Carbon Capture And Storage Facilities Research Articles

CO2 sorption of elastomer poly(ionic liquid)s with imidazolium cations having different alkyl chains: structure-morphology-property relationships and thermodynamic modelling by the PC-SAFT equation of state

In this work related to Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), the CO2 sorption capacities of a new family of elastomer poly(ionic liquid)s (PILs) with imidazolium cations having different alkyl chains were studied. These PILs were synthesized by chemical modification of polyepichlorohydrin (polyECH) obtained by living anionic polymerization. PolyECH was quaternized with different 1-alkylimidazoles (alkyl = methyl, n-butyl, and n-hexyl) and followed by anion exchange to obtain three PILs: PIL-Me, PIL-nBu, and PIL-nHex. They were analyzed by NMR (1H, 13C, 2D 1H/13C HSQC, APT 13C) and characterized by SEC, DSC, calorimetry, rheology, and XRD SAXS/WAXS. The influence of the alkyl chain on the PIL CO2 sorption was studied with a magnetic suspension balance (MSB) at 35°C and CO2 pressures varying from 1 to 10 bar. The best results were obtained with PIL having methyl chains (9.60 mg CO2/g PIL at 1.1 bar and 159.28 mg CO2/g PIL at 10.0 bar at 35°C). Finally, the CO2 sorption properties of these PILs were modeled with the PC-SAFT equation of state (EoS). The pure-component parameters were obtained from model regression of the PILs densities calculated by Bondi’s and Van Krevelen’s methods. The binary interaction parameters of the systems CO2/PIL were optimized with average absolute deviations (AAD) lower than 6.3 % for the three PILs. The PC-SAFT modelling of their sorption properties opens interesting prospects for modelling the CO2 sorption process for CCS facilities.

Decarbonising LNG value chain using carbon capture and storage: why, where, how much and what are the limitations?

As a result of global aspirations to achieve energy transition along with the desire to ensure energy security, energy exporters proposed a series of new ‘carbon-neutral’ products – liquefied natural gas (LNG) and oil. In 2019, a new market was officially born after the first-in-history shipment of carbon-neutral LNG cargo from Shell to Japanese Tokyo Gas. Until 2021, it grew rapidly, however in 2022, announcements about volumes delivered to the customers significantly dropped. In this paper, we will explore the reasons for this dynamic, review perspectives of the carbon-neutral fuels markets, and explore the potential steps that producers and consumers could undertake to achieve global climate targets. We specifically focus on the consequences of implementing carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. Based on the data on the world CCS facilities, provided by the International Energy Agency, we conduct preliminary analysis of the capital costs associated with the construction of carbon capture, utilisation, and storage facilities. After that, we apply the cost estimation method (class 5) based on the US Department of Energy Classification, to estimate the costs of using CCS for emissions management in different regions/countries. As a result, the study demonstrates that due to the various economic, geographical and infrastructural limitations, it is more feasible to implement CCS on the producer’s side than on the consumer’s side. We also show what level of CCS implementation within the LNG value chain is economically feasible for different market participants and what the costs are.

Development of long-distance and large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) value chain using liquefied CO2 ship transportation

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is central to clean energy transition. Globally, potential aggregated carbon dioxide (CO2) storage resource capacity is ~13,000 billion tonnes. Assuming global greenhouse gas emissions of 51 billion tonnes per annum, CO2 storage capacity equates to 250 years of global emissions reduction. While there is significant momentum to deploy CCS technology for meeting Paris Agreement targets, the key challenge for offering CCS to all industrial sectors is that many major CO2 emission sources are located hundreds of kilometres away from geological storage sites. To address this key challenge, there is a need to develop a long-distance and large-scale CCS value chain that utilises liquefied CO2 (LCO2) ship transportation. This paper discusses key technical, commercial, and regulatory considerations that must be addressed in parallel for developing such a CCS value chain. More specifically, it will cover the following: (1) technical – CO2 liquefaction condition, CO2 supply specification and LCO2 ship parcel size; (2) commercial – business model (ownership of CO2 retained by emitters or transferred to CCS project proponent), CO2 supply or CCS facility lease terms and conditions; and (3) regulatory – domestic versus transboundary projects and associated needs for policy and legislative underpinning.

