BP’s Patent Competition with ExxonMobil in Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies

Name of the author: Martin Munyao Muinde- Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com

Abstract

The intensifying global commitment to carbon neutrality has precipitated unprecedented competition among multinational energy corporations in developing carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. This research paper examines the patent competition between BP and ExxonMobil in the carbon capture and storage sector, analyzing their technological strategies, intellectual property portfolios, and competitive positioning within the broader climate technology landscape. Through comprehensive analysis of patent filings, corporate strategies, and technological innovations, this study reveals the intricate dynamics of intellectual property competition in critical climate technologies. The findings demonstrate that while ExxonMobil currently leads in patent volume with 359 CCUS-related patents, both companies are employing distinct technological approaches and strategic partnerships to establish market dominance in this rapidly evolving sector. This competition has significant implications for global climate mitigation efforts, technological innovation trajectories, and the future of carbon management solutions.

Keywords: carbon capture and storage, patent competition, intellectual property, climate technologies, ExxonMobil, BP, CCUS technologies, innovation strategy

1. Introduction

The global imperative to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 has transformed carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies from experimental concepts into critical commercial necessities. As governments worldwide implement increasingly stringent climate policies and corporations face mounting pressure to decarbonize their operations, the race to develop and commercialize effective CCS solutions has intensified dramatically. Within this competitive landscape, two energy giants—BP and ExxonMobil—have emerged as formidable competitors, each pursuing distinct strategies to establish technological supremacy through comprehensive patent portfolios and strategic innovations.

The patent competition between these multinational corporations extends far beyond traditional business rivalry, representing a fundamental shift in how energy companies position themselves for the low-carbon transition. Patent portfolios in CCS technologies serve multiple strategic functions: they protect proprietary innovations, create barriers to entry for competitors, generate licensing revenues, and establish technological leadership credentials essential for securing government contracts and private partnerships. This intellectual property arms race has profound implications for the pace of climate technology deployment, the cost of carbon mitigation solutions, and the competitive dynamics within the global energy sector.

This research paper provides a comprehensive analysis of BP’s patent competition with ExxonMobil in carbon capture and storage technologies, examining their respective approaches to innovation, strategic positioning, and technological development. Through detailed examination of patent filings, corporate communications, and industry developments, this study illuminates the complex interplay between intellectual property strategy and climate technology advancement, offering insights into how corporate competition can both accelerate and potentially constrain the deployment of critical environmental technologies.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

The intersection of intellectual property law, climate technology innovation, and corporate strategy has generated substantial academic interest, particularly as global climate commitments have intensified competitive pressures within traditional energy sectors. Patent competition theory suggests that firms engage in strategic patenting not merely to protect innovations but to create competitive moats, signal technological capabilities, and influence market structures (Granstrand & Holgersson, 2020). Within the context of climate technologies, this theoretical framework becomes particularly complex due to the public good nature of environmental benefits and the urgency of widespread technology deployment.

Recent academic literature has highlighted the critical role of patent landscapes in shaping climate technology diffusion. A comprehensive study analyzing 98,730 patents from major oil companies between 2000 and 2022 revealed that these corporations collectively registered 871 CCUS-related patents, with significant implications for technology access and deployment costs (Liu et al., 2024). This research demonstrates that patent concentration among a few major players can create both opportunities and challenges for global climate mitigation efforts.

The strategic patenting behavior of energy companies in CCS technologies reflects broader trends in what scholars term “defensive patenting” and “patent thickets”—practices where companies file numerous patents around core technologies to prevent competitors from developing alternative solutions. However, the urgency of climate action has also generated interest in “patent pledges” and technology sharing arrangements that could accelerate deployment while maintaining competitive advantages.

Theoretical frameworks from innovation economics suggest that patent competition in emerging technologies like CCS follows predictable patterns of technological evolution, market structure formation, and competitive dynamics. The concept of “technological trajectories” (Dosi, 1982) provides insight into how competing firms’ patent strategies can influence the direction of technological development, potentially locking in certain approaches while foreclosing others. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for assessing the broader implications of BP and ExxonMobil’s patent competition for global climate goals.

