Articles

Carbon dioxide is not a villain in itself. We breathe it out every day. It is used across industry and sits quietly in fizzy drinks without causing drama. The danger begins when CO₂ is compressed into a dense phase, transported at very high pressure through long-distance pipelines, and then treated as though it will behave like an ordinary gas if something goes wrong. It does not.

CO₂ Is Not Harmless Under Pressure

In a significant release, CO₂ can form an invisible, ground-hugging cloud. Because it is heavier than air, it can flow downhill, and collect in dips and hollows. It is not toxic in the traditional sense, but it is an asphyxiant — meaning it can suffocate by displacing oxygen. If oxygen levels drop quickly, the body’s ability to respond can be overwhelmed before people even realise what is happening.

The 2020 Satartia Pipeline Rupture

The clearest modern example is the 2020 pipeline rupture near Satartia, Mississippi. A CO₂ pipeline owned by Denbury Inc. ruptured in February 2020. The US regulator, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, later documented that around 200 residents were evacuated and dozens required medical treatment following exposure. Reports described people struggling to breathe and vehicles stalling in the area.

That detail about vehicles is critical. Emergency plans often assume evacuation is straightforward. If engines are compromised and drivers are experiencing oxygen deprivation, that assumption quickly collapses. In Satartia, this was not a minor leak in an isolated area. It was a dense CO₂ release affecting a real community with real constraints.

Another important aspect was that the pipeline was not carrying pure CO₂. Reporting noted the presence of hydrogen sulphide in the stream. Hydrogen sulphide is toxic and detectable at low concentrations by its smell, but at higher concentrations it can deaden the sense of smell. Even without that complication, the CO₂ itself posed a serious hazard simply by displacing oxygen.

The cause of the rupture was linked to ground movement associated with heavy rainfall and slope failure. That matters. Linear infrastructure that crosses variable terrain, waterways, embankments and land exposed to extreme weather will always carry interaction risk. The more pipelines that are built, the more exposure points are created. That is not political commentary. It is arithmetic.

Why CO₂ Is Not Like Natural Gas

CO₂ behaves differently from natural gas. It does not reliably rise and disperse. It can linger, move unpredictably along topography and create conditions where escape is more difficult than models suggest. MIT’s analysis of CO₂ transport risks makes this point clearly. While pipeline accidents may be rare, when they occur they can be very serious.

What Satartia Should Teach Us

The lesson from Satartia is not that CO₂ pipelines are impossible to operate safely. It is that their failure mode is distinct and potentially complex. Dense phase CO₂ under high pressure represents a specific hazard profile that must be understood and planned for honestly.

If more CO₂ pipelines are to be built, Satartia should not be treated as a footnote. It should be a case study in emergency response, terrain interaction, communication failures and the real world impact of a rupture. Communities deserve clarity about what happened, why it happened, and what safeguards would genuinely prevent a repeat.

Links

• PHMSA Failure Investigation Report – Denbury Gulf Coast Pipeline
• Time Magazine reporting on the Satartia rupture
• MIT Climate – Risks of transporting CO₂ by pipeline
• UK Parliamentary written evidence

The Promise of Carbon Capture

Carbon capture and storage is frequently presented as essential to achieving net zero. Capture emissions at source. Transport the CO₂. Store it underground. De-carbonise heavy industry without dismantling it. The concept is attractive in its simplicity.

The infrastructure required to deliver that simplicity is anything but simple. High-pressure pipelines, compression facilities, injection wells, monitoring systems and long-term regulatory oversight all need to function reliably for decades. The system only works if every link in the chain performs as intended.

The Gap Between Ambition and Delivery

The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis has consistently examined the gap between ambition and delivery within the carbon capture sector. Its work has highlighted cost overruns, underperformance and the risk of overstating carbon capture as a silver bullet while operational challenges persist. The concern is not only financial. It is structural and systemic.

