In late March 2025, a 149.5-metre vessel called the Carbon Destroyer arrived in the port of Esbjerg, Denmark. This summer, it will carry liquefied CO₂ offshore to the NINI West reservoir — the first time CO₂ will be commercially stored in the EU.

In this episode of What Goes Up Must Come Down, Simon spoke with Kurt Jager Lykke, Head of Business DK at INEOS Energy and head of Project Greensand. Kurt has led the commercial side of Greensand since its inception and took over as project head in 2024. Their conversation covers the project's origins, the organisations that made it possible, and what the carbon dioxide removal (CDR) sector can take from it.

TL;DR

• INEOS entered carbon capture and storage (CCS) by repurposing depleted North Sea fields, matching geological expertise with a new purpose
• CO₂ is sourced from Danish biomethane producers who already separate it as a standard step, lowering capture costs significantly
• The Carbon Destroyer will make 80 voyages per year, storing up to 400,000 tonnes CO₂ annually over eight years
• Project viability relied on a phased approach, an EU Innovation Fund grant, and risk shared across a three-party consortium
• Denmark faces a shortfall of roughly 10 million tonnes CO₂ to net zero — a measure of what still lies ahead
• The voluntary CDR market bridges the economics gap while carbon pricing cannot yet sustain the full CCS value chain

Why did INEOS invest in Project Greensand & how does it align with their overall strategy?

INEOS acquired the Danish oil and gas assets of the former DONG (now Ørsted) in 2017. By 2019, the fields in the SYRI fairway were nearing end of production life, and INEOS began asking whether existing expertise could be repurposed.

Injecting fluids into subsurface reservoirs, interpreting geological formations, moving large volumes — these are core oil and gas competencies, and CCS uses them in reverse. Decades of production data and seismic surveys gave the project a meaningful head start. INEOS also had its own emissions targets, making CCS investment strategically rational — though internal units must still compete on price. Greensand has to be the most competitive storage option available, not the in-house default.

The project story: the web of organisations involved and challenges along the way

Biogas is roughly 60% methane and 40% CO₂. Biomethane producers already separate that CO₂ to reach gas-grid quality as standard practice — the capture was already happening. What Greensand adds is liquefaction, transport, and permanent storage.

From Esbjerg, CO₂ is loaded onto the Carbon Destroyer and sailed to the NINI West reservoir. The ship carries 5,500 tonnes per voyage and is designed for 80 voyages a year — up to 400,000 tonnes CO₂ annually over eight years. The vessel did not exist when the project was conceived — INEOS and Dutch ship owner Wagenborg co-developed it from the design phase, both taking on risk beyond a standard supplier arrangement. The intermediate storage facility at Esbjerg — four 40-metre tanks of 1,000 cubic metres each — begins commissioning in June 2025. A pilot in 2022–23 had already confirmed that reusing existing offshore infrastructure was feasible.

Learnings from getting a project like this off the ground

Project Greensand’s story highlights the importance of public-private partnerships, managing risk, and prioritising feasible, physical results.

The decision to keep scope contained was deliberate. Other CCS projects target millions of tonnes per year; Greensand targets 300,000 to 400,000. That made the risk manageable for the consortium — INEOS, Harbour Energy, and Norse, representing the Danish state.

INEOS got to know the biomethane producers well before formalising any agreements, synchronised timelines across the full value chain, and acted as convener throughout. The EU Innovation Fund grant, awarded in autumn 2024, was material to the project's economics; it was sanctioned in December 2024.

The cost of the full CCS value chain still exceeds what emitters pay through carbon pricing alone — subsidies were necessary, and that is stated plainly. The voluntary CDR market provides an additional revenue route for early-stage storage projects while carbon pricing catches up.

Conclusion

Project Greensand is a learning project as much as a delivery project. Carbon Destroyer 2 is being scoped, and a storage licence application for the larger NINI East field is with the Danish Energy Agency.

Denmark faces a shortfall of roughly 10 million tonnes CO₂ to net zero. At 400,000 tonnes per vessel per year, closing that gap would require around 20 ships. What the infrastructure being commissioned in Esbjerg this summer proves is that these projects can be done. Tonnes will be delivered.

