The initial investment and operational costs for CCS are quite significant.

Now, over time, we expect the levelized cost of CCS to decline with additional deployment.

As we deploy more CCS around the world, we expect there to be some cost improvements.

In parallel, in many jurisdictions, we expect the cost of emitting CO2 to increase.

So the economics of CCS should become...

more attractive with time.

Carbon Sessions, today's carbon industry leaders.

Are you passionate about climate action and staying on top of the latest trends in the world of carbon capture, removal, and markets?

Then the Carbon Herald has you covered.

Every week we bring you the top news, breakthroughs, and insights from the world of carbon management, delivered straight to your inbox.

No fluff, no jargon, just the essential info you need to stay informed.

So whether you're a climate professional or just someone who cares, make sure you're subscribed.

Visit carbonherald .com and sign up today for our weekly newsletter.

Welcome to the Carbon Sessions podcast, where we speak to some of the leading figures in the emerging carbon industry.

Today, our guest is Jamie Burrows, head of CCUS at the International Accreditation Society, DNV.

Jamie, thank you for joining us today.

It's great to have you on the show, and I'm really excited to talk to you about all things carbon capture and storage.

But before we do, we usually start off by getting to know our guests a little bit better.

So please do tell us a bit about what you used to do before DNV and ultimately how you ended up in this space.

Well, Violet, thank you so much for inviting me to join the podcast.

I'm really excited to join you.

If I look back at my career, fundamentally, I graduated in mechanical engineering in London back in the year 2000.

I spent the early part of my career working as a combustion engineer.

So I was involved in the design of industrial combustion equipment, really using a wide range of fuels from conventional natural gas, light oils, heavy oils, right through to more exotic fuels, things like biogas and hydrogen.

I did a lot of work on emissions reduction and particularly low nitrogen oxide combustion, which at that time was really quite heavy emphasis within emissions regulations.

From combustion engineering, I eventually found my way to the oil and gas industry.

I worked for a UK -based engineering consultancy called GE.

And that was, for me, a really great place to learn about the oil and gas industry, how it works.

all of the different characteristics of the industry.

I had an opportunity to work with a number of the key players in the oil and gas industry, so BP, Shell, Chevron, etc.

And one of the projects that I was involved in there with that organization was an early UK CCS project called White Rose.

So we became involved in verifying the design of the pipeline for the White Rose project.

And really through performing that particular project, I became really interested in CCS.

I saw that the CCS industry could be a place where I could apply my knowledge of combustion engineering and the oil and gas industry itself.

I started to realize that actually it would be really interesting to be involved in that area.

The idea of helping the oil and gas industry to really move in a...

different direction and perhaps address some of the consequences of its activities was really very appealing to me.

I believe at that time, I still do, that the oil and gas industry has really got some of the most skilled engineers and technical capabilities.

So it was very attractive to move towards CCS.

In 2018, I joined an organization called the Global CCS Institute, which is really a prominent authority focused on moving CCS forwards.

I worked with a number of European governments and key industry players to help move CCS forwards.

I learned a lot about CCS economics and policy there.

And eventually I moved on to join DMV, where I currently work.

So I joined DMV in 2021.

For those that don't know DMV, DMV is a global company that specializes in risk and assurance.

It was established over 160 years ago.

It has around 15 ,000 employees.

It's present in more than 100 entrees.

And the organization's mission is really to protect life, property, and the environment.

And you can see that CCS very much fits in that context.

So I joined DMV in 2021 to work as part of what's called DMV's CCS Venture.

So that's a team of specialists that support DMV's CCS activities globally.

Today, I managed the CCS venture and act as the global segment lead for CCS within the NV, really helping to define and implement the NV strategy in the CCS space.

Excellent.

Thank you, Jamie.

Now, that puts you in an excellent position to comment on the current state of CCOS globally.

Where are we seeing the most momentum and where are perhaps the biggest gaps?

Fantastic.

Well, D &B recently published a report called the Energy Transitions Outlook CCS to 2050.

And in that particular report, we really examined how CCS is being deployed around the world.

And we put together some forecasts of exactly how much the technology will scale up.

A number of our different experts were involved in the development of that report.

We also used DMV's Energy Transitions Outlook exogenic model of the world's energy system.

So we modeled all of the world's energy system and how CCS would fit within them.

Fundamentally, we believe that CCS is at a turning point right now.

