Worldwide Status of CCUS Technologies and Their Development and Challenges in China

Liu, H. J.; Were, P.; Li, Q.; Gou, Y.; Hou, Z.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6126505

Geofluids

On this page

Abstract Introduction Conclusions Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Coupled Geoflow Processes in Subsurface: CO<sub>2</sub>-Sequestration and Geoenergy Focus

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2017 | Article ID 6126505 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6126505

Worldwide Status of CCUS Technologies and Their Development and Challenges in China

H. J. Liu,¹P. Were,²Q. Li,³Y. Gou,^2,4and Z. Hou^2,4,5

Academic Editor: Weon Shik Han

Received19 Feb 2017

Revised12 May 2017

Accepted20 Jun 2017

Published28 Aug 2017

Abstract

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) is a gas injection technology that enables the storage of CO₂ underground. The aims are twofold, on one hand to reduce the emissions of CO₂ into the atmosphere and on the other hand to increase oil/gas/heat recovery. Different types of CCUS technologies and related engineering projects have a long history of research and operation in the USA. However, in China they have a short development period ca. 10 years. Unlike CO₂ capture and CO₂-EOR technologies that are already operating on a commercial scale in China, research into other CCUS technologies is still in its infancy or at the pilot-scale. This paper first reviews the status and development of the different types of CCUS technologies and related engineering projects worldwide. Then it focuses on their developments in China in the last decade. The main research projects, international cooperation, and pilot-scale engineering projects in China are summarized and compared. Finally, the paper examines the challenges and prospects to be experienced through the industrialization of CCUS engineering projects in China. It can be concluded that the CCUS technologies have still large potential in China. It can only be unlocked by overcoming the technical and social challenges.

1. Introduction

Fossil fuels, especially coal that is rich in carbon, constitute the highest proportion of primary energy in China [1]. In recent years, the rapid urbanization and development of industries including power plants, cement factories, steel plants, biotransformation, and fossil fuel transformation plants, which are highly dependent on large consumption of fossil fuels, have been a great challenge to the Chinese environment [2, 3]. Since the winter of 2012/2013, most cities in China have been faced with serious atmospheric pollution from a haze formed from a combination of SO₂, NOx, and inhalable particles within the mist, containing fine particle concentrations of up to ca. 900 μg/m³ [4]. Automobile exhausts, industrial emissions, waste incineration, and fugitive dust from construction sites are the main sources of the haze. Based on statistical data from Beijing, reported by China Central Television (CCTV) in 2014, haze particles from automobile exhausts contributed 22.2%, while the burning of coal, dust, and industrial emissions accounted for proportions of 16.7%, 16.3%, and 15.7%, respectively. Therefore, a reduction in the emissions from coal and industry has become the key to improving the quality of the environment.

The increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases has had a large impact on global climate change, since industrialization. Many countries have set targets for reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases in order to mitigate global warming. Among them, top on the list of CO₂ emissions in the world, China aims at reducing 40%–45% of its CO₂ emissions per unit GDP by 2020, based on the 2005 level [5–7]. This requires considerable changes not only in the framework of fossil fuel consumption, but also in the development of renewable energy from wind, solar, geothermal, and so on, together with an enlargement in the area covered by forests and innovations in technologies that can enable permanent storage of the CO₂ underground.

CO₂ emissions in China come mainly from the combustion of fossil fuels (90%) and during the process of cement manufacturing (10%). For example, in 2012, 68% of the emitted CO₂ was sourced mainly from the combustion of coal, while 13% came from oil and 7% from natural gas [8]. According to the statistics, annual emissions of CO₂ from large stationary point sources, that is, >0.1 Mt/year, amount to 3.89 GtCO₂, which accounts for 67% of the total emissions. Among which, 72% is from power stations [9]. This demonstrates that a reduction of the CO₂ emissions from the large stationary point sources is the key to realizing China’s target [10, 11].

China’s main target for the transformation in its energy framework is to reduce the combustion of coal, while increasing the supply of natural gas and other clean energy, and controlling the emissions of CO₂, SO₂, NOx, and so on. CO₂ capture and sequestration (CCS) and utilization (CCUS) technologies can be applied to store CO₂ underground effectively, thus reducing its emission into the atmosphere. This technology is now highly developed and is likely to play a significant role in China, especially when the operation costs are reduced. This paper reviews the state of the art of CCS and CCUS technologies worldwide while paying more attention on its status and development in China. The mature technology will be examined in various engineering projects. Therefore, this paper considers the state of operation of CCS and CCUS projects in detail and concludes by presenting the likely challenges to be experienced through the industrialization of these projects in China. Due to space limitation, it has not been possible to include a review of the current research status on the conversion of CO₂ to produce some commercial products or its use in the food industry, for example, as an additive in beverages or as a preservative for fruits and vegetables. Henceforth, only its utilization for geologic and geoengineering purposes such as EOR, ECBM, ESG, and EGR has been considered in this paper.

2. Worldwide Development of CCS and CCUS

The CCS technology is a means to control emissions of CO₂ that are captured from different processes including precombustion, postcombustion, and oxy-fuel combustion. The stages of a CCS project can be divided into () CO₂ capture, () CO₂ transportation, () CO₂ injection, and () postinjection of CO₂ [12–19].

In the short term, depending on the purpose of the CCS project, CO₂ can be stored in different geological sites, including deep saline formations, depleted oil or gas reservoirs, deep unmineable coal seams, and shale formations, to reduce the CO₂ emissions [20, 21], Figure 1. In comparison with the pure CCS technology, CCUS technology pays more attention to utilization (U) of the captured CO₂ while sequestration (S) plays a secondary role. CCUS can reduce the cost of sequestration and bring benefits by enhancing the production of hydrocarbons or heat energy, thus becoming very popular in recent years. Based on the purpose of the CO₂ injection, a number of related technologies have been developed including () Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), () Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery (ECBM), () Enhanced Gas Recovery (EGR), () Enhanced Shale Gas Recovery (ESG), and () Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS).

The engineering projects for both CCS and CCUS technologies are systematically complicated, with their success depending on rigorous research in engineering and science disciplines including geology, geoengineering, geophysics, environmental engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. In addition, key to success in site selection for any such a project demands strict considerations of safety, economy, environment, and public acceptance at all levels of operation, that is, countrywide, basin-wide, regional, or subbasin levels [22–26], Figure 2. Although CCS and CCUS technologies share similarities in site selection, each will induce a series of different physical and chemical responses in the underground porous or fractured rock formations, in terms of the existing local hydrological (H), thermal (T), mechanical (M), and chemical (C) fields [27–29], Figure 2. Coupling of the THMC processes during and after CO₂ injection related to CCS and CCUS technologies has become a research hotspot in recent years [26, 30–33]. The two technologies, however, have minor differences, in terms of purpose, storage duration, injection depth and rate, fluid and reservoir types, scheme of drilling, completion and monitoring, and so on.

2.1. CCS

CCS is a viable option for significantly reducing CO₂ emissions from large-scale emission sources. When its only purpose is for CO₂ sequestration, the storage sites may include deep saline formations, deep unmineable coal seam, depleted oil or gas reservoir, and rock salt caverns [35–38]. This technology is mature but still very expensive for widespread commercial application.

2.2. CCUS: CO₂-EOR

The first CO₂-EOR field test was held in 1964 in Mead Strawn Texas, in the USA. Since the 1970s, CO₂ has been used on a commercial scale for oil production projects [20, 21]. Up to the present time, there have been more than 100 CO₂-EOR projects in operation. Among them, the CO₂-EOR project in Weyburn, Canada, is the most successful example. It uses mixed gases separated from natural gas production, coal gasification, and coal power from the Great Plains Synfuels Plant near Beulah, North Dakota, USA [39]. The injection gas is mainly composed of CO₂ (96.8%), plus H₂S (1.1%) and a minor amount of hydrocarbons that are piped to the Weyburn Basin through a pipeline 339 km in length [7]. The purpose of the project is to inject 2 million tons of CO₂ into the depleting oil reservoir over a 20-year period, in order to increase oil recovery to 130 million barrels and to extend the production of oil in this oilfield to 25 years [40].

