where the CO₂ would ultimately be stored. This disconnect and the tendency toward hyper-fixation within isolated pockets of CCS research drew me to the IEAGHG International CCS Summer School. I knew it would force me out of my storage bubble to view the entire value chain, spanning capture, transport, utilization, policy, regulation and public engagement, over an intensive week of lectures, group work and site visits.

The summer school was hosted by INNO-CCUS at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) and attended by 49 students from over 30 countries. This global cohort represented a diverse background of disciplines and career stages, with everyone contributing unique perspectives drawn from their own corner of the CCUS value chain and personal experience. The series of lectures mapped out the full value chain, covering everything from the deep technical challenges to the complex political landscapes. Some key takeaways included:

• Capture & Transport: The immense energy required to concentrate CO₂ to super-high purities (greater than 95%), and why stripping out impurities like NO_x and SO_x is critical for safe transport, especially in hub and cluster projects.
• Economics & Policy: How reliable carbon pricing and government incentives are finally transitioning CCS toward self-sustaining, commercial operations.
• Storage & Safety: The critical need to model plume migration scenarios to prevent leakage from legacy wells or excursions beyond licence boundaries, alongside choosing targeted monitoring technologies that can accurately spot and attribute any anomalies.
• Regulation: The urgent requirement to update international frameworks to enable trustworthy cross-border carbon trading and airtight carbon accounting.
• Social License: The importance of constant, honest public engagement: the exact factor that enabled our host nation, Denmark, to rapidly roll out CCS over the past decade.

At the beginning of the week, the class was split into six groups to act as consultants for the Northern Lights CCS joint venture (JV), with each team focusing on a different aspect of the value chain to offer strategic recommendations. With help from our brilliant mentors, our group was tasked with looking at regulation. We delved deep into the key regulatory frameworks constraining EU/EEA CCS projects and identified gaps and grey areas. Chief among these was the question of when liability for CO₂ transfers between capture, transport and storage providers occurs, discovering that binding corporate agreements currently act as a flexible temporary band-aid.

At the end of the week, all the teams presented their findings to the class. Each group brought a dose of creative entertainment to their projects. We witnessed everything from a simulated mob protest disrupting the public engagement team, to a parody of the summer school taking place in the year 2040. Our own team dramatized the heated arguments that arise from regulatory grey areas, while another group staged a production of ‘The Wheel’ where the absolute best transport option was determined to be ‘Boats, boats, boats!’.

The highlight of the week was undoubtedly the site visits. We started at ARC Amager Bakke (CopenHill), Copenhagen’s iconic waste-to-energy plant featuring an artificial ski slope on its roof. The facility incinerates 600,000 tons of waste annually, producing 57 MW of electricity and district heating for the region. It was fascinating to watch gigantic claws load the furnace and to peer directly into the raging inferno. Following a 2021 CO₂ capture pilot, the site developed a demonstration plant in 2023, capturing nearly 4 tons of CO₂ per day (used in local commercial greenhouses). Despite funding for a full-scale facility falling through, full-scale capture remains ARC’s long-term ambition.

In the afternoon, we travelled south to Ørsted’s Avedøre Power Station, a bioenergy plant currently installing a capture facility to collect 150,000 tons of CO₂ annually. From here, the CO₂ will be transported by truck 100 km to the Kalundborg CO₂ Hub on the west of Zealand. It will then be loaded onto Northern Lights’ transport ships, taken to Norway’s Øygarden facility, and ultimately injected 2.6 km beneath the seabed into the Aurora reservoir 110 km offshore.

Touring the facility and seeing the sheer magnitude of the capture plant, its towering absorbers and three enormous CO₂ tanks was a profound moment. Standing there, I truly appreciated that CCS is no longer just the subject of research papers and news articles, but a living breathing technology being built right now. It was incredibly fitting that our group projects had focused on the Northern Lights project, as this visit pulled the entire value chain together. CCS was real and it was tangible!

As the final day wrapped up, it was clear that the informal conversations beyond the lecture theatre, such as over coffee, meals and evening socialising, had proven just as valuable as the formal sessions. The week of networking built lasting professional relationships and friendships with both classmates and mentors.

We celebrated these bonds at the final night’s gala dinner, enjoying fantastic food, live music and Copenhagen’s vibrant nightlife before departing for home. I left not only with an incredible international network but with vital new skills: the ability to speak across disciplines, understand the complex bottlenecks facing other sectors and an appreciation far beyond my own geological bubble. It was deeply inspiring to recognise that, despite our different specialisms, we are all contributing toward the same objective.

I am immensely grateful to the mentors, sponsors and the entire IEAGHG team for organising such a transformative week. Of the many lessons I learnt that week, the most valuable was that no single discipline can deliver CCS alone. Progress depends on engineers, geoscientists, economists, policymakers and social scientists understanding one another’s challenges. If you ever have the opportunity to apply or attend this Summer School, I cannot recommend it enough!

Ebraheem Alanazy (University of Liverpool), Emmanuel Jonah (Cranfield University), Chioma Emehel (Heriot-Watt University) and Meisam Ansarpour (University of Wolverhampton) share their takeaways from the “Plenary 4: CO2 Storage” session at the UKCCSRC Conference 2026.

The UKCCSRC Spring Conference 2026, held at the University of Sheffield on June 24-25, brought together top experts to discuss the future of carbon capture and storage. A key highlight from Day 2 was Plenary Session 4, which focused entirely on the massive challenges and exciting breakthroughs in CO₂ storage. Chaired by Stuart Haszeldine (University of Edinburgh) and Jen Roberts (University of Strathclyde), the session featured four stellar speakers who took us on a journey from foundational science to real-world deployment.

The Science of Safe Storage – Professor Sam Krevor (Imperial College London)

Professor Sam Krevor kicked off the session by focusing on the crucial role of underground rock formations as long-term carbon sinks.

