Cost Implications of Uncertainty in CO2 Storage Resource Estimates: A Review

Abstract

Carbon capture from stationary sources and geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is an important option to include in strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. However, the potential costs of commercial-scale CO 2 storage are not well constrained, stemming from the inherent uncertainty in storage resource estimates coupled with a lack of detailed estimates of the infrastructure needed to access those resources. Storage resource estimates are highly dependent on storage efficiency values or storage coefficients, which are calculated based on ranges of uncertain geological and physical reservoir parameters. If dynamic factors (such as variability in storage efficiencies, pressure interference, and acceptable injection rates over time), reservoir pressure limitations, boundaries on migration of CO 2 , consideration of closed or semi-closed saline reservoir systems, and other possible constraints on the technically accessible CO 2 storage resource (TASR) are accounted for, it is likely that only a fraction of the TASR could be available without incurring significant additional costs. Although storage resource estimates typically assume that any issues with pressure buildup due to CO 2 injection will be mitigated by reservoir pressure management, estimates of the costs of CO 2 storage generally do not include the costs of active pressure management. Production of saline waters (brines) could be essential to increasing the dynamic storage capacity of most reservoirs, but including the costs of this critical method of reservoir pressure management could increase current estimates of the costs of CO 2 storage by two times, or more. Even without considering the implications for reservoir pressure management, geologic uncertainty can significantly impact CO 2 storage capacities and costs, and contribute to uncertainty in carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems. Given the current state of available information and the scarcity of (data from) long-term commercial-scale CO 2 storage projects, decision makers may experience considerable difficulty in ascertaining the realistic potential, the likely costs, and the most beneficial pattern of deployment of CCS as an option to reduce CO 2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

The Cost of CO2 Transport and Storage in Global Integrated Assessment Modeling

“…The key questions guiding my CO 2 storage literature review are as follows: can the cost of CO 2 storage be broken down in more granular detail based on specific factors, such as the type of reservoir, In terms of reservoir type, most studies estimate the cost to store CO 2 in onshore and offshore saline aquifers or depleted oil and gas fields (IEA, 2020;Anderson et al, 2019;NPC, 2019;Van der Spek et al, 2019;Budinis et al, 2018;IEAGHG, 2018;Anderson et al, 2017;Grant et al, 2017;USDOE, 2017;Pale Blue Dot, 2016). Some studies report cost projections for other types of storage reservoirs such as shale, offshore sedimentary, and basalt formations, but most of these sites are in the early stages of research and development and are not considered technically mature (US EPA, 2018; Gunnarsson et al, 2018;Snaebjörnsdóttir & Gislason, 2016).…”

Carbon dioxide mineralization feasibility in the United States

“…Therefore, cost estimates for pressure-limited storage could be more appropriate for comparison with the estimated costs of CO 2 storage via in situ mineralization. Unfortunately, even recent studies do not account for the costs of the pressure management that will likely be necessary for storage in saline aquifers (Rubin and others, 2015;Anderson, 2017a).…”

Decarbonisation of calcium carbonate at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, with simultaneous CO2 capture, through production of sodium carbonate

“…CO 2 storage is also complicated due to large availability, while long-term storage without leakage is not proven. 8,9 Global production of calcined limestone as lime is B400 Mt annually, 10 but the most prominent use is in cement manufacture. More than 4 Gt of cement is produced annually, 10 making it a major global CO 2 emitter.…”