Evaluation of Technology and Policy Issues Associated with the Storage of Carbon Dioxide via Enhanced Oil Recovery in Determining the Potential for Carbon Negative Oil

CO2 storage in depleted oil fields: The worldwide potential for carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery

A residual oil zone (ROZ) assessment methodology with application to the central basin platform (Permian Basin, USA) for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and long-term geologic CO2 storage

Rapid industrialization and urbanization in the 20th century have led to increasing volumes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere[...]

Origin, distribution, and CO2 EOR and CO2 storage resource assessment of selected residual oil zone fairways in the Illinois Basin

Harmonizing the quantification of CCS GHG emission reductions through oil and natural gas industry project guidelines

Potential Issues and Costs Associated with Verifying CO2 Storage During and After CO2-EOR

TotalEnergies 2030 objective is to achieve a net 40% reduction in scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions compared to 2015. For ADNOC, Carbon management, electrification, energy efficiency and methane reduction are at the core of the strategy to achieve a 25% reduction in GHG intensity by 2030 and be operationally net zero by 2045. CO2 EOR has the potential to significantly reduce, and potentially fully decarbonize ADNOC operations, especially in onshore oil fields. ADNOC onshore shareholders have the ambition to reach an annual CO2 storage volume of 10 million tons per annum (MTPA) through EOR by 2030. CO2 can be collected from anthropogenic sources or from oil fields associated gas and injected into oil reservoirs not only to enhance the oil recovery, but also to sequestrate the CO2within the oil reservoirs. Estimating the EOR related GHG emissions accurately includes calculating GHG emissions related to the CO2 recycling operations with the additional oil production treatment, and the amount of stored CO2 after recycling. The present publication introduces how ForCFR, an internally developed and innovative GHG forecaster (SPE-221930-MS) is used to perform EOR GHG emissions calculation, which can then be used to obtain the net carbon intensity of EOR technologies application. ForCFR is integrating energy consumption and GHG emissions evaluation in production forecasting tools (reservoir modeling softwares). The application of EOR GHG incremental emissions has been done on a preliminary WAG CO2 project case including the calculation of incremental energy consumption, incremental GHG emissions, CO2 storage, and, consequently, net oil carbon intensity (negative) and stored CO2 (positive). In this paper, EOR WAG CO2 results are discussed in detail and a case on enhancing CO2 storage in the aquifer below is also presented. This additional storage benefits from the facilities developed by the WAG CO2 to enhance CO2 storage at much lower cost than for a standalone CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) project. The joint operation of WAG CO2 and CCS at the same location creates many synergies for operation, monitoring and ensuring the integrity of the CO2 storage. The results obtained prove that EOR technologies can contribute to the reduction of the overall carbon intensity of oil production. For the EOR CO2, the stored CO2 is not only compensating for the full scope 1 & 2 emissions linked to the EOR project, but also reducing by 30% the carbon intensity of the incremental oil production itself (scope 1, 2 & 3). Thanks to the synergies between CO2 CCS and EOR CO2, the additional storage is multiplying by more than two the volume of CO2 stored, which is then compensating around 40% of the incremental oil production Scope 3 GHG emissions. In addition, the CO2 storage cost is minimized.

Carbon capture and geological storage (CCS) is a core element in the global strategy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This paper characterizes and contrasts the emission quantification methods associated with CCS projects from the perspective of voluntary emission reduction initiatives and recent regulatory reporting requirements under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). From the regulatory perspective, the U.S. EPA is addressing the mandatory GHG reporting for CO2 injection and potential geological storage, providing a different approach for facilities that supply CO2 to the market, those that inject CO2 for purposes of enhanced oil and gas recovery, and those that are engaging in long-term geological storage. Information gathered under the GHGRP will enable EPA to track the amount of CO2 supplied to the market, injected, and/or stored by U.S. facilities. In addition, where the CO2 injection facilities are also associated with other oil and gas operations, the GHGRP requires quantifying and reporting GHG emissions from those operations where the facilities meet specified regulatory thresholds. This information will be a key element in providing baseline data and activity information for the development of future emission standards and control techniques for GHG emission mitigation in the U.S. In addition to reporting initiatives, industry is providing guidance to support voluntary GHG reduction initiatives. The American Petroleum Institute (API) and the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) have collaborated on a guideline document to promote the credible, consistent, and transparent quantification of GHG emission reductions from CCS projects (IPIECA/API, 2007). This document emphasizes that the entire range of activities associated with CCS - capture, transport, injection and storage - must be considered in quantifying emissions and emission reductions from CCS operations. This paper will examine common aspects and notable differences between the mandatory reporting programs and voluntary GHG emission reduction activities. It will specifically emphasize collateral characteristics such as the scope of emission sources, accuracy of quantification methods, reporting and monitoring requirements. Introduction to CCS CCS applies established technologies to capture, transport and store CO2 emissions from large point sources. Wide deployment of CCS techniques is viewed as essential for addressing climate change, while also providing energy security, creating jobs, and economic prosperity. The International Energy Agency (IEA) states that CCS could reduce global CO2 emissions by 19%, and that without CCS, overall costs to reduce emissions to 2005 levels by 2050 would increase by 70% (IEA, 2009). CCS refers to the chain of processes that are designed to collect or capture a CO2 gas stream, transport the CO2 to a storage location, and inject the CO2 into a geological formation1 for long-term isolation from the atmosphere (See Figure 1). CCS involves avoiding the release of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere by injecting CO2 and ultimately storing it in a geological formation. The assessment of GHG emission reductions from CCS projects should address all of these elements.

