European Geologist Journal 55

Earth sciences at the centre of the energy transition

 

by Alejandra Tovar ¹*, Kris Piessens ¹and Kris Welkenhuysen ¹

¹  Geological Survey of Belgium, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Jennerstraat 13, 1000 Brussels, Belgium

Contact: atovar@naturalsciences.be

Abstract

Achieving a successful energy transition requires society to deploy as many technologies as possible, rather than relying on one single technology to be the ‘magic bullet’. However, there are characteristics that make this transition more challenging than previous transitions in terms of its scope. These challenges include the wide range of sustainable technologies involved and the time constraints. For this research the importance of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and hydrogen technologies for the decarbonization process was analysed, including the main challenges that their large-scale implementation is facing from a subsurface perspective. The ongoing role that fossil fuels play, as well as how the hydrocarbon industry can facilitate the current transition, must also be considered. The common denominator in the analysis is the critical position of Earth sciences in discovering, characterizing, and sustainably utilizing subsurface resources. Geoscientists are essential for providing communication and cooperation between scientists and stakeholders who use, manage and preserve the subsurface. The success of CO₂ and hydrogen storage, as part of the climate change mitigation strategies, and the eventual phase-out of fossil fuels ultimately depends on the sustainable development of the subsurface.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

---

1. Geological resources drive energy transitions

The development of today’s society can be measured in energy transitions [1], which have been driven by geological resources [2]. In the 17^th century the prices of wood, dried manure and charcoal skyrocketed due to shortages, therefore industrialising economies like Great Britain, Belgium and France required a cheaper source of energy [3]. Coal provided a solution to this demand, marking the beginning of the first energy transition. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, coal’s contribution to the global energy generation kept increasing. With the development of efficient steam engines, coal mines were able to go deeper, providing more production power and raw materials to support the growing industry. Consequently, significant technological advances were made, and innovative uses of coal were developed [4].

The second energy transition began in Pennsylvania, USA, in the mid 19^th century when the first commercial oil well was drilled. It was not until a century later, during World War II, that oil production took off in response to the high demands of the transportation sector. Natural gas was not far behind when inventions such as the Bunsen burner and pipelines began to incorporate this resource into households and other appliances [2]. At the beginning of the 21^st century, approximately 80% of the total global energy consumption was generated from fossil fuels, with oil being the dominant resource, followed by coal and natural gas. This means that, despite having replaced wood with coal and then coal with oil and gas, we have relied on hydrocarbons for over 160 years (Figure 1) [1], [5].

According to the World Economic Forum, the current and third energy transition consists of transforming our energy systems into more efficient and environmentally friendly systems while still guaranteeing economic growth, energy security and energy access. This transition was initiated by the Paris Agreement and its urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, an effort that has legally bound 194 countries [6].

---

---

However, the current energy transition is substantially different than the previous ones for several reasons. Firstly, the current energy transition is goal-oriented, meaning that it is intentional and being realised to address persistent environmental issues, whereas the previous energy transitions were emergent, meaning that they were enabled by new opportunities and technologies. The aim of the current transition is to mitigate climate change for the ‘common good’, but there is little to no incentive for private actors to undertake this transition. This is exacerbated because sustainable energy technologies often do not have immediate user benefits compared to traditional technologies and are usually less cost-effective. As a result, sustainable technologies will only be able to replace incumbent systems with the help of changes in economic conditions such as taxes and subsidies [8]. Thirdly, society’s use of hydrocarbons extends beyond its energy needs, to the production of thousands of everyday products that have shaped our consumption (and disposal) habits for decades. In Europe, the circular economy action plan was adopted in 2020 with the goal of reducing waste to a minimum and to reduce the dependence on raw materials. This would result in more reliable, sustainable products that can be reused, upgraded and repaired, which in turn would decrease energy and resource consumption. However, these practices are, by nature, contradictory to the overall consumerist systems of our world [9]. Finally, there is the time constraint. The previous energy transitions took at least a century to fully adopt new energy sources across all industries and aspects of daily life. However, to meet the climate targets of the Paris Agreement we need to reduce fossil fuel emissions in less than half of that time [10].

Considering the above, a portfolio of measures is required, including renewable energy sources, more efficient production processes, changes in lifestyles, and other emissions reduction technologies. Like previous energy transitions that were driven by geological resources, the current transition will be driven by how we explore, exploit, manage, preserve and inform about the subsurface. This can be perfectly exemplified with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) and hydrogen storage. Although both will have a very different place in a decarbonised society, they both rely on the geology of the deep subsurface to store hydrogen temporarily or carbon dioxide permanently. This paper analyses their importance for a society that aims to decarbonise its footprint and evaluate the main challenges that their large-scale implementation faces. This analysis reveals that even though both examples are often presented as technological or engineered breakthroughs, their success ultimately depends on geological advancements. 

