Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Carbon capture and sequestration versus carbon capture utilisation and storage for enhanced oil recovery

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
Acta Geotechnica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There are 74 integrated carbon capture projects worldwide currently listed by the Global CCS Institute, including the few already running and those still at the identification, evaluation, definition or execution stage for operation by 2018. Significant funding programmes have recently been launched by the European Commission (NER300 in November 2011) and by the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (CCS Commercialisation Programme in April 2012) for commercial demonstration projects leading to innovation across the CCS/CCUS technology chain to reduce energy system costs. In their calls for proposals, these programmes were open to both CCS and CCUS projects. However, there are significant technical and commercial differences between projects for enhanced oil recovery and those for permanent storage of carbon dioxide in saline aquifers or in depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs, the same way that there exist more complexities and limitations for offshore implementation. Such differences are accompanied by different levels of field verification of the various storage and utilisation concepts, with permanent sequestration having only a more recent history and smaller-scale implementation. In this scenario, the need for appropriate due diligence workflows and screening criteria to assess the technical viability and the deliverability of different CCS/CCUS projects remains crucial, vis-à-vis the high component costs, efficiency penalties, reservoir uncertainties and the many challenges related to full chain integration (from carbon dioxide capture to underground sequestration). Based on information in the public domain, this paper reviews the current status of offshore CCS/CCUS implementation worldwide and discusses screening criteria for use by governments, operators and investors alike.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Balbinski E, Goodfield M, Jayasekera T, Woods C (2003) Potential for geological storage and EOR from CO injection into UKCS, UK DTI

  2. Baumeister C, Peersman G (2011) The role of time-varying price elasticities in accounting for volatility changes in the crude oil market. Bank of Canada Working Paper 2011-28, Canada

  3. Bentham M, Kirby G (2005) CO2 Storage in saline aquifers. Oil Gas Sci Technol IFP 60(3):559–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Carbon Capture Journal (2012) CO2-EOR as a ‘soft start’ for UK CCS, Feature Articles, 27 April 2012

  5. Chadwick A et al (2008) Best practice for the storage of CO2 in saline aquifers, observations from SACS and CO2STORE projects. BGS, Nottingham, p 267

    Google Scholar 

  6. DECC (2012) CCS Competition launched as government sets out long term plans. Press Release, 3 Apr 2012

  7. Ehlig-Economides C, Economides M (2010) Sequestering carbon dioxide in a closed underground volume. J Petrol Geosci Eng 70:123–130

    Google Scholar 

  8. European Commission (2012) http://ec.europa.eu/clima/funding/ner300/index_en.htm

  9. Global CCS Institute (2011) Accelerating the uptake of CCS: industrial use of captured carbon dioxide. Mar 2011

  10. Global CCS Institute (2012) Global status of CCS: 2012. Sep 2012

  11. Jakobsen VE, Hauge F, Holm M, Kristiansen B (2005) CO2 for EOR on the Norwegian shelf—a case study. The Bellona Foundation, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jarmillo P, Griffin M, McCoy S (2009) Life cycle inventory in an enhanced oil recovery system. Environ Sci Technol 39:8027–8032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lake LW (2006) EOR course. SPE Distinguished Lectures Series

  14. Melzer LS (2012) Carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery: factors involved in adding carbon capture, utilization and storage to enhanced oil recovery. Feb 2012

  15. Oettinger G (2011) CCS and CCU—a future for clean coal?, EU Commissioner for Energy, Speech 11 at EUCERS EVENTS, Brussels, 12 Dec 2011

  16. Reuters (2012) UK won’t get EU cash for carbon storage: EU sources. 11 Nov 2012

  17. Solomon S (2006) Criteria for intermediate storage of carbon dioxide in geological formations. The Bellona Foundation, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  18. University of Edinburgh and Scottish Centre for Carbon Storage (2009) Opportunities for CO2 storage around Scotland. Apr 2009

  19. Wood DJ, Lake LW, Johns RT, Nunez V (2008) A screening tool for CO2 flooding and storage in Gulf Coast reservoirs based on dimensionless groups. SPE-100021, SPE Reserv Eval Eng, pp 513–520, June 2008

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Shelagh Baines, Principal CO2 Geoscientist at Senergy Ltd., for her advice and help in reviewing this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gioia Falcone.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harrison, B., Falcone, G. Carbon capture and sequestration versus carbon capture utilisation and storage for enhanced oil recovery. Acta Geotech. 9, 29–38 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-013-0235-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-013-0235-6

Keywords

Navigation