Economic evaluation of offshore storage potential in the US Exclusive Economic Zone

Abstract

Drawing upon previously published results, we evaluate the offshore potential for storing CO 2 within marine sediments located inside the US Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). We then model the cost for transporting and injecting CO 2 into these strata, including into deep-marine (>3000m water depth) strata that we refer to as being 'self-sealing' because pressure and temperature regimes would form an overlying gravitational seal. Finally, we compare the integrated transport and injection cost estimates for self-sealing and non-self-sealing offshore storage against the same integrated cost estimates for onshore storage in 15 deep-saline sandstone aquifers located throughout the continental USA. The comparison is presented in the form of marginal abatement cost curves, which show that ocean storage is likely to be two or more times as expensive as onshore storage: 500 million tonnes of annual CO 2 emissions from coal-fi red power plants in the USA is available for <$5/tonne in onshore DSAs, < $10/ tonne in non-self-sealing offshore strata, and <$15/tonne in self-sealing offshore strata, with the cost differential between onshore and offshore storage increasing further up the supply curve. The higher total offshore costs are due to a combination of increases in transport and storage costs, with transport costs dominating total costs with increasing distance from shore. This suggests that CO 2 capture system operators would have to pay substantially more for offshore geologic storage over onshore options. The cost difference may be mitigated by certain advantages of offshore storage, which could include easier access to property rights, simplifi ed regulation, and possibly lower monitoring, measurement, and verifi cation (MMV) requirements.

A long-term strategic plan of offshore CO2 transport and storage in northern South China Sea for a low-carbon development in Guangdong province, China

“…Offshore CO 2 storage has been successful in the Sleipner and Snøhvit projects offshore Norway, and a number of other projects are in construction or planning in the world. The large potential of offshore CO 2 storage has been confirmed for the northern Atlantic continental shelves (Halland and Riis, 2014; Pale Blue Dot Energy and Axis Well Technology, 2016), US offshore (Eccles and Pratson, 2013;Meckel et al, 2014); Australia offshore (Borissova et al, 2013;Pale Blue Dot Energy and Axis Well Technology, 2016).…”

Research Advances, Maturation, and Challenges of Hydrate-Based CO2 Sequestration in Porous Media

“…In onshore practices such as the permafrost, the cost might be less compared with marine storage sites. A comparison in the specific case of the United States shows that deep offshore storage maybe three times more expensive than onshore storage . Experience from conventional CO 2 storage in geological structures shows that the use of pipelines for transporting CO 2 above 500 km is expensive.…”

Analysis of Enhanced Oil Recovery Methods Like Gas Injection in the Fractured Reservoirs and Optimize Its Efficiency

“…Furthermore, gas viscosity is much lower than water and oil. So, the movement and washing oil does not perform well in tiny pores and gas due to low weight tends to migrate to upper part of reservoir [23][24][25].…”