Carbon Capture and Sequestration :

An Overview
Pranav I M1, Syed Manjarul Islam1, Guna K1
1
Student, Presidency University, Department of Petroleum Engineering, Itgalpur,
Rajanakunte, 560064, India.

pimangalmutt@gmail.com, iammisyed016@gmail.com, gunagp18@gmail.com

Abstract
Approximately 85% of the world's energy requirements are provided by fossil fuels and will remain
in ample supply in the 21st century. Carbon dioxide, being a large greenhouse gas (GHG), poses a
dreadful danger to the world in the rising global warming problems as its level in the atmosphere
rises significantly. As a result of this carbon dioxide sequestration, a crucial technical route to
reducing emissions of greenhouse gases has emerged. CO 2 Sequestration is the long-term isolation
by physical, chemical, biological, or engineered processes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Reducing costs associated with CO2 separation and capture are the main obstacles for carbon
sequestration from large stationary sources, and devolving sinks that are safe, efficient, and
economical. In addition, this approach will allow us to continue to enjoy the benefits of fossil fuels
while protecting our climate. The paper discusses the background and fundamentals of oil
production, CO2 properties, CO2 storage effectiveness, carbon capture and separation technologies,
risks associated with CO2 sequestration and the cost of CO 2 sequestration economics, and the
ongoing implementation or projects.

Keywords
Carbon dioxide, Carbon capture, Greenhouse gas, Sequestration.
Introduction
About 85% of the world's energy needs are supplied by fossil fuels and will remain in adequate supply in
the 21st century [1]. They also contributed greatly to the high housing standards enjoyed by the
developing world. We have learned to generate energy from fossil fuels in an environmentally friendly
way, to track NOx, SO2, unburned hydrocarbons and particulate emissions. Even with these new pollution
controls, the cost of energy generated from fossil fuels continues to decrease. Despite this optimistic
news on fossil fuels, the outlook is clouded by the environmental and economic threats posed by possible
climate change, also referred to as the 'greenhouse effect.' Despite this optimistic news on fossil fuels,
the outlook is clouded by the environmental and economic threats posed by possible climate change,
also referred to as the 'greenhouse effect.' Carbon dioxide (CO 2) is the major anthropogenic greenhouse
gas, and fossil fuel burning is the primary cause of anthropogenic CO 2. However, if we can develop
systems in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner to capture and sequester CO 2 from fossil
fuels, we will be able to enjoy the benefits of burning fossil fuels for the next century.

However, if we can develop systems in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner to capture
and sequester CO2 from fossil fuels, we will be able to enjoy the benefits of burning fossil fuels for the
next century [2]. As this awareness grew, considerable money and research time was spent on 1)
improving capture technology and 2) exploring subsurface reservoirs in which CO 2 could be permanently
positioned. Aside from the need for CO 2 for EOR applications, the basic premise of most of the research
was that a government-driven imperative(s) would force the introduction of technology and that CO 2
would be pumped into deep saline formations. It is correct to believe that what is commonly referred to
as a carbon price, either direct, such as carbon tax, or indirect, such as emissions sharing permits, etc.,
would ease the commercial aspects of the job. It is also reasonable to conclude that continued storage
during CO2 EOR has been unnecessarily or, even wrongly, dismissed in some circles as an answer to CO 2
emission control as 1) the solution to the matter has been too minimal at the end of the day, 2) the
storage of only about half of its CO 2 injection, or 3) that it only prolongs the carbon-dependent society by
adding further oil supply to the national and international level. The argument is that the first two
statements are deceptive and the third ignores the reality and magnitude of the role of oil and
hydrocarbons in contemporary society. However, the industrial driver for the procurement of
"commodity" CO2 and the ongoing implementation of EOR technology and implementation projects are
seen by others as hindrances to long-term plans for the transition to cleaner energy solutions.

Background and Fundamentals of Oil Production and

CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery
The oil and gas market are most frequently viewed as an area dominated by drilling for new oil and gas
reserves. And most businesses should be called discovery companies and make their whole lives do just
that. There is, however, a sub-industry within the broader sector that focuses on expanding the existence
of the production fields, i.e., extracting more oil from the discovery (field). Tradition continues to brand
these firms as manufacturing entities, as opposed to mining companies focused on fracking. Production
firms need a larger range of technical expertise and are forced to attempt to extract more and more oil
(called advanced recovery) from a "reluctant" reservoir. History indicates that the advanced recovery
strategy is more expensive per barrel produced, and monetary incentives for progress are slower for
these firms. In a fast-paced environment that needs instant gratification; most businesses opt for
discovery to offer more immediate returns to their shareholders. While the advanced recovery business
model leads to comparatively large oil deposits and long-lived output, fewer firms have selected the
route over time and have opted for an exploration strategy. To provide more insight to this article, it is
important to analyze the output of oil and gas in the sense that the industry has come to call the phases
of production.
Primary Production Phase
The first phase of development of the reservoir is known as the main phase of production, where new
field exploration is made and well penetration is drilled into the formation [2]. Oil or gas is extracted
using the pent-up energy of the fluids in the rock pool (usually sandstone or carbonate (limestone,
dolomite) formation. If you're good at locating fresh oil or gas and avoiding "dry holes," the returns
would be swift while the fluid pressures in the tank are high. Eventually, though, the capacity (usually
thought of as reservoir pressure) is drained and the wells stop flowing. This involves a stage called
"artificial lift" where fluids are forced or raised to the surface and the production can be extended.
Eventually, the pore pressures are so completely drained and pass so slowly through the well that the
wells yield uneconomic volumes. At this point, as in the case of oil reservoirs, substantial volumes of oil
remain in place, with some 80-90% already stuck in the pore spaces of the rock.

