4.6 Article

Injection of CO2 into saline formations: Benchmarking worldwide projects

Journal

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH & DESIGN
Volume 89, Issue 9, Pages 1855-1864

Publisher

INST CHEMICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cherd.2011.04.003

Keywords

CCS; Carbon capture and storage; Saline aquifers; Demonstration projects; Commercial projects; CO2 geological storage

Funding

  1. EPSRC [EP/H022961/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/H022961/1, 1090213] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Carbon capture, transport and storage (CCS) is a very active field of research, because of its potential to make large reductions of emissions from fossil fuel combustion relevant to climate change. This paper reviews the recent and current work on practical injections of CO2 as research tests for storage projects and specifically focuses on industrial-scale or relevant injections into saline formations (about 1 Mt CO2 per year). All injection projects around the world have been reviewed, and 20 are reported to compile, depth, reservoir quality and injectivity, cost, and rate. This shows that testing of injection is concentrated onshore; however the projects with the highest total CO2 storage estimate are offshore. Pipeline transport systems are mostly used for the large projects. Formations targeted in the injection process are sandstone or carbonate. In the majority of cases initial projections of injectivity are confirmed in tests. A variety of monitoring techniques are used in all projects, these have detected CO2, but have not shown unexpected CO2 movement. Practical experiences of CO2 injection operations therefore suggest that similar operations can be successfully carried out in the saline formations of the UK North Sea and other large sedimentary basins. (C) 2011 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available