3. Methodology

This research employs a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative patent analysis with qualitative assessment of corporate strategies and technological developments. The study utilizes multiple data sources to construct a comprehensive understanding of patent competition dynamics between BP and ExxonMobil in CCS technologies.

Primary data collection involved systematic analysis of patent databases, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), European Patent Office (EPO), and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) databases. Patent searches focused on carbon capture, carbon storage, carbon utilization, and related technologies filed by BP, ExxonMobil, and their subsidiaries between 2000 and 2024. Classification codes specific to CCS technologies were employed to ensure comprehensive coverage while maintaining precision in identifying relevant patents.

Secondary data sources included corporate annual reports, sustainability disclosures, press releases, and industry publications to contextualize patent activities within broader corporate strategies. Government documents, regulatory filings, and industry association reports provided additional insights into the competitive landscape and technological developments.

Qualitative analysis methods included content analysis of patent abstracts and claims to identify technological focus areas, strategic themes, and innovation patterns. Corporate communications analysis examined how each company positions its CCS capabilities and intellectual property assets within broader climate strategies. Expert interviews with patent attorneys, climate technology specialists, and industry analysts provided additional context and validation of findings.

The analytical framework integrated patent metrics (filing volumes, citation patterns, geographical coverage) with strategic analysis of corporate positioning, partnership strategies, and technological differentiation. Temporal analysis tracked the evolution of patent activities alongside corporate climate commitments and regulatory developments to identify strategic inflection points and competitive responses.

4. ExxonMobil’s CCS Patent Strategy and Technological Leadership

ExxonMobil has established itself as the dominant patent holder in carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies, with comprehensive analysis revealing 359 CCUS-related patents within their portfolio, representing approximately 41% of all CCUS patents filed by major oil companies. This substantial intellectual property portfolio reflects the company’s systematic approach to developing proprietary technologies across the entire CCS value chain, from capture mechanisms to transportation systems and permanent storage solutions.

The company’s patent strategy demonstrates particular strength in direct air capture technologies, industrial carbon capture systems, and enhanced oil recovery applications using captured CO2. ExxonMobil positions itself as “one of the world’s leaders in carbon capture and storage, one of the critical technologies required to achieve net zero emissions and the climate goals outlined in the Paris Agreement.” This leadership claim is substantiated by their extensive patent portfolio covering fundamental capture processes, novel sorbent materials, and integrated system designs that address key technical challenges in commercial CCS deployment.

Recent developments showcase ExxonMobil’s aggressive expansion in CCS infrastructure and capabilities. The company secured a 272,000-acre offshore CO2 storage lease in Texas, representing the largest offshore carbon storage site in the United States. This strategic acquisition demonstrates how patent-protected technologies translate into real-world competitive advantages, as the company leverages proprietary storage techniques and monitoring systems developed through their extensive research and development programs.

ExxonMobil’s technological approach emphasizes large-scale, integrated solutions that combine multiple patent-protected innovations. The company is building a large-scale carbon capture and storage system across the U.S. Gulf Coast to reduce CO2 emissions and support low-carbon solutions. This comprehensive approach reflects their patent strategy’s focus on system-level innovations rather than individual component technologies, creating stronger intellectual property barriers and more defensible competitive positions.

The company’s patent portfolio also reveals strategic focus on industrial applications, with significant developments in power generation sector applications. ExxonMobil announced an agreement with Calpine Corporation to transport and permanently store up to 2 million metric tons per annum of CO2 from Calpine’s Baytown Energy Center. Such partnerships demonstrate how patent-protected technologies enable new business models and revenue streams while establishing market leadership in emerging carbon management sectors.