• The Good News: There is growing confidence in our ability to securely store CO₂ for the long haul, thanks to better monitoring tools and underground mapping.
• The Hurdles: Moving to a massive scale means we still need to perfect how we calculate exact storage space, handle shifting underground pressures, and verify that the gas stays exactly where it belongs.
• The Takeaway: The science is strong, but we must bridge the gap between lab models and commercial-scale projects.

Overcoming Bottlenecks – Dr. Iain de Jonge-Anderson (University of Strathclyde)

Dr. Iain de Jonge-Anderson shifted the spotlight from pure science to a systems-level delivery problem. He reminded everyone that carbon storage is no longer just a research puzzle, however it is a massive logistics challenge.

• The CO₂-LOGIX Model: He introduced a clever new framework designed to find bottlenecks across tech readiness, infrastructure, rules, and funding.
• Value Chains: For carbon storage to work, the whole chain, capture, moving it, and locking it away, must connect smoothly.
• Collaboration: Success depends on alignment between governments, universities, investors, and local communities.

Navigating the Rules – Dr. Zoë Sayer (North Sea Transition Authority)

Getting permission to store millions of tonnes of carbon under the sea is no easy feat. Dr. Zoë Sayer gave a clear guide on how the NSTA helps projects safely navigate the offshore permitting journey.

• The Five-Step Path: The regulatory roadmap goes through five main steps: Appraise (risk assessment), access (building transport options), define (submitting the permit), execute/operate (pumping the CO₂), and post-closure (monitoring long after closing).
• Strict Checks: Applicants must provide seven critical documents proving their site will not leak or harm the environment or human health.
• Progress: So far, four storage permits have been granted, with more on the way.

Real-World Success – Nick Terrell (Carbon Catalyst)

Closing out the individual presentations, Nick Terrell shared incredible hands-on data from the Poseidon CCS Project, proving that large-scale storage is actively working right now.

• The Test: Starting in February 2025, a three-month test successfully pumped 3,500 tonnes of CO₂ into an offshore well across 15 injection cycles.
• Key Discovery: The data proved that mixing liquids and gases during injection is safe and highly stable, which cuts development costs down significantly.
• Big Ambitions: Looking ahead, the project aims to scale up sharply after a final investment decision in 2027, with an ultimate goal of handling a peak rate of 40 million tonnes of CO₂ per year by 2040 through massive pipeline networks.

Panel Discussion and Q&A

At the end of the session, the floor was opened for a panel discussion and Q&A. All four speakers took to the stage together to answer a wide range of questions from the audience, sparking great conversations on how to practically apply these technical, regulatory and financial insights to the UK’s net-zero targets.

Plenary Session 4 made it clear that the UK’s carbon storage sector is moving fast. By blending rigorous science, smart system logistics, strong regulations, and successful field tests, the path to industrial scale decarbonisation is well underway.

Ubong Ekanem (University of Strathclyde), Chee Lok Yong (University of Bradford), Balkan Mutlu (Teesside University Net Zero Industry Innovation Centre) and Manpreet Kaur (University of Birmingham) share their takeaways from the “Plenary 3: People, Place and Policy” session at the UKCCSRC Conference 2026.

The session examined how public trust, supportive policies and an understanding of the places and communities where projects are developed influence the deployment and long-term success of carbon capture and storage. It was chaired by Dr Jen Roberts, UKCCSRC Deputy Director, who opened by explaining why the social sciences matter for CCS. She noted that maintaining and accelerating deployment requires social dynamics, politics, economics and psychology to be taken into account. Three speakers then presented their work from different perspectives.

Diarmaid Clery (University of Manchester)

Diarmaid presented findings from his study on the social licence to operate (SLO) in principle and in practice. He described the SLO as informal, non-governmental support from stakeholders, including local communities, policymakers, regulators and developers, that a decarbonisation project needs in order to deliver. A project must first be seen as legitimate and credible to gain support, and it must ultimately build trust between stakeholders. He used the pyramid model of Thomson and Boutilier (2011) to describe this process. Crossing the legitimacy boundary earns acceptance, and crossing the credibility boundary earns approval. Psychological identification with a project becomes possible only when full trust is established. The licence is not static and can strengthen or weaken over time. He also outlined the engagement taking place on climate change and net zero industrial decarbonisation at different scales and levels, which ultimately serves to build trust and confidence.

The study found that stakeholders recognise the need for climate action and see industrial decarbonisation as an opportunity for jobs and regional renewal, while credibility depends on transparent and consistent government leadership. The public can support CCUS when it is seen to deliver climate benefits and preserve valued industry. That support depends on safety, affordability, fairness, transparency and credible regulation.

Zeynep Clulow (University of Cambridge)

Zeynep of Cambridge’s Energy Policy Research Group applied a political science based approach to stakeholder attitudes towards cluster CCS in the UK. Her talk centred on economics and social justice, asking why stakeholders feel the way they do about cluster CCS and how they justify their positions.

The starting point is the newspaper records in the UK. Coverage of cluster CCS drew a little interest around 2010 before vanishing, jumped in 2019 to 2020, then dropped gradually until 2025 and is now increasing again. The corpus runs to 276 articles, and the jumps line up with key projects starting around the early 2020s, such as HyNet, East Coast, Acorn and Viking.

The frequently recurring themes across the coverage are environment, social justice and energy security. Zeynep built these out from a word dictionary and word patterns drawn from the articles, with Yoshikoder turning that text into quantitative data. Across the corpus, the salient themes are dominated by economics, followed by feasibility, then environment, then social justice. This raises the question of what the heavy weighting towards techno-economics means for how the debate is framed.

On attitudes, Zeynep noted that an action such as protesting against the government is itself an expression of attitude, and the stakeholder attitude trends are quantitatively meaningful. The private sector spikes around 2020 as the most enthusiastic group, in line with the major projects starting, followed by government, while public and NGO themes lose momentum after 2025. Looking at correlations between themes and stakeholders, economics associates positively with the private sector. Regionalism and social justice are positively linked, so an article that uses one is likely to use the other as well. Economic themes run negatively against both government support and NGOs, meaning heavier economic framing tends to coincide with weaker support from those groups.