2. CO₂ storage capacity

CCS is an emissions reduction technology that has been proven technically and commercially successful for over two decades. At the single field scale, the technology is mature, with well-established processes for appraisal, operation and plume monitoring [11]. Currently CCS is already reaching a scale of megatonnes of CO₂ stored annually and it is anticipated to reach gigatonnes by 2050, an unprecedented scaleup in the history of energy transitions [10], [12]. Unique to CCS is the potential of reaching so-called negative emissions, when combined with biofuels or direct air capture.

Several political, legal, economic and social barriers are still hampering the large-scale deployment of CSS. Substantial obstacles include the lack of financial incentives from governments, clear legal frameworks, public concerns and opposition [13], [14]. Another relevant barrier is data availability and the characterisation and modelling of the geological storage complex. Until now, the two reservoir types that have been commercially used to store CO₂ are saline aquifers and depleted hydrocarbon fields. The former have the largest global storage potential but the least characterised properties, especially in regions where there are no hydrocarbons found [15]. According to the latest annual assessment, the global storage resources (potential) stand at 14 000 Gt of which approximately 2700 Gt are needed to meet the most ambitious climate targets stipulated by the IPCC [12], [16]. These estimates do not include the storage potential of CO₂ by mineralisation in basaltic bedrock. CO₂ storage through mineral carbonation is an emerging technology whose implementation is still limited to laboratory- and field-based experiments. Yet, the CO₂ storage potential in sub-oceanic basalts is significantly higher than the CO₂ that would be released by burning all hydrocarbons on Earth [17].

When the Storage Resource Management System (SRMS) is applied to the global storage potential (14 000 Gt), less than 0.002% corresponds to ‘commercial projects’, 4% is classified as ‘sub-commercial’ and the remainder (96%) falls into ‘undiscovered resources’ [16], [18]. The latter consists of areas where the geology is known but no targeted data well has been drilled to further characterise the reservoir. The maturation process of such ‘undiscovered’ resources can take up to a decade, from which 2 to 4 years are spent for the site screening, selection and characterization [11], [19], [20]. Cavanagh et al. (2020), discourage the application of the SRMS, as it suggests having a bias towards depleted hydrocarbon fields, and thus undermining the potential of saline aquifers. Additionally, Akhurst et al. (2021) emphasise the importance of the first reservoir appraisal phases when maturing a storage resource [10]. For early stage ‘undiscovered’ storage units, the SRMS fails to reflect the level of understanding and confidence of capacity and containment. The lack of classification details and the high maturation bars of the SRMS would be of limited value if the goal is to develop storage resources to bankable reserves that can meet the climate mitigation targets in time. Geoscientists working on the appraisal of CO₂ storage resources play a key role at these early stages, as they are crucially involved in data acquisition and interpretation that are fundamental to maturing the storage resource. Even in the development of new and more universal resource classification systems such as the UNFC (United Nations Framework Classification for Resources), geoscientists are at the centre due to their understanding of the subsurface [21].

3. Public perception of on- and offshore CO₂ storage

Considering the high road ahead, geological storage of CO₂ needs to be explored in as many reservoir types as possible and both at offshore and onshore locations [22]. However, until now offshore storage sites are preferred mainly because they face less resistance from the public [23], [24]. In the case of Europe, the North Sea has the primary focus for CCS in most surrounding coastal countries, as it is the region with the largest identified storage potential so far [24], [25]. The extensive and longstanding hydrocarbon extraction activities in the North Sea also made it a logical region of interest given the data availability, existing infrastructure and overall experience with the subsurface.

Deploying onshore storage offers important advantages compared to offshore storage, such as significant reductions in transport and potential storage costs, local management of CO₂ emissions from nearby sources and its contributions to local economic development [22], [26]. Despite these advantages, the development status of onshore storage in Europe remains at pilot and laboratory tests [24], [27]. Aside from economic and regulatory aspects, public opposition and lack of political support remain the biggest challenges for enabling onshore storage. This is confirmed by several failed onshore storage projects (either cancelled or reduced in scope) in the United States, Germany, The Netherlands, Ireland and the United Kingdom, mainly due to societal opposition [28]–[32]. These examples make it clear that in order to make onshore storage a reality, it cannot be tackled in the same way as offshore storage. Early, open and transparent public engagement campaigns are necessary as well as enabling communities to have a say on CCS implementation in their areas through inclusive in-depth discussions. A multi-dimensional approach to engaging with the public is strongly advised as not all communities are homogenous [13], [28], [33].

Two of the biggest public concerns are related to induced seismicity and CO₂ leakage. Successful onshore storage projects in Germany and Algeria have paid special attention to risk management, both to monitoring methods and its corresponding public communication activities. One of the biggest lessons learned from the In Salah demonstration project in Algeria is the importance of tailoring the package of monitoring methods to address site-specific leakage risks identified in the initial stages. This package should, however, remain sufficiently adaptable for the operational phase [15], [34]. Additionally, leakage risk assessments were made after a faster-than-expected CO₂ flow between wells was identified, that could ultimately leak into potable groundwater and the natural gas cap. While the risk was estimated to be low, corresponding safety measures and responses in case of an actual leakage were evaluated and recommended [35]. From the injection pilot site at Ketzin in Germany, experience has shown that the monitoring should be as interdisciplinary as possible, including geophysical, geochemical and microbial methods that cover different time and spatial resolutions [27]. With respect to the regulations dealing with site closure, transfer of responsibility to the competent authority and post-closure obligations, the Ketzin injection project has found that the criteria stated by the EU CCS Directive are restricted to high-level (vague) conditions. Requirements regarding long-term stability, leakage and conformity of modelled and observed behaviour are imposed without providing specific technical criteria based on real site performance data, which can also demonstrate satisfactory long-term site performance [27], [36].