Success factors in the creation of a CCS Hub

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has the potential to significantly reduce emissions from industrial processes including gas processing and heavy industry. INPEX has a corporate goal to reduce scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity by 30% or more by 2030 on a path to net zero by 2050. Central to these goals is reduction of emissions associated with the Ichthys LNG operation, located on the Middle Arm of Darwin Harbour. Key to the reduction of emissions from Ichthys LNG is the development of a large-scale efficient CCS facility close to Darwin. To this end, INPEX (as Operator) and Joint Venture participants TotalEnergies and Woodside Energy were recently awarded the G-7-AP block in the promising Petrel Sub-basin. The work program associated with this bid includes new 3D seismic, a two-well-appraisal drilling campaign and a comprehensive post-well analysis program to prove up the previously identified storage intervals and allow INPEX to determine the potential storage capacities of these intervals. Scale is a critical driver of the efficiency of a storage solution, so INPEX is working collaboratively with wider industry, government and the CSIRO on the development of the Northern Territory Low Emissions Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage Hub business case which seeks to identify and map the pathway for the development of a large-scale multi-sink carbon storage network. This paper will provide an update on INPEX’s vision for the role it intends to play in the development of this Hub.

International Collaborative Cluster-Based Carbon Sequestration Plan

The status quo climate change forecast was analyzed using the ENROADS software and indicates that the net GHG emissions could reach about 90 gigatons of CO2 equivalent by 2100, and global temperatures could rise by 3.6°C. This projection will likely be worse even with moderate estimates. The factors used in the reported status quo forecasts are optimistic. From energy mix to population growth and the assumption that gas use could increase while oil declines, this scenario is limited by available gas reservoirs. There needs to be a more aggressive application of CCS to reach Net-Zero by 2050. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) has been identified as the leading technology that could help reduce the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. At the same time, the search for non-fossil fuel energy sources continues. The amount of CO2 dilution in the air stream complicates the economics of direct air capture. This research proposes two international collaborative clusters for India. Due to India's growth and use of fossil energy sources, this is necessary to manage CO2 emissions from coal-fired plants. The results show that cluster-based CCS facilities possess great potential for the world to develop faster carbon capture and sequestration technology and deploy it faster. These cluster CCS systems will create economies of scale and integration necessary to make the CCS technology succeed to help reduce India's and global CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel-powered electricity generation. If CCS is deployed at the proposed scale, it will reduce atmospheric CO2 significantly, which would capture more than 250 times more than today's effort.

Guest Editorial: Recycling CO2 for EOR? Why Not?

_ Carbon capture and storage (CCS), with the potential for usage, will be crucial if the world is to prevent global warming. Modeling by the European Commission shows that the EU will need to capture, utilize, or store between 300 and 640 million tonnes of CO2 every year by 2050 if it wants to meet its climate-neutrality goal. It is therefore imperative that all industries, particularly the oil and gas sector, play their part to incentivize the development of new storage while enhancing the use of available producing facilities. Speaking at the second CCUS Forum, held in October in Oslo, Norway, the EU’s energy chief Kadri Simson announced that captured emissions can be either stored or recycled into other industrial processes. Though it wasn’t directly stated by the Estonian politician, enhanced oil recovery (EOR) via CO2 injection should be considered as a viable option to both store and reduce emissions. It is important to emphasize that the amount of stored CO2, as a function of EOR, will be greater than CO2 emissions created from oil extraction. CO2 for EOR in US and Canada Since the 1970s, this has been a routine procedure in many US and Canadian projects with mature reservoirs and is usually instigated after the effect of injected produced water has worn off. It has been achieved without government support. While Norway has been injecting captured CO2 in saline aquifers since the mid-1990s, there has been no attempt, and no plans exist, in Europe to use CO2 for EOR. Why not? Balancing increasing energy demand while lowering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is one of the greatest conundrums facing the industry today: global consumption is currently around 100 million B/D. According to IEA’s 2022 World Energy Outlook, there are three scenarios. The APS (announced pledges scenario) assumes fossil-fuel demand will peak in 2024 with 98.1 million B/D. The STEPS (stated policies scenario) projection is peak demand in 2035 at 103.2 million B/D, before going into steady long-term decline (Fig. 1). If the NZE (net zero emissions) scenario comes to pass, oil demand never returns to its 2019 level. It foresees demand falling by 2.5% each year on average between 2021 and 2030, and by just under 6% each year from 2030 to 2050. Adopting EOR technologies and upscaling CCS infrastructure could be the answer to meet energy demand and lower emissions before green energy claims the forecast largest stake of the energy mix by mid-century. Exploiting Hydrocarbon’s Heritage and CCS Globally, there are 30 CCS projects in operation, 11 are under construction, and 153 are in development. Sixty-one new facilities were added to the project pipeline in 2022. The CO2 capture capacity of all CCS facilities has grown to 244 mtpa, a rise of 44% over the past 12 months (Global CCS Institute 2022).