Development and application of an electric vehicles life-cycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions analysis model

An Emerging CO2 Storage Option: CO2 Storage and By-Product Oil Recovery from Shale Oil Formations

The effect of methodology on estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from grass-based dairy systems

Major US electric utility climate pledges have the potential to collectively reduce power sector emissions by one-third

The main purpose for developing biofuel is to reduce GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions, but the comprehensive environmental impact of such fuels is not clear. Life cycle analysis (LCA), as a complete comprehensive analysis method, has been widely used in bioenergy assessment studies. Great efforts have been directed toward establishing an efficient method for comprehensively estimating the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction potential from the large-scale cultivation of energy plants by combining LCA with ecosystem/biogeochemical process models. LCA presents a general framework for evaluating the energy consumption and GHG emission from energy crop planting, yield acquisition, production, product use, and postprocessing. Meanwhile, ecosystem/biogeochemical process models are adopted to simulate the fluxes and storage of energy, water, carbon, and nitrogen in the soil-plant (energy crops) soil continuum. Although clear progress has been made in recent years, some problems still exist in current studies and should be addressed. This paper reviews the state-of-the-art method for estimating GHG emission reduction through developing energy crops and introduces in detail a new approach for assessing GHG emission reduction by combining LCA with biogeochemical process models. The main achievements of this study along with the problems in current studies are described and discussed.

The body of life cycle assessment (LCA) literature is vast and has grown over the last decade at a dauntingly rapid rate. Many LCAs have been published on the same or very similar technologies or products, in some cases leading to hundreds of publications. One result is the impression among decision makers that LCAs are inconclusive, owing to perceived and real variability in published estimates of life cycle impacts. Despite the extensive available literature and policy need formore conclusive assessments, only modest attempts have been made to synthesize previous research. A significant challenge to doing so are differences in characteristics of the considered technologies and inconsistencies in methodological choices (e.g., system boundaries, coproduct allocation, and impact assessment methods) among the studies that hamper easy comparisons and related decision support. An emerging trend is meta-analysis of a set of results from LCAs, which has the potential to clarify the impacts of a particular technology, process, product, or material and produce more robust and policy-relevant results. Meta-analysis in this context is defined here as an analysis of a set of published LCA results to estimate a single or multiple impacts for a single technology or a technology category, either in a statisticalmore » sense (e.g., following the practice in the biomedical sciences) or by quantitative adjustment of the underlying studies to make them more methodologically consistent. One example of the latter approach was published in Science by Farrell and colleagues (2006) clarifying the net energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of ethanol, in which adjustments included the addition of coproduct credit, the addition and subtraction of processes within the system boundary, and a reconciliation of differences in the definition of net energy metrics. Such adjustments therefore provide an even playing field on which all studies can be considered and at the same time specify the conditions of the playing field itself. Understanding the conditions under which a meta-analysis was conducted is important for proper interpretation of both the magnitude and variability in results. This special supplemental issue of the Journal of Industrial Ecology includes 12 high-quality metaanalyses and critical reviews of LCAs that advance understanding of the life cycle environmental impacts of different technologies, processes, products, and materials. Also published are three contributions on methodology and related discussions of the role of meta-analysis in LCA. The goal of this special supplemental issue is to contribute to the state of the science in LCA beyond the core practice of producing independent studies on specific products or technologies by highlighting the ability of meta-analysis of LCAs to advance understanding in areas of extensive existing literature. The inspiration for the issue came from a series of meta-analyses of life cycle GHG emissions from electricity generation technologies based on research from the LCA Harmonization Project of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, which also provided financial support for this special supplemental issue. (See the editorial from this special supplemental issue [Lifset 2012], which introduces this supplemental issue and discusses the origins, funding, peer review, and other aspects.) The first article on reporting considerations for meta-analyses/critical reviews for LCA is from Heath and Mann (2012), who describe the methods used and experience gained in NREL's LCA Harmonization Project, which produced six of the studies in this special supplemental issue. Their harmonization approach adapts key features of systematic review to identify and screen published LCAs followed by a meta-analytical procedure to adjust published estimates to ones based on a consistent set of methods and assumptions to allow interstudy comparisons and conclusions to be made. In a second study on methods, Zumsteg and colleagues (2012) propose a checklist for a standardized technique to assist in conducting and reporting systematic reviews of LCAs, including meta-analysis, that is based on a framework used in evidence-based medicine. Widespread use of such a checklist would facilitate planning successful reviews, improve the ability to identify systematic reviews in literature searches, ease the ability to update content in future reviews, and allow more transparency of methods to ease peer review and more appropriately generalize findings. Finally, Zamagni and colleagues (2012) propose an approach, inspired by a meta-analysis, for categorizing main methodological topics, reconciling diverging methodological developments, and identifying future research directions in LCA. Their procedure involves the carrying out of a literature review on articles selected according to predefined criteria.« less

Reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions is a key issue for modern human civilization. Part of the solution to this challenge is long-term storage of CO2 in deep geological rock formations. Other key solutions to achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are to greatly expand the use of renewable sources of energy and to use energy much more efficiently. To explain why we need engineered geological storage of CO2 we first review the history of use of fossil fuels and then look at the history of the discovery of the greenhouse gas effect. This provides the basis for the urgent need to achieve the low-carbon energy transition. CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) is vital because it: (a) provides a mechanism for decarbonising power supply and industry, (b) allows the energy transition to be achieved faster and at a cheaper cost than by using only renewable energy sources, and (c) it allows negative net-CO2 emissions projects to be deployed. Finally, we explain the components of CCS - a set of technical solutions to remove CO2 from industrial processes and to inject it into the subsurface in order to isolate the CO2 from the atmosphere.