Given the importance of the risk management plan for the site abandonment and responsibility transfer, communicating the risks and the risk management and monitoring plans is as important as understanding them. The operators of the storage site, who should involve geoscientists, need to have an effective, clear communication with the competent authority and the public when demonstrating the fulfilment of long-term site stability criteria. In turn, successful communication will earn more support from regulators, policy makers and the government in general [15], [36], [37].

4. Geological storage for the hydrogen economy

The use of hydrogen to decarbonize the power and industry sector is becoming a key priority in achieving the energy transition in many parts of the world. Its many applications across the industry and the fact that it can be used as energy carrier and storage buffer without emitting CO₂ when used, show its huge potential [38]. Hydrogen has been produced and used for different applications for over two centuries. In Europe, less than 2% of the energy consumption is in the form of hydrogen and it is mainly used as feedstock to produce chemical products [39], [40]. Despite hydrogen being the most abundant element in the universe, on Earth it is mainly found bound to other atoms, including organic compounds. Most of the hydrogen gas produced today is extracted from fossil fuels like natural gas and coal. Thus, in order to consider hydrogen as a clean commodity or energy, one must take its production pathway into account [41]. Hydrogen can be formed using renewable electricity and electrolysis, which involves splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. However, the efficiency of this process is still very low, which limits the deployment of this technology at industrial scale [42].

The more renewable energy contributes to the energy systems, the greater the need will be to deal with the variable and intermittent nature of these renewable sources. The energy storage potential of hydrogen has been put forward as highly beneficial to deal with these issues and therefore, improves the flexibility of renewable energy systems, by storing surplus renewable electrical energy for longer periods of time [39], [43]. Given that hydrogen has good energy density by weight but poor energy density by volume compared to hydrocarbons, larger storage sites are required to store it. Similarly to methane and carbon dioxide, hydrogen can be stored in the subsurface. Although the reservoir properties needed to store hydrogen do not differ much from the ones needed to store methane or CO₂, the behaviour of hydrogen underground is considerably different and still not completely characterised. Examples of reservoir types suitable for hydrogen storage are aquifers, depleted hydrocarbon fields and mined salt caverns [44]. The storage technology has already been proven to be safe by different companies in the UK, US and France. Deploying such technology at commercial scale is still largely under development. Thus, the experience gained from carbon dioxide and methane storage is being exploited to accelerate this development [45]–[47].

While there are legal and economic constraints that still need to be solved, most of the challenges and knowledge gaps lie in the understanding and characterisation of the geological storage complex before, during and after the hydrogen is stored. Site selection criteria, risks of pipeline embrittlement, microbial activity and conversion, use of alternative cushion gases, hydrogen losses and leakage, and the monitoring and understanding of the flow, containment and hysteresis of hydrogen are the most important issues to tackle [11], [48], [49].

5. A future for fossil fuels?

As discussed before, the current energy transition has time constraints when it comes to complying with the Paris Agreement. According to the latest IEA assessment, the world is not on track to meet the below 2°C scenario. In 2021, coal accounted for one third of the global electricity generation. Despite pledges from governments to phase out coal, global CO₂ emissions from coal-fired power plants also grew to a record high. The COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukrainian-Russian conflict has caused several European countries to relax coal-fired production measures, resulting in phase-out delays [5]. Compared to the year 2000, the share of fossil fuels in the global energy consumption has only decreased from 86.1% to 84.3% in 2020, of which 33.1% corresponds to oil, 27% to coal and 24.3% to gas [7].

While these figures do not exactly align with the energy transition’s overall goals, phasing out of fossil fuels is a more complex process than adding generation capacity from other energy sources. Significant investments are also required in infrastructure, raw materials and energy storage, along with substantial adaptations in our energy consumption habits [1], [50]. As a result, fossil fuels will still be needed for the coming years, if not decades, to maintain the supply and demand in balance until the shift to a decarbonised energy system is completed. At the same time, investments and efforts into renewable energy sources and storage need to scale up quickly to effectively reduce the demand on hydrocarbons [51].