Secondary Production Phase

The field may be abandoned after the depletion of the fluid pressure or may be converted to a secondary
phase of production in which the substance (usually water) is injected to suppress the formation. New
injection wells are drilled or converted from well production, and the injected fluid sweeps oil to the
remaining wells. This secondary process is also very productive and will yield an amount of oil equal to or
greater than that produced in the primary phase of production. Water is a popular injector in the
secondary phase of development, as water is relatively inexpensive. Normally, fresh water is not used
after the storm, and this is particularly true today. The water created from the formation is pumped back
to the ground again and again. At the end of the day, in most reservoirs, 50-70% of the oil that was
present in the field remained in the river after the flood as it was bypassed by the water that did not
combine with the oil.

Tertiary Production Phase

If a corporation wants to generate (access) some of the remaining oil in the reservoir, it may opt to join
the third process (tertiary phase) of development. This will include the use of an injector that reacts with
oil to adjust its properties and allow it to flow more easily inside the reservoir. Heat or hot water can do
that; chemicals can do that as well. These methods are generally categorized as enhanced oil recovery or
EOR. One of the most tested approaches is carbon dioxide (CO 2) flooding. Almost pure CO2 (>95% of the
total 3 composition) has the property of mixing with the oil to swell it, to make it lighter, to remove it
from the rock surfaces and to make the oil flow more freely within the reservoir so that it can be well
"swept up" in the flow from the injector to the producer.

Basics of Carbon Chemistry

The burning of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide and water vapor into the air in addition to energy,
as stated by Schartz (2000).

CH20 + 02 CO2 + H20

CH2 - Carbohydrate

Alternatively, by photosynthesis, carbon is extracted from the air. Via photosynthesis, plants use
CO2, release oxygen and lock carbon into plant materials, including roots that decompose and store
carbon in the soil. Energy that is obtained from solar radiation is required for this natural process.

CO2 + H20 CH20 + 02

Removing carbon from and combusting fossil fuels in storage contributes carbon to the atmosphere.
Soils, plants, and the oceans are big carbon sinks. Land incineration and soil tillage also contribute
carbon to the atmosphere.

CO2 Properties
Carbon dioxide properties Carbon dioxide is formed from the combination of two elements: carbon
and oxygen. It is produced by burning coal or hydrocarbons. CO 2 is a colorless, odorless, and non-
toxic stable compound contained in a gaseous state under normal conditions. In the case of
petroleum engineering, it can be in a gas or liquid state depending on the conditions of the PVT.
Table 1 gives the main properties of carbon dioxide. The phase diagram (Figure 1) of CO 2 is also a key
data since we can inject it under different temperature and pressure conditions. The three phases
are shown in this diagram, with the triple and critical point. Above the critical point, the CO 2 is
considered as a supercritical fluid.

Property Value
Molecular weight 44 g/mol
Critical temperature 31°C
Critical pressure 73.77 bar
Critical density 467.6 kg/m3
Triple point temperature −56.5°C
Triple point pressure 5.18 bar
Boiling (sublimation) point (1.013 bar) −78.5°C
Critical Z factor 0.274
Solid phase
Density of carbon dioxide snow at freezing point 1562 kg/m3
Latent heat of vaporization (1.013 bar at sublimation point) 571.1 kJ/kg
Liquid phase
Vapor pressure (at 20°C) 58.5 bar
Liquid density (at −20°C and 19.7 bar) 1032 kg/m3
Viscosity (at STP) 99 μPa s
Characteristics of CO2 gas phase
Gas density 2.814 kg/m3
Gas density (according to STP) 1.976 kg/m3
Specific volume (according to STP) 0.506 m3/kg
Cp (according to STP) 0.0364 kJ/ (mol K)
Cv (according to STP) 0.0278 kJ/ (mol K)
Cp /Cv 1.308
Viscosity (according to STP) 13.72 μPa s
Thermal conductivity (according to STP) 14.65 mW/ (m K)
Enthalpy (according to STP) 21.34 kJ/mol
Entropy (according to STP) 117.2 J mol/K

Table 1: - Carbon dioxide properties [7]

Note: STP stands for standard temperature and pressure, which are 0°C and 1.013 bar.
 Figure 1: - CO2 phase
diagram [8]