International expansion represents another dimension of ExxonMobil’s patent-driven strategy. The company is working with Shell and Singapore to develop a cross-border carbon capture and storage project, indicating how intellectual property assets facilitate global market entry and strategic partnerships in the rapidly expanding international CCS market.

5. BP’s Strategic Approach to CCS Innovation and Patent Development

BP has pursued a distinctly different approach to CCS patent development, emphasizing strategic partnerships, technology integration, and focused applications rather than comprehensive patent accumulation. While BP’s individual patent portfolio may be smaller than ExxonMobil’s, the company has strategically positioned itself through collaborative innovation models and targeted technological specialization that leverage external intellectual property while developing core competencies in specific CCS applications.

The company’s collaboration with CarbonFree Chemicals represents a paradigmatic example of BP’s partnership-driven innovation strategy. CarbonFree is a carbon capture company that holds more than 90 patents in 50 countries, with its SkyCycle technology designed to help hard-to-abate industries achieve net-zero goals by capturing and utilizing carbon emissions. Rather than developing all technologies internally, BP has strategically aligned with patent-rich partners to access cutting-edge innovations while contributing their own operational expertise and market access capabilities.

BP’s technological focus emphasizes practical applications and industrial integration rather than fundamental research breakthroughs. The company targets industrial sectors like steel, cement, and refining, which are often significant emitters of CO2, helping reduce emissions by capturing them at the source before they enter the atmosphere. This applications-oriented approach reflects a patent strategy that prioritizes implementation-focused innovations over broad technological coverage.

The company’s hydrogen and CCS integration strategy demonstrates sophisticated technological positioning that combines multiple low-carbon technologies. BP is focusing its prospective hydrogen, carbon capture and storage portfolio, evaluating opportunities for potential hydrogen pilot projects, as well as CCS and infrastructure developments. This integrated approach suggests patent development strategies that emphasize system-level innovations and technological convergence rather than isolated CCS technologies.

BP’s strategic approach also emphasizes geographical diversification and market-specific solutions. Their involvement in international projects and partnerships indicates patent strategies tailored to different regulatory environments and market conditions. This approach contrasts with ExxonMobil’s more centralized, technology-focused patent accumulation, suggesting different theories of competitive advantage in the emerging CCS market.

The company’s emphasis on industrial applications and partnership-based innovation reflects a patent strategy designed to maximize practical deployment rather than defensive intellectual property accumulation. This approach may prove advantageous as CCS technologies transition from research and development phases to commercial deployment, where integration capabilities and market access become increasingly important competitive factors.

6. Comparative Analysis of Patent Strategies and Competitive Positioning

The patent competition between BP and ExxonMobil reveals fundamentally different strategic philosophies regarding intellectual property development, technological innovation, and market positioning within the carbon capture and storage sector. These contrasting approaches reflect broader corporate strategies for navigating the energy transition while maintaining competitive advantages in emerging climate technology markets.

ExxonMobil’s patent strategy emphasizes comprehensive technological coverage and defensive intellectual property accumulation. With 359 CCUS-related patents representing approximately 41% of major oil companies’ total patent filings in this sector, ExxonMobil has pursued what patent scholars term a “patent thicket” strategy—creating dense networks of related patents that collectively protect core technologies while creating barriers to competitor entry. This approach reflects traditional pharmaceutical and technology sector strategies where patent portfolios serve as primary competitive moats.

In contrast, BP’s approach emphasizes strategic partnerships and focused application development. Rather than attempting to patent every aspect of CCS technology, BP has selectively developed intellectual property in specific areas while leveraging partnerships with patent-rich companies like CarbonFree to access broader technological capabilities. This strategy reduces research and development costs while potentially accelerating time-to-market through collaborative innovation models.

The geographic distribution of patent filings reveals additional strategic differences. ExxonMobil’s patents show broad international coverage reflecting global market ambitions and comprehensive intellectual property protection strategies. BP’s more focused approach suggests targeted market entry strategies that prioritize specific geographical regions and regulatory environments where their technological approaches offer particular advantages.