We forecast that in 2030, we will scale up to capture and restore around 210 million tons per annum of CO2.

So facilities won't operate at full capacity for a variety of operational reasons.

We think that there will be somewhere between 250 and 270 million tons per annum of operational CCS capacity.

We think the cumulative investment in the next five years will reach about 80 billion US dollars.

We think that North America and Europe will drive that near -term scaling up and account for more than two -thirds of the additional capacity.

We will see growth in other regions as well, but we think it will be led from North America and Europe, where there's strongest policy support.

Now, our capacity forecast in 2030...

is significantly less than what you will see in the project pipeline.

So we have allowed for projects being delayed.

We've allowed for some projects being canceled and not reaching final investment decision.

Notwithstanding, we do believe that we're at a turning point.

So why is that?

Well, fundamentally, there's a few reasons why we feel that the industry is at a turning point now.

The first relates to the project pipeline.

So today, we've got around 60...

million tons per annum of operational capacity.

There are more than 40 million tons per annum of capacity that's totally in construction.

There's never been more CCS projects in development than there are now.

The pipeline is strong.

I guess the second point here is around government commitments.

So governments around the world are increasingly recognizing that CCS is essential to their net zero commitments.

We've seen CCS reflected in various nationally determined contributions.

Likewise, we have seen targets introduced by different governments around the world.

I think a really good example of this is the EU's Net Zero Industry Act.

So that is fundamentally a legal mandate for 44 oil and gas companies to contribute to a collective target of 50 million tonnes per annum injection capacity by 2030.

So that's a requirement for those oil and gas companies to develop storage sites to store CO2.

So that's going to help to drive CCS forwards.

I guess the third point is corporate momentum.

So if we look around the world, various industry leaders have announced different CCS targets.

If we look at some of the major oil and gas companies, we've seen targets anywhere between 10 and 30 million tons per annum by 2030.

There's a lot of drivers.

There's a lot of signs that the industry is going to scale up.

It is really important to emphasize that there remains a lot of uncertainty.

That is certainly true.

So we could see that number decrease.

We could see that number increase.

You'll appreciate, I'm sure, that CCF deployment is very much dependent on government policy support.

If we look at the global economy at this stage, there's a lot of pressures on different governments, and we may see policy priorities shift.

Notwithstanding, we are quite confident that the industry is at a turning point right now.

So we expect to see scaling up near term.

If we look further ahead to 2050, we expect that we will be storing around 1 ,300 million tons per annum.

So that's a significant scaling up.

We're expecting fundamentally that we'll scale up operational capacity more than 30 times.

Wow.

That's great progress, but there's a subtlety that's important to emphasize here.

That is nowhere near enough for most net zero scenarios.

If we look at net zero scenarios that are published by most global organizations, they require significantly more CCS.

So DMV has its own net zero scenario, the pathway to net zero.

And that would require six times more CO2 injection in 2050.

So, yes, we're making progress, but we're not making progress quickly enough.

Oh, goodness.

Wow, that is a lot to unpack.

Oh, my goodness.

Okay, so let's break it down a little bit.

So CCUS is Carbon Capture Utilization Storage.

I'd like to start with the storage component.

Certainly, you mentioned regulatory support and all that, and we'll definitely get back to that.

Let's start off with storage as it's a very tricky part of the equation, especially as it pertains to safety, for example.

How do you guys address concerns in that department?

Yeah, sure.

When we think about CO2 storage, there are various different ways that we can store CO2 in the subsurface.

If we look at conventional CO2 storage, we can either store in saline aquifers or depleted oil and gas fields.

Some CO2 is also stored through CO2 -enhanced oil recovery, but we'll perhaps put that to one side for the moment.

In different jurisdictions around the world, there is regulation that really governs exactly how CO2 is stored in the subsurface.

So there's normally a competent authority that will define regulatory requirements that a store has to satisfy.

So fundamentally, when CO2 stores are developed, there's a very comprehensive process that we have to go through.

in order to ensure that the store is developed correctly.

That can typically take many years.

So there's a lot of work that goes on in the background to ensure that when we do inject CO2 into the subsurface, it stays there permanently.

So when it comes to the actual selection of a storage site, typically in the first instance, we'll look at a variety of different potential stores and identify those that are most promising.

We'll then go through various different development activities, including comprehensive risk assessments to really understand the characteristics of each store.

Each store is very much unique, so you have to look at them as a unique entity and make certain that we are considering all of the risks associated with that specific site.