Zeynep closed by noting that the dataset needs expanding for better statistical power, with more focus on the key stakeholders such as the private sector, government and non-governmental parties, and more nuanced attention to specific projects.

Sandra Bogelein (Climate Change Committee)

Sandra Bogelein explained how the Climate Change Committee (CCC) – the independent body that advises government and reports to Parliament through carbon budgets, climate risk assessments and progress reports – is bringing public views into its analysis. In the CCC’s Balanced Pathway, around 60% of emissions reductions come from electrifying key technologies and decarbonising and expanding electricity supply. Households contribute around a third of the emissions reduction in 2040, and 72% of that comes from just two actions, switching to an electric vehicle and switching to a heat pump. Public engagement is therefore central to delivering the pathway.

To understand what an informed public would support, the CCC convened a citizens’ panel of 26 members of the public from Birmingham and the surrounding area, broadly reflective of the UK population, who met across seven online and face-to-face workshops. Unlike a focus group that captures initial reactions, a deliberative panel hears from experts, asks questions and works through options together. This allows in-depth exploration of challenging topics, in this case car use, home heating, what we eat and flying.

The spotlight on flying illustrated the approach. Although removals were not the main focus of the sessions, participants were less familiar with carbon removal technologies and some expressed concern. They felt removals should be a complementary measure alongside managing aviation demand. Paying for removals through taxes on all citizens was generally seen as unfair, and participants wanted airlines or those who fly to cover the costs. Low trust in airlines to manage removals led many to call for government oversight.

Closing thoughts

The three talks reinforced a common message. A social licence has to be earned and can be lost, the framing of the public debate shapes who supports CCS, and people engage seriously with difficult trade-offs when they are given the time and information to deliberate. Plenary 3 was a reminder that public trust, policy and place are central to delivering CCS at scale.

Saleh Alfaleh (University of Edinburgh), Maryam Nasiri Ghrir (University of Lancashire) and Muhammad Shahbaz (Net Zero Industry Innovation Centre, Teesside University) share their key takeaways from the “Plenary 2: CO2 Transportation” session at the UKCCSRC Conference 2026.

As researchers in carbon capture and related technologies, one of the purposes of conferences like this one, is to understand the government, policy, industrial and scientific issues and development for the transportation of carbon after its capture and removal processes, and link these to current research on novel technologies and processes. Hence, the session on the first day of the conference “CO2 Transportation” was chaired by Richard Marsh (Cardiff University) and Ben Wetenhall (Newcastle University), with talks delivered by James Watt (WSP), Ben Kek (NEP) and Jacqueline Penn-Morley (ROSEN UK).

James Watt opened his talk by puncturing the assumption that moving CO₂ through pipelines is not new at all. The Canyon Reef Carriers pipeline in Texas was built in 1972, carrying 5.2 million tonnes of CO₂ a year across 225 kilometres. Larger systems soon joined it: Cortez stretched 808 km and moved 19.3 Mt/yr, Sheep Mountain ran 660 km at 9.5 Mt/yr, Bravo covered 350 km at 7.3 Mt/yr, and Weyburn later added 328 km at 5 Mt/yr.

Clusters has become a hot topic again. The UK’s first two funding rounds didn’t really consider clusters; current funding does, looking deliberately at multiple sites linked together. Regulation and standards have been catching up in parallel. BS PD 8010 has been updated, the Pipeline Safety Regulations have been amended to formally name CO₂ as a dangerous fluid, the Energy Institute’s guidance has been republished, the API has issued RP 1192 covering CO₂ transport by pipeline, and ISO continues to update its suite of CCS standards. The evidence base was developed through projects such as CASSEM, Pipetrans, Mattrans and CoolTrans and work on the Social Licence to Operate and ZEP’s early RCI studies. Watt observed improvements in water solubility, equation-of-state behaviour and flow metering, but said the problem has become more complex and expensive. Our tools have gotten more advanced, RunPilot, gCCS/gProms, Continuum, Goldset, InfraCCS, SimCCS and Olsights; but industrial decarbonisation has been slow. Watt left us with a question: did we become more risk-averse, more policy-led, or just doubt it could be done?

Watt grouped the road ahead into a few themes. On compositions, the open questions are what impurity projects will actually accept, how those mixtures behave in practice, which equations of state we can trust, where the empirical data is, and what it all means for corrosion and integrity. Dense phase versus gas, there is a real capacity question: can we run dense-phase pipelines onshore in the UK, not just offshore and can dispersion models be properly verified against field data? Then there are cluster and pipeline dynamics. Designing a cluster is not just a matter of flow, pressure or even surge analysis; it is about how the whole system behaves over time, and about the commercial agreements, business models, operating models and third-party access rules. Composition limits, routing and location all feed into the same puzzle. Non-pipeline transport (shipping, road and rail) and how those modes integrate into clusters, what they do to flexibility and steady flows, and where access points and buffer storage should sit.

Challenges for cluster and pipeline dynamics

Ben Kek from bp presented an update on the Northern Endurance Partnership (NEP) and its Teesside Carbon Capture Pipeline. NEP is developing the infrastructure to transport CO₂ from industrial carbon capture projects across Teesside to a compression facility, and then out via a 145-kilometre offshore pipeline to the Endurance carbon store beneath the North Sea. The Humber region was identified as the priority target due to its concentration of very large industrial emitters, while Teesside – the most compact cluster – serves as the practical first phase, with all learning to be carried forward to the Humber.