In the context of CO₂ pipelines, incidents such as Satartia intersect directly with this wider critique. Rapid expansion of infrastructure under political and commercial pressure can lead to risk being framed as manageable without full transparency about potential consequences. Communities may be told that incidents are rare without being shown credible worst case scenarios.

What Failure Can Look Like

MIT’s climate analysis acknowledges that while accidents may be infrequent, when high-pressure CO₂ systems fail, the consequences can be serious. Rapid decompression can release large volumes quickly. The affected zone depends on terrain, weather and operating conditions. It may extend beyond the narrow strip of land directly above the pipeline.

Matching Ambition With Operational Realism

The central issue is balance. Climate ambition must be matched by operational realism. Dense phase CO₂ transport carries a distinct hazard profile. It demands robust inspection regimes, appropriate valve spacing, corrosion control, route selection sensitive to terrain and population density, and meaningful emergency planning with local responders.

Transparency is fundamental. Communities deserve to understand not just the climate case, but the infrastructure case. That includes credible modelling, clear communication of uncertainty and honest acknowledgement of what happens if containment fails.

Scrutiny Before Expansion

Carbon capture may play a role in decarbonisation. That discussion is legitimate. What is not legitimate is minimising the specific risks associated with transporting compressed CO₂ over long distances. Infrastructure decisions made today will define community risk profiles for decades.

Enthusiasm should not outrun evidence. Build-out should not outrun safeguards. And reassurance should not replace rigorous analysis. If carbon capture is to be part of the future energy system, it must withstand scrutiny not only on emissions accounting, but on safety, resilience and transparency. People living along proposed routes deserve answers that stand up when tested, not simply when presented.

Links

• IEEFA report – Carbon capture cautionary analysis
• UK Parliamentary written evidence
• MIT Climate – Risks of transporting CO₂ by pipeline
• PHMSA Failure Investigation Report – Denbury Gulf Coast Pipeline

I want to begin by making one thing absolutely clear – this is NOT NIMBYism.

The people of the Wirral are not anti-environment, quite the opposite, we understand the urgency of climate change, we support net zero and we want meaningful action to protect our planet. But what we cannot accept is the idea that environmental progress must come at the cost of our own environment, our homes. Other people’s homes and livelihoods.

We are being asked to accept a 200km, CO2 pipeline, running from the peak district, through Cheshire and through the spine of the Wirral. For the CO2 to be compressed at an industrial plant, to then be stored offshore beneath the sea-bed – and we are told that this progress? That this is inevitable. That this is vital? And we are expected to not ask questions, to accept the inevitability of it? To be ‘ok’ with Peak Cluster representatives shutting us down at consultations. To have the CEO, John Egan, shrug his shoulders when challenged and respond with ‘I don’t know, we can’t say, we are unsure.’

We are also told, woodland will be disturbed, greenbelt land will be excavated habitats will be disrupted, infrastructure will be installed just 1.2m below ground on a publicly known route – an open invitation for vandalism or worse, terrorism. Because it may sound extreme but it also the world we are living in right now. At the coast here is to be an above ground installation, now projected to be closer to eight football pitches in footprint, with vent stacks up to 50m high. This isn’t minor infrastructure, this is industrialisation.

Why should our land be sacrificed when alternative approaches exist? Why are we not prioritising technologies that capture carbon dioxide at source, such as Carbon8, a less invasive, more economically viable and cheaper process than a 200km pipe. Re-use that CO2 for energy, rather than transporting it long distances and storing it beneath the sea? Because let us be frank, this isn’t tackling climate change, this is not reducing emissions, it is just hiding them, pretending they will go away or leaving it for the next generation or the one after to deal with.