So comprehensive risk assessment, we will then perform development work to really understand the store.

to de -risk the store as much as possible.

There will be a lot of modeling work that's performed to really understand how the store will perform across its lifetime and indeed far into the future, hundreds of years into the future.

So we really do put a lot of effort into understanding exactly how the store will perform and operate.

Part of the process of developing the store is to develop something called a measurement monitoring verification plan, an MMV plan.

So in that plan, we define exactly how the CO2 will be monitored once it's injected into the subsurface.

We use various different technologies to monitor the behavior of the CO2 and indeed the store itself, ultimately to ensure that the CO2 is behaving exactly as we expect.

So in parallel to that development process, we've got the regulatory approval process that will be looking at exactly how the store is being developed.

the different documents related to it, including the MMV plan, ultimately to ensure that the store itself will satisfy certain requirements and will meet specific safety criteria.

So there's specific regulation in different jurisdictions around the world.

If we look at Europe, You have the EUCCS directive, which is really transposed into the laws in different countries in order to govern how CO2 is injected into the subsurface.

If we look at the US, for example, we have the EPA and around injection control program rules, particularly class six permits, et cetera, that govern exactly how we go about injecting CO2 into the subsurface.

In parallel, there are various standards and certifications.

that can be used.

So DMV is involved in performing certification of different storage sites, whereby we will look specifically at the work that has been performed to develop a storage site and ultimately issue a certificate to confirm that it has been developed in conformance with the requirements of international standards and best practice.

Okay.

And so kind of going back to what you said about the amount of CO2 that needs to be captured and stored by 2030 and then by 2050, I don't know if you've seen, there was this study published recently in Nature, I believe it was just last week or two weeks ago, which claimed that the underground CO2 storage capacity in the world is drastically overestimated.

Really, we're dealing with about probably 11, 12 % of what...

previous estimates suggest.

So yeah, the study provoked a lot of criticism in the industry.

What is your take on that?

I think perhaps one thing just to clarify that the numbers that I've outlined are really forecasts how much we'll see CCS going up.

We don't see that there's enough at this point in time, but if we just use some of those numbers.

I think that will be helpful to put the Nature article in a bit more context.

So the Nature article itself fundamentally outlines a somewhat more conservative view of the availability of CO2 storage globally.

So it introduced some limitations to ultimately come up with a capacity estimation.

I think in the CCS industry, it's viewed as a relatively conservative capacity estimation, which was 1 ,460 gigatons of storage globally.

I think the industry's view is that some of the limitations that were put in place were slightly conservative.

So there are some projects that are in operation today which operate somewhat outside of those limitations.

Now, we have seen around the world that the media has really picked up on the article and published various different headlines about how effective CCS will be in helping to tackle climate change.

If we dig into the numbers a little bit more, we get a bit more insight.

So I talked about CCS scaling up to 1 ,300 million tons of capacity of CO2.

injected in 2050.

Now, if we think about those two numbers, 1 ,460 gigatons of capacity, and then 1 ,300 million tons being injected in 2050, we can see that we have capacity to inject a lot of CO2 in the coming years.

So certainly more than 1 ,000 years of CO2 at that rate.

The limitation that's outlined, the actual lower level of CO2 storage capacity, it's really a fairly conservative estimate in the context of what it is that we think we'll need to deliver.

I think Miles Allen, who's a prominent climate academic and IPCC author, I noted that he commented that what the paper actually shows is that we have sufficient capacity to store.

20 gigatons of CO2 per year on average for 75 years.

That's far more than anyone really thinks is necessary from CCS in most credible scenarios.

So I think the key message here is we know that carbon storage is not an unlimited solution.

We know that it should be used carefully and for specific requirements.

But this particular paper actually shows that there is enough capacity to satisfy what we expect to be the requirement for CCS in the coming years.

Understood.

Thank you for clarifying that.

One of the things that I think is important to mention just in relation to that work and indeed our need to scale up CCS, it's not necessarily a question of whether we have enough adequate storage.

It's a question of how quickly we're developing and deploying CCS to use that storage.

So actually, we know that we need to deploy more quickly.

The storage availability is not a constraint for us at this point in time.

At this point, not obviously, but the question is more so how that will look in the future.

But since we're on the topic, I usually save the big picture questions for last.

But since we're on this topic, do you see this industry being able to scale?

How do you believe we can make it grow faster?

I think that's a really good question.

