[MUSIC] Hello, and welcome to this podcast from the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. [MUSIC] Hello and welcome to a new episode of the OAS podcast series, I'm your host Hassan Muslimani. I lead the Carbon Management Research at OAS. And my guest today is David Phillips, who is a visiting researcher here at the Institute, and has recently contributed an article to the Oxford Energy Forum, or OEF. OEF is OAS is quarterly journal, which is focused on specific and timely energy and climate-related issues. This issue specifically was focused on different aspects of carbon management, and David's article discussed carbon capture in storage or CCS, specifically the costs of the technology, which is a topic of this episode. CCS has long been described as essential to reaching net zero, yet for years it has struggled to move beyond pilot projects and policy promises. Now, according to David's article, which is titled the deployment game, how CCS is preparing to scale, we may be entering a decisive phase. That is because global capture capacity today stands at roughly 64 million tons per year, but announced projects could push that figure to above 300 million tons by 2030. Now, that sounds transformative, yet 75% of that pipeline is not under construction, and roughly half is not even financed. So what changes the equation? David argues that three forces could unlock scale. First, significant lowering of capital costs through modular design and learning curves. Second, new revenue streams from engineered carbon removals. And third, integrated developer models that would combine technology, financing, and risk management. The question is whether this is finally the moment where CCS moves from promised industrial reality. Or whether we're still early in the first half of what he calls the deployment game. Today, we'll be unpacking that, but before doing so and without further ado, I would like to welcome my guest David. Welcome to the podcast series. Thank you. I sang great to join you. David, you described the industry as a few minutes into the first half of the deployment game. What convinces you that this time is different from the stall CCS cycle of the early 20 teens. It's a good way to start. I think if you look at the last 15 years or so, there's quite a difference in the mix and approach of the cycle, as you said in the first part of the last decade and where we are now. I think if you look at the last cycle from sort of 2010 onwards, there was a very clear focus on coal-fired power and gas-sweaning or gas processing. There were a number of projects that were on the slate then. They were all late, quite a lot were delayed and never done. And the actual ones did go ahead and ended up having certainly been over budget and so on. So it was a very, very, I would say, power generation, in particular to coal and gas generation-focused cycle. What we've seen in the current cycle, the one right now, which really kicked off, I would say, in the late 20 teens, is a focus on industrial decarbonisation. Now it also includes decarbonising our generation where relevant, where appropriate. But what's different this time is that it's driven by a strategic focus on achieving industrial decarbonisation, achieving net zero. It includes cement, it includes waste energy, it includes carbon paper, many other industries across the patch. And it's really all about having a decarbonised industrial base rather than a rather a more narrow focus. And behind it all is that focus on reaching net zero. So as I mentioned earlier, most announced projects aren't under construction and a big number isn't even financed. What is the single biggest bottleneck between announcement and execution? Well, the single biggest issue is getting the financial backing to enable a company, the owner of the emitting assets, to take its final investment decision. If you look at what's gone ahead so far, it's really been a mixture of subsidies from government, especially in Europe, and also some tax credit structures like you've seen in the US with 45Q. So a mixture of that subsidy support, corporate balance sheets, and in a few cases, help from carbon removals long-term contracts, which enable the financing to be done as a lower risk level. And also in the UK in particular, some appearance of debt and the debt to particularly manage to appear in the UK because the funding structures, the business models have had a good balance of risk across the value chain that has enabled the financing machine to give that whole value chain some support. So the single biggest bottleneck really is the availability of finance. And it's not that the money isn't there, far from it. If you look at the very early stage in the whole CCS value chain, let's say the VC and the NeuroTechnology end, activity is less than it was, but it's still pretty active. If you look at the very far end where you've seen projects like UK for instance, and elsewhere, there is support. You've seen a Lackarock GIP take half ownership of the EMIS CCS business. There's good interest at the big end where you already have projects that are moving in the middle, going from, as you said, going from announcing to actually deploy, that's where the challenge is. And it's not a challenge of lack of funds. It's a challenge of sharing out the risk, understanding the risk exposure as always with finance. It's volatility. If volatility is very high, someone will want to have a very high return to offset that risk. And that's been the challenge. It's been to bring down the volatility around business conditions, business models, exposure to carbon prices for instance, and so on. It's that area, bringing that risk down, it's being key. And you've seen a few examples now, which is very helpful. I guess to go through some of the points that you discussed in your article. And my major theme was that design one built many modular approach for non-engineers and hour listeners. Why does modularization reduce capital costs by your estimate is 15 to 25 percent? What are the practical limits of that strategy? But before we go into that, I do want to know that you took part in our carbon management