Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Carbon capture and climate intervention · Canada · 2015–2020

Quest CCS (Shell, Alberta)

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 1 none on record · 3 insufficient · 1 not measured See the gaps

Shell's Quest carbon capture facility in Alberta, Canada, was presented as proof that the technology is safe and effective. Global Witness reported that over five years it captured 5 million tonnes of carbon and emitted 7.5 million tonnes of greenhouse gases.

5 Mt: 7.5 MtCarbon captured vs greenhouse gases emitted, 2015–2020 (Global Witness)
Figures as reported by Global Witness in January 2022; Shell disputes the comparison (see Unknown).

Status As of January 2022 (latest dated report in the sources): Global Witness had published its analysis; no ruling or regulatory finding found.

What?
A carbon capture and storage facility that Shell presented as safe and effective; Global Witness reported it emitted more greenhouse gases than it captured over five years. Global Witness
Where?
Alberta, Canada. Global Witness
When?
2015–2020 (comparison period); analysis published January 2022. Global Witness
Who?
Gained
  • Shell — Credits issued at two per tonne stored; more than 200 million dollars of credit revenue according to Greenpeace Canada's calculation.
Lost
  • Taxpayers (Canada, Alberta) — Bore 93% of project cost including direct subsidies, according to Greenpeace Canada's calculation.
Harmed
None on record
Why?
Not stated in the sources reviewed.
How?
Carbon dioxide separated at the facility is stored underground; Alberta granted two credits per tonne stored.
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

Quest is a carbon capture and storage (CCS) facility in Alberta, Canada, owned by Shell. CCS separates carbon dioxide from a stack or gas stream, moves it by pipeline and injects it underground.

Shell presented Quest as evidence that CCS is a safe and effective technology, according to Global Witness, which cited the company's own framing of the plant.

In January 2022 Global Witness reported that Quest captured 5 million tonnes of carbon over five years (2015–2020) while the facility emitted 7.5 million tonnes of greenhouse gases in the same period. It put the share of the facility's carbon emissions that was captured at 48%, and at 39% when other greenhouse gases were counted.

Public support took two forms in the sources reviewed: direct funding from the federal and Alberta governments, and an Alberta rule that gave Quest two carbon credits for each tonne of carbon it stored. Greenpeace Canada calculated that half of the credits sold represented reductions that did not occur, that Shell earned more than 200 million dollars from them, and that 93% of the project's cost fell to taxpayers when direct subsidies were included. the sources reviewed identifies these figures as the calculation of a campaign organisation.

  1. 2015Start of the five-year period covered by the Global Witness comparison (2015–2020)
  2. 2020End of the five-year period covered by the Global Witness comparison
  3. 2022Global Witness publishes its analysis of Quest (January)

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

  • Quest as proof that CCS technology is "safe and effective"
    Shell, as described by Global Witness · Global Witness

Recorded

  • Five years of operation: 5 million tonnes of carbon captured; 7.5 million tonnes of greenhouse gases emitted (Global Witness).
    Global Witness
  • Share of the facility's carbon emissions captured: 48%; 39% counting other greenhouse gases (Global Witness).
    Global Witness
  • Alberta rule: two carbon credits for each tonne of carbon stored.
  • Greenpeace Canada's calculation: half of the credits sold covered reductions that did not occur; more than 200 million dollars in credit revenue to Shell; 93% of project cost borne by the public including direct subsidies.

In court and with insurers

Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

Lawsuits and rulings

No court case on record. No court has ruled on this case.

Insurers

No insurer decision on record.

What nature saw

Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.

Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.

Carbon captured vs emitted
5 Mt vs 7.5 Mt
Five years, as reported by Global Witness (January 2022)
Share of carbon emissions captured
48%
39% counting other greenhouse gases (Global Witness)

What we don't know

Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.

Nature

  • Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.

Record

  • Insufficient Shell's response to the Global Witness analysis is reported only through a secondary summary and was not independently verified: Shell was reported to have called the analysis flat wrong and to have said Quest was designed to capture about one third of its production emissions.
  • Insufficient Public funding of 865 million Canadian dollars (120 million federal, 745 million from Alberta), reported in 2014 as roughly two thirds of construction and ten years of operation, was not independently verified.
  • None on record The Greenpeace Canada figures on credit revenue and the public share of cost are that organisation's own calculation; the underlying document was not available for review.
  • Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: Global Witness compares Quest's capture with the 90% capture figure promised for blue hydrogen, which is not the share Quest was designed to capture.

Did the harm stop?

Not stated in the sources reviewed.

Who paid?

According to Greenpeace Canada's calculation, most of the cost fell to taxpayers through direct subsidies and the credit rule.

Sources

Voices on record: — Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts— Press and investigations✓ Communities and civil society— Researchers

Communities and civil society

Connected cases

Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.
Terms used on this page

Carbon and conservation finance

Carbon credit
A certificate representing one tonne of carbon dioxide (or equivalent) that a project says it reduced, avoided or removed. Buyers use credits to balance their own emissions in climate claims.

Law and courts

Arbitration
A private dispute process in which an appointed arbitrator, instead of a court, decides the case.

Insurance

Underwriter
An insurer, or a person at an insurer, who assesses a risk and decides whether and on what terms to insure it.
Similar cases
Carbon capture and climate intervention · Carbon credits · United States · 2023–2026
Occidental Stratos direct air capture plant (Texas)
Same type: Carbon capture and climate intervention, Carbon creditsSame regionHarm to nature not measured
Carbon capture and climate intervention · Carbon credits · Mexico · 2022–2025
Make Sunsets stratospheric balloon launches (Mexico)
Same type: Carbon capture and climate intervention, Carbon creditsSame regionHarm to nature not measured
Carbon credits · Canada · 2019–2026
IMF whale-value paper and Baffinland narwhal pilot
Same type: Carbon creditsSame countryHarm to nature not measured
Carbon credits · Canada · 2025–2030
Gigablue and Planetary Technologies ocean carbon credits
Same type: Carbon creditsSame countryHarm to nature not measured
Carbon capture and climate intervention · Canada · 2025
Alberta and Ottawa tie new oil pipeline to Pathways carbon capture plan
Same type: Carbon capture and climate interventionSame countryHarm to nature not measured