Global Warming and Atmospheric Carbon: Is Carbon Sequestration a Myth or Reality?

Abstract Biotic and abiotic carbon sequestration currently seems to be the only viable tools at the disposal of mankind for mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and thus a remedy for tackling global warming challenges. This study accesses the global carbon capture and storage (CCS) programme: the level of success in its implementation and its impact using panel data from eight countries, the majority of which have begun one or more operational CCS facilities. To achieve this objective, fifteen years period time series data was sourced for the eight selected countries based on data availability, namely the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), Canada, China, Australia, Norway, South Africa, and Nigeria; ranging from 1990 to 2015. The panel ARDL results show that the explanatory variables, global industrial production (LIP), Electricity production (LEP), Agricultural production (LAP), transportation (LTR), and energy supply (LES) have a long-run relationship with the dependent variable (LGHG emissions). While the short-run results show that none of the variables have a significant contribution to LGHG emissions. In the long-run results, LIP and LTR significantly contribute to the reduction of LGHG courtesy of the CCS programme while LEP, LAP, and LES contribute to a rise in the LGHG emission. The cross-sectional results show that all the variables have significant impacts on LGHG in all the sampled countries except Australia. Suggesting that, the CCS programme is viable for mitigating global warming and climate change and therefore should be considered by the various countries of the world.

Concurrent 8. Presentation for: Create a new carbon capture and storage (CCS) industry – unlock Australian CO

Presented on Tuesday 17 May: Session 8 Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is central to a clean energy transition. According to the UN’s IPCC and IEA, CCS needs to attain a global CO2 reduction capacity of ~4 billion tonnes per annum by 2050 to achieve Paris Agreement targets. To date, only 27 large-scale CCS facilities are operating worldwide, totalling 36.6 million tonnes per annum of CO2 reduction. Massive number of new projects are needed. Australia has a potential CO2 storage capacity of 434 billion tonnes, with 316 billion tonnes (73%) residing in offshore oil and gas fields and aquifers. A key constraint to unlock this potential is that the CO2 storage sites and emitter sources are not necessarily located close by. Since CCS projects considered to date in Australia use pipeline transportation, this limits the number of developments to those that have the emission sources and storage sites in proximity. By utilising the Floating CCS Hub development concept, which includes CO2 carriers and floating CCS hub facilities, CCS can be provided to a broader range of emission sources. The transportation cost using CO2 carriers is not as sensitive to transport distance as pipelines, which have a linear relationship between distance and cost. In addition, the CO2 carriers costs are reducing substantially as technology allows for CO2 to be transported in lower pressure states enabling larger parcel sizes, and manufacturing efficiencies further reducing costs. CO2 carriers and CCS hub facilities minimise development constraints related to pipeline distances and land use, and enable replicability and scalability for multiple CCS projects. To access the presentation click the link on the right. To read the full paper click here

Create a new carbon capture and storage (CCS) industry – unlock Australian CO

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is central to a clean energy transition. According to the UN’s IPCC and IEA, CCS needs to attain a global CO2 reduction capacity of ~4 billion tonnes per annum by 2050 to achieve Paris Agreement targets. To date, only 27 large-scale CCS facilities are operating worldwide, totalling 36.6 million tonnes per annum of CO2 reduction. Massive number of new projects are needed. Australia has a potential CO2 storage capacity of 434 billion tonnes, with 316 billion tonnes (73%) residing in offshore oil and gas fields and aquifers. A key constraint to unlock this potential is that the CO2 storage sites and emitter sources are not necessarily located close by. Since CCS projects considered to date in Australia use pipeline transportation, this limits the number of developments to those that have the emission sources and storage sites in proximity. By utilising the Floating CCS Hub development concept, which includes CO2 carriers and floating CCS hub facilities, CCS can be provided to a broader range of emission sources. The transportation cost using CO2 carriers is not as sensitive to transport distance as pipelines, which have a linear relationship between distance and cost. In addition, the CO2 carriers costs are reducing substantially as technology allows for CO2 to be transported in lower pressure states enabling larger parcel sizes, and manufacturing efficiencies further reducing costs. CO2 carriers and CCS hub facilities minimise development constraints related to pipeline distances and land use, and enable replicability and scalability for multiple CCS projects.