Carbon Sequestration
Emission rates from fossil fuel combustion increased by 40% between 1980 and 2000 [3]. Yet, the
amount of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere remained the same over this period because the
excess CO2 released is being removed by oceans, forests, soils, and other ecosystems [4].
Atmospheric CO2 increased at a rate of 2.8–3.0 Pg C yrK1 during the 1980s and 1995, and between
3.0 and 3.5 Pg C yrK1 during 1995–2005. Considering the total anthropogenic emissions of between
6 and 8 Pg C yrK1, while the atmospheric increase has been 2.8–3.5 Pg yrK1, implies the existence of
large global terrestrial sinks [5] [6]. 'Carbon sequestration' is the method of transfer and safe storage
of atmospheric CO2 into other long-lived carbon pools that would otherwise be released or remain in
the atmosphere. Therefore, carbon sequestration can be a normal or an anthropogenically induced
mechanism in this context. The goal of an anthropogenically powered carbon sequestration
mechanism is to balance the global C budget so that potential economic growth in the atmospheric
carbon pool is based on a ' carbon neutral' policy of no net benefit. Such a strategy would involve the
sequestering of almost all CO 2 produced anthropogenically through safe, environmentally
appropriate, and stable techniques with low leakage risks. Lackner (2003) predicted that if a carbon
-neutral approach is focused primarily on sequestration rather than emission reduction, cumulative
C storage would reach 600 Pg with residence time from centuries to millennia during the twenty-first
century. However, the strategic planning for future generations may be adversely affected by even a
minor leakage of 2-3 Pg C yrK1 from the carbon sequestered in one of the pools. Pacala & Socolow
(2004) outlined 15 options for stabilising atmospheric CO 2 concentrations to about 550 ppm by 2050.
Three of the fifteen choices were focused on C sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems.

Types of CO2 Sequestration

After CO2 is captured at the source, it then must be safely sequestered or stored away. There are
three types of CO2 sequestration: terrestrial, geologic, and mineralization. More than 150
CO2 sequestration projects are in progress in North America alone.

Terrestrial sequestration is the removal and storage of CO 2 from the atmosphere by

vegetation and soils on the earth’s surface through tree-planting, no-till farming, wetland
restoration, and forestation.

Geologic sequestration is permanently storing CO  in subsurface structures such as oil

2

reservoirs, natural gas deposits, unmineable coal seams, deep saline formations, shale rich in oil or
gas, and basalt formations.

Mineral sequestration is the formation of stable carbonate salts by the reaction of

CO2 with dissolved calcium and magnesium. It is a natural process that happens slowly and produces
limestone. A process that occurs faster than a natural reaction is when “dunite, or its hydrated
equivalent serpentinite, reacts with carbon dioxide to form the carbonate mineral magnesite, plus
silica and iron oxide (magnetite).”

CO2 Capture Technologies

CO2 is formed during combustion and the type of combustion process directly affects the choice of
an appropriate CO2 removal process. CO2 capture technologies are available in the market but are
costly in general and contribute to around 70–80% of the total cost of a full Carbon Capture
Sequestration system including capture, transport, and storage [9]. Substantial R&D activities are
also focused on lowering operational costs and reducing energy fines. There are three major CO 2
capture mechanisms, namely post-combustion, pre-combustion and oxyfuel combustion, associated
with various combustion processes.

Post Combustion
After combustion has occurred, this phase extracts CO 2 from the flue gas. The preferred choice for
retrofitting existing power plants is post-combustion technologies. The technology has been proven
at small-scale with CO2 recovered at rates up to 800 t/day [10]. The key challenge of post-
combustion CO2 capture, however, is its strong parasitic load. Since the CO 2 level in combustion flue
gas is normally quite low (i.e., 7–14% for coal-fired and as low as 4% for gas-fired), the energy
penalty and associated costs for the capture unit to reach the concentration of CO 2 (above 95.5%)
needed for transport and storage are elevated [11] [12] [13]. A recent study reported that the cost
of electricity would increase by 32% and 65% for post-combustion in gas and coal-fired plants,
respectively [14]. It has been identified that 16 large scale integrated Carbon Capture Sequestration
projects are currently operating or under construction but two of them are of post-combustion
technology [15].

Pre Combustion
The fuel (normally coal or natural gas) is pre-treated before combustion in this process. For coal, the
pretreatment involves a gasification process carried out in a low oxygen gasifier that forms a syngas
consisting primarily of CO and H 2 and is mostly free of other pollutant gases (Eq. 1). With steam
forming more H2, the syngas will then undergo water gas change reaction while the CO gas will be
converted to CO2 (Eq. 2):
gasification
Coal CO + H2 (1)
 water-gas shift
CO + H2O H2 + CO2 (2)
reform
CH4 + H2O CO + H2 (3)

The high CO2 concentration (420%) in the H 2/CO2 fuel gas mixture facilitates the CO 2 separation [13].
The H2 is then burned in air that creates predominantly N 2 and water vapor. Pre-combustion capture
can be applied to Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plants using coal as fuel, but
this will incur an efficiency loss of 7–8% [10] [16]. It is possible to transform natural gas, as it
primarily contains CH4, into syngas containing H2 and CO (Eq. 3). The water gas shift reaction (Eq. 2)
will increase the H2 content and the rest of the process is like that mentioned above for coal.

Oxyfuel Combustion
In the case of oxyfuel combustion, oxygen is used for combustion instead of air. This decreases the
amount of nitrogen in the exhaust gas that impacts the subsequent process of separation.
Substantial reduction in thermal NO x is another advantage of this process [17]. The primary
composition of the flue gases in the use of pure oxygen for combustion is CO 2, water, particulates
and SO2. By traditional electrostatic precipitator and flue gas desulphurization methods, respectively,
particulates and SO2 can be extracted. The residual gases can be compressed, transported, and
preserved, having a high concentration of CO 2. This method is theoretically feasible but requires
significant quantities of oxygen from a separation device for energy-intensive air. This results in high
cost and the energy penalty may reach over 7% compared with a plant without Carbon Capture
Sequestration [18] [19]. High SO2 concentration in the flue gas can also exacerbate the corrosion
problems of the system.