conference in Oxford a few weeks ago. And this was a major theme as well. Can you explain what actually goes into capital costs? Yes, absolutely. This is a big question. We had some great detailed discussions at the carbon management day, I remember. I think with the capital cost, there are a number of ways to break it down simply. I mean, if you just look at the capex, the capital cost side, there are there's one piece which will relate to the capture technology itself. And there's one piece that will relate to the rest of the assets you actually put on the ground. Because around the, around your any carbon capture plant, whatever technology is, there will be some level of pre-treatment before the flu gas, before the emissions go into the carbon capture plant. And then there's also post-treatment, liquid faction to change the CO2 into a liquid, maybe some temporary storage. And that all adds up. And if you just look at the capital costs of those two together, depending on technology and design and so on, the balance of plant could be 30%, 40%, or even a half of the overall cost. So that, the balance of plant piece, which is normally pretty much off the shelf kit that is assembled around the, maybe the newer technology and the actual capture unit itself can be a very important part. When you look at the overall cost, and this is the all-in, what you would call levelized cost, that you would perhaps use to measure your project economics versus a carbon price or something else like that over time. The capex piece could be around the quarter, maybe a third, maybe similar for Opex, so the operating cost, the energy needs, and the remainder, which depends a bit where you are and whether your storage is offshore, a little bit more high price or onshore, like it is in many projects in North America, a bit cheaper, but that could be anywhere between a third and a half as well. So very, so very crudely, you could end up with one third of the overall cost from the capex, including the famous balance of plant comment, one third from Opex, including energy cost, and also one third, maybe a bit more from the transport and storage. Your question around modularization, so there are two main parts to this. The biggest part is you can effectively remove a lot or reduce rather a lot of the construction risk that you would normally price in to the cost of a unit that you actually have to build on site. So if you can, if you can build the units off site where there's a lot more room and you can control the conditions, it's on, perhaps on a specific fabrication yard set up with someone in the supply chain, can build the units there from a set design. So it's a proper Macarno building, it's a set design, no bespoke angles. You move that into the site where you're going to put it next to the, for instance, the cement plant or the waste of energy plants. And when you build it, what you're willing to do is you're cooking it up. There's a preset template, you're almost slotting things in IKEA style and both and linking them together. And hopefully, with design currently, that's your modular unit. So what you take out of that equation is the additional construction risk that someone else would have to price in if it was built on the site piece by piece or stick built, as they say. The other part is that you could just design once and design one build many because this design once, the actual design time, man hours and so on, the engineering side of it is simpler because it's a set design. So when you add it up and it depends, it's a very, very rough rule of thumb, but you, you can certainly save, as you mentioned, between 15, 20, 25%, if you were to compare completely non-modular to modular, the limits. And it's a good question. The limits, of course, is how much, how much homework have you done? If you've got, if you just have one modular size, that's all you can do. And maybe you can deliver a few of them, but maybe, you know, if you want to deliver and make a scale project, you have to go back to a bespoke route if you don't have one that's big enough. So there is, there are limits in terms of how
much time you can spend in advance to actually set up the modular size and decide what size and everything else. The other side of it is also for a real mega scale project and you know the one of the ones in the UK is two million tons per year name plates run on a dispatchable mode. Some of the ones in the US have been talked about and underlined talked about have been of that sort of two or three million maybe more tons per year and very very large scale. When you get to that sort of scale sometimes you are needing a particular bespoke size of compressors and so on to work with it given it so big. That's when it becomes a bit harder to have a modular size but if you just look at the market's done you've seen a number of modular units in that sort of 100,000, 200,000 and 400,000 tons per year CO2 capture range and some of them are already being installed in Europe as you know with in Netherlands and Denmark. You suggest that capture costs can actually fall by 40% or even more as the industry amateurs. What assumptions would have to hold true for CCS to follow a learning curve similar to say wind or LNG? Well you've chosen two very different examples there. I suspect deliberately. So the wind side wind is typical very high cap X but like many many renewables the operating cost is pretty low. So if you're looking us to house reduce the cost then making it making a capital cost cheaper is going to have a huge effect. It has its of course location. LNG is a bit more like a classic large process plant. There's a big issue around engine consumption, big issue around construction risk also sizing and I think with LNG what you did see quite nicely over and it took some 15 years or so to see this come through. Tick sometime with big capital projects but building several of the same thing, several of the same size. LNG moved to having particular size trains as they call it units. The handle for instance 1 million tons per year of LNG. So the question is if you have a late and I'm making numbers up very simply here deliberately. If you have a 