Tag Archives: carbon emissions

Offshore Carbon Capture and Storage

If carbon capture technology is ever to be useful, there have to be places to store the captured carbon. One place is deep in the earth, in abandoned oil wells. We’re seeing somewhat more interest in carbon capture in maritime, and also in manufacturing areas. Maritime is more of an issue, because the captured carbon must be stored onboard, and offloaded periodically.

One option is to sell the compressed cold carbon to industrial users. But there’s not enough demand if most ships were producing captured carbon. Already, onshore carbon capture can supply a good deal of the commercial need for CO2.

Reuse of carbon in this way is simply circular; it does not actually remove carbon from the natural environment, it simply recycles it. And many onshore facilities like power plants and cement processes could rather easily capture their carbon emissions.

All this carbon can’t simply be recycled; there must be a place to put it. It’s odd that there has not been more investment in places to sequester the captured carbon.

That’s why the INEOS announcement in the article below is interesting. INEOS is an international chemical company with headquarters in many countries. (They also co-own and operate Manchester United, a Premier League football club).

They have designed a complete system to sequester the carbon in the North Sea, called Greensand. The full value chain will be established. The captured CO2 will come from Danish biomethane plants.

Once captured, CO2 is liquefied, delivered by truck to a dedicated CO2 terminal at Port Esbjerg, shipped aboard Carbon Destroyer 1, the EU’s first purpose-built CO2 carrier, and injected into the Nini West reservoir in the Danish part of the North Sea, a depleted oil field some 250 km offshore, approximately 1,800 m beneath the seabed.

Currently the project can store 400000 tonnes annually, but plans to expand to between 4 and 8 million tonnes annually.

There are still institutional barriers limiting capture of CO2 at scale — regulations, infrastructure, and investment. Since we’re not going green on energy anytime soon, it’s time to start investing big time in carbon capture — technology and infrastructure.

Logo of Splash247, featuring the word 'Splash' in bold black letters with a blue underline and '247.com' in smaller text.

Bojan Lepic September 18, 2026

https://splash247.com/ineos-opens-eus-first-full-scale-offshore-ccs-project

EU states agree to expand EV-charging station network

It’s clear that the EV ‘supply chain’ of charging stations has to expand to make EVs a success. So far, it takes longer to charge than to fill up with a liquid fuel, and the charging stations are not common enough. Couple that with a lack of standards for charging ‘nozzles’, and we see help is needed.

The European Union (EU) took a big step forward by passing a law that would greatly increase the number of EV charging stations. Every country in the EU now has to provide charging stations every 60km along roadways. Hydrogen stations also have to be provided every 200km. The number of stations is tied to the number of EVs sold in the countries.

By 2025, that would make about 600,000 charging stations in the EU, according to an estimate. There are 450,000 stations now. It’s not so many.

The new law is an example of how the EU leads the world in emissions control rules and intentions. Other nations need to step up.

By Jonathan Packroff | EURACTIV.de | translated by Daniel Eck

EU states agree to expand bloc’s EV-charging station network

Ship It Zero’s green shipping shaming

Ship It Zero is a collective of US environmental groups. It has designed a new scorecard, with separate metrics for shippers and ocean carriers, for decarbonization efforts.

Many shippers, such as Costco, scored very low. And shipping lines were also graded low. The exception was Scandinavian lines and shippers. Maersk was graded B; most would agree that Maersk has been trying very hard to make moves for decarbonization, and is probably the leading liner company in that regard. Ikea also got a good grade, still only a B+ at 89/100.

Naturally both shippers and carriers were outraged, and had all sorts of criticisms of the scorecard. Most of those mentioned in the second article were the usual protestations, which no longer carry much weight. It’s abundantly clear that most carriers and shippers are making only minimal changes in practice to decarbonize.

One of the silliest criticisms is to blame it on the IMO (International Maritime Organization), a UN consortium of countries making rules for shipping. With over 130 members, it’s a surprise they can agree on anything. To say we would do more if the rules were stricter is really nonsense. Companies could do something now.

Ship It Zero points out that few shippers are even quantifying Scope 3 emissions. These are downstream emissions created by the firm’s customers. You can read an extensive and defining discussion in the Supplement to the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard.

How could an ocean carrier account for the emissions created by its customers? According to the standard, it could look at how the containers or bulk cargoes were being handled and transported ashore once landed. Are the drayage firms using EVs? What is the power source of the trains? How about storage and pipeline operation, is there leakage, or is excessive carbon or greenhouse gas emission occurring from pumping mechanisms? The same would apply to delivery to the ship.

For instance, Scope 3 emissions would include the GHG emissions treated by the firms producing and selling the fuel for ships. Green fuel sources would get higher scores than conventionally produced bunker fuel. Similarly if LNG were used as fuel, Scope 3 methane emissions from the bunkering sites should be considered, as well as the Scope 1 emissions onboard from burning the fuel.

Retailers can evaluate the Scope 3 GHG emissions created by their suppliers. They can also estimate the Scope 3 carbon emissions from use of the products they sell. Ikea for instance has invested in reducing the weight and materials used in packaging products to lower the carbon impact. Other firms could do the analysis with their products.

So I’m with Ship It Zero when it comes to the score. We can easily debate whether the score is considering all the factors. But there is no question that both shippers and carriers can and should do more, and stop simply greenwashing emissions.

Seatrade logo

Nick Savvides | Aug 07, 2023

Shippers and carriers unite against Ship It Zero’s green shipping shaming

Seatrade logo

Nick Savvides | Aug 03, 2023

Container lines outshine shippers in environmental standings