Capture process Application area Advantages Disadvantages

Post-combustion Coal-fired and gas- Technology more mature than Low CO2 concentration
fired plants other alternatives; can easily affects the capture
retrofit into existing plants; efficiency;
Pre-combustion Coal-gasification High CO2 concentration Temperature associated
plants enhance sorption efficiency; heat transfer problem and
fully developed technology, efficiency decay issues
commercially deployed at the associated with the use of
required scale in some hydrogen-rich gas turbine
industrial sectors; opportunity fuel; high parasitic power
for retrofit to existing plant; requirement for sorbent
regeneration; inadequate
experience due to few
gasification plants currently
operated in the market; high
capital and operating costs
for current sorption
systems;
Oxyfuel Coal-fired and gas- Very high CO2 concentration High efficiency drops and
combustion fired plants that enhances absorption energy penalty; cryogenic O2
efficiency; mature air production is costly;
separation technologies corrosion problem may
available; reduced volume of arise;
gas to be treated, hence
required smaller boiler and
other equipment;
Chemical looping Coal-gasification CO2 is the main combustion Process is still under
combustion plants product, which remains development and
unmixed with N2, thus avoiding inadequate large scale
energy intensive air separation; operation experience;
Table 2: - Benefits and drawbacks of various methods for trapping CO 2 [20]

CO2 Separation Technologies

This section describes the key technologies for CO 2 separation that can be applied before
transportation to separate the CO2 from the flue/fuel gas source. Advanced technologies have been
developed, such as wet scrubbers, dry regenerable sorbents, membranes, cryogenics, adsorption of
pressure and temperature swings, and other advanced concepts.

Absorption
A liquid sorbent is used to isolate the flue gas from CO 2. The sorbent can be regenerated by heating
and/or depressurization through a stripping or regenerative method. This process is the most
mature method for CO2 separation [21]. Typical sorbents include monoethanolamine (MEA),
diethanolamine (DEA) and potassium carbonate [22]. Among the various aqueous alkanolamines,
such as MEA and DEA, Veawab et al.[23] found that MEA is the most efficient one for CO 2 absorption
with efficiency over 90%. Some other sorbents, such as piperazine and anion-functionalized ionic
liquid have also received attention in recent years [24]. Piperazine has been found to react much
faster than MEA, but because it has a larger volatility than MEA, its application in CO 2 absorption is
more expensive and is still under development [25]. One important challenge for the large
deployment of this technology for Carbon Capture Sequestration is its potential amine degradation,
resulting in solvent loss, equipment corrosion and generation of volatile degradation compounds
[25] [26], while that atmospheric degradation has not been included. In addition, amine emissions,
which are potentially hazardous to human health and the environment, can degrade into
nitrosamines and nitramines. Aqueous ammonium salts (such as ammonium carbonate) are used in
the chilled ammonia process to absorb CO 2, which can make use of waste heat to regenerate CO 2 at
elevated temperatures and lower downstream compression pressures. Compared to those facing
amine degradation, this process would create less trouble.

Adsorption
A solid sorbent is used to bind the CO 2 on its surfaces, as opposed to absorption methods that use a
liquid absorbent. The key criteria for sorbent selection are a broad specific surface area, high
selectivity, and high regeneration potential. Molecular sieves, activated carbon, zeolites, calcium
oxides, hydrotalcites, and lithium zirconate contain common sorbents. By swinging the pressure
(PSA) or temperature (TSA) of the device containing the CO 2 saturated sorbent, the adsorbed CO2
can be retrieved. PSA is a commercially available technology for CO 2 recovery from power plants that
can have efficiency higher than 85% [27] [28]. In this process, CO 2 is preferentially adsorbed at high
pressure on the surface of a solid adsorbent that swings to low pressure (usually atmospheric
pressure) to desorb the adsorbent and releases CO 2 for transport afterwards. In the TSA, adsorbed
CO2 can be released by using hot air or steam injection to raise the device temperature. The
regeneration time is normally longer than PSA but CO 2 purity higher than 95% and recovery higher
than 80% can be achieved [28].
Chemical Looping Combustion
Instead of using pure oxygen directly for combustion, as in the case of oxyfuel combustion, metal
oxide is used as an oxygen carrier. The metal oxide is reduced to metal during the process, while the
fuel is oxidized into CO2 and water. In another step, the metal is then oxidized and recycled in the
process. Water, a by-product of the process, can be easily extracted by condensation, while pure CO 2
can be obtained for separation without energy consumption. A large variety of metal oxides,
including Fe2O3, NiO, CuO and Mn2O3, are low-cost and suitable for this process. Various researchers
have studied the efficacy of various metal oxides in this process .
Membrane Separation
Membranes can be used to allow only CO 2 to move through, without other flue gas components. The
most important part of this process is the membrane which is made of a composite polymer of
which a thin selective layer is bonded to a thicker, non-selective and low-cost layer that provides
mechanical support to the membrane[28]. Other gases, such as O 2 from N2, and CO2 from natural
gas, have also been separated using this method. Brunetti et al.[29] carried out a general analysis on
existing membrane-based CO2 separation technologies and compared them with other separation
technologies such as adsorption and cryogenics. It pointed out that the efficiency of a membrane
system is highly influenced by the conditions of flue gas, such as low concentrations of CO 2 and
strain, which are the key obstacles to the application of this technology

Hydrate based Separation

The hydrate-based separation of CO2 is a new technique in which the CO2 containing exhaust gas is
exposed to hydrate-forming water under high pressure. The CO 2 in the exhaust gas is triggered
selectively in the hydrate cages and is isolated from other gases. The mechanism is based on the
differences of phase equilibrium of CO2 with other gases, where CO2 can form hydrates easier than
other gases such as N2 [31]. Improving the hydrate formation rate and reducing hydrate pressure can
improve the CO2 capture efficiency [31].