2.3. CCUS: CO₂-ECBM

The conventional method to produce coalbed methane is to decrease the pressure in the coalbed reservoir, making the methane desorb from the matrix. However, the recovery of coalbed methane production using this method is less than 50%. The alternative is to desorb more CH₄ from the coalbed matrix by injecting gases including CO₂ or N₂ [41–44]. Studies on enhancing coalbed methane by CO₂ injection started in the 1990s [7, 45]. When CO₂ is injected in the coalbed layer, both the gaseous and adsorbed-state of CH₄ and CO₂ will exist in equilibrium [46]. Because the coalbed has a much stronger adsorption capacity for CO₂ than CH₄, the injection of CO₂ will make the adsorbed CH₄ desorb, thus enhancing the CH₄ recovery. A proportion of the injected CO₂ will be stored in the coalbed formation, making it difficult for it to leak to the surface. Therefore, this technology can bring both economic benefits and also guarantee the safe storage of CO₂ [47, 48].

The successful injection of CO₂ to enhance coalbed methane recovery has been proved by many experimental and numerical studies. However, the production efficiency is strongly site-dependent, in relation to the permeability of the coalbed matrix, production history, gas transportation process, maturation of coal, geological configuration, completion scheme, hydraulic pressure, and so on [42–44, 49–52]. Nevertheless, the maturity of its commercial application is still very low. Pilot-scale CO₂-ECBM projects so far include those in Alberta, Canada, which started in 1997, the Burlington project in the San Juan Basin of the USA, the RECOPOL project that started in 2001, the Yubari project in Japan, and the Qinshui basin project in China that started in 2002 [53].

2.4. CCUS: CO₂-EGR

Studies on injecting CO₂ into depleted gas reservoirs to enhance gas recovery started in the 1990s [54]. Unlike the CO₂-EOR technology, CO₂-EGR technology is still at the pilot-scale stage. Its efficiency is highly dependent on reservoir type, temperature and pressure conditions, heterogeneity, production strategy, and so on [55–60]. For some CO₂-EGR projects, the gas recovered can reach 10%, while other projects have seen less or no enhancement [61–63]. The rapid breakthrough of CO₂ in a production well, resulting in a high concentration of CO₂, restricts the production of pure natural gas [64]. Since 1999, the USA has carried out a pilot project of CO₂-EGR in Rio Vista. The Netherlands injected 60 kilotonnes of CO₂ into a depleted gas reservoir in the K12B project during 2004 and 2009 [7]. The CLEAN project in Germany started a CO₂-EGR project in the Altmark gas fields in 2009; however, public protests have prevented CO₂ injection on the site [65]. Many other countries including Australia and Norway are also positively developing this technology [64, 66–74].

2.5. CCUS: CO₂-ESG

The USA has been carrying out shale gas desorption since 1821. However, limited development of the technology made this process procedurally cumbersome and substantively difficult to apply before the 21st century. In 2000, shale gas contributed only 1% of the whole natural gas supply, while, by the end of 2011, this proportion had increased to 30% due to a breakthrough in horizontal drilling and horizontal multistaged fracturing technology. The revolution of shale gas in the USA is changing the energy structure of the world [75].

Encouraged by the successful application of CO₂ in oil and gas recovery, its application in aiding the production of shale gas began in recent years [76–81]. There has also been progress in replacing water by supercritical CO₂ as the injection fluid in the fracturing technology [82–86]. However, this process is still in the very early exploration stages.

2.6. CCUS: CO₂-EGS

The first study of EGS technology started in Fenton Hill, USA, in 1970 [87]. Since then, many other countries, including France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Japan, and Australia, have paid attention to the development of this technology. The conventional EGS technology uses water as the injection fluid and circulation media. Based on the research in [88], CO₂ is now regarded as a more favorable circulation fluid compared with water because of its large compressibility and expansibility. This idea has already been supported by many studies (e.g., [89–93]).

The application of CO₂ in a geothermal system is not restricted to the hot dry rock reservoirs but also includes the conventional hydrothermal reservoirs [38, 91, 94]. The injection of CO₂ can enhance the efficiency of reinjecting the hot wastewater by improving the porosity and permeability through the activated water-rock geochemical reactions [95]. Besides being the main circulation fluid, CO₂ can also be regarded as a pressurized hydraulic fluid in the reservoir. Injection of CO₂ in a hydrothermal or hot dry rock reservoir can maintain the reservoir pressure, promoting the flow rate of the in situ water towards the production well, thus enhancing the heat recovery and even the recovery of the CH₄ dissolved in the aquifer water [96–99]. Reference [38] described this process as the CO₂-AGES (CO₂-aided geothermal extraction system) in which three stages are involved: () the production of hot water when CO₂ is used as the pressurized hydraulic fluid; () two-phase fluid flow in the production well after the CO₂ breakthrough; and () and as a circulation fluid, when CO₂ fills the production well, which is similar to CO₂-EGS.

3. CCS and CCUS Engineering Projects Worldwide

By the end of 2016, based on the statistics of Global Status 2016, there were 38 large-scale CCS + CCUS projects in operation or under construction and planning. Among them, 17 projects are located in North America (12 projects in the United States and 5 in Canada); 12 projects in Asia (8 in China, 2 in South Korea, 1 in Saudi Arabia, and 1 in United Arab Emirates), 5 in Europe (2 in Norway, 2 in United Kingdom, and 1 in the Netherlands), 3 in Australia, and 1 in Brazil. Among the 15 projects that are in operation, 12 projects are related to CO₂-EOR and the other 3 projects are pure CO₂ sequestration. There are 66 pilot-scale CCS + CCUS projects of which 22 are in operation, 5 under construction, 5 at the planning stage, and 34 have just been completed.

Among the 70 pilot-scale engineering CCUS projects worldwide, based on their distribution by regions or countries, 22 are located in North America, 1 in South America, 22 in Europe, 20 in Asia, 4 in Australia, and 1 in South Africa; see Figure 3 for more details.

There are still no concrete CO₂-ESG and CO₂-EGS projects anywhere in the world. Only a few countries, including the USA, Canada, China, and Argentina, can commercially produce shale gas. At the end of 2015, the daily shale gas output in the USA, Canada, China, and Argentina had reached 37, 4.1, 0.5, and 0.07 Bcf, respectively [100, 101]. Shale gas production in the USA abruptly increased after 2000, while Canada and China successfully produced shale gas for the first time in 2008 and 2012, respectively. There are now more than 100,000 shale gas drilling wells in the USA. In China, however, only about 600 wells have been drilled in the last few years [102]. The EGS technology is still at the research and development stage. Nevertheless, there are some experimental EGS plants and pilot projects, for example, at Fenton Hill, Coso, and Desert Peak in the USA, Bad Urach, Neustadt-Glewe, Bruchsal, Landau, and Unterhaching in Germany, and Soultz-sous-Forets and Bouillante in France [87]. Substantially higher research, development, and demonstration efforts are needed to ensure EGS technology becomes commercially viable in the near future.

4. Current Status of CCS and CCUS Technologies in China

Since 2005, CCS has been listed as a frontier technology in China’s mid-long term technical development program in order to realize the goal of zero emissions from fossil fuel energy [103]. Meanwhile, more attention has been paid to CCUS technology, especially CO₂-EOR and CO₂-ECBM [104–107]. Between 2006 and 2015, the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (MOST) funded eight National Basic Research Programs (also known as the 973 Program) and State High-Tech Development Plans (commonly known as the 863 Program). Three of these programs were related to CO₂-EOR and the others to the CO₂ capture technology, shale gas recovery, and the hot dry rock systems. The National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) also generously funded basic research related to CCS and CCUS.