Quest CCS facility: Time-lapse seismic campaigns

In August 2015, CO2 injection commenced at the Quest Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Facility located near Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta, Canada. Quest is a fully integrated CCS operation with a capture target of just over one million metric tonnes of CO2 per year. CO2 is injected into a deep saline aquifer, the Basal Cambrian Sandstone (BCS), at a depth of about two kilometers below ground.In order to demonstrate containment and conformance of the injected CO2, a Measurement, Monitoring and Verification (MMV) plan has been implemented. Multiple domains are monitored as part of the plan, including the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, geosphere, and wells. Time-lapse seismic methods are utilized primarily for conformance monitoring and secondarily for containment monitoring of the CO2 plume within the Geosphere domain. These methods currently include 3D surface seismic (SEIS3D), 2D surface seismic (SEIS2D) and 2D multi-azimuth walk-away borehole vertical seismic profiles with distributed acoustic sensing (VSP2D).The first goal of this paper is to summarize the role of seismic, subsurface modeling efforts and the different baseline and monitor datasets that have been acquired at the Quest CCS Facility. The second goal is to describe the current Quest time-lapse strategy. Five key seismic acquisition campaigns have occurred at Quest through the pre- and post-start of injection periods, including an initial SEIS3D acquisition, a pre-injection baseline VSP2D acquisition, and three monitor VSP2D acquisitions. SEIS2D acquisitions have also been acquired as part of two of the most recent monitor campaigns. All campaigns have occurred over the winter season, to facilitate surface access, minimize impact on the land and farming/harvest activities, and to ensure maximum repeatability. Time-lapse seismic methods yield an image of the CO2 that is injected into the BCS pore space, displacing some of the brine in the saline aquifer. Since the injected CO2 is more compressible and less dense than brine, the velocity of seismic primary-waves traveling through the BCS is reduced in those places containing CO2 and remain unchanged elsewhere.Petrophysical data from the injection wells (IWs) were used to calculate the acoustic properties of the BCS. Gassmann fluid substitution was used to model the effect of CO2 saturation on the expected seismic response. Modeling showed that differences in the seismic images of the BCS obtained before and during CO2 injection should be seen in two characteristics ways:1) Travel-times across the BCS increase due to the slower primary-wave velocity inside the BCS.2) Reflections from the base of the BCS become stronger as the impedance contrast with the underlying granite basement increases. The contrast between the BCS and underlying basement is much larger than between the BCS and the overlying sediments. The large contrast between the BCS and basement produces a prominent reflection which is easily mapped during baseline and monitor surveys and is more practical for amplitude extractions.Modeling also indicated that, while the acoustic changes are sufficient to define the CO2 front qualitatively, it is unlikely that they can be used to quantify the distribution of CO2 saturations within the plume.The initial time-lapse seismic strategy called for SEIS3D to be employed after a few years of injection. Borehole distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) VSPs were proposed as a cost-effective and flexible alternative to SEIS3D while injection volumes are small. With the optical fiber cemented in place behind the casing, data can be acquired at any time without suspending injection, something not achievable with conventional VSPs that use retrievable downhole geophone arrays. The effectiveness of VSPs is inherently dependent upon the injection volume, plume offset from the IWs and acquisition geometry. After evaluating the concentric plumes predicted from dynamic modeling results and considering the acquisition logistics at the Quest CCS well sites, a VSP2D program was executed.In 2017 and 2019, SEIS2D was recorded in addition to the VSP2D surveys. Surface geophones were deployed along the VSP2D shot locations, recording a pseudo-3D or cross-spread survey. SEIS2D will be evaluated as another seismic method to potentially monitor CO2 plume development in the BCS.

Will blue hydrogen lock us into fossil fuels forever?

Will blue hydrogen lock us into fossil fuels forever?

Lessons captured from 50 years of CCS projects

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) can help mitigate climate change on a global scale. This article examines the 26 CCS facilities currently in operation around the world that have safely captured and stored 300 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide. These facilities demonstrate that the technology has successfully been deployed to scale and can safely capture and store carbon dioxide. This article shares the lessons learned that will help guide the future deployment of more projects.