Cryogenic Distillation
Cryogenic distillation is a method of gas separation using extremely low temperature and high
pressure distillation that is identical to other traditional distillation methods, except that it is used
instead of liquid to separate gaseous mixture components. For CO 2 separation, CO2-containing flue
gas is cooled to the temperature of desublimation and then solidified CO 2 is isolated from other light
gases and compressed to a high atmospheric pressure of 100-200. 90–95 percent of the flue gas will
exceed the amount of CO2 recovered. Several patented processes have been developed and
research has mainly focused on cost optimization[32] [33].

Technology Advantage Disadvantage

Absorption High absorption efficiency (>90%);
Sorbents can be regenerated by
heating and/or depressurization; Most
mature process for CO2 separation.
Adsorption Process is reversible and the absorbent
can be recycled; High adsorption
efficiency achievable (>85%).
Absorption efficiency depends on CO2
concentration; Significant amounts of
heat for absorbent regeneration are
required; Environmental impacts related
to sorbent degradation have to be
understood
Require high temperature adsorbent;
High energy required for CO2 desorption.

Chemical looping CO2 is the main combustion product, Process is still under development and
combustion which remains unmixed with N2, thus there is no large scale operation
avoiding energy intensive air experience
separation.
Membrane Process has been adopted for Operational problems include low fluxes
separation separation of other gases; High and fouling
separation efficiency achievable
(>80%).
 Hydrate-based Small energy penalty. New technology and more research and
separation development is required.
Cryogenic distillation Mature technology.; Adopted for many Only viable for very high CO 2
years in industry for CO2 recovery. concentration(>90%) v/v; Should be
conducted at very low temperature;
Process is very energy intensive.
Table 3: - Comparison of different CO2 separation technologies [20].

Economics of CO2 Sequestration Costs

The overall cost of CO2 sequestration involves that of capture, compression, transport and storage
stages. According to Gough and Shackley, in many cases, cost estimates cannot be directly compared
because they involve different assumptions about fuel prices, discount rates and different elements
of overall costs (for example, capture, compression, transport and storage). By convention, some
organizations like the IEA Greenhouse Gas R & D Program incorporate the cost of compression in the
cost of capture impeding direct comparison with just capture or compression element [33].

Capture and Compression Cost

In the estimation of compression cost it is necessary to consider the amount of required
compression and the unit costs of compression. But these two elements oscillate for different
projects. For example, the estimation of compression costs of CO 2 is in the range of USD 7.4 to
12.4/ton [34].The estimation of capture cost is more complex and should consider: i) the volume of
CO2, ii) the nature of the capture process; iii) the characteristics of the emissions source. According
to Freund and Davison ,capture costs account for about 75% of total cost of sequestration (the
dominant item for the current technology) and has been one of the key barriers to the introduction
of CO2 sequestration technology. Nguyen and Allinson also agree that CO 2 capture is the more
expensive part of the whole CO 2 sequestration process and deserves further research focused on
chemical absorption and membranes, due to their large potential for reduced costs [35].The
significance of capture cost in the whole process comes from the extensive equipment required to
scrub the CO2 from exhaust gas streams derived from power plants where CO 2 is in low
concentrations (8 –14% by volume), as argued by van Bergen [36]. Meanwhile, the capture cost can
be lower in case that the industrial processes generate exhaust gas streams that contain high purity
(more than 90%) CO2.

Farla also mentioned that little attention has been paid to CO 2 recovery from industrial processes,
although large amounts of CO 2 are emitted at high concentration by few industries. It might be
possible to recover carbon dioxide from these sources at a lower cost than from power plants. Such
industrial processes are ammonia manufacturing, fermentation and hydrogen production (e.g., in oil
refining). For example, the specific mitigation cost including recovery and recompression for a
fertilizer industry is USD 8/ ton CO 2 and for an ethylene oxide production avoided and USD 9/ ton
CO2, respectively. The recovery of CO 2 from the flue gas of power plant is reported to cost USD 35 –
40/ ton CO2 [37]. Hendriks indicated that costs for petrochemical industry, and iron steel industry is
USD 46/ ton CO2 and USD 35/ ton CO2, respectively.

Transportation Cost
The transportation cost depends on several factors such as the CO 2 flow rate, distance from the
source to the storage site, pipeline geometry (internal diameter, thickness, etc.), and terrain
characteristics (mountainous, flat, population density, etc.). Obviously, the closer the oilfield to the
CO2 plants, the lower the overall cost of the CO 2 capture and transportation project. The
transportation cost may increase depending on the population density, accessibility of the terrain
 (crossing highways and rivers, elevations, etc.), scale of operation and existing infrastructure [38].