There are several strategies that enable the hydrocarbon sector to have an active and supporting role in the energy transition. First off, current and future hydrocarbon production is required to shift its focus to low carbon intensity hydrocarbons and improve the efficiency of the production processes. Poorly performing reservoirs that require specific interventions or higher well density, for example, demand additional expenditure of energy per unit of hydrocarbon produced, resulting in a higher carbon footprint of the production process. Successfully quantifying and characterizing the geological complex is then crucial to relate it to the upstream CO₂ emissions [52]. Other examples of efficiency improvements include minimizing flaring of associated gas and venting of CO₂ or using CCS in refining [53]. Secondly, enhancing hydrocarbon production with CO₂-EOR/EGR (CO₂-Enhanced Oil Recovery/Enhanced Gas Recovery) can significantly reduce the carbon footprint, while providing a business case kickstart for CO₂ storage [54], [55]. Geopolitically, this also enables greater independence of foreign hydrocarbons that likely have a larger environmental impact. Thirdly, the extensive experience and geological data that the hydrocarbon sector has gained over the decades can play a crucial role and accelerate the deployment of underground CO₂ and hydrogen storage. This can be achieved by utilizing depleted oil or gas fields for storage, using available data (e.g. well, reservoir simulation) to reduce uncertainty levels or simply transferring knowledge and skills that enable the maturation of a prospective storage site [11], [20], [53].

Similarly, repurposing the existing offshore infrastructure, when possible, significantly minimises capital costs and delays decommissioning costs. In the case of CCS and hydrogen storage, repurposing existing production systems is possible but entails challenges associated with capacity limitations and state and availability of the infrastructure. Further research is needed to de-risk potential projects and achieve a rapid implementation of these technologies [56], [57].

Furthermore, considering that the oil and gas industry accounts for over one third of the overall spending on emissions reduction technologies such as CCS, the hydrocarbon industry plays a key role in helping CCS and hydrogen storage to reach maturity. The resources and skills of the hydrocarbon industry can be used to partner with governments and crucial stakeholders to create viable business models, which can attract the hardest-to abate sectors [51], [53]. In the case of hydrogen, the production of hydrogen from fossil fuels paired with CCS (blue hydrogen) and the appraisal and subsequent use of reservoirs, like depleted hydrocarbon fields, for underground hydrogen storage are two important steps towards the large-scale deployment of this clean energy technology [39].

6. Linking climate and subsurface challenges

While there are various technologies and measures that allow us to decarbonize our society, these technologies cannot be regarded as isolated entities or solutions. Instead, they are integrated into a complex societal context where institutional, cultural and organisational systems are intertwined with each other [58], [59]. These systems and the actors taking part in them are what sets the pace, ease and direction of the current transition.

Furthermore, the implementation of the technologies enabling the energy transition coupled with other subsurface activities will be directly translated into a significant increase in subsurface exploitation. Activities such as groundwater extraction, disposal of high-level nuclear waste, coal mining, shallow and deep geothermal energy, CCS, Underground Hydrogen Storage (UHS), natural gas storage, and EOR/EGR are all subsurface activities that exemplify this increase in exploitation. However, the governance of the subsurface is currently highly fragmented and decentralized, typically operating under the ‘first come, first served’ principle. Actors and companies access the subsurface strictly considering the subsurface activity in question, without regards of other subsurface uses or resources. This kind of approach is highly inefficient, as it fails to prioritize geological structures and subsurface activities and increases the risks of long-lasting impacts on the subsurface. As a result, fair intra- and intergenerational distribution and sustainable development is compromised [60], [61]. In addition, claims or permits on other subsurface resources and activities within the same area may be subjected to adaptation measures that are often costly or that render the project unfeasible [62].

The sustainable management of the subsurface is a concept that remains insufficiently understood and underdeveloped, due to the high complexity of dealing with time and space scales, coupled with intrinsic uncertainties and the multifunctional nature of the subsurface [59], [60], [63]. On the one hand, the spatial heterogeneity of the physical and dynamic properties of the rocks dictate flow, storage, biochemical and geochemical processes, that also occur at pore, formation and basin scales [63]. Moreover, rock strata require additional geochronological analysis to understand their depositional, formation and deformation history, which contribute to a geological model that provides further information on the resource quality and the  processes mentioned above. On the other hand, the multifunctional nature of the subsurface requires an extensive understanding of the interaction between different subsurface uses, the risks of such interactions and their impacts on the environment, resources, potential future subsurface activities, and the needs of present and future generations [59].

As such, the understanding of the subsurface geosystem plays a crucial role when setting above-ground goals, interactions and development probabilities. As the transition moves forward, conflicts of interest for subsurface resources will increase and there will be more situations where multiple stakeholders have an interest in a subsurface volume where there are multiple potential activities available [62], [64], [65]. The two activities in our analysis, CO₂ and hydrogen storage, exemplify this competition perfectly. Both operations are very similar, often targeting the same strata for their capacity, permeability and containment potential. They also serve the same greater purpose in addressing climate change. As a result, both technologies are complementary in the energy system, but competitive in the subsurface (see Figure 2). This example does not include potential conflicts with deep geothermal energy, a subsurface activity that plays an equally important role in the energy transition. Nowadays, the outcome of situations where there is subsurface potential for CCS, UHS and geothermal energy is steered by power struggles, vested interests, economic impacts and public pressure, whether negative or positive [60]. The creation of synergies is then necessary to foster cooperation and communication, which in turn will support decision making, prioritisation, capital allocation and addressing public concerns. A multidisciplinary framework with criteria and indicators based on the understanding of the subsurface and the surface needs, is essential for organised and coordinated governance of the subsurface ensuring its efficient, sustainable, fair and safe use [59], [66], [67].