4 million tumbia plant do you have a 4 million tumbia train which you have to go and design or do you say can I have four of the 1 million tumbia trains instead? So that enables the industry and the construction people and the technology suppliers to practice the do it a few times and just like the 10 to 10 time you assemble your Ikea wardrobe hopefully you're getting better at it. So the actual delivered cost improves as you build the same unit and more than once even when it's as complex as a LNG train. Between the two CZS and there are some aspects that you could compare to the wind side. I'm sure we'll probably cover this in a moment but the technology side is interesting there. I mean there are different technologies that can capture CO2 that could see let's say a change in the LNG cost and you can sell them as well as capital cost. LNG yeah I mean I think the main learning curve that would compare with that is just to build a few which is why it's so important why one of the let's say results for CZS that could be very favorable is to just do a few projects so we can actually see the industry if you like rehearse and practice and get better at building these particular facilities. Now that we're talking about technology much of capture technology today relies on solvent chemistry which is as we know energy intensive. You highlight solid sorbans like metal organic frameworks or mofs. What makes these materials potentially transformative and what technical issues do you see existing before they can become mainstream? Well I mean the sort of the you you hinted at one comment already around solvents in the knee quadrilovenergy I mean the process solvents are very good at catching CO2 the downside of that or the other side of the coin is that solvents and therefore need quite a lot of energy to to release the CO2 after they react to it after they've caught it if you like. That's the that's the main hurdle. Now the race the race that tried to reduce that through recycling waste heat and so on. The other technologies have I mean this is not solvents you know are very well known they've been used for for decades and to capture CO2. The next generation of materials and solvents by the way. So there are other solvents that could be perhaps water lean so there's there's there's if you like it's more solvent than water and current solvents are rather the other way around or you have solid materials. It's a solid solvents that rather than reacting with the CO2 they effectively hold it in a cage structure they they just attract it rather than react with it. That creates challenges in terms of selectivity but it makes it much easier to or much lower energy requirements to release the CO2 after you've you've absorbed it. So if you like when you look at the technology developments going forward the what we're probably looking at with the solid solvent side is to have a much lower regeneration energy which brings the op-x down quite a lot for the whole process. Also this is not so much the case with the solvents that are used now because the the companies who are working in this space have done a lot of work around making them relatively safe and low emission and long lasting and so on but on paper solvents do have emissions that you have to account for have to show that you can control. When you look at solid solvents and they by definition don't have that. When you look at what's that old old engineering analogy you can you can make something cheaper better and safer but not not all three at the same time. I think the solvents particularly you would you would say well the first first attempt it should be cheaper to use because you have a lower op-x and it should be safer because you haven't got the emissions. So there are you know that there are many approaches coming in and that's just one area. I mean we don't we'll go into all this right now I'm sure but you have to think about membranes, pyrogenics, other types of solvents aren't organic like a potassium carbonate so there are lots of other routes out there that are all chasing the same aim of lower cost and so on. Technical hurdles it's just getting done. I mean the amount of data that's been collected around a number of the other solvents and especially around the solid solvents is quite substantial so they work. I mean the issue given it maybe is you know it's a tough area to look at low levels of CO2 concentration like natural gas power for instance more 4, 5% CO2 in the flu gas anything north of 10 anything double digit is good territory for pretty much any technology and there's a lot of data that shows this stuff but it's just the matter of getting it done an industrial scale seeing you know getting the real proof that it works with that scale and it's also reliable. Very interesting you also discuss what is called the rule of six-devits that larger process plans become disproportionately cheaper for unit of capacity. How important is scale in making CCS competitive? My question is specifically concerning transport and storage. Yeah well I think that they're pretty two areas really I think about I mean from a very high level the first one is balance of plant which we talked about earlier and the second one is transport and storage as you said. Transport and storage that the TNS whether it's a pipeline or a ship or something else you know surprise surprise it is cheaper a unit if it's done on a larger scale storage side and what you're seeing move ahead in Europe already is the first phases of certain storage projects. You've seen that the ones that have moved forward with a smaller first phase they have a certain like more than like for instance have a certain ambition which has already been FID to a phase two to be much larger and stepping up from 1.5 to 5 billion tons per year of storage that clearly has a transformational effect on the cost but cost per time versus the phase one with the phase two. You look at projects in in offshore Netherlands I mean the both us aromists and so on you know that those costs are more in the order of 40 or 50 euros a ton which could be double that if you think about some earlier phase far offshore like more than