Based on the incomplete statistics of the research projects funded by MOST and NSFC during 2005–2016 (Figures 4 and 5 and Table 1), the distribution of funding for different aspects of CCS and CCUS is shown as follows: () CCS (32 projects), of which all the 7 projects funded by the MOST were related to CO₂ capture technology. The 23 projects funded by the NSFC and 1 project funded by the Ministry of Land and Resources were concerned with CO₂ storage; () CCUS: CO₂-EOR (18 projects), of which 6 projects were funded by the MOST and 10 by the NSFC; () CCUS: CO₂-ECBM (22 projects), of which 3 projects were funded by the MOST, and 17 by the NSFC; () CCUS: CO₂-EGR (4 projects); () CCUS: CO₂-ESG (4 projects); and () CCUS: CO₂-EGS (7 projects).

Several international cooperation research projects were also developed, including NZEC between China and Europe, CAGS between China and Australia, and CCERC between China and the USA; see Table 2 for further details.

4.1. CCS

China’s Geological Survey compiled a series of atlases relating to the storage capacity and suitability evaluation of China and its main sedimentary basins [25, 108–112]. Combined with a selection indicator evaluation system for potential storage sites, the standardization of the CCS in China has a good foundation [20, 21, 113, 114]. A preliminary evaluation of the CO₂ storage potential in the saline formations at a depth of 1–3 km showed a capacity of 1.435 × 10¹¹ tonnes, and most parts of the Huabei plain and Sichuan Basin can be regarded as favorable storage sites [115, 116]. Based on the studies on CO₂ sequestration in saline formations [117–124], the first full chain CCS project in China was successfully launched in the Ordos Basin with a storage target of 0.1 million tons of CO₂ injected in 2010 [125–130].

4.2. CCUS: CO₂-EOR in China

The theoretical CO₂ storage capacity of depleted onshore oil reservoirs is estimated to be 3.78 gigatons of CO₂ [131]. Conservative estimates reveal that about 70% of the oil production comes from nine oilfields, that is, Changqing, Tarim, Daqing, Shengli, Yanchang, Bohai, Liaohe, Zhongyuan, and Jilin. However, most of them are facing or will soon be depleted after many years’ production. Under these circumstances, CO₂-EOR technology may become an effective option to produce more oil from the depleting reservoir. In fact, China started the development of CO₂-EOR technology in the 1960s in several districts of the Daqing oilfield including Ta #112, Fang #48, and Shu #16 and #101 [132]. Several CO₂-EOR field tests have also been carried out in other fields including Jilin, Dagang, Shengli, and Liaohe (see Figure 6), with recovery increasing to about 10% [118, 121, 132–137]. Compared with the status of CO₂-EOR technology in the US, extensive application of CO₂-EOR in most oilfields of China may be difficult as the geologic structure of most reservoirs is characterized by many faults and low permeability [138]. Besides, a lack of policy and regulatory incentives, high commercial uncertainty, and technical challenges affect the rapid development of the CO₂-EOR technology in China.

4.3. CCUS: CO₂-ECBM in China

While studies on CO₂-ECBM technology first started in the 1990s, China began its basic research in this field (including adsorption, desorption and swelling mechanisms in the coal matrix, and the two-phase gas flow of CO₂ and CH₄ in different types of coal rocks) at the end of 20th century [139–145]. This research was further extended to include the CH₄ displacement mechanisms by using a mixture of CO₂ and N₂ [41, 146–151]. Based on the well test data for coalbed methane production in China, the recovery is in the range of 8.9%–74.5%, with an average value of 35%. By using CO₂-ECBM technology, the recovery can be increased to 59% [152]. Based on the preliminary evaluation of [153], the recoverable coalbed methane can increase to 1.632 × 10¹² m³ with CO₂ storage amount of about 120.78 × 10⁸ tonnes for the coalbed at a depth ranging from 300 to 1500 m.

4.4. CCUS: CO₂-EGR in China

According to the results from the third oil and gas reserve investigation, if 75% of the porous volume derived from gas production is used for CO₂ sequestration, there will be a potential for a CO₂ storage capacity of 5.18 billion-tons [9, 154]. However, the gas industry in China started late and gas production is low, which means that there will not be many depleted gas reservoirs in the short term, limiting the possibility of a commercial scale application of the CO₂-EGR technology. From the maturity point of view of this technology, very few research institutes in China are working on the improvement of CO₂-EGR at the present. Furthermore, the early breakthrough of CO₂ in gas production wells makes it difficult to attain good production efficiency from the application of CO₂-EGR technology [47]. A means of reducing the costs of separating the mixed gases, CO₂ and CH_4, is required to attain the widespread application of the CO₂-EGR technology in China.

4.5. CCUS: CO₂-ESG in China

Encouraged by the successful exploitation of shale gas in North America, China joined the exploration of shale gas in 2005 [155]. The published data from the Ministry of Land and Resources in 2002 confirms that China had a shale gas reserve of 25.1 × 10¹² m³. By the end of 2015, China had a technical shale gas reserve of about 1.3 × 10¹¹ m³ including the increased proved technical reserve of 1.09 × 10¹¹ m³.

In December 2010, China drilled its first shale gas exploration well, Wei201 in Weiyuan gas field [155]. In May 2012, the first shale gas horizontal well in China was drilled and operated by Yangchang oilfield, demonstrating a great breakthrough in the hydraulic fracturing technology for shale gas reservoirs. By the end of 2012, China’s total shale gas production was 2.5 × 10⁷ m³, which increased to 2.0 × 10⁸ m³ in 2013, 1.3 × 10⁹ m³ in 2014, and 4.47 × 10⁹ m³ in 2015. The production of shale gas in China has increased greatly during the last few years, especially from the Peiling shale gas field in Chongqing with a proved reserve of more than 1.0 × 10¹¹ m³. It has produced shale gas of about 1.03 × 10⁹ m³, becoming the largest commercial shale gas field in China.

However, high production costs, a large amount of water consumption and a breakthrough in some key technologies related to shale gas production will restrict large-scale production in the near future [102]. In 2012, the National Energy Administration of China set a target for shale gas production of 6 × 10¹⁰–1.0 × 10¹¹ m³ by 2020. But after a two years’ practical experience during 2012-2013, it revised this target to 3.0 × 10¹⁰ m³ by 2020. Using CO₂ to enhance the recovery of shale gas is now at an early exploration stage [156].

4.6. CCUS: CO₂-EGS in China

The 863 plan project that aims at investigating EGS was initiated by Jilin University in 2012 [157]. There are now several other projects in the country using CO₂ in geothermal production (see Table 1). This demonstrates that China is interested in developing EGS to exploit the deep geothermal resources from the hot dry rocks. Many Chinese researchers (e.g., [143, 158–162]) have already studied the operation mechanisms of the CO₂-EGS system and its optimization designs. A preliminary site selection system considering the role of CO₂ in the geothermal production was set up by [26]. Research in this technology is still at the very early stage and requires detailed work to attain pilot scheme status.