Phase 1 is currently approximately 25% complete, on track for a late 2028 start-up. The pipeline is designed to transport 10 million tonnes of CO₂ per year initially, with future capacity projected to reach 40 to 50 million tonnes per year. Storage is not a concern; NEP holds six stores across five licences, with the Endurance store alone capable of holding 150 million tonnes, representing 45 years of storage at current injection rates. Construction has presented real challenges, including unexploded World War ordnance found both onshore at the former Redcar steelworks site and offshore in the southern North Sea, as well as the need for tunnel boring to protect a nearby protected coastal site. Despite this, the project has achieved over 50% local content, with more than £2 billion awarded to UK subcontractors, including Liberty Steel, which manufactured all the pipeline steel. The project is majority financed by approximately 23 global banks, a first for carbon capture and storage. With Teesside as the blueprint, the Humber Carbon Capture Pipeline is the clear next step, applying the same model at a larger scale.

NEP Phase 1 progress report in Teesside

The third talk of the session was delivered by Dr Jacqueline Penn-Morley of ROSEN UK, who presented her research on corrosion in pipelines used for CO₂ transport, a growing concern in carbon capture and storage infrastructure. She provided a detailed overview of the primary causes of corrosion, highlighting the roles of impurities such as SO₂, NOₓ, H₂S, and O₂ in accelerating degradation. Penn-Morley shared specific findings from experimental work conducted at the Institute for Energy Technology, where tests were performed on gaseous CO₂ containing 40 ppm H₂O, varying concentrations of SO₂, and 20 ppm O₂. Notably, liquid drop formation was observed when NO₂ levels were increased from 5 ppm to 8 ppm across different pipeline conditions. She also addressed environmentally assisted cracking (EAC), outlining the critical interplay between susceptible materials, corrosive environments, and tensile stress. While CO₂ itself is not typically aggressive, the presence of co-contaminants significantly heightens risk. Despite these challenges, she proposed several mitigation strategies, including maintaining lower hydrogen partial pressures and ensuring that fracture arrest pressures are set above ductile fracture thresholds to prevent running fractures. To support safe and reliable CO₂ transport, she introduced the use of in-line inspection (ILI) tools, which she presented as a viable solution for assessing pipeline suitability and managing corrosion risks effectively.

Nicholas Landon (University of Nottingham), Freya Bretton (University of Edinburgh) and Usman Ali (Net Zero Industry Innovation Centre, Teesside University) share their takeaways from the “Plenary 1: Co2 Capture” session at the UKCCSRC Conference 2026.

While the UKCCSRC conferences allow researchers and industry from a wide variety of areas of the CCS sector to come together and share knowledge, the central focus will always be the carbon capture aspect itself, without which there would be no need for advancements in materials, storage, policy, etc. As seen in the CO₂ Capture Plenary, the research being conducted focuses on improving the technology’s performance and economics, both necessary fields to ensure CCS operates as effectively as possible.

The session’s opening speaker, Stavros Michailos, University of Hull, demonstrated this with his research modelling the operation of CO₂ absorption stacks under different operating conditions, with the aim to achieve capture rates upwards of 95% – a necessity for post-combustion capture to be more widely deployed. After highlighting the key parameters investigated and discussing the process followed in the work, Stavros explained the results obtained from the various ASPEN studies conducted: from altering the rich loading of the MEA solvent and then the operating pressure to discover the effect on reboiler duty, to showing the optimum operation window for CO₂ absorption – though 100% capture was found to not be achievable.

Thermal reclaiming of the solvent was a large focus for Stavros’ talk, with the model prepared in ASPEN using pilot-scale data and operating at one- or two-stage reclamation for MEA, using HEEDA as a thermal proxy. The findings that solvent recovery could reach up to 97% for one-stage, with lower degradation at two-stage, alongside the fact that the additional electricity loss from adding reclaiming was only 0.8%, show promise that CO₂ capture technologies can be highly efficient without dramatically reducing plant efficiency, though this work is still limited by the bounds of the model and capabilities of the modelling software. A concluding look at the techno-economics of this work determines that once the capital expenditure of the systems is established (the largest cost driver), achieving 100% capture is economically viable, assuming electricity prices are lowered while carbon prices rise. Stavros provided a detailed overview of the challenge of achieving high capture rates, but demonstrated the work being done to ready the technology for large-scale deployment.

Following Stavros, we heard from Daniel Mullen from SSE Thermal, who joined us online and delivered an insightful talk on “Delivering Flexible, Low Carbon & Dispatchable Power”. Daniel opened his talk with a stark reminder on the importance of conditional nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and net-zero pledges on limiting global warming to below a specified temperature limit.

He first discussed the importance of understanding the effects of carbon capture storage plants on thermal power station operation, the results of which are soon to be published. Key insights from the study were shared, including the challenges of dynamic operation and flexibility between the thermal power plant and the carbon capture plant and substantially increased cooling duty, to name a couple.

The effect of the net power output, the CO₂ capture capacity, and flue gas flow rate to the carbon capture plant (CCP) on the footprint of the CCP for various existing combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plants was shown, with all parameters increasing the footprint required. Finally, the CAPEX associated with the corresponding CO₂ capture rate was presented, showing the capital investment required for CCP integration with CCGT, highlighting the engineering and economic considerations that must be addressed before large-scale deployment of carbon capture at CCGT plants.

The third speaker was Jon Gibbins, UKCCSRC Director. His talk was about the high capture rates required for net zero and he shared his experiences from the COGENT project tests results from China. The three main principles of obtaining ultra-high capture rates are: produce the lowest possible lean loading without wasted energy; use the lean solvent flowrate which gives the optimum capture rate and rich loading; and operate the desorber and absorber independently for shorter intervals.

COGENT stands for Capture Operation with Greater Economy for Net-zero Targets which was run at Guangdong Carbon Capture Test Platform with the capacity of ~40 tCO₂/day. A visit was made in August 2024 to discuss the theory behind ultra-high CO₂ capture rates with the Heifang capture plant team and selection of appropriate reboiler based on the industrial standard for the commercial-scale plant. Initial testing in 2024 confirmed the principles of desorber and absorber control at high capture rates and demonstrated 98 % capture rates with low reboiler energy, however, the performance was limited by the desorber pressure of about 1.9 bara. In the recent continuous 75-hour test runs at a desorber pressure of 2.4 bara driving a lower lean loading at the inflection point with a capture rate of ~100 % of the fossil CO₂ while achieving reasonable specific reboiler duty. The results also suggested appropriate control strategies to avoid delay in data signals. The talk was concluded with indicating the long-term plans for solvent management at reduced throughput, using realistic flue gas, continuous reclaiming, novel instrumentation and control, and ultra-low amine and degradation products.