---

---

Currently the lack of flexibility, adaptability and clarity of permitting and legal frameworks, as well as financial incentives and risk management support, pose a critical obstacle to scale up technologies such as CCS and UHS [48], [68], [69]. Likewise, incumbent systems and outdated perspectives that perpetuate carbon-based or unsustainable infrastructure and technologies, can hinder innovation and competitiveness of sustainable alternatives [70], [71]. The practices and perspectives above also affect the perception of the public by either failing to address and resolve their concerns or by promoting carbon-based lifestyles and consumption practices [37].

It is evident that the current energy transition will require a socio-technical transition where the incumbent systems, actors and increasing exploitation of the subsurface are not mutually exclusive challenges. Instead, the overarching challenge lies in reconciling and coordinating the subsurface (geosystem) resources with the above-ground sustainability and decarbonization goals while ensuring environmental equity and justice [59].

7. Geoscientists at the heart of the solution

Looking at the bigger picture and moving beyond the scope of phasing out fossil fuels, the success of the current energy transition is dependent on turning the attention towards the subsurface more than anything else. Understanding the geosystem beneath us, is essential to deploy the technologies required to decarbonize our energy systems, preserve the resources needed to continue societal development and ultimately achieve sustainability (see Figure 3).

The skills, tools and knowledge that geoscientists have, are thus present at every step of the transition. Geoscientists are needed from the very beginning to characterise the subsurface, estimate storage capacity potentials, and describe and understand the interferences between the different subsurface activities, while managing geological uncertainty. Despite the abundance of data, uncertainty can never be completely eliminated, but it should be properly characterised and accounted for in simulation tools [72], geophysical methods and well logging. When there is data scarcity, geoscientists can still use priority ranking strategies for poorly known reservoirs that carry large uncertainty. By ranking the exploration priority of such reservoirs, stakeholders can focus research and exploration initiatives [73].

Considering the high heterogeneity of the subsurface and the different dynamics taking place above-surface, geologists face an important challenge: proper training. The current and upcoming generation of geoscientists should be familiar with a wider spectrum of disciplines, including techno-economic, managerial and communication skills, which will enable them to perform their supporting role better. This includes the capacity of creating synergies for interdisciplinary cooperation. Similarly, the transfer of knowledge and skills on different geological settings and resources, and between organisations and companies across the globe, is also vital to fostering quality training of present and future Earth scientists.

Storage capacity estimations, along with reservoir characterisation are two important steps in maturing a prospective resource. Frameworks such as the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) and the SRMS are necessary tools to achieve a standardisation and harmonisation of definitions and criteria when assessing a resource. Having common and globally applicable standards ensures the availability of reliable, updated and understandable information on resources. Thus, the use of these frameworks enables the proper allocation of the stage of development of a resource and its quantities. Based on that, stakeholders can decide to proceed with permitting, investment and exploration and extraction activities [18], [21].

Highly dense geological information must be processed and interpreted by geoscientists to develop principles, criteria and measures which stakeholders can use to manage subsurface resources. Here, geoscientists play a critical role in decision support and risk management, not only by having the responsibility to deliver the information but also to communicate it clearly and efficiently. As the experts in the subsurface, geoscientists serve as the communication and cooperation interface (GCCI) between resources and stakeholders, with any form of power, influence, interest, opinion or concern over the subsurface. Geological Surveys Organisations and their alliances such as the Geological Surveys of Europe (EuroGeoSurveys), are geological knowledge hubs and as such are in adequate positions to serve as GCCIs. These expert hubs can also function as communication channels for the public, facilitating inclusive, open, transparent and neutral discussions about the subsurface and addressing any concerns.

---

---

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.T.; investigation, A.T.; writing—original draft preparation, A.T.; writing—review and editing, K.P. and K.W.; visualization, K.W.; supervision, K.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

---

References

1. G. Bhutada, “The 200-year history of mankind’s energy transitions,” World Economic Forum, Apr. 13, 2022. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/04/visualizing-the-history-of-energy-transitions/ (accessed Feb. 10, 2023).

2. J. Craig, F. Gerali, F. MacAulay, and R. Sorkhabi, “The history of the European oil and gas industry (1600s–2000s),” Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ., vol. 465, no. 1, pp. 1–24, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1144/SP465.23.

3. F. W. Geels, “The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: A multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860–1930),” Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 445–476, Dec. 2005, doi: 10.1080/09537320500357319.

4. A. Fernihough and K. H. O’Rourke, “Coal and the European Industrial Revolution,” Econ. J., vol. 131, no. 635, pp. 1135–1149, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1093/ej/ueaa117.

5. IEA, “Coal-Fired Electricity,” IEA, Paris, Tracking report, 2022. Accessed: Feb. 10, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-fired-electricity

6. UNFCCC, “The Paris Agreement,” United Nations Climate Change, 2015. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement

7. H. Ritchie, M. Roser, and P. Rosado, “Energy,” Our World Data, Oct. 2022, Accessed: Mar. 02, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix

8. F. W. Geels, “The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms,” Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 24–40, Jun. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002.