5. Status of CCUS Engineering Projects in China

The CO₂ emission sources are mainly located in the middle-eastern regions of China; see details in Figure , [34]. Therefore, pilot-scale CCUS (mostly CO₂-EOR) engineering projects in China are also located in these regions (Figure 7, Table 3). Based on published government and industrial reports and personal communications, the progress of pilot-scale CCUS engineering projects in China is as follows:(1)A CO₂-EOR field test was executed for the first time in Daqing oilfield in 2003. In recent years, the industrial injection of CO₂ and the production of oil with the help of CO₂-EOR technology operated by the Daqing oilfield are mainly located in the Yushulin and Hailaer oilfields.(2)A CO₂-EOR project with a CO₂ injection amount of 0.8–1 million tons/year in Jilin oilfield (still in operation) since 2005 for the exploitation of the CO₂-rich (21% CO₂ concentration) Changling gas field. A CO₂-EOR experiment has been carried out by Jilin oilfield in 2006 and oil recovery enhanced by 8%–10%. The Changling gas field was the first project to integrate natural gas production, CO₂ sequestration, and EOR technology [7]. As the conventional water injection method does not provide good production efficiency in low permeable oilfields, CO₂-EOR has played a large role in increasing production, such as in the Fuyang oilfield [137]. By March 2017, oil production increased to 100 kilotons by injecting 1.1 million tons of CO₂ underground.(3)A full chain pilot-scale CO₂-EOR project has been injecting CO₂ at a rate of 40,000 tons/year in the Shengli oilfield (still in operation). The Sinopec Shengli oilfield cooperated with the Shengli power plant to install the largest equipment for capturing exhaust gases in a coal power plant [163]. Its purpose is to reduce CO₂ emission by 30 kilotons/year and enhance oil recovery by 20.5%. This project started in 2008 and about 251 kilotons of CO₂ had already been injected in the ultralow permeable oil reservoir through 11 injection wells by April 2015.(4)A CO₂-EOR project operated by Zhongyuan oilfield (still in operation) injected CO₂ at a rate of 30,000 tons/year and managed to increase oil production by 3600 tons after injection of 2170 kilotons of CO₂ and 827 kilotons of water [7]. By February 2017, a total amount of about 553 kilotons of CO₂ was injected underground. As a result, oil recovery is proved to have enhanced by 10% in the Zhongyuan oilfield and by 60% in the Shayixia oilfield after the pilot-scale test.(5)The CO₂-EOR project led by the Yangchang oilfield company was carried out in 2013 using captured CO₂ during the production of methanol and acetic acid. At present, the capture equipment designed for 360 kilotons/year of CO₂ is under construction. Pilot-scale CO₂-EOR field tests have been done in some districts of Jinbian and Wuqi, with a total of 90 kilotons CO₂ injected.(6)As the first demonstration of IGCC power station in China, the first stage of the IGCC project at Tianjin combined with the CO₂ capture and EOR technology, with an installation capacity of 265 MW, has been in operation since November 2016.(7)The CO₂-ECBM project located in the Qinshui basin of Shanxi Province operated by China United Coalbed Methane Corporation, Ltd (completed) [7, 164]. It is the only pilot-scale CO₂-ECBM field test in China and operates at an injection rate of 40 tonnes/day of CO₂. This is a cooperation project between the Zhonglian coalbed methane Ltd and Canada which aims at studying the feasibility of CO₂-ECBM in China [53].(8)The full chain CCS project in the saline formations located in the Ordos of the Inner Mongolia (completed). This is the first full chain CCS project in China, with a capital investment of more than 28.6 million US$. The drilling of one injection (with a completion depth of 2826 m) and two monitoring wells (31 and 70 m away from the injection well) started in 2010. Since September 2011 until 2015, a total amount of 300,000 tons CO₂, produced by the coal liquefaction factory of the Shenhua Group, has been transported by oil tankers and injected in four saline formations and one carbonate formation [165]. The first stage of injection test started in 2011, with the wellhead injection pressure ranging from 6.79 to 8.63 MPa. The second production test started in 2012 with varying injection rates of 6 m³/h, 9 m³/h, 12 m³/h, and 15 m³/h and constant wellhead injection pressure of 5.7 MPa and temperature of 5°C. Another large-scale CO₂ sequestration in the deep saline formations located in Lianyungang of Jiangsu Province is in preparation.(9)A CO₂ storage project in the rock salt at Yingcheng in Hubei Province, where CO₂ will be captured by the oxy-fuel combustion technology, is in preparation [166].(10)CO₂ sequestration by microbe algae has also been identified an effective means to reduce CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere. The two representative CO₂ sequestration projects using microbe algae are the Xin’ao and Qinghua groups both from China.

In the next few years, CO₂-EOR engineering projects will still be the most important CCUS technology in application. After the successful experience attained from the pilot-scale CCUS projects so far, China is now planning to run 13 large-scale CCUS projects. Based on the stages of the engineering projects, the project will be divided into the following study phases: opportunity preliminary prefeasibility feasibility construction drawing design construction operation completed. All the stages before the construction drawing design phase, that is, preparation of the engineering projects, could be lumped together and called the “evaluation” stage. Due to the current low oil price and a lack of the motivation policy, the progress in developing most of these large-scale planning CCUS projects lags far behind the schedule. Most of these projects are still at prefeasibility or feasibility stages and some may even be cancelled.

Although capturing and industrial utilization of CO₂ in China are not the key aims of this paper, the related projects in operation include () Huaneng Beijing thermal power plant; () Huaneng Shanghai Shidongkou; () China Power Investment Corporation Chongqing Shuanghuai; () CO₂ project in Hainan operated by China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC); () CO₂ project in Jiangsu province operated by the Zhongke CO₂ Jinlong company. The CO₂ pilot-scale project in Tianjin organized by China Guodian Power is in preparation.

At present, China does not execute any CO₂-EGS field tests. However, a few engineering EGS projects exist at their early scientific field test stages. These include () the hot dry rock scientific drilling project in Zhangzhou Fujian province, in operation since May of 2015, with a drilling depth of 4000 m and a water temperature high enough for geothermal power generation and () a hot dry rock scientific drilling project in Qinghai Province, with a water temperature of 200°C at a depth of 3000 m [157]. Studies on power generation in traditional hydrothermal fields located in Yangyi, Xizang, and Tengchong in Yunnan Province are also undergoing. However, there are no active engineering projects related to CO₂-EGR and CO₂-ESG in China.

6. Challenges in the Widespread Application of CCUS in China

6.1. Tackling Problems in Key Technologies

The injection of CO₂ underground for the CCS and CCUS purposes involves multiple physical-chemical coupling interactions of multiple components in porous fractured media, especially the transmission and migration of fluids between porous media with a low/ultralow permeability and complex fractured network.(a)There are mature commercial CO₂-EOR technologies in the USA and Canada. In China, however, because of the strong heterogeneity in oil reservoirs, the CO₂ channeling effect is serious [138]. Therefore, improving the sweep efficiency is the key to attaining widespread application of CO₂-EOR in China. Other efficient methods include the alternating injection of water and CO₂ (WAG) and the addition of foaming and gelling agent [132].(b)There are currently no commercial scale CO₂-ECBM engineering projects being developed anywhere in the world. In China, studies on CO₂-ECBM technology are at a very early stage of exploration. More research is required to tackle key problems like the adsorption-desorption process between CH₄ and CO₂ in the coal seam [46, 146, 147], the mechanisms of the interaction between CO₂-CH₄-H₂O at molecular scale [150], the impact of the coal grade, water content and composition of coal, and so on on the diffusion and migration of mixed gases in the coal seam, the dynamic changes of phase behaviour during the process of CO₂ injection, and CH₄ production and so on.(c)In the application of the CO₂-EGR technology, more effort is required to prevent the early breakthrough of CO₂ into the production well, thus enhancing the sweep efficiency of CO₂. Thus more studies are needed like the understanding of migration processes of the CO₂ after its injection into the depleted gas reservoir, phase behaviour, the mixing mechanism of CO₂ and CH₄, and so on [48, 60].(d)Multistage hydraulic fracturing in the horizontal wells has been widely used in shale gas production in China. However, this technology is still not mature enough for the production of shale gas at depths >3500 m. The large amount of water consumed in the production of shale gas is a big challenge for its large-scale production, especially in southwestern China, where the existing water resources are very poor. Using CO₂ as the fracturing fluid has become a research hot spot in China [167]. Injection of CO₂ to extract brine or methane energy from the aquifers was also studied recently [168]. While the feasibility of using CO₂ to enhance shale gas recovery still requires more research and field tests.(e)The direct use of geothermal energy in China has been the priority during the last few years, while its use for power generation largely lags behind that of several countries, such as the USA, the Philippines, Japan, and Indonesia. Technologies including CO₂-AGES, EGS, and binary cycle power plants may have a positive effect on the development of China’s geothermal power system. However, before obtaining mature engineering experiences, China needs to enlarge its investment in human, physical, and financial resources in these technologies.

