IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v12y2019i3p448-d202328.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental and Operational Performance of CO 2 -EOR as a CCUS Technology: A Cranfield Example with Dynamic LCA Considerations

Author

Listed:
  • Vanessa Núñez-López

    (Gulf Coast Carbon Center, Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, 10100 Burnet Rd., Austin, TX 78758, USA)

  • Ramón Gil-Egui

    (Gulf Coast Carbon Center, Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, 10100 Burnet Rd., Austin, TX 78758, USA)

  • Seyyed A. Hosseini

    (Gulf Coast Carbon Center, Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, 10100 Burnet Rd., Austin, TX 78758, USA)

Abstract

This study evaluates the potential of carbon dioxide-enhanced oil recovery (CO 2 -EOR) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without compromising oil production goals. A novel, dynamic carbon lifecycle analysis (d-LCA) was developed and used to understand the evolution of the environmental impact (CO 2 emissions) and mitigation (geologic CO 2 storage) associated with an expanded carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) system, from start to closure of operations. EOR operational performance was assessed through CO 2 utilization rates, which relate usage of CO 2 to oil production. Because field operational strategies have a significant impact on reservoir engineering parameters that affect both CO 2 storage and oil production (e.g., sweep efficiency, flood conformance, fluid saturation distribution), we conducted a scenario analysis that assessed the operational and environmental performance of four common and novel CO 2 -EOR field development strategies. Each scenario was evaluated with and without stacked saline carbon storage, an EOR/storage combination strategy where excess CO 2 from the recycling facility is injected into an underlying saline aquifer for long-term carbon storage. The dynamic interplay between operational and environmental performance formed the basis of our CCUS technology analysis. The results showed that all CO 2 -EOR evaluated scenarios start operating with a negative carbon footprint and, years into the project, transitioned into operating with a positive carbon footprint. The transition points were significantly different in each scenario. Water-alternating-gas (WAG) was identified as the CO 2 injection strategy with the highest potential to co-optimize EOR and carbon storage goals. The results provide an understanding of the evolution of the system’s net carbon balance in all four field development strategies studied. The environmental performance can be significantly improved with stacked storage, where a negative carbon footprint can be maintained throughout the life of the operation in most of the injection scenarios modelled. This information will be useful to CO 2 -EOR operators seeking value in storing more CO 2 through a carbon credit program (e.g., the 45Q carbon credit program in the USA). Most importantly, this study serves as confirmation that CO 2 -EOR can be operationally designed to both enhance oil production and reduce greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