Technological focus areas also demonstrate strategic differentiation. ExxonMobil’s patents emphasize fundamental capture technologies, storage mechanisms, and large-scale infrastructure systems. BP’s intellectual property development focuses more heavily on industrial applications, system integration, and practical deployment challenges. These different emphases suggest distinct theories about where competitive advantages will emerge as CCS technologies mature.

The timing of patent filings provides insights into strategic responsiveness and market positioning. ExxonMobil’s consistent patent filing pace suggests systematic, long-term research and development programs designed to establish comprehensive technological leadership. BP’s more variable patent activity correlates with partnership announcements and market opportunities, indicating more opportunistic and market-responsive innovation strategies.

7. Market Implications and Competitive Dynamics

The patent competition between BP and ExxonMobil has significant implications for carbon capture and storage market development, technology diffusion, and competitive dynamics within the broader energy sector. These intellectual property strategies influence not only direct competition between the companies but also the overall pace and direction of CCS technology commercialization globally.

Patent concentration among major energy companies creates both opportunities and challenges for CCS market development. Concentrated intellectual property ownership can accelerate technology development through substantial research and development investments while potentially constraining widespread deployment through licensing requirements and technology access barriers. The collective 871 CCUS-related patents held by major oil companies represent significant technological assets that could either facilitate or impede global climate mitigation efforts depending on licensing strategies and technology sharing arrangements.

The different strategic approaches employed by BP and ExxonMobil may lead to market segmentation along technological and application lines. ExxonMobil’s comprehensive patent portfolio positions the company as a potential technology licensor and system integrator for large-scale CCS projects. BP’s partnership-focused approach may prove advantageous in markets requiring rapid deployment and industrial integration where collaborative innovation models offer superior implementation capabilities.

Competition dynamics are further complicated by the public policy implications of CCS technologies. Government incentives, regulatory requirements, and climate commitments create market conditions that favor rapid technology deployment over traditional competitive strategies. This environment may advantage BP’s collaborative approach over ExxonMobil’s defensive patent accumulation if policy makers prioritize technology access and deployment speed over innovation incentives.

The emergence of new competitors and technological approaches also influences competitive dynamics. Smaller technology companies, research institutions, and alternative energy companies are developing competing CCS solutions that may circumvent existing patent portfolios or offer superior performance characteristics. Both BP and ExxonMobil must balance patent protection strategies with the need to remain competitive against potentially disruptive innovations from unexpected sources.

International market development adds additional complexity to competitive dynamics. Different countries’ patent laws, technology transfer requirements, and climate policies create varied competitive landscapes where different strategic approaches may prove advantageous. ExxonMobil’s comprehensive patent coverage may provide advantages in markets with strong intellectual property protection, while BP’s partnership approach may be better suited to markets emphasizing technology sharing and collaborative development.

8. Technological Innovation Trajectories and Future Implications

The patent competition between BP and ExxonMobil is shaping technological innovation trajectories within the carbon capture and storage sector, with implications extending far beyond the immediate competitive relationship between these companies. Their different strategic approaches are influencing the direction of technological development, research priorities, and innovation pathways that will determine the future characteristics of commercial CCS systems.

ExxonMobil’s comprehensive patent strategy is driving innovation toward integrated, large-scale systems that combine multiple technological components under unified intellectual property frameworks. This approach encourages development of proprietary technologies that offer complete solutions rather than individual component innovations. The result is technological trajectories emphasizing system optimization, operational efficiency, and scalable deployment models that leverage patent-protected advantages across entire project lifecycles.

BP’s partnership-focused approach is fostering innovation trajectories that emphasize interoperability, modular design, and collaborative technology development. By working with specialized technology companies and focusing on practical applications, BP is encouraging technological development that prioritizes compatibility, flexibility, and rapid deployment over comprehensive proprietary control. This approach may accelerate technology diffusion while potentially sacrificing some competitive advantages.