6.2. Negative Impacts on the Environment and Resources

The risk of leakage of the injected CO₂ in the injection/production wells may have a serious environmental impact [169–173]. The groundwater quality may deteriorate if the CO₂ in the injection layer leaks into the freshwater aquifer through microfractures or faults [174, 175]. When hydraulic fracturing is applied to shale gas or geothermal energy production, it will induce microseismic events. In addition, the toxic chemical additives in the hydraulic fluid may have a serious negative impact on freshwater aquifers when they leak into the shallow layers because of possible geological hazard. Therefore, a long-term environmental monitoring activity should be carried in parallel with the CCUS engineering project to ensure its safety [104]. The dynamic migration process of CO₂, chemical interaction among CO₂ -reservoir fluid-rock, the deformation or eruption of injection/overlying caprocks, and temperature and pressure changes in the reservoir should be monitored for a long time after the injection [29, 176].

6.3. Storage Capacity Data Is Not Clear

The total amount of resources and the distribution of depleted oil and gas fields, deep unmineable coal seams, deep saline formations, shale gas, and rock salt reservoirs are not clearly known because of the inadequacy of the geological data. Thus to attain a widespread application of CCUS technologies, more accurate evaluation work should be done based on geological, geophysical, geochemical, rock mechanics data, and so on.

6.4. Policy Factor

The positive effect of China’s involvement in CCUS technologies in recent years has been to focus on developing CO₂-EOR, the capture of CO₂, the shale gas and hot rock geothermal energy production, and especially shale gas production with a subsidy of 4 US¢/m³ during 2016–2018 and 3 US¢/m³ during 2019-2020. However, other fields of CCUS also need to be supported by the government.

6.5. High Investment Costs

The cost of a CCS or CCUS project mainly includes CO₂ capture, transportation, drilling, injection, and monitoring. Costs for the capture of CO₂ produced by the technologies of precombustion, postcombustion, or oxy-fuel combustion take the largest proportion in the investment of a specific CCS or CCUS project. Taking a coal-fired power station as an example, if 80% of the CO₂ emitted is captured and compressed to a certain pressure, its energy consumption will increase by 24%–40% [177]. In the US, the price of electricity generated from a coal-fired power station is 82–99 US$/MWh and 83–123 US$/MWh without and with the CO₂ capture technology, respectively, [178]. Depending on different situations and technologies in US, the capture cost is 42–87 US$/ton CO₂, transportation costs range from 4.3 to 7.2 US$/ton CO₂/250 km, while injection and storage costs are 1–12 US$/ton CO₂ based on the prices in 2013. In China, the cost of electricity generation by coal-fired power station increases by 30%–50% using CO₂ capture technology due to the extra consumption of electricity and steam. Taking the Huaneng Beijing coal-fired power station as an example, the capture price is about 24.3 US$/ton CO₂, with the CO₂ capture efficiency of 80%–85% [179]. On the other hand, simulation results of the IGCC coal-fired power station with the CCS technology in Tianjin show the capture price to range from 21.3 to 24.8 US$/ton CO₂, accounting for 80% of the price of a full-scale CCS project [180, 181]. However, the uncertainty in the CO₂ capture price is high depending on different capture technologies including precombustion, postcombustion, and oxy-fuel combustion at various stationary point sources including coal-fired power stations, cement factories, and coal chemical industries. From the aforementioned point of view, the uncertainty in the investment of a specific CCS or CCUS engineering project is determined by the cost of CO₂ capture. Therefore, a reduction in the cost of CO₂ capture is the key to the widespread application of CCS or CCUS technologies. Besides, drilling costs are large for all types of CCUS engineering projects and hydrocarbon/geothermal production, taking a shale gas well as an example, it costs 5.8 million US$ for a drilling length of 2500–3000 m, and 0.72 million US$ for a general gas well. The drilling cost of a geothermal production well in a hot dry rock will be much higher. The corrosion property of CO₂ requires a high quality of pipelines and ground equipment, increasing the production costs of oil, gas, and geothermal energy [182, 183].

6.6. Energy Price

The slump in the international oil price has greatly affected the investment in the oil/gas production and CCUS projects. Shale gas production in Peiling shale gas field in southwestern China with good geological conditions and large reserves is just above the breakeven point. If the oil/gas price remains low in the future, many industries will be unwilling to invest in these kinds of projects. With the exception of CO₂-EOR, it is difficult to profit from other CCUS projects. Due to completion from the increased installation capacity of wind and solar energy that have been much easier to make an economic return in recent years, the development in geothermal power generation will be continuously limited because of the difficulty in returning an economic benefit.

6.7. Social Acceptance

This is the biggest challenge for any CCS or CCUS project. It has a substantial impact on political decision makers and the implementation of energy projects such as nuclear power and wind energy programs [184]. It is the same for CCS and CCUS projects, and some CCS exploration activities in Schleswig-Holstein and Vattenfall Janschwalde in Germany, the Belchatow project in Poland, and so on were postponed or cancelled because of the lack of public acceptance over the exploration of storage sites [185, 186]. As the most unfamiliar technology to the general public in China, CCUS technology has been reluctantly accepted when compared with other low carbon technologies including wind power, solar power, energy efficiency, or biomass for reasons of climate change mitigation [10, 187]. However, there is now a positive attitude towards CCUS policies in China. In order to stimulate public acceptance, the uncertainties regarding safety and environmental risks involved in CCUS will have to be reduced at the beginning of the development stage of any CCUS technology [188]. However, this will be largely dependent on the innovation of long-term monitoring techniques in both operating and planned pilot projects [189, 190].

7. Conclusions

() Many countries have participated in activities to tackle global climate changes during the last few years. The total CO₂ emissions for China in 2005 were 59.76 × 10⁸ tonnes, accounting for 80.03% of the greenhouse gas emission of China in 2016. To perform its social responsibility, China plans to reduce its CO₂ emission per unit of GDP by 40%–45% in 2020 compared with the 2005 level. Therefore, on one hand, China needs to change its current energy framework by reducing the consumption of fossil fuels like coal energy, or applying a clean coal program, capturing the CO₂ produced by the combustion of coal. On the other hand, China needs to develop the renewable energy sector, including wind energy, solar energy, and geothermal energy.

() The serious air pollution problems in recent years are forcing the government of China to pay more attention to the development of green and clean energy aimed at saving energy and reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Some local governments have increased their investment in modern coal-fired power station coupled with the CCS technology. The CCUS engineering projects, especially those related to EOR, are also developing fast.

() Traditional CCS projects can store a large amount of CO₂, captured from large-scale point source emission sites, deep underground, thus effectively decreasing emissions in the atmosphere. CCUS is more attractive than the CCS technology in China because of the economic benefits accrued by using the CO₂. China has large reserves of low permeable oil and gas reservoirs. The conventional water injection methods cannot achieve good production efficiency in such reservoirs; therefore the CO₂-EOR and CO₂-EGR will have a great potential in enhancing the recovery of oil and natural gas in low and ultralow permeable reservoirs, as well as storing CO₂ in the underground space. The CCUS technology will play a considerable role in controlling the reduction of CO₂ emissions related to coal-fired power stations and the coal chemical industry. For a long period of time, coal will remain the main energy source in China; thus CCUS technology is very important for cleansing the coal-based industry. CO₂ has the potential to be used in the production of geothermal energy because of its favorable physical properties including large density and small viscosity. In addition, studies on replacing water by supercritical CO₂ as the fracturing fluid in the oil/gas/shale gas reservoirs are currently being carried out by many researchers. If this method is proved to be feasible, it will greatly decrease water consumption in the production of shale gas. This is particularly meaningful in the western regions of China where there is lack of groundwater resources.