like for instance you came maybe a somewhere in between but all those the TNS side it very simply the bigger it is more likely the cheaper per turn you will you will have as an emitter to deal with. So that's a very simple scale scale comment and it's an infrastructure scale type arrangement. You bounce a plant that's mentioned a little bit about this earlier it's the scale aspect around balance of plant it's a lot of maybe there's less learning curve in terms of the actual units and components because they're all well-known compressor and the perfection vowels and pipes and so on but the bigger that is you go into a classic process plant relationship where most likely we'll see even with benefits from having something that's larger let's say twice as big than something that's a bit smaller. That's a very very simple if you like the classic scale benefit is most obvious in a balance of plant side. Follow up on an earlier comment that you made on costs being dependent on where in the world you are TNS can account for about half the total value chain cost in Europe and the UK so how much does geography as you pointed out onshore versus offshore storage determine whether a CCS project makes economic sense. Well well it's a that's a real rabbit hole. There's a many well having something onshore is potentially transformational because it's so much cheaper very simply if it's near you it's an issue of how far you are so the transport side how far you from the store and also is the store in the middle of the North Sea or middle of the US Gulf or middle of the UK North Sea or something or is it only you know on land 20 30 miles away the spread of cost is quite enormous. I mean from some of the earlier phase offshore projects in Europe you've talked as I mentioned before you're talking sort of low triple digit euros per tonne to transport and store from let's say that you know northern Europe land mass up to up to the North Sea somewhere. Now that will come down as you move to phase two and larger larger scale future phases but for [BLANK_AUDIO]
right now, it's a fairly big number. And if you have that in your equation, then maybe the TNS cost could be half the overall project cost, your level wise cost. If you're on shore, and this is why there was this, and clearly the policy landscape has changed a bit in the US somewhat, and say the least in the last year. But before that, this is why there was such excitement in the US around CCS, because there's a lot of onshore storage potential. A lot of it also is near, let's say, within 50 miles, maybe less in some cases, of the actual emitting assets. And when you have the onshore side, and not too far away, then you're talking more like 25, 30, 35 dollars a ton. So you could have a third of the cost for your TNS, if you're lucky, and onshore versus low triple digit euros per ton, if you're a bit further away, and you're dealing with offshore in an earlier phase. And that's at a point where CCS is still a bit on the expensive side. And as we discussed in every single question almost, how do you bring the cost down? That is important. It's also why you're seeing some interest now early days, but why you're seeing some interest in looking at what onshore potential that could be in Europe, whether it's Eastern Europe, some investigations there, also in Denmark. It brings up a whole list of other questions around whether it's near people, and what the risk is, and all that sort of thing. That's a different discussion. But potentially, it can be a big help if you have some onshore, store potential. Moving away from TNS, it seems everyone these days is talking about the rise of engineered carbon removals or CDRs, the new kid on the block basically, and how they can potentially help lower the costs of CCS, traditional CCS. And I guess this is CDR 101. Why are removals economically different from your traditional point source carbon capture? And why are corporate buyers like Microsoft willing to sign long-term contracts? Well, it's a good question. I mean, I'll say it's the same as carbon capture, but the carbon you're capturing is biogenic. So you can work out a negative cycle. And I'm staying away from direct-take capture. That's a different, different story. But effectively, you have an industrial capture process. And the carbon that the CO2 is coming from a biological source like your burning a wood chipsource, your drawer, or your burning waste bar, and the public paper, and well, that's nothing. But that carbon has been originally captured by a tree. You're burning that, and therefore, and you're catching the CO2 and storing it. So net net through the whole cycle, you're effectively removing CO2. So that is, if you like, an engineered removal, as they say, a technical removal. Those are getting a good interest from industries where there aren't very many other options to reduce their CO2 footprint. So in the overall-- and you will see many of these long-term charts, many of the big charts and graphs that show progressions towards low carbon economy. There's a reduction piece. There's efficiency. There's renewables. And there's also carbon removal. And removal is just because there is-- effectively saying, there is a bit too much CO2. Therefore, we have to take some out. That's simple as that. It's pulling the plug on the bath story. So there's a certain scale of that. There are early movers. I mean, you mentioned buyers at Microsoft. I think the world would like to see-- the carbon removal world would like to see more buyers at Microsoft around. At the moment, Microsoft has been-- and this is a very well-known number-- a very dominant 78% of the market in the last few years with long-term contracts. These long-term contracts are having, have to say, super important. So Microsoft and their amazing role in helping push and accelerate the removal industry. Because those long-term contracts have a value of course. And it means that they are financial. So it really helps things move forward. That's a nice segue into my next question. As we know, these durable removals we're talking about are still very tiny compared to global emissions. Do you see the market genuinely