9. European Parliament, “Circular Economy: definition, importance and benefits,” May 12, 2022. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/infographics/circulareconomy/public (accessed Feb. 16, 2023).

10. IPCC, “Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change,” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sixth Assessment Report, Apr. 2022. Accessed: Jul. 04, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SPM.pdf

11. S. Krevor et al., “Subsurface carbon dioxide and hydrogen storage for a sustainable energy future,” Nat. Rev. Earth Environ., pp. 1–17, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1038/s43017-022-00376-8.

12. C. Zahasky and S. Krevor, “Global geologic carbon storage requirements of climate change mitigation scenarios,” Energy Environ. Sci., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 1561–1567, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1039/D0EE00674B.

13. K. Broecks, C. Jack, E. ter Mors, C. Boomsma, and S. Shackley, “How do people perceive carbon capture and storage for industrial processes? Examining factors underlying public opinion in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom,” Energy Res. Soc. Sci., vol. 81, p. 102236, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102236.

14. J. Dickie, E. Watson, and H. Napier, “Evaluating the relationship between public perception, engagement and attitudes towards underground energy technologies,” British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, Publication – Report OR/20/056, 2020. Accessed: Aug. 10, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/529041/

15. P. S. Ringrose, How to Store CO₂ Underground: Insights from early-mover CCS Projects. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-33113-9.

16. OGCI, Global CCS Institute, and Storegga, “CO₂ Storage Resource Catalogue – Cycle 3 Report,” Aug. 2022, [Online]. Available: https://www.ogci.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/CSRC_ Cycle_3_Main_Report_Final.pdf

17. S. Ó. Snæbjörnsdóttir, B. Sigfússon, C. Marieni, D. Goldberg, S. R. Gislason, and E. H. Oelkers, “Carbon dioxide storage through mineral carbonation,” Nat. Rev. Earth Environ., vol. 1, no. 2, Art. no. 2, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1038/s43017-019-0011-8.

18. SPE, “CO₂ Storage  Resources Management System,” Jul. 2017. https://p.widencdn.net/2ckusw/SRMS (accessed May 17, 2021).

19. M. Akhurst, K. Kirk, F. Neele, A.-A. Grimstad, M. Bentham, and P. Bergmo, “Storage Readiness Levels: communicating the maturity of site technical understanding, permitting and planning needed for storage operations using CO₂,” Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, vol. 110, p. 103402, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103402.

20. A. Cavanagh, M. Wilkinson, S. Haszeldine, Scottish Carbon Capture & Storage, and The University of Edinburgh, “Bridging the Gap Storage Resource Assessment Methodologies,” Deliverable D2.1 Report, Jan. 2020.

21. UNFCCC, “Specifications for the Application of the United Nations Classification for Fossil Energy and Mineral Reserves and Resources 2009 (UNFC-2009) to Injection Projects for the Purpose of Geological Storage,” Sep. 30, 2016. https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/se/pdfs/UNFC/UNFC_specs/UNFC.IP_e.pdf (accessed May 17, 2021).

22. M. Gastine et al., “Enabling Onshore CO₂ Storage in Europe: Fostering International Cooperation Around Pilot and Test Sites,” Energy Procedia, vol. 114, pp. 5905–5915, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1728.

23. C. Merk, Å. D. Nordø, G. Andersen, O. M. Lægreid, and E. Tvinnereim, “Don’t send us your waste gases: Public attitudes toward international carbon dioxide transportation and storage in Europe,” Energy Res. Soc. Sci., vol. 87, p. 102450, May 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102450.

24. H. Rütters et al., “State-of-play on CO₂ geological storage in 32 European countries — an update,” CO₂GeoNet, Jan. 2021. doi: 10.25928/CO2GEONET_EU32-O21U.

25. Global CCS Institute, “Global Status of CCS 2022,” Global CCS Institute, 2022. Accessed: Feb. 10, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://status22.globalccsinstitute.com/

26. F. d’Amore, M. C. Romano, and F. Bezzo, “Carbon capture and storage from energy and industrial emission sources: A Europe-wide supply chain optimisation,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 290, p. 125202, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125202.

27. S. Martens et al., “Europe’s longest-operating on-shore CO₂ storage site at Ketzin, Germany: a progress report after three years of injection,” Environ. Earth Sci., vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 323–334, Sep. 2012, doi: 10.1007/s12665-012-1672-5.

28. S. Akerboom, S. Waldmann, A. Mukherjee, C. Agaton, M. Sanders, and G. J. Kramer, “Different This Time? The Prospects of CCS in the Netherlands in the 2020s,” Front. Energy Res., vol. 9, 2021, Accessed: Feb. 23, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2021.644796

29. E. Dütschke, “What drives local public acceptance–Comparing two cases from Germany,” Energy Procedia, vol. 4, pp. 6234–6240, Jan. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.636.