Study on Dispersion of Carbon Dioxide over the Shrubbery Region

In the carbon capture and storage (CCS) infrastructure, the risk of a high-pressure buried pipeline rupture possibly leads to catastrophic accidents due to the release of tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2). Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of the effects of CO2 dispersion pattern after release from CCS facilities is essential to allow the appropriate safety precautions to be taken. Due to variations in topography above the pipeline, the pattern of CO2 dispersion tends to be affected by the real terrain features, such as trees and hills. However, in most previous studies, the dynamic impact of trees on the wind field was often approximated to linear treatment or even ignored. In this article, a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model was proposed to predict CO2 dispersion over shrubbery areas. The shrubs were regarded as a kind of porous media, and the model was validated against the results from experiment. It was found that shrubbery affected the flow field near the ground, enhancing the lateral dispersion of CO2. Compared with that of the shrub-free terrain, the coverage area of the three shrub terrains at 60 s increased by 8.1 times, 6.7 times, and 9.1 times, respectively. The influence of shrub height and porosity on CO2 dispersion is nonlinear. This research provides reliable data for the risk assessment of CCS.

ExxonMobil creates CO2 capture business

ExxonMobil has created a dedicated business unit for its carbon capture operations. ExxonMobil Low Carbon Solutions will get an initial investment of $3 billion to develop more than 20 carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects worldwide, the firm says. In addition to building CCS facilities, ExxonMobil is working with FuelCell Energy, Global Thermostat, and Mosaic Materials on carbon capture chemistry based on carbonates, amines, and metal-organic frameworks, respectively. Separately, CCS firm Svante recently raised $75 million to develop its nanoporous solid sorbent to capture CO 2 from flue gas .

Quest CCS Facility: Microseismic System Monitoring and Observations

In August 2015, CO2 injection commenced at the Quest Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Facility located near Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta, Canada. Quest is a fully integrated CCS facility with a capture target of just over one million metric tonnes of CO2 per year. CO2 is injected into a deep saline aquifer, the Basal Cambrian Sandstone (BCS), at a depth of about two kilometers below ground. In order to demonstrate containment and conformance of the injected CO2, a Measurement, Monitoring and Verification (MMV) plan has been implemented. Although Quest is in an extremely quiet tectonic location, induced seismicity has been recognized as a potential risk for all large-scale injection sites. As a result, microseismic monitoring is a key component of the Quest MMV Plan to ensure the continued assessment of that risk and to provide early notice of any changes. The aim of this presentation is to detail why we monitor for microseismic activity and how we do this efficiently using proactive technical monitoring (PTM) and exception based surveillance (EBS), to report on six years of microseismic monitoring observations through the pre- and post-start of injection periods and to describe the empirical analysis that has allowed the Quest CCS Facility to de-risk microseismicity as an active threat to containment. Microseismic data is continuously recorded at the Quest CCS storage site using a commercial downhole geophone array installed in a deep monitoring well (DMW). The data are processed to produce trigger files using a common algorithm for event detection and triggering, based on the ratio of short-time-average to long-time-average (STA/LTA) amplitudes. The triggered events are analyzed, classified and reported daily. Categories for various trigger types are defined based on the characteristics of each event. Operationally, the status of the microseismic array is continually assessed by the presence of trigger events. A trigger event is defined to be locatable when it shows clear primary (P) and secondary (S) wave field arrivals. The locatable events are processed and located using an anisotropic velocity model. The p-wave velocities were derived from a vertical seismic profile survey, and the s-wave velocities were obtained from sonic well logs. Pre-CO2 injection recording of microseismic data began in November 2014. Most of the trigger files generated were related to surface, automatic and noise triggers. These events were used to assess the health of the system. No locatable events were detected during the pre-injection monitoring phase. The first locatable event was recorded 10 months after start of CO2 injection in July 2016 with a magnitude of -1.3. Since January 2017, sustained low level, small magnitude microseismic activity have been located within the Quest microseismic area of review (AOR) within the Precambrian basement. The AOR as defined in the 2017 Quest MMV plan, extends 10 km radially outwards from each active injection well (IW). As of December 31st, 2020, 486 locatable events have been detected, with an average magnitude of -0.7, a maximum magnitude of 0.8 and a typical occurrence rate of 1-2 events per week. Using the current methodology, all locatable events have been located within the Precambrian basement, below the injection zone. None of this microseismic activity has represented a risk to containment.