scaling into a core industrial revenue stream? Or it's remaining a niche offset mechanism, which is the case today? Oh, good question. This is the tough one, because I think you can probably draw-- I don't think you can remain a niche. Will it remain a smaller part? I think there are many scenarios that you can see the importance and the value of CCS, whether it's honey, certainly people always point to all some slow project progress. But at some point, clearly it's needed. So in the next 10, 15, 20 years, you can point towards a certain slice of CCS related activity that's needed. Now, are there other removals and larger share of that or smaller share? It's a different-- there are many scenarios around you that you could talk about. But I think in terms of their importance, they have great importance, as I mentioned before, great importance in allowing, as they say, a revenue stack to be built, because CCS on industrial processes is a cost. It's like it's waste disposal. So if you have an option of saying, well, our waste disposal projects for CCS also includes this removals product that we can all-- if we stall in a secure subsurface reservoir, we can then sell removals from. That gives us an additional revenue size, which makes the economics better. Either it needs less government money or it needs another tool, which should be obviously be ideal. But yeah, I think there are certain industries where you can see that aren't very many other routes, for instance, long distance, long haul aviation. Obviously, the tech industry and its big build out towards needs decarbonized power for data centers and so on, there are many angles from those industries that are clearly going to be in need of some sort of a reasonable product. I think-- yeah, so I think that there'll be a certain-- there'll be a very important revenue stream for industrial decarbonization, for sure. I mean, haven't even mentioned other areas, like nature-based, like direct-take-action, and also direct-ocean capture, where you mess around with sea water, alkalinity, to see if you can remove sea water that way. Another big question marked that remains for both traditional CCS and removals is insurance. And that was a key theme that we discussed at length in the Oxford Carbon Management conference recently. On new insurance products, and we're talking about performance wraps, about carbon credit integrity protection, and so on, these are tools that improve bankability of projects. Are these genuinely moving or shifting investor confidence or do you see them more as still experimental? Oh, well, this is an important topic. And just looking around, your observation is from my experience in the last year, we really started to see insurance specialists show up at CCS conferences, including also our carbon management conference in the week. I think there is an incredibly important part of this, because across the whole value chain, you mentioned earlier on, what's one of the challenges? Is getting the finance? What's the challenge to finance? It's getting some type of volatility control, volatility offsets across all that complex cross value chain risk, across capture and transport and terminals and shipping and storage and so on. And all the various cross-risk and cross defaults and so on, to find a way to reduce that volatility around options or around the outcomes rather, is very important. And you're now seeing the UK has seen some good progress around insurance for any P and Northern Endurance partnership and also with high net. So it can be done. Now, of course, you can say, well, the UK had the help from a very good CFD style business model as well, and it also helped give some good support for the overall, let's say, reducing the overall risk for the project. So it wasn't just insurance that made it financeable, but it helped hugely. And I think you're seeing some-- there were some pieces of environmental insurance that could be adapted towards the storage side. There are-- and also the pipelines. Then you also have-- quite a-- I would say quite an exciting, but an interesting area around the new technology and which is how do you give performance guarantees for technologies that are new, that have not been built, or maybe only being built once or twice at a big scale. And those types of performance guarantees, let's say, giving you some insurance cover versus if your unit under the forms doesn't catch enough CO2, and you risk losing your government subsidy from month to so. That could be pretty serious. And that's certainly a short term risk you'd want to try and cover. And there are products now coming out that can look at that. So I think you-- I would say if you have a chance to go to CCS events the next one or two years, try and listen to a panel that talks about insurance in some way, because it's absolutely key to see how this whole value chain can start to go more, let's say, more repeatedly. I'd like to revisit one of the points that you made in the forum article. You advocated for, as I mentioned earlier, integrated developer model, which combines technology, financing, and project development or risk management. And we do see very different business models driving CCS deployment in different places in the world. Do you think that vertical integration is reducing risk or is it concentrating it? Whoa, well, I think, as I mentioned, one of the issues that this whole value chain has is there's a lot of cross value chain risk. When-- and the skills in that are all quite different. You know, subsurface versus pipelines and ships and versus the capture technology and versus also the emitter and whatever type of plan that is. If you can concentrate it on someone's desk, if you can get all that paperwork on the same desk in the company, that helps, actually, at this stage. That helps. And the CFO or the chief commercial officer on a certain company may find it a bit of a headache, but at least there's that understanding across all those areas in the same room on the same desk. And therefore, at this stage, I think having this integrated model could be very helpful, particularly understanding the, let's say, where are we going to be?