Finally, all three speakers were invited to answer questions from the audience. The challenges facing future opportunities were answered by three speakers – pointing towards financial models that will be developed based around extremely high rates of availability and reliability. With the answer to the selection of novel solvents or MEA as solvent, Jon indicated that the MEA is a primary amine with two carbon atoms which can easily boil and when it degrades you will get polymers which can be easily reclaimed. This is not possible for secondary amines, because as a result of degradation there are nitrosamines which are unacceptable from a health risk point of view.

Rabiu Alibe Bukar (University of Birmingham) shares their takeaways from “Plenary 3 – “Moving Forward with CCS – what does success look like?” at the UKCCSRC Knowledge Exchange Conference 2025

The first presenter, David Parkin, from Progressive Energy, presented on the Hynet infrastructure. HyNet is a major UK low carbon initiative, the infrastructure consisting of the following. New and reused pipeline network transporting carbon dioxide to storage, facilities to capture CO2 emissions, Underground salt cavern hydrogen storage providing flexibility during periods of high energy demand, new pipeline network to transport hydrogen from production to use and low-carbon hydrogen production plants.

David highlighted the key success factors of HyNet:

• Delivering net zero CO2 for hard to decarbonise sectors (particularly cement and energy from waste, where CCS and hydrogen will be essential to meet 2050 targets)
• Revitalising industrial heartlands (green investment safeguarding jobs and generating 16,000 construction roles, 1,200 years of history)
• Enabling clean power through carbon capture and hydrogen (HyNet geological hydrogen storage is enabling low carbon electricity to be delivered on demand and is unmatched anywhere in the country)
• Stimulating growth (greenhouse gas removal and sustainable aviation fuels technologies are already being attracted in the Northwest)

The UK government made a financial commitment of £22 billion for carbon capture projects in Oct 2024. Also in April 2025, Eni and the UK Government reached financial close for Liverpool Bay CCS, a key storage project for HyNet. HyNet expands to 10 projects in August 2025 covering every aspect of CCS in the Northwest which is categorised into priority list and stand-by projects.

David emphasised that while HyNet represents a regional and national success story, no CO₂ has yet been abated. Moving from momentum to real delivery requires: taxpayer support (allocation of state resources is politics); accelerated timeline (we must become faster to remain relevant); and finally consistent development (we must support development costs in a more consistent way).

Gwenda McIntyre, from the Environment Agency (EA), delivered the second presentation on ‘What will help the move to sustainable deployment of CCUS techniques at scale’. Gwenda outlined the role of the EA in enabling sustainable deployment of CCUS technologies at scale, focusing on the agency’s regulatory functions, support mechanisms, and the role of researchers & technology developers and that of industry. The EA runs a dedicated programme to support the government net zero targets for HCCUS technologies. The HCCUS technologies have the potential to harm people and the environment, require energy, water & resources, reduce emissions to air & water & reduce waste.

Key EA actions to help scale CCUS sustainably include developing regulatory guidance. The UK regulators, produce guidance on emerging techniques by describing how to prevent or minimise the environmental impacts of HCCUS and develop with wide consultation & based focused evidence reviews on hydrogen production, with carbon capture & electrolysis of water & hydrogen combustion respectively.

Gwenda highlighted the agency’s ongoing work in collaboration with other UK regulators:

• Updating Good Environmental Techniques (GET) for CCUS to include industrial process emissions (e.g. cement, lime)
• Referencing good practice guidance such as that from the Energy Institute
• Continuing to gather and publish evidence on both amine and non-amine-based capture techniques
• Improving permitting processes, supporting compliance with guidance and technical assistance
• Engaging with stakeholders and researching cumulative impact risks
• Developing and validating tools such as an air dispersion modelling tool for emissions assessment
• Role of Industry: Industrial users deploying CCUS should:
  – Investigate how projects place new demands on local environmental capacity
  – Identify sector-specific guidance and cumulative risk factors
  – Address uncertainties in design at the application stage, including the risk of overdesign
  – Account for changes in effluent characteristics
  – Assess how capture plant integration affects overall site operations and performance

Finally, Dr. Daniel Mullen presented SSE Thermal’s strategic priorities and 2030 goals, highlighting the company’s role in delivering low-carbon flexible power and supporting the UK’s net zero transition.

The strategic priorities are: optimise operations (deliver the flexible energy required by a renewable s-led power system); accelerate decarbonisation (deliver the enduring low-carbon power generation required for net zero); and unlock hydrogen (support the accelerated development of a low carbon hydrogen ecosystem).

Reduced carbon emissions by >70% and on course to deliver SSE’s Net Zero by 2040 target, deliver extended operational and commercial contribution from existing assets, >2.5GW of low-carbon flexible generation, 150GWh of low-carbon H2 storage and >250MW of low-carbon H2 production.

Daniel stressed that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is critical to SSE’s strategy and to global climate mitigation, it limits the mean global temperature rise caused by human actions to manageable levels. The CCS deployment must be proportional to its positive societal impact, when compared to alternative decarbonisation pathways. CCS deployment should be safe for operators, public & process, timely to meet urgent climate goals, effective to reduce measurable emission reduction and repeatable.

Saleh Alfaleh (University of Edinburgh) shares their takeaways from “Parallel session 2c – CO₂ Transportation” at the UKCCSRC Knowledge Exchange Conference 2025

Joseph Hammond (University of Sheffield)

Joseph Hammond, University of Sheffield, presented his research on the spatial design of CCUS infrastructure networks. His work seeks to create methods that allow for quick yet accurate design of infrastructure that balances technical feasibility with broader stakeholder needs. Hammond’s approach focuses on three main components: mapping routes across complex geographical surfaces, detailing the engineering specifications of pipelines such as size, material and wall thickness, and simulating the decisions made by different groups, from industry and network planners to policymakers and the public.