Nomenclature

ACCA21:	Administrative Center for China’s Agenda 21
ADB:	Asian Development Bank
CAS:	Chinese Academy of Sciences
CCERC:	China-U.S. Clean Energy Research Center
CCS:	Carbon capture, sequestration, or storage
CCTV:	China Central Television
CFHEG:	Center for Hydrogeology and Environmental Geology of Chinese Geological Survey
CCUS:	Carbon capture, sequestration, and utilization
CLEAN:	CO₂ Large-scale Enhanced Gas Recovery project in the Altmark Natural Gas Field
CNOOC:	China National Offshore Oil Corporation
CNPC:	China National Petroleum Corporation
CO₂-AGES:	CO₂ aided geothermal extraction system
CO₂-ECBM:	CO₂ enhanced coalbed methane recovery
CO₂-EGR:	CO₂ enhanced gas recovery
CO₂-EOR:	CO₂ enhanced oil recovery
CO₂-ESG:	CO₂ enhanced shale gas recovery
CRS:	Chromium Reducible Sulfur recovery technology
CSLF:	The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum
CUCMC:	China United Coalbed Methane Corporation, Ltd
DFZ:	Deutsche Friesenpferdezuchter
DEFRA:	UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
FCC:	Fume from Catalytic Cracking
GCCSI:	Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute
GDP:	Gross Domestic Product
IEO:	International Energy Outlook
IGCC:	Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)
IPCC:	Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
K12B:	K12B gas field located at the North Sea
MOST:	The Ministry of Science and Technology of China
NSFC:	The National Natural Science Foundation of China
NZEC:	China-EU Cooperation on Near Zero Emissions Coal project
RECOPOL:	Reduction of CO₂ emission by means of CO₂ storage in coal seams in the Silesian Coal Basin of Poland
SNG-EOR:	Synthetic Natural Gas-Enhanced Oil Recovery
USDOE:	United States Department of Energy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors hereby declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to extend their gratitude to the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. NSFC51374147) and China CDM Fund “Update of China’s CCUS Technical Roadmap” (Grant no. 2013085) for funding this work. Q. Li acknowledges financial support from the China-Australia Geological Storage of CO₂ (CAGS) Project funded by the Australian Government under the auspices of the Australia China Joint Coordination Group on Clean Coal Technology.