I think in that context, it's useful for us to think about what really are the barriers to CCS deployment today.

And in the report that we published, we looked specifically at that.

We thought about, you know, truly what are the biggest challenges to CCS deployment?

I think the first thing to say is that the technology itself is proven.

So today we've got more than 50 large scale projects in operation.

If we look at different parts of the value chain, we've been separating CO2 from industrial processes for many years.

There's over 5 ,000 miles of dense space CO2 pipelines in operation today.

We've been injecting CO2 into the subsurface for more than 50 years.

So the technology itself is reasonably well proven.

Even so, there are some technical challenges that we still need to address.

So we haven't deployed CCS using industrial clusters extensively as yet.

There are some technical challenges that are coming up as we do that.

Likewise, we're starting to capture from new emission sources, emission sources that we haven't captured from before.

So there's work to do to actually capture CO2 from those emission sources.

So there are some technical challenges.

I think the second barrier, as I see it, relates to costs.

The initial investment and operational costs for CCS are quite significant.

Now, over time...

We expect the levelized cost of CCS to decline with additional deployment.

As we deploy more CCS around the world, we expect there to be some cost improvements.

In parallel, in many jurisdictions, we expect the cost of emitting CO2 to increase.

So the economics of CCS should become more attractive with time.

Another challenge as I see it is public perception.

So members of the public quite rightly have questions about CCS.

It's an unfamiliar technology for them.

We have to take our public stakeholders on the journey.

We have to ensure that they also see the benefits of this new industry as we deploy more widely.

For me, the biggest challenges as I see it relate to policy and regulation.

We have to have regulation in place or CCS projects to proceed.

An absence of regulation can delay projects.

For example, if it's not legal to store CO2 in the jurisdiction, CCS projects can't move forward.

There are projects around the world that are waiting for regulation to be finalized.

So that can delay projects.

It is delaying some projects.

The second point related to policy.

For CCS projects to move forward, they have to be economically viable.

This typically requires some form of policy support, including some sort of source of revenue.

If we think about the economics of CCS, CCS projects tend to progress, or CCS projects are economic.

where the cost of emitting CO2 is greater than the cost of capturing and storing CO2.

In most jurisdictions around the world at the moment, the cost of emitting CO2 is insufficient.

So that's why we require some form of policy support really to incentivize the capture and storage of CO2.

Where we have those conditions, so where we have established regulatory frameworks, where we have strong policy support, we do see CCS projects moving ahead.

And certainly we hope that that will lead to a scaling in the industry move of course.

That brings me to another controversial, perhaps from the public standpoint, subject is the matter of CO2 transport, which I know you guys also deal with.

Certainly a crucial component of CCUS because we do need to take the captured carbon from point A to point B in order to be able to store it or utilize it or whatever.

So I know that you recently launched a study focused on CO2 pipelines called Skylark.

I was wondering if you could tell us a little bit about this work.

Yeah, very happily.

Really, the Skylark project, it's a joint industry project, really looking in detail at the safety of dense phase onshore CO2 pipelines.

So we're working with really a number of industry players really to try to improve understanding of specific matters related to dense phase onshore CO2 pipelines.

It's a three -year project.

that will involve extensive testing at our Spade Adam facility in the UK, where we can perform full -scale CO2 pipeline releases.

And the actual structure, the work packages in the research project have really been structured to address a number of key industry requirements, but in particular, some of the findings following an incident in the United States.

So back in 2020, there was a CO2 release from a CO2 pipeline in Mississippi near the town of Satarsha.

Ultimately, this was caused by a landslide, which led to a rupture in the pipeline and CO2 being released.

Following that incident, there was a FEMSA investigation.

And a number of recommendations were made, a number of areas identified that required more detailed analysis.

The Skylark Joint Industry Project plans to address a number of those issues.

So we're looking specifically at how CO2 will be dispersed.

When there is a release, particularly on sloped surfaces, we're looking at some of the key considerations around emergency response, exactly how plumes will behave.

So this is a very extensive research project.

It will take three years to complete.

There'll be a lot of full -scale testing at our facilities.

The findings of that research will then be used in a number of ways.

So they'll feed into the development of new industrial standards, regulation in some jurisdictions, and likewise they'll feed into various software tools that are used to model the dispersion of CO2 in the unlikely event of a release.

So really the whole research project is geared towards addressing some of the questions and concerns that may come up around safety associated with dense phase onshore pipelines.