He emphasised four key outcomes from this research. First, the move from planning individual corridors to designing entire networks, enabling a more realistic representation of infrastructure development. Second, an interactive design process that keeps the planner in the loop, allowing technical details to be adjusted and refined in real time. Third, a strong focus on future proofing, with the ability to simulate different scenarios and build flexibility into pipeline capacity. Finally, his approach highlights the importance of balancing technical, environmental, and social factors so that trade-offs between different priorities can be fully understood.

Shadab Alam (Teesside University)

While Hammond’s work focused on land-based infrastructure, Shadab Alam, from Teesside University, turned attention to the maritime sector with his project on decarbonising UK shipping. His research explores onboard methanol reforming with CO₂ capture and utilisation, offering an alternative pathway to reduce emissions from a sector that has traditionally relied on heavy fuel oil and marine gas oil. Alam described a concept in which e-methanol is produced at ports through the hydrogenation of captured CO₂ using green hydrogen. This fuel is then supplied to ships, where it replaces conventional fuels for propulsion. Onboard, the e-methanol is reformed, and the resulting CO₂ is captured and stored in dual-purpose ISO tanks that can carry both e-methanol and liquefied CO₂.

Case studies on two routes, Esbjerg–Immingham and Larne–Liverpool, demonstrated the potential of this system. Results indicated that the approach could achieve a net electrical efficiency of 28.4 per cent (22.2 per cent overall from green hydrogen to propulsion), though significant onboard CO₂ storage capacity would be required. Alam also described the design of a methanol–CO₂ heat exchanger, which enables efficient CO₂ liquefaction and heat recovery. Ongoing pre-commercial trials are testing the concept further, with future research focusing on dynamic voyage modelling and detailed techno-economic analysis to assess how the system could scale up.

Dimitrios Sykas (University of Strathclyde)

A different aspect of maritime decarbonisation was explored by Dimitrios Sykas, from the University of Strathclyde, who presented both his involvement in the Green Marine Project and his PhD research. He began by outlining the advantages and disadvantages of pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxy-fuel CO₂ capture technologies, noting that post-combustion capture has the advantage of being compatible with current marine engines without major modifications. The Green Marine Project is investigating the potential of carbon capture through membrane separation and has already completed lab-scale testing. Land-based integrated testing is expected to follow in the coming months. However, Sykas also highlighted challenges, including limited stakeholder experience with maritime practices, the complexity of regulatory compliance, and the logistical difficulties of installing and removing equipment while keeping vessels in operation.

Alongside this project, Sykas is conducting doctoral research on cryogenic distillation as a method for onboard CO₂capture. His work involves modelling systems for different vessel types, such as crude oil carriers, bulk carriers, Ro-Pax ships and LNG/LPG carriers. Cryogenic distillation could offer several advantages over other capture methods, including the ability to store CO₂ in solid form, reduced energy demand, and simpler equipment without the need for chemical reagents. Sykas has been modelling the thermophysical behaviour of CO₂–N₂–O₂ mixtures and simulating the de-sublimation of CO₂ from flue gases to understand how this approach could be applied in practice. He concluded that onboard CO₂ capture is a vital tool for reducing maritime greenhouse gas emissions, and that progress in land-based capture technologies can provide important lessons for the maritime sector.

Muyang Chen (Swansea University) shares their takeaways from “Parallel session 2b – CO₂ Storage” at the UKCCSRC Knowledge Exchange Conference 2025

Ensuring Long-Term Safety in Storage Procedure

At the recently concluded UKCCSRC Knowledge Exchange Conference 2025, the long-term safety of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology emerged as a central focus. Stephen Heath, Farshad Jafarizadeh and Simon Gregory, from chemical, geophysical, and microbiological dimensions respectively, systematically articulated the potential risks across the entire CCS value chain and presented their innovative, interdisciplinary solutions, collectively providing robust support for the safety and reliability of large-scale geological sequestration projects.

Exploring Production Chemistry Risks and Mitigation Strategies for Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS)

Stephen Heath’s session introduced the critical role of “Production Chemistry” in CO₂ injection and long-term storage processes. This discipline, originally applied in oil and gas extraction and processing to manage and mitigate chemical issues such as corrosion and scaling, is equally applicable to the geological sequestration phase of CCUS (Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage) technology. Heath emphasized that CO₂ injection and storage presents not merely physical challenges but also complex chemical and biological risks, primarily encompassing corrosion, scaling, hydrate formation, and microbial activity.

Regarding corrosion, CO₂ reacts with water to form acidic solutions, corroding metallic wellbores, cement, and reservoir minerals. The co-injection of impurities like NO₂ and SO₂ can exacerbate this degradation, leading to compromisedwellbore integrity and potential CO₂ leakage. Mitigation strategies include selecting corrosion-resistant materials (e.g., corrosion-resistant alloys, CO₂-resistant cement), utilizing models to predict corrosion rates, and injecting chemical inhibitors.

Microbial activity poses risks closely linked to corrosion: microbes can proliferate in wellbores and reservoirs, forming biofilms that accelerate corrosion by producing H₂S. They can also induce mineral dissolution or biomineralization. Solutions involve employing corrosion-resistant materials, adding biocides or H₂S scavengers, and, under controlled conditions, leveraging microbially induced precipitation to enhance sealing.

The risks associated with scaling and hydrates primarily involve flow assurance disruption due to blockage. Scaling arises from salt precipitation or carbonate deposition (e.g. halite or calcium carbonate) after CO₂ injection, obstructing wellbore pores; however, precise control of deposition location can also enhance fracture sealing and reinforcement. Hydrates are ice-like solids formed by CO₂ and water under high-pressure, low-temperature conditions. Uncontrolled formation can block wellbores, but if managed appropriately during capture and separation, hydrate formation can aid CO₂ separation and purification.

