Well, it actually has very little. Several major projects were cancelled in the States—coal sites—a couple of years ago because they were simply uneconomical. There are, of course, long-standing projects in Algeria and one in the North Sea done by Norway, but the IEA, back in 2013, was expressing its disappointment that carbon capture and storage had not been picked up around the world. It still hasn't, and the reason is the cost.
Alberta had a huge investigation or study in 2015. It was published in May 2015 by the Council of Canadian Academies. It involved about 15 engineers who knew the oil sands, and their conclusion in 2015 was that carbon capture would never play a significant role in reducing emissions in the oil sands. Why? Because it's too expensive.
Then they went on and explained in more detail. Part of the problem is that you can build a new project, a greenfield project, that would possibly have some economics to it, but to renovate old projects is a major expense and that is what most of the production in Alberta is. The other problem was that for in situ production—which is now the typical production in Alberta—the economies of scale are too small to justify carbon capture in situ.