A Feasibility Study of Full Scale, Post Combustion, Amine Based, CO <sub>2</sub> Capture Retrofit Application in the Cement Manufacturing Sector at the Lehigh Hanson Materials Limited Facility

This paper will present the progress of a feasibility study, jointly conducted by Lehigh Hanson Materials Limited (Lehigh) and the International CCS Knowledge Centre, aimed at retrofitting a cement production facility at Lehigh (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) with a full scale, post combustion, amine-based Carbon Dioxide (CO2) capture system. This study is a major breakthrough for carbon capture and storage (CCS) as it represents a first in North America for CCS application in the cement industry. The main deliverable of the feasibility study is a Class 4 estimate to assist Lehigh in determining the economic viability of a potential CCS retrofit project. This feasibility study commenced in November 2019 and will be complete in the fall of 2021 and is projected to cost $3.0M CAD. Funding for this study has been contributed to by Lehigh and Emissions Reduction Alberta (ERA) with contributions by the International CCS Knowledge Centre. The study will examine both the carbon capture technology and the “balance of plant”. Successful completion of this feasibility study could lead to a decision to carry out a Front End Engineering and Design (FEED) study and ultimately to a Final Investment Decision (FID) to implement a commercial scale project. A commercial project is projected to reduce emissions by approximately 600,000 tonnes of CO2 per year. The commercial scale project is projected to reduce emissions in Alberta in excess of 13.1 Mtonnes over a 25-year lifespan. The International CCS Knowledge Centre who is providing project management and advisory services, has engaged an experienced CO2 capture technology vendor, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) Group, for the design of the CO2 capture system. MHI is responsible for the scope of work that includes the flue gas pretreatment system, the CO2 capture facility, and the CO2 compression process. The International CCS Knowledge Centre is also engaging and directing engineering consultants or other solution providers as appropriate. This direction and guidance will utilize base learnings from both the fully integrated Boundary Dam 3 CCS Facility and the comprehensive second-generation CCS study, known as the Shand CCS Feasibility Study, engineering consultants are being engaged to provide preliminary process and equipment design and cost estimates within their assigned scopes of work or work packages. The captured CO2 would be permanently sequestered and could be also used for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). The Lehigh facility is located near potential storage locations, including being about 50 km away from the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line (ACTL) and nearby EOR opportunities. Lehigh, part of HeidelbergCement, will contribute to the company’s goal of achieving CO2-neutral concrete by 2050 at the latest and make it the most sustainable building material.

GHGT-15 Quest CCS facility - Halite Injectivity Damage Remediation in CO <sub>2</sub> Injection Wells

The Quest CCS facility (located in Alberta, Canada) is a fully integrated carbon capture, transport and storage facility operated by Shell Canada. It continuously captures and stores about 1.1Mt of CO2 per year, with injection expected to continue until 2040. Following a month of performance testing, commercial operations began in October 2015, and through November 2020, more than 5.6 Mt of CO2 have been sequestered. The commercial scale deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as a viable greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction technology requires that the CO2 be continuously injected at material and predictable rates into geological formations (e.g. saline aquifers). While the initial injectivity for the Quest CO2 injection wells was very high, significant injectivity reductions have been observed following short well shut-in periods associated with well intervention work. Although these injectivity reductions currently do not form an operational constraint, if the trend of injectivity reductions continue, it may become an issue for future operations. Developing the capability to reduce or even reverse these injectivity reductions may be key to maintaining reliable CO2 injection. The Quest CCS project sequesters CO2 into the Basal Cambrian Sands (BCS) formation, which was initially filled with sodium chloride saturated brine. As dry CO2 is injected, water can evaporate from the brine into the CO2 driving precipitation of halite. This precipitation can occur in various locations including inside the wellbore, perforation tunnel, near wellbore area and further afield in the BCS formation. Plugging of the perforation tunnel and pore throats in the near wellbore area can cause injectivity damage. A downhole video log performed in April 2018 on the Quest IW 7-11 CO2 injection well showed solids plugging in numerous perforations. The most probable substance to precipitate in the downhole environment of a Quest CO2 injector well is halite. While the solids were not sampled for compositional analysis during the April 2018 downhole video log, downhole samples were obtained during the pre-work leading up to the halite remediation treatment. A viable mechanism for inducing halite damage during well intervention shut-in events is that deposited halite is dislodged and subsequently plugs the critical perforation tunnel and near wellbore areas. One method to remediate halite damage is to inject a water-based fluid to dissolve the halite precipitate, thereby removing it from the perforation tunnel and near wellbore area, where it can damage the well injectivity performance. Quest performed the first halite remediation treatment on one of the CO2 injector wells in 2020. The objective of this paper is to present the design, execution and results of this initial halite remediation treatment. An outline of the design of the halite remediation treatment will be provided. Aspects of the treatment design including treatment volume, rate, pressure, treatment fluid composition, fluid diversion, tubing stress analysis and hydrate mitigation will be discussed. Subsequently the halite remediation treatment as executed in the field will be reviewed including the timing of operations and the pumping pressure and rate data. Finally, to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment, skin analysis and injectivity trends pre and post remediation treatment shall be presented. Halite remediation treatments have the potential to become key methods for maintaining injectivity performance of CO2 injection wells in saline aquifers.