Instead of CO2 going into the atmosphere it is going into precious ground beneath our seabed. They may have been gas fields but that does not make it risk free; it simply relocates the risk. One only must look at the Lake Nyos disaster. A naturally held pocket of CO2, just like the gas fields, released 300,000 tonnes of CO2 and Peak Cluster are transporting 3,000,000 tonnes INITIALLY. And please don’t state this was a fluke, a one off, because two years prior the same thing happened in another area, Lake Monoun. There are many things we can control, nature is not one of them. The statement made by John Egan, that these gas fields have held gas for millions of years and so are safe to hold the CO2, well Lake Nyos was safe. Until it was not.

Or is there another reason? Would the CO2 displace what little oil and gas is left, making this a stealth fracking exercise? Given the vagueness of Peak Clusters application, this is a real possibility. What do they not want us to know?

We ask what happens in the event of a failure on land? We know CO2 is an asphyxiant, we know that pipeline failures have occurred across the world We know it happened in Denbury, Louisiana in 2024. We know that in Satartia, Mississippi, February 22nd 2020, one such incident occurred. Emergency Vehicles stalled owing to the displacement of oxygen by the CO2 – they couldn’t reach those in need for over an hour. We know that over 200 people were evacuated and 45 hospitalised.

And if this pipeline runs near critical infrastructure such as hospitals, what’s the emergency plan? Where are the patients taken? And how quickly – can already stretched to breaking point – emergency services respond? Who is trained for that scenario? Who pays for it? Who manages it when those who would be called upon are perilously close to the pipeline itself.

The pipeline runs past at least four primary schools. CO2 is a dense gas, in the event of a leak we know that pets and children are affected first, one of the reasons being they are closer to the ground. What happens then, when our babies, when our children, when our future end up in a situation when their safety is compromised for the sake of so-called progress? Should we not be protecting them? Should we not be learning from Satartia and Denbury? Should we not be looking at other alternatives instead of placing money and greed above the future of our country and our society? We are told to trust that this technology will perform as promised, yet independent studies by the Institute of Energy, Economic and Financial Analysis found that flagship CCS projects globally have shown under performance and outright failures. They stated ‘CCS often overpromises and under delivers. Seven out of thirteen flagship CCS pipeline projects did not perform as expected. One failed outright. This is not speculation, these are cold hard facts, unlike the information we are receiving from peak Cluster. So, what makes this pipeline different? Show us the data, the projections, the evidence.

Who is monitoring this pipeline? Who is inspecting it? Who maintains it? Who protects it? Who prevents vandalism and nefarious activities along its length. And in 20 years when Peak Cluster steps back who carries the liability then? Is it the state? Is it the taxpayer? Is it us? Is it the people of Wirral who have already been expected to shoulder the burden by the desecration of land and compromise of our safety? I fully intend to be here in twenty years, as does my daughter and perhaps even her children. Are transferring long term risk to future generations for short-term political targets? Are we the guinea pigs?

There’s the economic impact. Estate agents in February 2026 have reported uncertainty surrounding property transactions along the route of the pipeline. The Wirral has always been proud of its strong local economy. We buy local, we support local, we live local. But if confidence drops and people choose not to move here, and people start to move out. That affects our shops, services our sports clubs, our community life and identity. So who indeed profits from this? Because it is not the people of the Wirral. And let us not pretend that reinstatement equals restoration, you cannot excavate woodland and return it to its’ original ecological maturity with a landscaping plan. Once disturbed some things simply cannot be replaced. These are not sensationalist questions or statements. They are responsible ones.

So no, this is not NIMBYism this is about safety, this is about environmental integrity, it is emergency preparedness it is about long term financial accountability. We are not saying do nothing. We are asking to prioritise solutions that do not ask one community to carry disproportionate risk when known technologies already exist. We deserve transparency. We deserve to know that in trying to save the planet we are not being asked to sacrifice our own homeland, our safe space in the process. So, I call upon all councillors present, regardless of party ties, ask yourself these questions and answer honestly. Stand with the residents and help us stop the CCS pipeline now.

Laura Beveridge

Action Against CCS

Chair

This speech, along with the full proceedings from the extraordinary full council meeting on 9 March 2026, can be viewed on the Wirral Council website.