4.7 Article

Carbon capture and storage in the coastal region of China between Shanghai and Hainan

Journal

ENERGY
Volume 247, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2022.123470

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Petroleum Engineering Professorship programme from the Singapore Economic Development Board [S13-1392-RF-Petroleum]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluates offshore carbon capture and storage opportunities in the coastal region of China, indicating ample CO2 storage potential to cover years of CO2 emissions and is suitable for offshore CCS projects.
In this study, we evaluate offshore carbon capture and storage (CCS) opportunities in the coastal region of China between Shanghai and Hainan. A plant-by-plant analysis of stationary CO2 emission and field-by field evaluation of CO2 sinks are presented. Results show that CO2 emission from power plants is 1.0 Gtpa while that from refineries, iron and steel mills, and cement factories is 0.7 Gtpa. The available locations to store CO2 are offshore oil and gas reservoirs and saline aquifers in the East China Sea and the West Taiwan, Pearl River Mouth, Yinggehai, Qiongdongnan and Beibuwan basins. There is 624 Gt of mid CO2 storage capacity and 432 MMbbl of CO2-enhanced oil recovery (EOR) or enhanced gas recovery (EGR) potential in these basins, which is enough to store 367 years of stationary CO2 emission. Of this, 623 Gt come from saline aquifers, 1.5 Gt from gas reservoirs, and only 0.3 Gt from oil reservoirs. A CO2 source sink mapping exercise reveals that almost all stationary CO2 sources in the coastal region of China can be stored in offshore CO2 sinks within a 350 km distance and many within a 200 km distance. Candidates for first mover offshore CCS projects include the Huizhou, Xijiang, Wenchang, Panyu and Enping oil fields. (C)& nbsp;2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available