30. E. Dütschke, D. Schumann, K. Pietzner, K. Wohlfarth, and S. Höller, “Does it Make a Difference to the Public Where CO₂ Comes from and Where it is Stored?: An Experimental Approach to Enhance Understanding of CCS Perceptions,” Energy Procedia, vol. 63, pp. 6999–7010, Jan. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.733.

31. J. Hammond and S. Schackley, “Towards a Public Communication and Engagement Strategy for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Projects in Scotland,” WP4 Report, Aug. 2010. Accessed: Mar. 06, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/archive/hub/publications/179258/towards-public-communication-engagement-strategy-carbon-dioxide-capture-storage-projects-scotland.pdf

32. A. Ilinova, A. Cherepovitsyn, and O. Evseeva, “Stakeholder Management: An Approach in CCS Projects,” Resources, vol. 7, no. 4, Art. no. 4, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.3390/resources7040083.

33. M. Humphrey and W. Knight, “Questioning CCS: Developing Best Practice Public Engagement Guidelines,” ENOS Project, D5.5 v1.0, Feb. 2020. Accessed: Aug. 12, 2022. [Online]. Available: http://www.enos-project.eu/highlights/publication/collaboration-with-citizens-in-uk/

34. P. S. Ringrose et al., “The In Salah CO₂ Storage Project: Lessons Learned and Knowledge Transfer,” Energy Procedia, vol. 37, pp. 6226–6236, Jan. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.551.

35. C. M. Oldenburg, P. D. Jordan, J.-P. Nicot, A. Mazzoldi, A. K. Gupta, and S. L. Bryant, “Leakage risk assessment of the In Salah CO₂ storage project: Applying the certification framework in a dynamic context,” Energy Procedia, vol. 4, pp. 4154–4161, Jan. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.360.

36. A. Kronimus, J. Wollenweber, M. Nepveu, A. Korre, and G. De Bruin, “Plan for risk management supporting site abandonment,” CO2CARE, D4.12 Report, Aug. 2013. doi: 10.2312/GFZ.CO2CARE_2013.001.

37. S. Vercelli, S. Lombardi, S. Bigi, M. C. Tartarello, M. G. Finoia, and F. Dolcetti, “Topic and Concerns Related to the Potential Impacts of CO₂ Storage: Results from a Stakeholders Questionnaire,” Energy Procedia, vol. 114, pp. 7379–7398, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1869.

38. A. M. Elberry, J. Thakur, and J. Veysey, “Seasonal hydrogen storage for sustainable renewable energy integration in the electricity sector: A case study of Finland,” J. Energy Storage, vol. 44, p. 103474, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.est.2021.103474.

39. F. Dawood, M. Anda, and G. M. Shafiullah, “Hydrogen production for energy: An overview,” Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 3847–3869, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.12.059.

40. European Commission, “Energy Systems Integration – Hydrogen,” European Commission, 2022. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-systems-integration/hydrogen_en (accessed Mar. 07, 2023).

41. G. Kakoulaki, I. Kougias, N. Taylor, F. Dolci, J. Moya, and A. Jäger-Waldau, “Green hydrogen in Europe – A regional assessment: Substituting existing production with electrolysis powered by renewables,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 228, p. 113649, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113649.

42. S. Wang, A. Lu, and C.-J. Zhong, “Hydrogen production from water electrolysis: role of catalysts,” Nano Converg., vol. 8, no. 1, p. 4, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1186/s40580-021-00254-x.

43. R. Tarkowski, “Underground hydrogen storage: Characteristics and prospects,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 105, pp. 86–94, May 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.051.

44. H. B. Navaid, H. Emadi, and M. Watson, “A comprehensive literature review on the challenges associated with underground hydrogen storage,” Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.11.225.

45. C. Sambo, A. Dudun, S. A. Samuel, P. Esenenjor, N. S. Muhammed, and B. Haq, “A review on worldwide underground hydrogen storage operating and potential fields,” Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 47, no. 54, pp. 22840–22880, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.05.126.

46. N. Smith and C. Vincent, “Geological database report,” hystories – Hydrogen Storage in European Subsurface, D1.2-0 Report, Mar. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://hystories.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Hystories_D1.2-0-Geological-database-report.pdf

47. R. Tarkowski, B. Uliasz-Misiak, and P. Tarkowski, “Storage of hydrogen, natural gas, and carbon dioxide – Geological and legal conditions,” Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 46, no. 38, pp. 20010–20022, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.03.131.

48. R. Tarkowski and B. Uliasz-Misiak, “Towards underground hydrogen storage: A review of barriers,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 162, p. 112451, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112451.

49. D. Zivar, S. Kumar, and J. Foroozesh, “Underground hydrogen storage: A comprehensive review,” Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 46, no. 45, pp. 23436–23462, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.08.138.

50. D. Hall, “Critical Metals: Their Role in Global Energy Transition,” presented at the EAGE GET 2022, Nov. 2022, vol. 2022, no. 1, pp. 1–4. doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.202221008.

