The FF industry is leaping (has leapt, historically) on CCS as a getout clause and has sunk french metric tonnes of money into CCS. So far, its uneconomic except for the specific use of pumping gas into wells to make them more productive, which leads to more fugitive gas. No significant CCS experiment worldwide has achieved its goals as sequestration. The one in Western Australia releases so much CO2 it has to pay a penalty cost, to maintain status. (its a gas field associated with other extractive industry I believe)

This money they've sunk: its not their money: they've been doing it off the public teat as "research" or, when it is their money, its booked to R&D and has massive royalty & tax offset benefits. Its a shellgame.

The inclusion of blue hydrogen+CCS in this piece is really regrettable: its being used to avoid having to wear the cost of going to green hydrogen, which is abandoning FF inputs. For holders of shares in coal and gas, this is not optimal so they oppose green and argue abatement by CCS is "the one"

It doesn't work. CCS is a giant con. The evidence is strong that at scale CCS is not working, and will waste years of time, billions of dollars of cost, and gigatonnes of CO2, to prove it.

Overall I like Gates trying to help. He's been badly advised when it comes to CCS.