Although the transportation cost differs across different projects due to some of reasons discussed
in the previous paragraph, some researchers suggest some value, even in a larger range. Hedle
quoted pipeline construction cost is around USD 21/in/km, that is, USD 21 per inch of diameter per
km of length, and operational and maintenance (O&M) costs are estimated to be USD 3,1/km,
independently of the diameter of pipeline. Turkenburg has asserted that pipeline transportation
costs of CO2 are USD 3-12/t C per 100km, i.e., depending on the size and capacity of the pipeline[39].

Storage Cost
The total storage cost depends on the location, injection costs, reservoir depth, average
temperature, reservoir radius, environmental regulatory framework and flow rate. The cost
components of CO2 storage include capital costs of pipelines, intermediate compression and
injection wells, besides those costs of operation and maintenance of the system[40]. For example,
Table 2 presents data from Davison who pointed out that in most CO 2 storage cases in geological
reservoir, cost ranges from USD 5 to 25 per ton, including data for storage in oceans. In addition,
Freund and Davison argue that the cost of ocean storage is an approximation because the difficulty
to access the precise mode of injection and the preferred injection depth [41]. In some cases
(including the case study of this paper), there are opportunities for storage at small cost or even net
benefits, by means of improving oil or gas by injection of CO 2 into the reservoir and, as result,
generating some offsetting income. Such techniques include CO 2–ECBM and CO2–EOR. At the
present, the worldwide leader in EOR is the United States, by using CO 2 that occurs naturally. But
from the environmental point of view, this case of USA cannot be considered sequestration, since to
agree with Kyoto Protocol, just CO 2 emitted from anthropogenic sources can be considered carbon
sequestration.

Thinking in CO2 storage costs some important points deserve attention. According to Smith , the cost
to construct and operate injection wells contributes with only a small portion of the total cost for the
system. Moreover, currently, operators must cover the costs of purchased CO 2, as well as, other
capital and operating costs, solely based on sales of oil production. It is due to operators receive no
financial benefit for sequestering CO2 [42].

Type of plant/ facility CO2 Concentration (% weight) Technique Costs

(USD/ ton)
Pulverized Coal Fired Power Plant 21 MEA 43 - 61
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Power Plant 13 MEA 49
Gas Fired Steam Plant 15 MEA 55 - 74
Gas Fired Combined Cycle 6 MEA 55 - 74
Gas Fired Combined Cycle (Industrial Cogeneration) 6 MEA 55 - 98
Gas Turbine (Industrial Cogeneration) 6 MEA 55 - 98
Steam Turbine (Industrial Cogeneration) 15 MEA 55 - 98
Waste Incineration Plant (Waste Processing) 17 MEA 49 - 61
Chemical Industries (ammonia, hydrogen or ethylene oxide 100 Pure CO2 as a by- 4.9 – 6.1
plants) product

Table 4: - Operating costs of CO2 capture from several sources of CO2

MEA- Monoethanolamine
Risk associated with CO2 Sequestration
Carbon Dioxide is a harmful gas, not only because it causes global warming, but also because it has
the propensity to harm life and ecosystems on the Earth. Hence it is necessary to ensure that the
flow of CO2 is checked everywhere during the process of sequestration and that the gas doesn’t leak
uncontrolled and inconspicuously. There are a lot of risks associated with CO 2, present at every stage
of a Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) project. This section enumerates these possible risks to give
the reader an idea of the HSE impacts that CO 2 geo-sequestration can cause. Basically, there is just
one major risk during the entire Carbon Capture Sequestration process and that is the risk of
leakage. This risk is only highlighted at every stage of the project and in all possible ways that it can
occur. The first risk is a risk of leakage during the carbon capture process. If proper and efficient
technology is not used, and the devices used for capturing the carbon from say an industrial flue gas
stream are faulty, this can lead to a lot of CO 2 being vented to the atmosphere itself instead of being
captured. The next risk occurs during transport of CO 2 through pipelines. Any damage to the pipeline
material can provide a possible leakage point for the CO 2 flowing through it. Corrosion damage on
the outer surface of the pipe as well as physical damage taking place on the outer surface of the pipe
can lead to leaks. Bent sections and Z-shaped sections of the pipe, which are under higher stress,
also can fail over a period, leading to possible leakage zones. Accidental release of CO 2, though not
very probable, is another risk that should be closely monitored. Further, CO 2, in the presence of
water (here moisture), is slightly acidic, which can lead to corrosion on the inner surface of the
pipeline, leading to possibility of leaks. During the transport of CO 2 under depressurized conditions,
very low temperatures can result. Formation of solid CO 2 can also occur at such low temperatures.
Hence, the pipeline material should be stable enough to withstand brittle failures occurring at low
temperatures. Possibility of ductile failure also exists over a period. Elastomers, which are used in
various sections of the pipe, also present a possible risk. The CO 2 tends to enter through the pores of
these elastomers, cause swelling of the elastomers and then leave the substance. This results in
failure and damage to the elastomer over a period, creating pathways for CO 2 leaks. Thus, material
selection is very critical while laying pipelines for CO 2 transport [43].