Detection and Quantification of CO <sub>2</sub> Seepage in Seawater Using the Stoichiometric Cseep Method: Results from a Recent Subsea CO <sub>2</sub> Release Experiment in the North Sea

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a potential significant mitigation strategy to combat climate change and ocean acidification in climate change scenarios e.g.,. Three out of four 1.5°C- consistent emission pathways published by the IPCC include CCS as well as bioenergy CCS (BECCS) as mitigation options. However, the scale of current CCS implementation is insufficient to affect the global climate, and thousands of large-scale CCS facilities need to be deployed by 2040 to meet mitigation targets. Moreover, the technology is in early stage of research, development, and demonstration e.g., and involves uncertainties and risks e.g.,. Currently, there are encouraging signals that CCS development and deployment are gaining momentum, and demonstration projects and experimental work are providing needed data for more thorough risk assessment.

Implementing a second generation CCS facility on a coal fired power station – results of a feasibility study to retrofit SaskPower's Shand power station with CCS

AbstractIn 2018, the International CCS Knowledge Centre (CCS Knowledge Centre) conducted a feasibility study with SaskPower to determine if a business case could be made for a postcombustion, carbon capture retrofit of SaskPower's Shand Power station, a 305‐MW, single‐unit, lignite coal‐fired power station located near Estevan, Saskatchewan. Specifically, Mitsubishi heavy industries’ KM CDR technology was evaluated for this study. While no decision has been made, should SaskPower decide to proceed, the Shand carbon capture and storage (CCS) project would produce the second, full‐scale capture facility in Saskatchewan with a nominal capacity of 2 million tonnes of CO2 (Mt) per year. This paper summarizes the key technical and economic findings of this study. Notably this study found that the capital costs of the potential Shand CCS facility are decreased by 67% on a per tonne of CO2 captured basis when compared to the CCS retrofit of Unit 3 at the Boundary Dam Power Station (the world's first industrial scale CCS installation on a coal fired power station). The proposed capture facility would also have a load following operational profile, reduction in parasitic loses by employing heat integration strategies, and need no additional water draw to provide the required increase in cooling duty. © 2020 The Authors. Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology published by Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Analyzing Regulatory Framework for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Technology Development: A case study approach


 
 
 
 Aim: This article provides insight into the portfolio of regulations advancing Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) deployment. Using a taxonomy of policy portfolio tools adapted for regulations specific to CCS, this research identifies regulatory gaps as well as supports for CCS projects.
 Design / Research methods: Through a case study approach, this article analyzes the regulatory provisions in six jurisdictions (Texas, North Dakota, the U.S, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Canada) which have a successful CCS facility. Analyzing the provisions and content of regulations in these jurisdictions, this article highlights regulatory supports or areas of gaps for CCS projects in each jurisdiction.
 Conclusions / findings: There is no uniform definition or categorization of CO2 as a hazard, waste, pollutant or commodity across jurisdictions. This has serious impact on CO2 transport, especially across jurisdictions. It also impacts the administration of storage systems for CCS facilities. Regulations focusing primarily on technical aspects of CCS including capture, transport, and liability predominate while there are less regulatory provisions for the financial aspects of CCS technology as well as public engagement and support. While capital grants and emission and tax credits are the predominant financial issues covered in regulations, contract for differences, streamlining emission trading across borders and enhancing cooperation and multilevel engagement in CCS warrant more attention.
 Originality / value of the article: Many scenarios to maintain global warming below 2 degrees Celsius require combinations of new technology including CCS. The focus on CCS cost as a barrier to deployment overshadows the needs for regulatory support as a means of reducing uncertainties and de-risking CCS investments.