51. IEA, “World Energy Outlook 2022,” IEA, Flagship report, Oct. 2022. Accessed: Mar. 07, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2022

52. A. Davies, L. Cowliff, E. Kozlowski, and M. Simmons, “Characterizing Subsurface Geology: Critical for the Energy Transition,” presented at the EAGE GET 2022, Nov. 2022, vol. 2022, no. 1, pp. 1–5. doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.202221005.

53. IEA, “The Oil and Gas Industry in Energy Transitions,” Paris, Jan. 2020. Accessed: Feb. 10, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/the-oil-and-gas-industry-in-energy-transitions

54. P. Roefs, M. Moretti, K. Welkenhuysen, K. Piessens, and T. Compernolle, “CO₂-enhanced oil recovery and CO₂ capture and storage: An environmental economic trade-off analysis,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 239, pp. 167–177, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.03.007.

55. K. Welkenhuysen, B. Meyvis, R. Swennen, and K. Piessens, “Economic threshold of CO₂-EOR and CO₂ storage in the North Sea: A case study of the Claymore, Scott and Buzzard oil fields,” Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, vol. 78, pp. 271–285, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2018.08.013.

56. G. Cauchois et al., “Potential for Re-use of Oil and Gas Infrastructure on the Norwegian Continental Shelf,” Abu Dhabi, UAE, Mar. 2021. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3820790.

57. E. Luna-Ortiz, “Reusing Existing Infrastructure for CO₂ Transport: Risks and Opportunities,” presented at the Offshore Technology Conference Asia, Mar. 2022. doi: 10.4043/31457-MS.

58. A. Bjørnåvold, “Unlocking Lock-In: Accelerating Socio-Technical Transitions To Sustainability,” University of Antwerp, Antwerp, 2021.

59. T. Compernolle et al., “Towards a dynamic and sustainable management of geological resources,” Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ., vol. 528, no. 1, pp. SP528-2022–75, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1144/SP528-2022-75.

60. E. L. Frisk et al., “The geosystem services concept – What is it and can it support subsurface planning?,” Ecosyst. Serv., vol. 58, p. 101493, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101493.

61. J. Van der Gun, A. Aureli, and A. Merla, “Enhancing Groundwater Governance by Making the Linkage with Multiple Uses of the Subsurface Space and Other Subsurface Resources,” Water, vol. 8, no. 6, Art. no. 6, Jun. 2016, doi: 10.3390/w8060222.

62. J. Norrman et al., “Mapping subsurface qualities for planning purposes: a pilot study,” IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., vol. 703, no. 1, p. 012011, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/703/1/012011.

63. T. Hermans et al., “Advancing measurements and representations of subsurface heterogeneity and dynamic processes: towards 4D hydrogeology,” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 255–287, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.5194/hess-27-255-2023.

64. B. Uliasz-Misiak and A. Przybycin, “Present and future status of the underground space use in Poland,” Environ. Earth Sci., vol. 75, no. 22, p. 1430, Nov. 2016, doi: 10.1007/s12665-016-6227-8.

65. L. von der Tann, N. Metje, H. Admiraal, and B. Collins, “The hidden role of the subsurface for cities,” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. – Civ. Eng., vol. 171, no. 6, pp. 31–37, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.1680/jcien.17.00028.

66. A. M. Gormally, N. O. Markusson, and M. Bentham, “The pore space scramble; challenges and opportunities for subsurface governance,” Geoforum, vol. 95, pp. 70–77, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.07.006.

67. J. Griffioen et al., “A technical investigation on tools and concepts for sustainable management of the subsurface in The Netherlands,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 485–486, pp. 810–819, Jul. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.02.114.

68. D. Rassool, I. Havercroft, A. Zapantis, and N. Raji, “CCS in the circular carbon economy: policy & regulatory recommendations,” Global CCS Institute, Jul. 2021.

69. A. Zapantis, A. Townsend, and D. Rassool, “Policy priorities to incentivise large scale deployment of CCS,” Global CCS Institute, Leadership report, Apr. 2019.

70. A. Bjørnåvold, S. Lizin, M. Van Dael, F. Arnold, and S. Van Passel, “Eliciting policymakers’ preferences for technologies to decarbonise transport: A discrete choice experiment,” Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit., vol. 35, pp. 21–34, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2019.12.002.

71. K. C. Seto, S. J. Davis, R. B. Mitchell, E. C. Stokes, G. Unruh, and D. Ürge-Vorsatz, “Carbon Lock-In: Types, Causes, and Policy Implications,” Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 425–452, 2016, doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085934.

72. K. Welkenhuysen and K. Piessens, “The essential role of uncertainty and limited foresight in energy modelling,” Self-J. Sci., p. 14, 2017.

73. K. Welkenhuysen, A. Ramírez, R. Swennen, and K. Piessens, “Strategy for ranking potential CO₂ storage reservoirs: A case study for Belgium,” Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, vol. 17, pp. 431–449, Sep. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.05.025.

---

This article has been published in European Geologist Journal 55 – The role of geology in the transition to clean energy – The contribution of hydrogen and carbon capture, storage and utilisation

Read here the full issue: