> The result, after further processing, is a calcium carbonate pellet that can be heated to release the CO2. That CO2 could then be pressurized, put into a pipeline and disposed of underground.

I'm curious why you wouldn't just bury the calcium carbonate pellets at this point (or sell them, since they have value). Pumping CO2 underground isn't a cheap or reliable process yet as far as I can tell.

> the company is planning instead to use the gas to make synthetic, low-carbon fuels.

I suppose the answer is that the synthetic natural gas is more valuable than the calcium carbonate. Seems like adding more steps than strictly necessary though.

Edit:

> In the United States, Carbon Engineering is eyeing a recently expanded subsidy for carbon capture and sequestration, which could provide a tax credit of $35 per tonne for atmospheric CO2 that is converted into fuels.

Missed this bit in the article. Regulatory arbitrage, which is a very good reason to add another step in your process, even if it's not strictly optimal.