Finally, Heath concluded that mitigating these risks requires an integrated approach utilising chemical modelling, material science, chemical additives, and biological control. This not only prevents corrosion, blockage, and leakage but also can proactively enhance storage effectiveness through controlled mineralization or hydrate formation, thereby improving the long-term safety and efficiency of CO₂ injection and storage.

Time-Shift Detectability for Monitoring Fault Reactivation and Microseismicity During CO₂ Injection

Farshad Jafarizadeh’s research also focuses on enhancing the long-term safety of CCS projects, specifically targeting risks associated with fault reactivation and induced microseismicity triggered by CO₂ injection, with the aim of achieving effective monitoring and early warning. In his presentation, he detailed an analysis method based on 4D seismic data for assessing “time-shift detectability”.

The core innovation lies in the ingenious combination of the classic Geertsma and Okada geophysical models to meticulously deconstruct complex subsurface signals. By separating and integrating the signals from these two models, he was able to identify unique time-shift signal characteristics indicative of fault reactivation. This distinct feature allows researchers to effectively differentiate fault reactivation phenomena from mere pressure signals.

He further investigated the method’s detectability across various monitoring equipment and event magnitudes. Results indicate that optimal monitoring equipment (PRM) can detect time shifts of approximately 0.06 milliseconds, which, according to model calculations, corresponds to the detection of seismic events with a magnitude of 2.65 or greater.

The method’s effectiveness was validated through analysis of real-world field cases, including Aneth and Ekofisk oil fields:

• In a microseismic case from the Aneth field, research showed that while individual microseismic events might not be independently detectable, the accumulated signals from a microseismic cloud formed by numerous events could be captured.
• In a genuine strong seismic event at the Ekofisk field, actual fault reactivation produced a ‘+0.31 millisecond time-shift’ signal, which was significantly larger than the instrument’s detection limit, strongly demonstrating the practical applicability of this technology.

The UK subsurface microbial limits database: a screening tool for safe geological storage

Simon Gregory presented a systematic, data-driven framework and its implementing tool for microbial risk assessment. His work quantifies the limits of deep subsurface microbial activity, specifically assessing the impact of key physicochemical parameters (e.g., temperature, salinity, pH, pressure, permeability, porosity, and sulphate concentration) on microbial activity within deep subsurface CO₂ and H₂ storage environments. It also established clear high, medium, and low-risk thresholds for microbial activity under these parameters. This advancement transitions microbial risk assessment from qualitative understanding to a quantitative one. Furthermore, this tool features a user-friendly interactive database interface, enabling non-microbiologists, such as engineers and geoscientists, to rapidly and intuitively assess microbial risks at specific subsurface storage sites, thereby supporting decision-making.

Overall Conclusion

In summary, these three closely interconnected presentations at the conference clearly demonstrated that ensuring the long-term safety of CCS projects is a systematic engineering endeavor requiring the integration of knowledge from production chemistry, geophysics, and microbiology. From preventing well-bore corrosion and providing early warning for fault reactivation to quantitatively assessing microbial risks, each technological advancement lays a solid cornerstone for the promise of secure CO₂ sequestration.

Haolin Ju (University of Birmingham) share their takeaways from “Parallel session 2a – CO₂ Capture” at the UKCCSRC Knowledge Exchange Conference 2025

This session of UKCCSRC Knowledge Exchange Conference chaired by Prof. Mathieu Lucquiaud from University of Sheffield was kicked off with updates on carbon capture.

First, Ronak Mistry from Greenovate Solutions introduced Cross Flow + Co-Current Flow Gas-Liq. Contactor for CO2 Capture.

The presentation provided a comprehensive overview of the TubeCCU technology, a modular carbon capture solution tailored for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) across India and Southeast Asia. SMEs collectively contribute significantly to industrial CO2 emissions but lack access to affordable, efficient capture technologies due to high capital expenditure (45%), high energy requirements (25%), and limited technical capacity (20%).

The TubeCCU system integrates capture, purification, compression, and storage into a compact, modular design powered by industrial waste heat, minimising additional energy demand. Pilot studies demonstrated 90% CO2 removal efficiency at an energy consumption of just 2.6 GJ/tCO2, far lower than conventional processes, thereby reducing operating costs and environmental impact. The distributed deployment model links multiple SME units to centralised processing hubs, enabling shared infrastructure, logistics optimisation, and the development of local liquid CO2 (LCO2) supply chains, potentially replacing expensive imports.

Planned deployments include 5–50 TPD demonstration facilities in India and Singapore, with the ambitious goal of achieving 80% emissions reduction across SMEs by 2030 and full-scale industrial rollout by 2026. Beyond environmental benefits, the technology offers substantial economic gains, with Singapore alone projected to save 12 million SGD annually by substituting domestic LCO₂ production for imports.

The presentation concluded by emphasising TubeCCU’s scalability, energy efficiency, and cost-effectiveness, positioning it as a transformative solution for decarbonising SMEs while supporting economic development and industrial sustainability in emerging economies.

Next, Dr Nejat Rahmanian, from the University of Bradford, talked about Integrated Carbon Capture and Aluminium Recovery: A Pathway to Net-Zero in Steel Industry.

This integrated approach emits 1.91 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of steel, contributing 7–9% of global CO2 emissions while producing large volumes of alkaline steel slag.

The proposed Indirect Mineral Carbonation (IMC) process employs a pH-Swing methodology combining acid leaching, impurity removal, CO₂ absorption, and carbonation to produce high-purity calcium carbonate (CaCO₃) while recovering valuable metals like aluminium. A Design of Experiments (DoE) approach tested acid type, concentration, temperature, and reaction time across 150 experiments, with TGA, XRD, SEM analyses confirming mineralogical changes and CO2 sequestration performance.

