Should Ghana's Oil Producers Fund Carbon Storage? A Fresh Debate on Climate Accountability

A growing chorus of academics and climate professionals is pushing for a radical shift in how governments approve new oil and gas projects: making producers legally responsible for storing the carbon their products will eventually emit. The debate, centred on UK offshore fields, has implications that could reshape how African oil-producing nations—including Ghana—approach fossil fuel licensing in an era of climate crisis.

The proposal is straightforward but transformative. Rather than treating carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a voluntary afterthought or distant promise, governments should attach a binding obligation to new drilling licences: producers must progressively fund the permanent geological storage of carbon contained in the oil or gas they extract. Not vague commitments. Not voluntary targets for 2040. A measurable, enforceable requirement tied directly to the right to produce.

Why It Matters for Ghana

Ghana has emerged as a significant oil producer since commercial production began at Jubilee in 2010, with multiple fields now operational and others in development. The country's energy strategy increasingly hinges on petroleum revenue to fund development projects and support the national budget. However, Ghana is also vulnerable to climate impacts—coastal erosion, changing rainfall patterns and extreme weather already affect millions of Ghanaians. The tension between economic opportunity and climate responsibility is real.

A carbon storage obligation framework could offer Ghana a middle path. Rather than choosing between rejecting new oil development outright or approving it with minimal climate safeguards, the country could impose binding CCS requirements on producers. This would ensure that whenever Ghana's government approves a new field, the company benefiting economically must also bear responsibility for managing the climate consequences of the product it sells.

Ghana's upstream regulator, the Petroleum Commission, and the Ministry of Energy would need to build the technical capacity to design and enforce such obligations. But the principle aligns with emerging global norms: if a nation recognises that burning the fuel causes emissions, those emissions should factor into both approval decisions and operational requirements.

The Carbon Storage Paradox

The core problem the proposal addresses is a massive mismatch between supply and demand for carbon storage. The UK's continental shelf alone is estimated to hold around 78 billion tonnes of theoretical CO₂ storage capacity. Globally, engineering expertise exists. Hundreds of projects have been announced. Yet in 2025, the world's entire operational commercial capture capacity reached only about 64 million tonnes per year.

Why? Storage operators cannot finance pipelines, terminals and injection wells without guaranteed customers. Industrial emitters won't commit to long-term contracts without subsidies or price certainty. Capture projects wait for infrastructure waiting for customers. A chicken-and-egg deadlock.

By tying storage obligations to fossil fuel licences, governments create a reliable customer base with both the financial resources and technical expertise to fund the infrastructure. Oil and gas companies could build storage facilities themselves, contract with independent providers, or purchase certified storage credits—but they would have to do something.

Extended Producer Responsibility for Carbon

The concept borrows from existing industrial models. Producers are already required to manage packaging waste, recycle electronics, or pay for disposal. A carbon takeback obligation applies identical logic to fossil fuels: the company introducing geological carbon into the economy becomes responsible for returning an increasing fraction to permanent geological storage.

Producers wouldn't need to capture emissions from the exact car, boiler or power plant burning their fuel—that would be impractical. Instead, they could procure verified permanent storage from any source: industrial CCS, bioenergy with carbon capture, or direct air capture. The obligation creates the market; companies decide how to meet it.

For Ghana, this framework could help avoid the narrative trap that currently dominates. Industry argues oil is needed for jobs and development; campaigners argue all new fields lock in emissions. With a CCS obligation, both statements become compatible. Production can continue while the producer funds the climate consequences of that production.

The approach won't resolve every debate about fossil fuels, but it transforms carbon storage from a public subsidy programme into a commercial necessity tied to profit-making extraction. As Ghana's petroleum sector matures, that principle could prove increasingly valuable.