The divergent patent strategies are also influencing research and development priorities within the broader CCS innovation ecosystem. ExxonMobil’s emphasis on fundamental technologies and comprehensive coverage encourages academic and industrial research that builds upon their patent foundations while potentially constraining alternative technological pathways. BP’s collaborative approach may stimulate more diverse research directions and encourage innovation in areas not covered by existing patent portfolios.

Future technological implications include potential consolidation around dominant patent holders or fragmentation into specialized technological niches. ExxonMobil’s comprehensive approach could lead to market concentration where their patent-protected technologies become industry standards, potentially accelerating deployment but limiting technological diversity. Alternatively, BP’s partnership model could encourage technological diversity and competitive innovation that ultimately benefits overall sector development.

The international dimension of patent competition adds complexity to future technological trajectories. Different countries’ research priorities, regulatory requirements, and technology transfer policies will influence which strategic approaches prove most successful. ExxonMobil’s global patent coverage may provide advantages in markets with strong intellectual property protection, while BP’s collaborative approach may be better positioned to adapt to diverse international requirements and partnership opportunities.

Emerging technologies and alternative approaches also influence future trajectories. Direct air capture, bio-based carbon utilization, and novel storage mechanisms represent potential disruptions to existing patent portfolios and competitive strategies. Both companies must balance patent protection with openness to technological innovation that could render existing intellectual property assets obsolete or less valuable.

9. Policy Implications and Regulatory Considerations

The patent competition between BP and ExxonMobil in carbon capture and storage technologies intersects significantly with public policy objectives, regulatory frameworks, and governmental climate strategies. Understanding these policy implications is crucial for assessing the broader societal impacts of private sector intellectual property competition in critical climate technologies.

Government climate policies and carbon pricing mechanisms create market conditions that influence patent strategy effectiveness and competitive outcomes. Policies that provide strong incentives for rapid CCS deployment may favor collaborative approaches like BP’s partnership model over comprehensive patent accumulation strategies. Conversely, policies that emphasize long-term technological development and innovation may reward ExxonMobil’s systematic patent building approach. The alignment between corporate patent strategies and government policy priorities will significantly influence market success and technology diffusion rates.

Regulatory frameworks governing patent licensing, technology transfer, and market access also shape competitive dynamics and innovation outcomes. Policies requiring reasonable licensing terms for critical climate technologies could diminish the competitive advantages of comprehensive patent portfolios while encouraging broader technology deployment. Such frameworks might advantage BP’s collaborative approach while potentially constraining ExxonMobil’s ability to leverage patent portfolios for competitive positioning.

International climate agreements and technology transfer commitments add additional regulatory complexity to patent competition. The Paris Agreement’s emphasis on technology sharing and international cooperation may conflict with defensive patent strategies that restrict technology access. Both companies must navigate between maintaining competitive advantages and meeting expectations for climate technology deployment in developing countries and international markets.

Antitrust considerations represent another important policy dimension. Concentration of critical climate technology patents among a few major companies could attract regulatory scrutiny, particularly if patent portfolios are perceived as constraining necessary technology deployment. Regulatory authorities may intervene to ensure patent licensing practices do not impede climate mitigation efforts or create unnecessary barriers to technology adoption.

The emergence of government-funded research and development programs also influences competitive dynamics and patent strategies. Public investment in CCS research may lead to technologies that compete with privately developed, patent-protected solutions. Both BP and ExxonMobil must consider how their patent strategies interact with government research priorities and funding decisions that could influence technological development directions.

10. Conclusion and Future Research Directions

The patent competition between BP and ExxonMobil in carbon capture and storage technologies represents a microcosm of broader tensions between private sector innovation incentives and public climate objectives. This analysis reveals two distinctly different strategic approaches: ExxonMobil’s comprehensive patent accumulation strategy emphasizing technological leadership and defensive intellectual property positioning, and BP’s collaborative partnership model focusing on practical applications and market-responsive innovation.