Results demonstrated >99% calcium leaching efficiency, significant aluminium recovery, and successful production of CaCO3 under optimised conditions. The IMC process thus offers dual environmental benefits: greenhouse gas mitigation and waste valorization.
Future work will focus on continuous process optimization, techno-economic assessment, and industrial-scale deployment, positioning IMC as a promising technology for low-carbon steel production and circular economy integration.

Last, Dr. Jasper Wong from Airhive talked about Airhive’s Direct Air Capture (DAC) Demonstration at Deep Sky Alpha, which focused on its low-cost Direct Air Capture (DAC) technology featuring a fluidized-bed carbonator, proprietary solid sorbents, and renewable-compatible heat recovery. The design emphasizes energy efficiency, modular scalability, and economic viability, enabling incremental deployment to reduce investment risks.

The first 1,000 tCO₂/year demonstration plant, Storm One, will launch in Canada by 2025. Pilot studies achieved high CO₂ removal efficiency at low energy intensity, though current costs remain around $468 per tonne CO₂.

Future plans include a 1-ktpa demonstration facility in Barcelona (2026), followed by 10-ktpa and 50–100-ktpa commercial plants in Canada and the Asia-Pacific region (2027–2028). The ongoing Series A funding round aims to finance project construction and commercialization efforts, targeting $4–6 million annual recurring revenue (ARR) by 2026 through industrial deployment and carbon credit markets.

Airhive envisions its DAC system as a scalable, renewable-integrated solution for industrial decarbonisation, bridging the gap between pilot validation and commercial-scale CO₂ removal.

Saheed Bello (University of Cambridge) shares their takeaways from “Parallel 1c: Public Perception Policy” at the UKCCSRC Knowledge Exchange Conference 2025

The relevance of public acceptance and policy in supporting rapid deployment of CCUS technology remains a critical aspect of the whole CCUS value chain. Three interesting papers related to public acceptance and policy of CCUS were presented by competent experts from internationally reputable UK Universities during the UKCCSRC conference in the concurrent afternoon session of first day of the conference. Dr Ruissein Mahon, from Robert Gordon University, presented her research on how derisking carbon storage projects influence public perception. Another public acceptance research on CCUS was presented by Dr Peipei Chen, from the University of Cambridge, whose research conducted a multi-country survey across Europe to exploring public acceptance of CCUS and green industrial clusters. On the other hand, Dr Jen Roberts, from the University of Strathclyde, took another dimension of existing research protocols through her research presenting on how CCS is growth modelled in climate mitigation pathways. These fascinating research presentations greenify the Conference in supporting CCUS technology innovation research for designing appropriate social license to operate CCUS.

The session began with an insightful presentation by Dr Ruissein, who shared her research on how de-risking carbon storage projects can influence public perception and acceptance. Her work investigates the relationship between perceived project risks—such as environmental, health, and economic concerns—and levels of public support for carbon storage initiatives.

She argued that technical and financial de-risking of projects not only reduces real operational challenges but also enhances transparency and trust among stakeholders. By proactively addressing uncertainties and potential failure points, developers can foster greater community confidence. Dr Ruissein highlighted that clear communication, robust environmental monitoring, and transparent risk management strategies are key tools in gaining and maintaining public approval. Her work offers practical insights into how government and industry can collaborate to build and sustain public trust in CCUS projects.

The second presentation, delivered by Dr Peipei, brought a broader international perspective by exploring public acceptance of CCUS and green industrial clusters across multiple European countries. Drawing on an extensive multi-country survey, Dr Peipei examined public attitudes towards industrial decarbonisation and carbon capture in different cultural and political contexts.

Her research revealed a generally positive disposition toward CCUS, especially when it is positioned within a broader narrative of green industrial transformation and economic renewal. However, she also noted significant variation in acceptance levels depending on national context, perceived local benefits, trust in institutions, and understanding of the technology. Her work emphasizes the need for context-specific engagement strategies that account for regional differences in values, communication channels, and political landscapes. Importantly, Dr Peipei’s research supports the argument that effective public engagement must go beyond awareness campaigns and involve communities in co-designing solutions that align with their aspirations.

Taking a different analytical angle, Dr Jen presented on how CCS growth is modelled in climate mitigation pathways, focusing on how policy, technological readiness, and societal acceptance are represented (or underrepresented) in integrated assessment models (IAMs). Her research critically examined the assumptions underpinning CCS deployment scenarios in global and national climate models, questioning whether these models sufficiently account for real-world barriers such as social license, permitting delays, and infrastructure deployment challenges.

Dr Jen argued that while IAMs are invaluable for scenario planning, they often overlook crucial socio-political dynamics that can make or break CCUS projects in practice. Her presentation called for a more interdisciplinary approach in modelling efforts—one that integrates social science insights into traditionally techno-economic frameworks. This would result in more realistic and implementable pathways for achieving net-zero goals.

Together, these three presentations offered a comprehensive overview of the current research landscape on public acceptance and policy in CCUS. They revealed the interconnectedness between technical feasibility, social legitimacy, and political will, reinforcing the idea that technology alone cannot solve the climate crisis. Successful CCUS deployment depends on inclusive dialogue, transparent governance, and context-sensitive policy interventions.

These contributions were not only intellectually stimulating but also instrumental in “greenifying” the conference—broadening the narrative around CCUS innovation to include the human and institutional elements essential for sustainable deployment. As CCUS continues to gain momentum globally, the research presented in this session provides valuable guidance for policymakers, industry leaders, and researchers working to ensure that CCUS projects earn and retain a social license to operate.

The UK Carbon Capture and Storage Research Community (UKCCSRC) is supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) as part of the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Energy Programme.

The mission of the UKCCSRC is to ensure that carbon capture and storage (CCS) plays an effective role in helping the UK achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

• Our People
• Our Partners
• Members Directory
• Jobs and Opportunities
• Systems, policy and public perception
• Disclaimer and Terms of Use
• Cookie Policy

Location

D03 Ella Armitage Building
University of Sheffield
40 Leavygreave Road
Sheffield
S3 7RD
UK

Social

• 

Copyright UKCCSRC - 2012 / 2026