Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun 21;56(12):8571-8580.
doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c06834. Epub 2022 Jun 2.

Techno-Economic Assessment and Life Cycle Assessment of CO2-EOR

Yerdaulet Abuov  1 , Gaini Serik  2 , Woojin Lee  1   3
Affiliations

Techno-Economic Assessment and Life Cycle Assessment of CO2-EOR

Yerdaulet Abuov et al. Environ Sci Technol. .

Abstract

CO2-enhanced oil recovery (EOR) can have less GHG emissions compared to conventional oil production methods. The economy of CO2-EOR can significantly benefit from the recent rise of carbon prices in carbon markets due to its greenhouse gas (GHG) emission savings. This study conducted a life cycle assessment (LCA) of CO2-EOR in major hydrocarbon provinces of the world. Estimated net GHG emissions of CO2-EOR were compared with GHG emissions of average produced oil in the given country. When sourcing CO2 from coal-fired power plants, Kazakhstan and China have net GHG emissions of CO2-EOR of 276 and 380 kg CO2 eq/bbl, respectively, which are lower than the GHG emission factor of average oil produced in each of them. Significantly lower GHG emissions of CO2-EOR are observed in other hydrocarbon provinces (Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.), where CO2 could be delivered from Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) power plants. However, the cost of CO2 capture is higher at NGCC power plants than at coal-fired power plants. Further, we developed a techno-economic assessment (TEA) model of the CO2-EOR and integrated it with LCA to thoroughly consider carbon credits in its economy. The model was built based upon previous investigations and used statistics from a large industrial data set of CO2-EOR to produce accurate estimates of the CO2-EOR economy. The technical model iteratively estimated the balance of three fluids (crude oil, CO2, and water) in the CO2-EOR system with a 25 year operational lifespan and obtained actual data for the LCA and TEA models. The model was simulated for the Kazakhstan case with its oil market conditions for a demonstration purpose. TEA results showed that, with the available low-cost CO2 capture source or high CO2 cost in carbon trading, CO2-EOR can compete with current upstream projects in Kazakhstan by simultaneously increasing oil production and reducing GHG emissions.

Keywords: CCUS; GHG emissions; Kazakhstan; carbon market; decarbonization; emission trading system; enhanced oil recovery; oil production cost.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CO2-EOR flow diagram with WAG technology.
Figure 2
Figure 2
LCA boundaries of CO2-EOR (oil is the main product and electricity is a coproduct) (adapted from refs (3)(4), and (6)).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Annual oil and CO2 flows in the CO2-EOR project (average oil recovery case).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Sankey diagram of fluid balance in CO2-EOR in Kazakhstan for the average oil recovery case. The functional unit of the diagram is the kg fluid/bbl oil produced. (* minor surface and subsurface CO2 losses are not shown in the Sankey diagram.)
Figure 5
Figure 5
Life cycle GHG emissions of CO2-EOR in countries with the largest hydrocarbon reserves [(A) coal is an electricity source; (B) natural gas is an electricity source].
Figure 6
Figure 6
Variation of OPC in Kazakhstan with oil recovery, CO2 cost, and policy conditions (CO2 prices of 55 USD/t and 30 USD/t are for coal-fired power plants and other facilities with low CO2 capture cost, respectively).
Figure 7
Figure 7
Breakeven cost of feedstock CO2 for average and high oil recovery cases.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kolster C.; Masnadi M. S.; Krevor S.; Mac Dowell N.; Brandt A. R. CO2 enhanced oil recovery: a catalyst for gigatonne-scale carbon capture and storage deployment?. Energy Environ. Sci. 2017, 10, 2594–2608. 10.1039/c7ee02102j. - DOI
    1. NETL . An Assessment of Gate-To-Gate Environmental Life Cycle Performance of Water-Alternating-Gas CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery in the Permian Basin, 2010.
    1. Azzolina N. A.; Peck W. D.; Hamling J. A.; Gorecki C. D.; Ayash S. C.; Doll T. E.; Nakles D. V.; Melzer L. S. How green is my oil? A detailed look at greenhouse gas accounting for CO2-enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) sites. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2016, 51, 369–379. 10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.06.008. - DOI
    1. Jaramillo P.; Griffin W. M.; Mccoy S. T. Life Cycle Inventory of CO2 in an Enhanced Oil Recovery System. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 8027–8032. 10.1021/es902006h. - DOI - PubMed
    1. NETL . Gate-to-Gate Life Cycle Inventory and Model of CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery, 2013.

Publication types