For injecting CO2 into sub-surface formations, injection wells should be drilled, cased, cemented and
completed properly to ensure the safety of the project. Improper cement jobs are of major concern
since they pose maximum risk of CO 2 leakage. If a well is not properly cemented, the injected CO 2
can get a flow path through the region between the casing and the sub-surface formations and
escape to either the atmosphere or to other sub-surface formations, even possibly containing
drinking water aquifers. If the set cement has sufficient permeability, again CO 2 may flow through it
and escape. CO2, being acidic in the presence of water, has the tendency to damage the set cement.
Hence the cement composition should be proper to avoid such damage. Also, if cement jobs are
improper, remedial jobs and/or squeeze cementing should be done to plug any possible CO 2 leakage
paths. CO2 may also corrode the casing in the long run and create leakage pathways. In some cases,
old, abandoned wells, completed in the same formation in which CO 2 is being injected, may also
provide leakage pathways for flow of CO 2. This may occur because the material used to complete
that well might have degraded completely and this aspect might not have been monitored while
selecting the site for sequestration. Risks during injection and transport can be called as the short
term risks in a CCS project. The long term risks are related to the storage of CO 2 sub-surface and
potentially for a long period of time. If CO 2 is stored in a high permeability formation, it is possible
that the injected gas may keep flowing in the formation and migrate laterally to other zones of the
formation where it may be difficult to monitor it. Injected CO 2 may migrate upwards through the
injected zone into other formations or even slowly to the atmosphere if it finds a proper channel.
Presence of a caprock is essential to keep the CO 2 trapped in the target formation. If CO 2 is injected
at high pressures, this caprock can fail, or even the target formation may fracture, giving rise to a
CO2 leakage pathway. Presence of existing leaking faults or natural fractures in the target
formation/caprock also pose risk of CO 2 leakage. Absence of caprock in poorly selected injection
sites is a sure shot indication that the CO 2 will leak out. Opponents of sequestration also argue that
improper injection of CO2 could also lead to earthquakes taking place-a disputed claim, although CO 2
injection leads to surface upheaval. Hence, these geomechanical risks of sequestration also need to
be considered [33].

Conclusion
A complementary range of technological approaches, including improving energy efficiency and
conservation, the adoption of clean fuels and clean coal technologies, the production of renewable
energy and the introduction of Carbon Capture and Storage, have been considered by different
countries in their own circumstances to achieve the GHG emission reduction goal. It is noted that
Carbon Capture and Storage contains a technology portfolio that can substantially reduce CO 2
emissions, but Carbon Capture and Storage is not yet widely deployed. This paper serves as a
comprehensive guide and reviews various technologies and issues related to CO 2 capture,
separation, transport, introduction, phases, basics of carbon , CO 2 properties, carbon sequestration,
types of sequestration, capture tech, separate tech, economics of sequestration, risk, future,
conclude.

In their own circumstances, a complementary range of technical approaches, including improving

energy efficiency and recycling, the implementation of alternative fuels and clean coal technologies,
the development of renewable energy and the introduction of Carbon Capture and Storage, have
been considered by different countries to achieve the objective of reducing GHG emissions.

References
[1] Howard J. Herzog and Neda Vukmirovic, “CO 2 SEQUESTRATION: OPPORTUNITIES AND
CHALLENGES”.

[2] L. Stephen Melzer, “Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO 2 EOR): Factors Involved in Adding
Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS)”

[3] Wofsy, S. C. 2001 Where has all the carbon gone? Science 292,2261–2263.

[4] Battle, M., Bender, M. L., Tans, P. P., White, J. W. C., Ellis, J. T., Conway, T. & Francey, R. 2000
Global carbon sinks and their variability inferred from O 2 and d13C. Science 287, 2467–2470.

[5] Fung, I. 2000 Variable carbon sinks. Science 290, 1313.

[6] Pacala, S. W. 2001 Consistent land and atmosphere-based U.S. carbon sink estimates. Science
292, 2316–2320.

[7] Metz B, Davidson O, de Coninck H, Loos M, Meyer L, “Carbon dioxide capture and storage”, IPCC
Special; 2005.
[8] Whitson CH, Brulé MR. Phase behavior. In: Henry L, editor. Doherty Memorial Fund of AIME.
Society of Petroleum Engineers; Richardson Texas; 2000

[9] Blomen E, Hendriks C, Neele F. Capture technologies: improvements and promising

developments. Energy Procedia 2009;1:1505–12.

[10] Wall TF. Combustion processes for carbon capture. In: Proceedings of the combustion institute,
vol. 31; 2007. p. 31–47.

[11] de Visser E, Hendricks C, Barrio M, Molnvik MJ, de Koeijer G, Liljemark S, et al. Dynamics CO 2
quality recommendations. Int J Greenh Gas Control 2008;2:478–84.

[12] ICF. Developing a pipeline infrastructure for CO 2 capture and storage; issues and challenges.
Technical report prepared for INGAA Foundation. 2009 (106pp.).

[13] Olajire AA. CO2 capture and separation technologies for end-of-pipe application – a review.
Energy 2010;35:2610–28.

[14] Kanniche M, Gros-Bonnivard R, Jaud P, Valle-Marcos J, Amann JM, Bouallou C. Pre-combustion,

post-combustion and oxy-combustion in thermal power plant for CO 2 capture. Appl Therm Eng
2010;30:53–62.

[15] Global CCS Institute. Global status of large scale integrated projects: June 2012 update.

[16] Global CCS Institute. CO2 capture technologies: precombustion with CO 2 capture: January
2012b.