References

D. Best and E. Levina, “Facing the development of coal in China in the future-prospects and challenges of CO₂ capture and sequestration technologies,” OECD/IEA2012, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Liu and K. S. Gallagher, “Driving Carbon Capture and Storage forward in China,” in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-9, pp. 3877–3884, November 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Li, Y.-N. Wei, and Y. Dong, “Coupling analysis of China’s urbanization and carbon emissions: example from Hubei Province,” Natural Hazards, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 1333–1348, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. J. Zheng, F. K. Duan, H. Su et al., “Exploring the severe winter haze in Beijing: the impact of synoptic weather, regional transport and heterogeneous reactions,” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 2969–2983, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Cai, W. Yang, D. Cao, L. Liu, Y. Zhou, and Z. Zhang, “Estimates of China's national and regional transport sector CO 2 emissions in 2007,” Energy Policy, vol. 41, pp. 474–483, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Cai and L. Zhang, “Urban CO2 emissions in China: Spatial boundary and performance comparison,” Energy Policy, vol. 66, pp. 557–567, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Xie, X. Li, Z. Fang et al., “Carbon geological utilization and storage in China: Current status and perspectives,” Acta Geotechnica, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 7–27, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Liu, “Chinas carbon emissions Report 2015,” in Proceedings of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, pp. 1–15, Harvard Kennedy School, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
X. Li, N. Wei, Y. Liu, Z. Fang, R. T. Dahowski, and C. L. Davidson, “CO2 point emission and geological storage capacity in China,” in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-9, pp. 2793–2800, November 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Li, J.-T. Zhang, L. Jia et al., “How to "capture the future by utilization of the past" in the coming revision of China CO2 technology roadmap?” in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT 2014, pp. 6912–6916, October 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
ACCA21-The Administrative Center for China's Agenda 21., A report on CO₂ utilization technologies assessment in China, Science Press, Beijing, China, 2015.
IPCC., “IPCC special report on CO₂ capture and storage,” pp. 1–431, Cambridge University Press, London, UK, 2005.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Sun, “Geological issues related with CO₂ geological storage and its meaning on mitigating the climate change,” China Basic Science, vol. 3, pp. 17–22, 2006 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
CSLF., “Estimation of CO₂ storage capacity in geological media,” pp. 1–43, 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
“Carbon sequestration Atlas of United States and Canada,” pp. 1–88, USDOE (U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy), 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
S. S. Xu and S. W. Gao, “CO₂ capture from the coal-fired power station and storage technology,” Shanghai Energy Conservation, vol. 9, pp. 8–13, 2009 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
M. Bai, K. Song, Y. Li, J. Sun, and K. M. Reinicke, “Development of a novel method to evaluate well integrity during CO₂ underground storage,” SPE Journal, vol. 20, pp. 628–641, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Bai, J. Sun, K. Song, L. Li, and Z. Qiao, “Well completion and integrity evaluation for CO2 injection wells,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 45, pp. 556–564, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Bai, J. Sun, K. Song, K. M. Reinicke, and C. Teodoriu, “Evaluation of mechanical well integrity during CO2 underground storage,” Environmental Earth Sciences, vol. 73, no. 11, article no. 7, pp. 6815–6825, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
ACCA21-The Administrative Center for China’s Agenda 21, Center for Hydrogeology and Environmental Geology (CFHEG), CGS, “Guidance for site selection of CO₂ geological storage in China” Geological Press, Beijing, China, 2012.
ACCA21-Administrative Center for China's Agenda 21, Center for Hydrogeology and Environmental Geology, “Research on the guideline for site selection of CO₂ geological storage in China” Geological Publishing House, Beijing, China 2012.
S. Bachu, “Screening and ranking of sedimentary basins for sequestration of CO2 in geological media in response to climate change,” Environmental Geology, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 277–289, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
CO2CRC., “site selection and characterization for CO₂ storage projects,” Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies RPT08–1001, Camberra, Australia, 2008.
View at: Google Scholar
DOE., “Site screening, selection and initial characterization for storage of CO₂ in deep geologic formations,” Report, pp. 1–3, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Q. Zhang, J. Q. Guo, X. F. Li, J. J. Fan, and Y. J. Diao, Geological conditions of CO₂ sequestration and geological assessment of site selection in China, Geological Publishing House, Beijing, China, 2011.
H. Liu, Z. Hou, X. Li, N. Wei, X. Tan, and P. Were, “A preliminary site selection system for a CO2-AGES project and its application in China,” Environmental Earth Sciences, vol. 73, no. 11, article no. 10, pp. 6855–6870, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Li and K. Ito, “Numerical analysis and modeling of coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical (THM) phenomena in double porous media,” in Aquifers: Formation, Transport and Pollution, R. H. Laughton, Ed., pp. 403–413, Nova Science Publishers, New York, NY, USA, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Regenauer-Lieb, M. Veveakis, T. Poulet et al., “Multiscale coupling and multiphysics approaches in earth sciences: Theory,” Journal of Coupled Systems and Multiscale Dynamics, vol. 1, pp. 49–73, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Liu, Z. Hou, P. Were, Y. Gou, and X. Sun, “Numerical investigation of the formation displacement and caprock integrity in the Ordos Basin (China) during CO2 injection operation,” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, vol. 147, pp. 168–180, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Rutqvist, Y.-S. Wu, C.-F. Tsang, and G. Bodvarsson, “A modeling approach for analysis of coupled multiphase fluid flow, heat transfer, and deformation in fractured porous rock,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 429–442, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Stephansson, J. A. Hudson, and L. Jing, “Coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical-chemical processes in geo-systems: fundamentals, modeling, experiments and applications,” pp. 1–803, Elsevier, Inc., Oxford, UK, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Taron, K.-B. Min, H. Yasuhara, K. Trakoolngam, and D. Elsworth, “Numerical simulation of coupled thermo-hydro-chemo-mechanical processes through the linking of hydrothermal and solid mechanics codes,” in Proceedings of the 41st US Symposiumon Rock Mechanics, Colombia, South America, June 2006.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Ganjdanesh, G. A. Pope, and K. Sepehrnoori, “Production of energy from saline aquifers: A method to offset the energy cost of carbon capture and storage,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 34, pp. 97–105, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Liu, Carbon emissions in China, Springer Thesis, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2016.
GCCSI., The global status of CCS 2012, Global CCUS Institute, Canberra, Australia, 2012.
W. G. Liang and Y. S. Zhao, “Investigation on carbon dioxide geologic sequestration in salt caverns,” Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering, vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 1545–1550, 2007 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
L.-Z. Xie, H.-W. Zhou, and H.-P. Xie, “Research advance of CO₂ storage in rock salt caverns,” Rock and Soil Mechanics, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 3324–3330, 2009 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
H. Liu, Z. Hou, P. Were, X. Sun, and Y. Gou, “Numerical studies on CO₂ injection–brine extraction process in a low-medium temperature reservoir system,” Environmental Earth Sciences, vol. 73, pp. 6839–6854, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Preston, M. Monea, W. Jazrawi et al., “IEA GHG Weyburn CO₂ monitoring and storage project,” Fuel Processing Technology, vol. 86, no. 14-15, pp. 1547–1568, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
“IEA GHG Weyburn CO₂ monitoring and storage project summary report 2000-2004,” in Proceedings of the 7th international conference on greenhouse gas control technologies, M. Wilson and M. Monea, Eds., pp. 1–273, Vancouver, Canada, 2004.
View at: Google Scholar
Z. Fang, X. C. Li, H. Li, and H. Q. Chen, “Feasibility study of gas mixture enhanced coalbed methane recovery technology,” Rock and Soil Mechanics, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 3223–3229, 2010 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
Z. Fang and X. Li, “Experimental study of gas adsorption-induced coal swelling and its influence on permeability,” Disaster Advances, vol. 5, pp. 769–773, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
Z. Fang, X. Li, and L. Huang, “Laboratory measurement and modelling of coal permeability with different gases adsorption,” International Journal of Oil, Gas and Coal Technology, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 567–580, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Godec, G. Koperna, and J. Gale, “CO₂-ECBM: a review of its status and global potential,” in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT 2014, pp. 5858–5869, October 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Puri and D. Yee, “Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery,” in Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 26, p. 23, Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans, LA, USA, 1990.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. H. Tang, Characteristics of coal reservoir in Jincheng area and properties of adsorption-desorption of multiple gases [Ph.D. thesis], China University of Mining & Technology, Beijing, China, 2001 (Chinese).
X. L. Sun, F. G. Zeng, and H. J. Liu, “CO₂ geological storage and enhance natural gas recovery,” Bulletin of Science and Technology, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 11–16, 2012 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
X. Sun, F. Zeng, and H. Liu, “CO2-CH4 system mixing properties and enhanced natural gas recovery,” International Journal of Digital Content Technology and its Applications, vol. 6, no. 21, pp. 532–541, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. W. Byrer and H. D. Guthrie, “Assessment of world coal resources for carbon dioxide (CO₂) storage potential—while enhancing potential for coalbed methane, US Department of Energy, Greenhouse Gas Mitigation, Technologies for Activities Implemented Jointly,” in Proceedings of Technologies for Activities Implemented Jointly, pp. 573–576, Vancouver, Canada, 1997.
View at: Google Scholar
C. W. Byrer and H. D. Guthrie, “Carbon dioxide potential in coalbeds: a near-term consideration for the fossil energy industry , US Department of Energy,” in Proceedings of the 23rd International Technical Conference on Coal Utilization and Fuel Systems, pp. 593–600, Clearwater , FL, USA, 1998.
View at: Google Scholar
S. H. Stevens and D. Spector, “Enhanced coalbed methane recovery: worldwide applications and CO₂ storage potential,” Report prepared for IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, IEA/CON/97/27, 1998.
View at: Google Scholar
S. H. Stevens, J. A. Kuuskraa, and D. Spector, “CO₂ storage in deep coal seams: pilot results and worldwide potential,” in Fourth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Interlaken, Switzerland, 1998.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Ye, S. Feng, Z. Fan et al., “Micro-pilot test for enhanced coalbed methane recovery by injecting carbon dioxide in south part of Qinshui Basin,” Acta Petrolei Sinica, vol. 28, pp. 77–80, 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
