A joint investigation by ProPublica and Drilled has revealed that a 2005 United Nations report on carbon capture and storage (CCS) relied on an anonymous "expert elicitation" to establish key technical parameters, despite a lack of peer-reviewed evidence. The report, produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is credited with helping to mainstream CCS as a viable strategy for mitigating climate change. The investigation highlights how industry influence and procedural workarounds shaped the scientific consensus on a technology that was largely untested at the time.
What the Right Is Saying
Proponents of carbon capture technology and conservative analysts often view the 2005 IPCC report as a necessary step in developing a pragmatic approach to climate change that accommodates economic realities. From this perspective, the use of expert elicitation was a reasonable scientific practice given the scarcity of large-scale experimental data at the time. The Norwegian Sleipner project, which had rigorously tested permanent storage, provided some evidence that the technology could work, offering a proof of concept that justified further exploration.
Supporters argue that the report’s findings helped draw oil-producing nations into the broader climate dialogue, which had previously been stalled by disagreements over economic impact. By providing a framework for CCS, the report allowed for a more inclusive global strategy that did not require immediate, drastic economic disruptions. The industry’s involvement is seen not as a conflict of interest, but as essential engagement from the stakeholders who would ultimately fund and implement the technology.
What the Left Is Saying
Environmental organizations and progressive analysts argue that the 2005 report served as a critical pivot point that allowed the fossil fuel industry to delay the phase-out of carbon-intensive energy sources. According to the investigation, oil-exporting nations, including Saudi Arabia, pressured the U.N. to commission the report specifically to forestall policies that would put them out of business. Critics note that the inclusion of authors and editors from Shell, Chevron, and Saudi Aramco in the chapter led by geoscientist Sally Benson created a conflict of interest.
Some scientists involved in the process expressed unease about the methodology, fearing that making "educated guesses" would mislead the public. The perspective here is that the IPCC’s decision to invite industry researchers to write the report, and its reliance on expert opinion rather than hard data, effectively legitimized a solution that favored continued fossil fuel extraction over renewable energy transition. The investigation suggests that the report distracted from the imperative to phase out fossil fuels by offering a technical fix that lacked empirical support.
What the Numbers Show
The 2005 report was finalized in Oviedo, Spain, by a group of more than 100 scientists, with Sally Benson leading the chapter on underground storage. At the time of the meeting, only three large-scale CCS experiments were underway globally. Of those, only one—the Norwegian operation pumping CO2 under the North Sea—had rigorously tested permanent storage. In that instance, injected CO2 floated 700 feet upward before being trapped by a shale ceiling, a result that surprised engineers but was deemed a success.
The investigation notes that the IPCC’s standard procedures require assessments to be based on peer-reviewed literature, with exceptions clearly cited. However, the report used an anonymous survey of experts to determine questions such as how many gigatons of storage capacity the planet likely had and how long a reservoir would hold CO2. The source material indicates that major questions remained about storage space, monitoring effectiveness, and the reliability of containing concentrated gas underground. The report’s authors included representatives from Shell, Chevron, and Saudi Aramco.
The Bottom Line
The ProPublica and Drilled investigation underscores the complex intersection of science, policy, and industry influence in the global response to climate change. The 2005 report’s reliance on expert opinion over hard data has had lasting implications for how carbon capture is viewed in policy circles. As nations debate the role of CCS in achieving net-zero targets, the historical context of its scientific validation remains a point of contention. The findings suggest that the technology’s current prominence may be rooted in procedural choices made when the science was still nascent, raising questions about the weight given to industry input in international scientific bodies.