That matters for every organisation weighing whether offshore CO₂ storage is a credible part of the energy transition. It is. And if your organisation is thinking about where carbon removal fits into your climate strategy, Klimate can help you navigate the options.

Carbon markets can feel difficult to navigate. The rules are evolving, buyer expectations are changing, and terms like insetting, offsetting, contribution claims, and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) are often used interchangeably when they should not be.

That was the focus of our recent webinar that I participated in along with the team from Accura: From compliance to competitive advantage: Navigating the new carbon credit reality

The clearest takeaway was simple. Companies often approach climate action backwards. They start with what is easy to buy or easy to explain, then ask later what regulation, reporting, and long-term strategy actually require. The stronger route is the opposite. Start with your business context. Start with the regulatory landscape. Then decide what role carbon credits or carbon removal should play.

Start with your roadmap

One of the strongest points in the session was that companies should not treat carbon markets as a last-minute add-on. They should first assess which regulations apply across their operations and value chain, what they are legally required to do, and what is more strategic or market-driven.

As Kasper Juul Naurgaard from Accura put it: “The reality is actually that you have to do the opposite. You need to plan your own journey and strategy, and therefore you should always start with assessing the regulatory landscape and what type of regulations are actually the ones applying across your activities as well as the value chains.”

Only then does it make sense to decide how to act. That action can take different forms: reducing emissions, avoiding emissions, removing carbon, or compensating. These options do not all do the same thing, and they do not carry the same regulatory or commercial value. A roadmap helps companies understand where each approach fits.

Insetting and offsetting are not the same

The webinar also explored the difference between insetting and offsetting. In simple terms, insetting relates to action within a company’s value chain. Offsetting sits outside it. That matters because regulators are increasingly rewarding action linked to real operational change, while becoming more cautious about broad offset-based claims.

This does not mean offsetting disappears. It does mean companies need to be more careful about how they use it, how they communicate it, and what they expect it to achieve.

The wider shift is clear: climate action is moving away from blurred claims and towards more specific, evidence-based approaches.

Quality is a buyer issue too

Another important theme was quality.

This is not only a project developer question. It is also a buyer question. When a company buys a credit, it is not just buying a climate-related product. It is also taking on reputational exposure.

As Kasper Juul Naurgaard from Accura said: “At the end of the day, the off-takers and the buyers of any credit or any intangible environmental product will also buy a reputational product with it. You really need to know what it is that you are actually getting into, what is the quality of this, and how do I ensure environmental integrity.”

That is why due diligence matters. Companies need to understand what they are purchasing, how quality has been assessed, and whether the claim will stand up to scrutiny. They also need to understand how different project types fit into a broader strategy, how durable the removal is, what risks are attached, and how future-proof the decision may be.

In the webinar discussion, this came through especially clearly in relation to carbon removal. Higher-quality removals may face tighter supply in the future, and that changes how companies should think about timing, portfolio building, and long-term risk.

For some sectors, this is already becoming strategic

The real estate example in the session brought this into focus. The discussion showed how carbon strategy increasingly intersects with finance, asset planning, permitting risk, and the future value of buildings. In that context, carbon is not only a compliance topic. It becomes part of how developers think about future-proofing assets and managing long-term exposure.

That principle extends beyond real estate. As regulation develops, companies in many sectors will need to think less about whether this matters and more about how to act in a way that is commercially sound.

You do not have to start big

The final message of the webinar was one many companies need to hear.

You do not have to remove all emissions at once. You do not need a perfect strategy before taking a first step. You can start small.

That might mean focusing first on Scope 1 and 2 emissions, piloting a project with a meaningful link to your value chain, or testing a smaller portfolio and building internal understanding before scaling further.

What matters is that the first step is deliberate.

Carbon markets are complex. But complexity is not a reason to wait. It is a reason to approach the space with more structure, better questions, and the right support.

The companies that will be best placed are not the ones that waited for the market to become simple. They are the ones that started building a strategy early.

If you want to listen back to the discussion access the webinar recording here.