Suggested Citation

  • Vanessa Núñez-López & Ramón Gil-Egui & Seyyed A. Hosseini, 2019. "Environmental and Operational Performance of CO 2 -EOR as a CCUS Technology: A Cranfield Example with Dynamic LCA Considerations," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-15, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:3:p:448-:d:202328
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/3/448/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/3/448/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leach, Andrew & Mason, Charles F. & Veld, Klaas van ‘t, 2011. "Co-optimization of enhanced oil recovery and carbon sequestration," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 893-912.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ayomikun Bello & Anastasia Ivanova & Alexey Cheremisin, 2023. "A Comprehensive Review of the Role of CO 2 Foam EOR in the Reduction of Carbon Footprint in the Petroleum Industry," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-20, January.
    2. Laura Aguado-Deblas & Jesús Hidalgo-Carrillo & Felipa M. Bautista & Carlos Luna & Juan Calero & Alejandro Posadillo & Antonio A. Romero & Diego Luna & Rafael Estévez, 2021. "Evaluation of Dimethyl Carbonate as Alternative Biofuel. Performance and Smoke Emissions of a Diesel Engine Fueled with Diesel/Dimethyl Carbonate/Straight Vegetable Oil Triple Blends," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, February.
    3. Oghare Victor Ogidiama & Tariq Shamim, 2021. "Assessment of CO2 capture technologies for CO2 utilization in enhanced oil recovery," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 11(3), pages 432-444, June.
    4. Waxman, Andrew R. & Corcoran, Sean & Robison, Andrew & Leibowicz, Benjamin D. & Olmstead, Sheila, 2021. "Leveraging scale economies and policy incentives: Carbon capture, utilization & storage in Gulf clusters," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    5. Muhammad Shahzad Kamal, 2019. "A Novel Approach to Stabilize Foam Using Fluorinated Surfactants," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-12, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leach, Andrew & Mason, Charles F. & Veld, Klaas van ‘t, 2011. "Co-optimization of enhanced oil recovery and carbon sequestration," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 893-912.
    2. Dana M. Abdulbaqi & Carol A. Dahl & Mohammed R. AlShaikh, 2018. "Enhanced oil recovery as a stepping stone to carbon capture and sequestration," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 31(1), pages 239-251, May.
    3. You, Junyu & Ampomah, William & Sun, Qian, 2020. "Co-optimizing water-alternating-carbon dioxide injection projects using a machine learning assisted computational framework," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    4. Gao, Shen & van ’t Veld, Klaas, 2021. "Pegging input prices to output prices—A special price adjustment clause in long-term CO2 sales contracts," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    5. Moreaux, Michel & Amigues, Jean-Pierre & van der Meijden, Gerard & Withagen, Cees, 2024. "Carbon capture: Storage vs. Utilization," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    6. Okullo, Samuel J. & Reynès, Frédéric & Hofkes, Marjan W., 2015. "Modeling peak oil and the geological constraints on oil production," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 36-56.
    7. Özge .Ic{s}legen & Stefan Reichelstein, 2011. "Carbon Capture by Fossil Fuel Power Plants: An Economic Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(1), pages 21-39, January.
    8. Calderón, Andrés J. & Pekney, Natalie J., 2020. "Optimization of enhanced oil recovery operations in unconventional reservoirs," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    9. Compernolle, T. & Welkenhuysen, K. & Huisman, K. & Piessens, K. & Kort, P., 2017. "Off-shore enhanced oil recovery in the North Sea: The impact of price uncertainty on the investment decisions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 123-137.
    10. Waxman, Andrew R. & Corcoran, Sean & Robison, Andrew & Leibowicz, Benjamin D. & Olmstead, Sheila, 2021. "Leveraging scale economies and policy incentives: Carbon capture, utilization & storage in Gulf clusters," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    11. William Ampomah & Robert S. Balch & Reid B. Grigg & Brian McPherson & Robert A. Will & Si‐Yong Lee & Zhenxue Dai & Feng Pan, 2017. "Co‐optimization of CO 2 ‐EOR and storage processes in mature oil reservoirs," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 7(1), pages 128-142, February.
    12. Ampomah, W. & Balch, R.S. & Cather, M. & Will, R. & Gunda, D. & Dai, Z. & Soltanian, M.R., 2017. "Optimum design of CO2 storage and oil recovery under geological uncertainty," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 80-92.
    13. Kevin McDonnell & Levente Molnár & Mary Harty & Fionnuala Murphy, 2020. "Feasibility Study of Carbon Dioxide Plume Geothermal Systems in Germany−Utilising Carbon Dioxide for Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-24, May.
    14. Niko Jaakkola, 2012. "Monopolistic sequestration of European carbon emissions," OxCarre Working Papers 098, Oxford Centre for the Analysis of Resource Rich Economies, University of Oxford.
    15. Siddharth Misra & Rui Liu & Aditya Chakravarty & Keyla Gonzalez, 2022. "Machine Learning Tools for Fossil and Geothermal Energy Production and Carbon Geo-sequestration—a Step Towards Energy Digitization and Geoscientific Digitalization," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 1225-1240, September.
    16. Wang, Xiao & van ’t Veld, Klaas & Marcy, Peter & Huzurbazar, Snehalata & Alvarado, Vladimir, 2018. "Economic co-optimization of oil recovery and CO2 sequestration," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 132-147.
    17. Tayari, Farid & Blumsack, Seth, 2020. "A real options approach to production and injection timing under uncertainty for CO2 sequestration in depleted shale gas reservoirs," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(C).
    18. Tapia, John Frederick D. & Lee, Jui-Yuan & Ooi, Raymond E.H. & Foo, Dominic C.Y. & Tan, Raymond R., 2016. "Optimal CO2 allocation and scheduling in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 337-345.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:3:p:448-:d:202328. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.