where the main known unknowns is most likely going to be with the newer parts of the system, which is probably the capture piece, and then also, let's say, the performance of the of the sub-surface storage with the technology around pipeline and being very well known, obviously. I think if you can have all that under the same umbrella, that does make the discussion quicker. It doesn't make a bad project good, but it can make a good project move more quickly, I think. So I can think, I think, certainly for a number of years, I think that integrated model could be very important. As we're coming to the end of the podcast, I have a very broad and forward-looking question. Let's fast forward a decade into 2035, nine years actually. What would success look like for CCS? Do you think it's going to be subsidy-free, industrial infrastructure, or do you think that public support will remain always a part of the equation? Yeah, this is a tough one. There's no question that, as I mentioned before, of a couple of times in a trivial way, CCS is waste disposal. And if there's waste disposal with a cherry on top, which is with a CDR side where you can actually get some revenues from it, there are certain areas of the industry where there is a revenue stack that could, if you start to bring the cost down as well, obviously, I help, that could actually make some money on its own and be self-sustaining. So there are, you know, where do you sell something about CDR? Also CCU. We haven't really discussed CCU very much, but if there's a use for the CO2 into a particular chemical product line or stainless fuels or something where there's a good enough market structure, that could also obviously help and be in love to make it self-sustaining as well. Industrial capture where it's not by a Gen X CO2, I think there's work to do, for you all right? I think the issue of subsidy support could be needed for some time. 2035, I mean, it's now less than 10 years away, so these things tend to come up a little bit quickly. It would be great if it was. I think to be honest, that the easiest answer is you and I and the whole industry can sit back and discuss cost and policy and CDRs and everything to account and stuff like that, but effectively, we need to find a way to make projects move forward in the next few years, so we see how they work. I think once we've actually done that, and once you've actually got some experience, then the question around when will this be subsidy free? When will it be self-sustaining? It becomes that much easier because I think, hopefully, we mentioned a lot of stuff on this scale and modularity and onshore storage and so on. Also, there's application of digital tools to really optimise the operational phase of work and so on. There's a very good understanding from the energy industry around some surface and how to make the storage piece safer and efficient and so on. I'm just going to do it a few more times and just to understand how things work, get more of a, let's say, predictable forward-facing view as to where costs and performance are going, but yeah, so I think the simplest answer, what a success it looked like, it's seeing a good number of projects across a number of industries and a number of geographies move forward, start up, and then work properly for a few years. I think that would really underpin perception, economics and the transparency of CCS. David, thank you very much for joining this discussion and for walking us through the evolving landscape of CCS, if I may. I guess what really comes through from this conversation for me is that CCS today is very different from the last cycle. The focus now is shifting towards the carbonising heavy industry and we know that financing is still a main bottleneck, but what I'm hearing from you is that it's not really about a lack of capital, it's about structuring projects in a way that reduces risk across the entire value chain. So the outlook is still challenging, but clearly moving in the right direction as more projects are coming online and the industry is learning by doing. I'd like to take this chance to thank our listeners for tuning in. If you'd like to explore this topic further, including David's article and many others on Carbon Management, then head over to the OAS website and on that note, we look forward to having you on future episodes and to leaving the CO2 safely where it belongs, which is underground. Thank you for listening to this podcast from the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. You can find other podcasts as well as our written research on our website at www.oxfordenergy.org. If you would like more details about our energy transition, gas, oil, electricity or China research programmes, then please contact us at
[email protected].
PodcastTranscript AI