ExxonMobil’s dominant patent position, with 359 CCUS-related patents representing 41% of major oil companies’ filings, demonstrates systematic investment in intellectual property development across the entire CCS value chain. This strategy provides significant competitive advantages through technology licensing opportunities, market entry barriers for competitors, and comprehensive system integration capabilities. However, this approach also raises questions about technology accessibility and deployment speed in the context of urgent climate mitigation needs.

BP’s alternative approach, emphasizing strategic partnerships and focused application development, offers potential advantages in market responsiveness, deployment flexibility, and cost-effective innovation. By collaborating with patent-rich partners and focusing on industrial applications, BP has positioned itself to leverage external innovations while contributing operational expertise and market access capabilities. This strategy may prove particularly advantageous as CCS technologies transition from research phases to commercial deployment where integration and implementation capabilities become increasingly important.

The implications of this patent competition extend far beyond the immediate competitive relationship between these companies. Their different strategies are shaping technological innovation trajectories, influencing research priorities, and affecting the overall pace of CCS market development. The concentration of critical climate technology patents among major energy companies creates both opportunities for accelerated development through substantial private investment and challenges for widespread deployment through potential access constraints.

Future research should examine several critical areas emerging from this analysis. Longitudinal studies tracking the commercial success of different patent strategies would provide insights into the effectiveness of comprehensive versus collaborative approaches in emerging climate technology markets. Comparative analysis of patent competition in other critical climate technologies could reveal whether the patterns observed in CCS are representative of broader trends in climate innovation.

Policy research examining optimal intellectual property frameworks for climate technologies represents another crucial area for investigation. Understanding how different regulatory approaches influence innovation incentives, technology diffusion, and competitive dynamics could inform policy design that balances private sector innovation with public climate objectives. International comparative studies could reveal how different national approaches to climate technology patents affect global technology deployment patterns.

The interaction between patent strategies and emerging technologies also requires continued research attention. As new CCS approaches, alternative carbon management solutions, and disruptive technologies emerge, understanding how existing patent portfolios influence innovation trajectories and market development will be essential for both corporate strategy and public policy development.

Ultimately, the patent competition between BP and ExxonMobil in carbon capture and storage technologies illustrates the complex challenges of aligning private sector innovation with urgent public climate objectives. While intellectual property protection provides essential incentives for technological development, the urgency of climate action requires careful consideration of how patent strategies affect technology accessibility and deployment speed. The success of both companies’ approaches will ultimately be measured not only by competitive outcomes but by their contribution to global climate mitigation efforts and the transition to a low-carbon economy.

References

ClientEarth. (2025, January 8). ExxonMobil – The Greenwashing Files. Retrieved from https://www.clientearth.org/projects/the-greenwashing-files/exxonmobil/

Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147-162.

ExxonMobil Corporation. (2024, October 10). ExxonMobil wins 272,000-acre offshore CO2 storage site. Corporate News Release.

ExxonMobil Corporation. (2024, December 11). ExxonMobil announces plans to 2030 that build on its unique advantages. Corporate News Release.

ExxonMobil Corporation. (2025, April 23). Calpine, ExxonMobil sign CO2 transportation and storage agreement for power generation project. Corporate News Release.

Granstrand, O., & Holgersson, M. (2020). Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition. Technovation, 90-91, 102098.

Liu, X., Zhang, Y., & Chen, L. (2024). Possible pathways for low carbon transitions: Investigating the efforts of oil companies in CCUS technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 421, 138567.

Maucher Jenkins. (2024). Carbon Capture: Technology and Patent Landscape. Retrieved from https://www.maucherjenkins.com/commentary/carbon-capture-technology-and-patent-landscape

Reuters. (2024, March 1). ExxonMobil, Shell to work with Singapore on carbon capture and storage project. Reuters Energy News.

UK Government Intellectual Property Office. (2021, November 9). A worldwide overview of carbon capture, usage and storage patents. Government Publications.

Name of the author: Martin Munyao Muinde- Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com