From Emissions to Resources: Lessons from Norway’s CCU and CCS Efforts

In April, Business Kristinestad took part in a delegation trip to Norway organised by Business Finland. The theme of the trip was CCU and CCS—carbon capture, utilisation, and storage. A seminar held at the Finnish Embassy in Oslo brought together Finnish and Norwegian stakeholders around a topic that is rapidly shifting from a technical vision of the future to practical industrial activity.

The Finnish delegation was a broad and diverse group: in addition to Business Finland and Business Kristinestad, participants included Gasgrid Finland, Metsä Group, Outokumpu, Tampereen Energia, Westenergy, and several ports and industrial areas.

Norway demonstrates how the entire value chain must be built

Norway has been working strategically with CCS for a long time. A key example is Longship, Norway’s major initiative for the capture, transport, and permanent storage of carbon dioxide. The presentations emphasised that development requires several components simultaneously: capture at industrial facilities, transport solutions, terminals, storage capacity, and long-term commercial models. Without coordination between these components, it easily remains just technology on the drawing board, and the world already has enough drawing boards.

Another important development is that Norway and Finland have signed a bilateral agreement/MoU on CCS. This paves the way for cross-border transport of CO₂ from Finland to Norwegian storage sites. For Finnish industrial regions, this means the issue is no longer theoretical. Finland lacks the same geological storage options as Norway in practice, but can become a strong player in capture, utilisation, interim storage, transport, and industrial processing.

The example from Oslo brings CCS to life

One of the most concrete examples came from Hafslund Celsio in Oslo. Their waste-to-energy plant at Klemetsrud is set to capture approximately 350,000 tons of CO₂ per year, with a capture rate of 90 per cent. According to the presentation, about half of the carbon dioxide is biogenic, which means the project can also achieve carbon dioxide removal, not just emission reduction. The plant plans to deliver the first captured carbon dioxide in 2029.

This is particularly interesting for regions like Kristinestad and South Ostrobothnia. We don’t have the same industrial structure as Oslo, but we have energy plans, port infrastructure, a bioeconomy, agriculture, by-products, and a growing discussion about hydrogen, methanol, biogas, and biogenic CO₂. There is a clear connection here: carbon dioxide doesn’t just need to be seen as a problem to be eliminated, but can also become a raw material in new industrial processes.

Kristinestad is in a relevant position

For Kristinestad, CCU and CCS aren’t about copying Norway exactly. That would be about as wise as building a fjord in Ostrobothnia just because the Norwegians happen to have a few. However, we can learn from how Norway builds systems.

Kristinestad has several strengths that make the area relevant to the discussion:

We have a strategic coastal location, proximity to a port, and energy infrastructure. We have a growing profile in green industry, the bioeconomy, and circular solutions. We have ongoing work related to hydrogen, methanol, biogas, and industrial establishments. And we have a regional role where Business Kristinestad can bring together companies, research organizations, energy companies, landowners, and public sector actors around new value chains.

Of particular interest is the link between biogenic CO₂ and new products. In future methanol production, electrofuels, greenhouse production, cold chains, the food industry, and circular industrial concepts, captured carbon dioxide can gain value. Then the question becomes not only: “How do we reduce emissions?” but also: “How do we create new industry from what was previously considered waste streams?”

Ports and logistics will be crucial

Another clear lesson from the seminar was that the transport of CO₂ is an industrial issue in its own right. The presentations highlighted marine solutions, terminals, liquid CO₂, ship transport, and direct connections to storage sites on the Norwegian continental shelf. Aker BP and Höegh Evi presented solutions where CO₂ can be captured, purified, liquefied, temporarily stored, and transported onward to permanent offshore storage.

This is highly relevant for Finnish coastal cities. If Finland is to be connected to a Nordic CCS value chain, we need sites where CO₂ can be collected, handled, and transported onward. This makes ports, terminal areas, and industrial zones strategic. For Kristinestad, this means we should closely monitor developments and analyse what role we can play in a future network of small and medium-sized emission sources.

Not all locations need to be massive industrial clusters. In the future, flexibility, land readiness, the ability to collaborate, and smart logistics may be just as important.

The technology exists, but the business model must hold up

A recurring point during the seminar was that CCS is not just a technical issue. Technology providers such as SLB Capturi, Aker Solutions, and Ocean GeoLoop demonstrated various capture solutions, including modular systems, water-based technology, and solutions for the cement, waste incineration, bioenergy, pulp and paper, and gas-based industries.

But technology alone is not enough. There is a need for paying customers, long-term agreements, public support, effective regulation, and a market for carbon dioxide removal or low-carbon production. Hafslund Celsio, for example, highlighted how carbon removal agreements with companies like Frontier and Microsoft have been crucial in enabling the business model. That says a lot: the climate solutions of the future will not only be built by engineers, but also by lawyers, financiers, municipalities, customers, and tenacious project managers with an unusually high tolerance for meetings.

What does this mean for our work moving forward?

For Business Kristinestad, the trip to Norway yielded several important conclusions.

First, we need to view CCU and CCS as part of a larger industrial ecosystem. This is interconnected with energy, hydrogen, biogas, the bioeconomy, port development, emergency preparedness, and new business establishments.

Second, we need to understand what type of CO₂ is present in the region. Biogenic carbon dioxide from bioenergy, agricultural byproducts, biogas production, or future industrial processes could be particularly interesting because it can be linked to carbon dioxide removal or used in new products.

Third, Kristinestad needs to position itself early on. This does not mean we should promise ready-made solutions before the value chains exist. But it does mean we should be present where the conversations are taking place, build relationships with Finnish and Nordic stakeholders, and ensure our region is on the map when future investments, pilot projects, and funding programs are being shaped.

Kristinestad as a test environment for the next step

Kristinestad has already taken steps toward establishing itself in the areas of green transition, the circular bioeconomy, and industrial renewal. CCU and CCS fit into this development, especially if we focus on what is realistic for our region: serving as a test environment, coordinator, enabler, and hub for new industrial collaborations.

Norway’s experience shows that it requires courage, a long-term perspective, and collaboration between the state, municipalities, companies, and investors. It also shows that regions that understand the value chains early on gain a head start.

For Kristinestad, the question is therefore not whether CCS and CCU are “something for us” in a narrow technical sense. The question is rather: what role do we want to play as the Nordic region builds the next generation of carbon value chains?

That is where our work begins. Not by trying to be the biggest, but by being sufficiently forward-thinking, sufficiently concrete, and sufficiently collaborative to remain relevant. Believe it or not, this is still a fairly effective development strategy.

The article was originally published on the Business Kristinestad website.