Do you believe pipelines are the most effective means of transporting CO2?

If I think about the alternatives, there are alternative ways of transporting CO2 that we're seeing emerge around the world.

Pipelines tend to be most common.

So we're also seeing CO2 be transported using ships in Europe.

So as you may be aware, the Northern Lights project in Norway has started operation recently.

This is the first full -scale.

CCS value chain that is transporting CO2 using chips.

Elsewhere, we're seeing a lot of interest in transporting CO2 using trains and indeed trucks.

If we look at pipelines themselves, they tend to be the safest and most efficient way of transporting large volumes of CO2 over long distances.

They tend to be an economic way of transporting CO2.

But of course, we have to ensure that we're following the correct procedures in their design and operation to ensure that they operate safely.

If we look at industry statistics, we can see that CO2 pipelines themselves have a very good safety track record.

So on the whole, CO2 pipelines are safe when we compare them to other industrial pipelines that are used.

Okay.

So Jamie, another thing I was curious to ask you about is CO2 utilization.

Personally, I see it as a wonderful way to do away with carbon emissions while also producing goods that would otherwise often be harmful to the planet, such as plastic alternatives, fuels, etc.

And some companies out there are using it to cover the cost of capturing their emissions even.

So that's a wonderful kind of additional revenue stream.

But what utilization pathways are you seeing getting the most attention right now?

And which of them would you say hold the most promise?

Yeah, utilization can be very attractive.

I mean, if we think about the challenge that we have with CO2, if there's a way to take that CO2 and turn it into another material, that's practical use.

That can be very attractive.

I think that we have to consider some specific things when we think about utilization.

Model forms of utilization are equal.

So there's a whole host of different ways that we can use CO2.

We use pure CO2 in a wide variety of applications.

We can convert CO2 into other materials using various techniques.

But we have to look at some fundamentals to really understand utilization.

I think first of those considerations is scale.

The markets for CO2 and CO2 -derived products are today quite small compared to the amount of CO2 that we actually need to tackle in terms of our climate commitments.

Now, that's not to say that utilization can't play an important role.

I think it really will.

But we need to think about utilization as being perhaps smaller scale than CO2 storage per se.

That's it.

there can still be some really great applications for utilization, particularly for those organizations that are using CO2 in their value chains or using CO2 -derived products and materials.

In parallel, I think we have to think about lifecycle carbon accounting.

We have to consider where does the CO2 come from?

Is it biogenic CO2?

Does it come from fossil -based sources?

We have to think about the emissions arising.

as a consequence of the utilization.

For example, it takes a lot of energy to convert CO2 into new materials.

For example, if we're using techniques like carbonation and methylation, those processes themselves require quite a lot of energy.

Similarly, I think we have to think about the permanence of the CO2 once it's in those new materials.

If we take CO2 and use it to produce fizzy drinks, pretty quickly ends up back in the atmosphere.

If we take CO2 and use it in certain construction processes in building industry, for example, that can store CO2 more permanently.

Okay, so to your question as to what do I see as being some of the more, I guess, promising utilization techniques that are emerging.

I feel that one of the most promising applications is the use of CO2 in building materials.

So if we look around the world, there are various different companies that are developing techniques to utilize CO2 in building materials.

Companies like Carbon Cure in Canada and CarbonAid in Finland are using CO2 in the concrete curing process.

CarbonAid in the UK is using CO2 to produce.

aggregates for the building industry.

So for applications like cement blocks, road fillers, and roofing substrates.

Today, those techniques are being used at a relatively small scale, but if we can scale them up, such approaches could offer some really interesting benefits for us.

So as I mentioned earlier, the first thing is that they do tend to offer a higher level of permanence.

So the CO2 will be locked up in those building materials long -term.

The manufacturing use of those materials tends to be quite widely distributed.

So that offers a means of carbon management in various different locations, perhaps locations where we don't have access to CO2 storage.

One of the things that I think is really interesting about the building industry and its supply chains, cement production itself generates around 7 % of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

We can see that there could be some interesting opportunities to decarbonize the value chains that are used in the construction industry.

Around 30 billion tons of concrete are produced annually.

It's actually the most prevalent man -made material globally.

So the notion of perhaps using that man -made material as a means to utilize CO2 and store CO2.

Ultimately, I think it's really interesting.

It could be a really interesting decarbonisation opportunity.

What about fuels?

There's a big push in the maritime industry especially to decarbonise and fuels seem like a very good option to do that.

Also in aviation, sustainable aviation fuel is also kind of a big thing right now.

What's your take on that?

I think there's a lot of interest in using CO2 in the production of various different fuels.

I think there remain some challenges in terms of cost and distribution.

DMV has been involved in a variety of different studies to look at means of decarbonizing maritime fleets around the world.

And one of our findings has been that actually onboard carbon capture offers quite a lot of promise in terms of cost.

So I think we're yet to see exactly how.

maritime decarbonization will unfold from here.

But certainly for the existing fleet, in particular, retrofitting onboard carbon capture does seem to be a cost -effective alternative.

Really?

Particularly when we start to think, yeah, it's something that we're seeing in various different jurisdictions.

So in our CCS Energy Transitions Outlook report, for example, we modeled how onboard carbon capture is likely to scale up.

Our analysis suggests that around 15 % of maritime emissions will be captured and stored in 2050.

So fundamentally, that will be driven by regulation and policy.

But that's a trend that we're starting to see.

Speaking of regulation and policy, does DNV have any activity associated with that?

Do you help governments with policy or frameworks or anything?

Can you advise governments or such?

Because clearly there's a gap of specialists in this industry.

that are needed in order to help regulators enforce policies and such.

We've worked with governments around the world in a variety of different ways, really ranging from putting together deployment pathways for CCS, advising how we could go about deploying CCS in a particular jurisdiction, through to supporting specific matters related to CO2 storage.

So as I mentioned earlier, one of the services that BNB is involved in offering is certification of different CO2 storage sites.

Because of that, we have seen how CO2 storage sites are being developed across a wide range of different jurisdictions.

And that gives us a lot of insight.

What we've found over the years is that different regulators that are just starting to become exposed to CCS seem to value our guidance, the insight that we've been able to provide to them around how CO2 is being developed in different jurisdictions and indeed what risks may be encountered as CO2 storage sites are developed.

So in answer to your question, yes, we do do a lot of work with different governments and regulators.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that.

Well, Jamie, we only have time for one last question, and that is about DNV's current CCUS projects.

What is your unit working on at this time that perhaps you're most excited about?

We're involved in really a wide range of different CCS activities across DNV.

I sit in the energy system division within DNV, so we're involved in the provision of a lot of advisory and verification services covering the full CCS value chain.

capture, transport and storage.

So typical projects might be performing technology qualification in relation to capture technologies.

We're working on several such projects now whereby we're looking at the capture technologies and ultimately commenting and evaluating whether they can meet performance expectations.

In the transport area related to pipelines, we're doing lots of work in relation to the safety of pipelines.

We're doing lots of work with different organizations in Europe and North America to look at the potential to repurpose hydrocarbon pipelines to carry CO2.

When it comes to storage, we're involved in certifying a number of different storage sites around the world.

So looking at the storage development work that's been performed.

and issuing verification reports and ultimately certification to confirm that they have satisfied various different standards in the background.

In parallel to those distinct value chain activities, we're doing lots of work that cuts across the whole value chain.

So lots of work with different investors to perform technical due diligence for potential investments in relation to CCS.

In other areas of B &B, we're also working on CCS.

So my colleagues in our maritime division are doing a lot of work on the classification of different CO2 vessels and likewise onboard carbon capture systems, as I mentioned.

And my colleagues in our supply chain and product assurance division are really helping clients to quantify emissions reduction and indeed carbon dioxide removal for various CCS -related techniques like BECCS and DACCS.

The other thing to say is that we continue to be involved in a lot of research related to CCS.

So we talked a little bit about the STYLARC research project.

There are another nine ongoing CCS -related joint industry projects that the MD is working on.

To touch on some of those, our Mastering CO2 Fluid Composition joint industry project is developing guidelines regarding CO2 composition and its monitoring.

Our offshore injection joint industry project is examining floating injection and storage concepts for the CCS industry.

Sounds fantastic.

And it definitely sounds like you guys are really busy.

You truly are helping shape this industry.

And it's been such a wonderful opportunity to get to see just how complex and multifaceted your work is.

Jamie, thank you so much for being here.

It was a pleasure to have you.

Thanks so much for the opportunity.

It's been great to speak to you.

If you enjoyed this episode of the Carbon Stations podcast and would like to hear more conversations like this, please be sure to subscribe.

We really appreciate the support.