[17] Buhre BJP, Elliott LK, Sheng CD, Gupta RP, Wall TF. Oxy-fuel combustion technology for coal-
fired power generation. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2005;31:283–307

[18] Burdyny T, Struchtrup H. Hydrid membrane/cryogenic separation of oxygen from air for use in
the oxy-fuel process. Energy 2010;35:1884–97.

[19] Global Carbon Capture Sequestration Institute. CO 2 capture technologies: oxycombustion with
CO2 capture: January 2012.

[20] Zero, Zero Emissions Resource Organization, 〈http://www.zeroCO2.no〉; 2013.

[21] Bhown AS, Freeman BC. Analysis and status of post-combustion carbon dioxide capture
technologies. Environ Sci Technol 2011;45:8624–32.

[21] Hendriks C. Energy conversion: CO 2 removal from coal-fired power plant. Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers; 1995.

[23] Veawab A, Aroonwilas A, Tontiwachwuthiku P. CO 2 absorption performance of aqueous

alkanolamines in packed columns. Fuel Chem Div P Repr 2002;47:49–50

[24] Gurkan BE, de la Fuente FC, Mindrup EM, Ficke LE, Goodrich BF, Price EA, et al. J Am Chem Soc
2010;132:2116–7.

[25] Rochelle GT. Thermal degradation of amines for CO 2 capture. Curr OpinChem Eng 2012;1–
2:183–90.
[26] Fredriksen SB, Jens KJ. Oxidative degradation of aqueous amine solutions of MEA, AMP, MDEA,
Pz; a review. Energy Procedia 2013;37:1770–7.
[27] Takamura Y, Narita S, Aoki J, Uchida S. Application of high-PSA process for improvement of CO 2
recovery system. Can J Chem Eng 2001;79:812–6.

[28] Rackley SA. Carbon capture and storage. Burlington, USA: Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier;
2010.

[29] Bernardo P, Drioli E, Golemme G. Membrane gas separation: a review/state of the art. Ind Eng
Chem Res 2009;48:4638–63.

[30] Fan S, Wang Y, Lang X. CO 2 capture in form of clathrate hydrate-problem and practice. In:
Proceedings of the 7th international conference on gas hydrates (ICGH 2011), UK; July 17–21, 2011.

[31] Burt SS, Baxter A, Bence C, Baxter LL. Cryogenic CO 2 capture for improved efficiency at reduced
cost. In: Proceedings of the AICHE 2010 annual meeting; November 7–12, 2010.[73] Burt SS, Baxter
A, Bence C, Baxter LL. Cryogenic CO 2 capture for improved efficiency at reduced cost. In: Proceedings
of the AICHE 2010 annual meeting; November 7–12, 2010.

[32] Yave W, Car A, Funari SS, Nunes SP, Peinemann KV. CO 2-philic polymer membrane with
extremely high separation performance. Macromolecules 2009;43:326–33.[64] Yave W, Car A, Funari
SS, Nunes SP, Peinemann KV. CO2-philic polymer membrane with extremely high separation
performance. Macromolecules 2009;43:326–33.

[33] Gough, C. and Shackley, S.: "Evaluating the options for carbon sequestration". Tyndall Centre
Technical Report Nº 2, 2002.

[34] Ecofys & TNO – NITG.: "Global carbon dioxide storage potential and costs", report, nº EEP –
02001, 2004.

[35] Knuffman, N.: "Carbon Sequestration – A better alternative for climate change?" School of public
affairs, University of Maryland, 1999.

[36] van Bergen, F., Wildenborg, T., Gale and J., Damen, K.:"Worldwide Selection of Early
Opportunities of CO2- EOR". Netherlands Institute of Applied Geosciences TNO, National Geological
Survey, 2002.

[37] Farla, F. C., M., Hendriks, C. A., Blok, K.: "Carbon Dioxide Recovery from Industrial Processes".
Energy Covers. Mgmt. , 1995, Vol. 36, Nº 6-9, pp. 827

[38] Holtz, M. H., Nance, P. K. and Finley, R. J.: "Reduction of Greenhouse gas Emission through
Underground CO2 Sequestration in Texas Oil and Gas Reservoirs". University of Austin, US-DOE. Final
Report, Contract nº W04603-04, 1999.

[39] Turkenburg, W. C.: "Sustainable Development, Climate Change, and Carbon Dioxide removal
(CDR)". Energy Convers. Mgmt., 1997, Vol. 38. Suppl., pp. S3

[40] Nguyen, N. and Allinson, W. G.: "The economics of CO2 capture and geological storage", paper
77810 presented at the 2002 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in
Melbourne, Australia.
[41] Davison, J. E., Freund, P. Smith, A. "Putting carbon back in the ground", published by . IEA Greenhouse Gas
R & D Program, Cheltenham, U. K., ISBN1 89837328, 2001

[42] EPRI – 1999, Enhanced Oil Recovery Scoping Study. Palo Alto, CA: TR - 11386, 1999.
[43] A. McGillivary and J. Wilday: “Comparison of Risks from Carbon Dioxide and Natural Gas
Pipelines”, UK Health and Safety Executive, Report RR 749, 2009.

[44] Andrzej Rusin and Katarzyna Stolecka: “Environmental Hazards Caused by Carbon Capture and
Storage (CCS) Technologies”, Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2013, pp. 205-
211.