M. J. van der Burgt, J. Cantle, and V. K. Boutkan, “Carbon dioxide disposal from coal-based IGCC's in depleted gas fields,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 33, no. 5-8, pp. 603–610, 1992.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. Jikich, D. H. Smith, W. N. Sams, and G. S. Bromhal, “Enhanced gas recovery (EGR) with carbon dioxide sequestration: a simulation study of effects of injection strategy and operational parameters,” in Proceedings of the SPE Eatern Meeting Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
Z. Hou, Y. Gou, J. Taron, U. J. Gorke, and O. Kolditz, “Thermo-hydro-mechanical modeling of carbon dioxide injection for enhanced gas-recovery (CO 2-EGR): A benchmarking study for code comparison,” Environmental Earth Sciences, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 549–561, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Gou, Z. Hou, H. Liu, L. Zhou, and P. Were, “Numerical simulation of carbon dioxide injection for enhanced gas recovery (CO2-EGR) in Altmark natural gas field,” Acta Geotechnica, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 49–58, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kalra and X. Wu, “CO₂ injection for enhanced gas recovery,” in Proceedings of the SPE Western North American and Rocky Mountain Joint Meeting, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Kühn, M. Streibel, N. Nakaten, and T. Kempka, “Integrated underground gas storage of CO₂ and CH₄ to decarbonise the “power-to-gas-to-gas-to-power” technology,” Energy Procedia, vol. 59, pp. 9–15, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Gou, Z. Hou, M. Li, W. Feng, and H. Liu, “Coupled thermo–hydro–mechanical simulation of CO2 enhanced gas recovery with an extended equation of state module for TOUGH2MP-FLAC3D,” Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 904–920, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Clemens, S. Secklehner, K. Mantatzis, and B. Jacobs, “Enhanced gas recovery—challenges shown at the example of three gas fields,” in Proceedings of the SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
C. M. Oldenburg, K. Pruess, and S. M. Benson, “Process modeling of CO₂ injection into natural gas reservoirs for carbon sequestration and enhanced gas recovery,” Energy & Fuels, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 726–730, 2001.
View at: Google Scholar
C. M. Oldenburg and S. M. Benson, “CO₂ Injection for Enhanced Gas Production and Carbon Sequestration,” in Proceedings of the 2002 SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition in Mexico, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Polak and A.-A. Grimstad, “Reservoir simulation study of CO2 storage and CO2 -EGR in the Atzbach-Schwanenstadt gas field in Austria,” in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-9, pp. 2961–2968, November 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Kühn, M. Tesmer, P. Pilz et al., “CLEAN: Project overview on CO 2 large-scale enhanced gas recovery in the Altmark natural gas field (Germany),” Environmental Earth Sciences, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 311–321, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Maldal and I. M. Tappel, “CO2 underground storage for Snøhvit gas field development,” Energy, vol. 29, no. 9-10, pp. 1403–1411, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Solomon, M. Carpenter, and T. A. Flach, “Intermediate storage of carbon dioxide in geological formations: A technical perspective,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 502–510, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. S. Hughes, “Carbon storage in depleted gas fields: Key challenges,” in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-9, pp. 3007–3014, November 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Becker, A. Myrttinen, P. Blum, R. Van Geldern, and J. A. C. Barth, “Predicting δ13CDIC dynamics in CCS: A scheme based on a review of inorganic carbon chemistry under elevated pressures and temperatures,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 1250–1258, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Ennis-King, T. Dance, J. Xu et al., “The role of heterogeneity in CO2 storage in a depleted gas field: History matching of simulation models to field data for the CO2CRC Otway Project, Australia,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, pp. 3494–3501, September 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Kühn, A. Förster, J. Großmann et al., “CLEAN: Preparing for a CO2-based enhanced gas recovery in a depleted gas field in Germany,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, pp. 5520–5526, September 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Rouchon, C. Magnier, D. Miller, C. Bandeira, R. Gonçalves, and R. Dino, “The relationship between CO2 flux and gas composition in soils above an EOR-CO2 oil field (Brazil): A guideline for the surveillance of CO2 storage sites,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, pp. 3354–3362, September 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Underschultz, C. Boreham, T. Dance et al., “CO₂ storage in a depleted gas field: an overview of the CO2CRC Otway Project and initial results,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 922–932, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. J. Arts, V. P. Vandeweijer, C. Hofstee et al., “The feasibility of CO₂ storage in the depleted P18-4 gas field offshore the Netherlands (the ROAD project),” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 11S, pp. S10–S20, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Bilgili, E. Koçak, Ü. Bulut, and M. N. Sualp, “How did the US economy react to shale gas production revolution? An advanced time series approach,” Energy, vol. 116, pp. 963–977, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
“Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage,” in IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), B. Metz, O. Davidson, de. Coninck, M. Loos, L. A. Meyer, and H. C. de Coninck, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2005.
View at: Google Scholar
K. C. Schepers, B. Nuttall, A. Y. Oudinot, and R. Gonzalez, Reservoir Modeling And Simulation of The Devonian Gas Shale of Eastern Kentucky for Enhanced Gas Recovery and CO₂ Storage, 2009.
C. Ou and Y. Zeng, “Research prospect of CO₂ sealing up for safekeeping and CO₂ enhanced CH4 recovery in adsorption reservoir bed,” Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, vol. 30, pp. 258–63, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Wang, Z. Shen, and G. Li, “Feasibility analysis on shale gas exploitation with supercritical CO₂,” Petroleum Drilling Techniques, vol. 39, pp. 30–35, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
F. Liu, P. Lu, C. Griffith et al., “CO 2-brine-caprock interaction: Reactivity experiments on Eau Claire shale and a review of relevant literature,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 7, pp. 153–167, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Pei, K. Ling, J. He, and Z. Liu, “Shale gas reservoir treatment by a CO2-based technology,” Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, vol. 26, pp. 1595–1606, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. C. Harris, R. J. Haynes, and J. P. Egger, “Use of CO₂-based fracturing fluids in the red fork formation in the anadarko basin,” Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, pp. 1003–1008, 1984.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Mazza, “Liquid-free stimulations - CO₂∖sand dry-frac,” in Proceedings of the Conference of Emerging Technologies for Natural Gas Industry, 1997, http://www.netl.doe.gov/KMD/cds/Disk28/NG10-5.PDF.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Gupta, “Nonconventional fracturing fluids,” in Proceedings of the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, TX, USA, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
T. Ishida, K. Aoyagi, T. Niwa et al., “Acoustic emission monitoring of hydraulic fracturing laboratory experiment with supercritical and liquid CO₂,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 39, no. 16, Article ID L16309, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Wang, G. Li, and Z. Shen, “A feasibility analysis on shale gas exploitation with supercritical carbon dioxide,” Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization and Environmental Effects, vol. 34, no. 15, pp. 1426–1435, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Breede, K. Dzebisashvili, X. Liu, and G. Falcone, “A systematic review of enhanced (or engineered) geothermal systems: past, present and future,” Geothermal Energy, vol. 1, no. 1, article no. 4, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. W. Brown, “A hot dry rock geothermal energy concept using supercritical CO₂ instead of water,” in Proceedings of the 25th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, pp. 233–238, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Pruess, “Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) using CO₂ as working fluid—a novel approach for generating renewable energy with simultaneous sequestration of carbon,” Geothermics, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 351–367, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Pruess, Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) comparing water with CO₂ as heat transmission fluids , Paper LBNL 63627, 2007.
J. B. Randolph and M. O. Saar, “Impact of reservoir permeability on the choice of subsurface geothermal heat exchange fluid: CO₂ versus water and native brine,” in Proceedings of the geothermal resources council 35th annual meeting, San Diego, CA, USA, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
T. A. Buscheck, M. Chen, Y. Sun, Y. Hao, and T. R. Elliot, “Two-Stage, Integrated, Geothermal-CO₂ Storage Reservoirs: An Approach for Sustainable Energy Production, CO₂-Sequestration Security, and Reduced Environmental Risk,” Tech. Rep. LLNL-TR-526952, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Xu, P. Dowd, and Q. Li, “Carbon sequestration potential of the Habanero reservoir when carbon dioxide is used as the heat exchange fluid,” Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 50–59, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. B. Randolph and M. O. Saar, “Combining geothermal energy capture with geologic carbon dioxide sequestration,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 38, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. H. Pang, F. T. Yang, and Z. F. Duan, “Status and prospect of CO₂ geological storage technology,” in Proceedings of the in proceedings of the 2nd waste underground storage workshop, Dunhuang, China, 2008 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
S. A. Hosseini and J.-P. Nicot, “Scoping analysis of brine extraction/ re-injection for enhanced CO 2 storage,” Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 172–184, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Salimi and K.-H. Wolf, “Integration of heat-energy recovery and carbon sequestration,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 6, pp. 56–68, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Zhang, J. Ezekiel, D. Li, J. Pei, and S. Ren, “Potential assessment of CO₂ injection for heat mining and geological storage in geothermal reservoirs of China,” Applied Energy, vol. 122, pp. 237–246, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Ganjdanesh, S. L. Bryant, R. L. Orbach, G. A. Pope, and K. Sepehrnoori, “Coupled carbon dioxide sequestration and energy production from geopressured/geothermal aquifers,” SPE Journal, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 239–248, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), "International Energy Outlook 2016", DOE/EIA-0484, 2016.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), "Annual Energy Outlook 2016 with projections to 2040", DOE/EIA-0383, 2016.
D. Sandro, J. C. Wu, Q. Yang, A. D. Hou, and J. D. Lin, Suggestions on realization the targets of shale gas production in China, 2014 (Chinese).
X. Wu, Ed., Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geological Storage: The First Massive Exploration in China, Science Press, Beijing, China, 2013.
Q. Li, X. Liu, L. Du et al., “Economics of acid gas injection with comparison to sulfur recovery in China,” in Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT 2012, pp. 2505–2510, November 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L.-C. Liu, Q. Li, J.-T. Zhang, and D. Cao, “Toward a framework of environmental risk management for CO2 geological storage in china: gaps and suggestions for future regulations,” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 191–207, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Wu, J. C. Carroll, and Q. Li, Eds., Gas Injection for Disposal and Enhanced Recovery , Hardcover, Wiley-Scrivener, New York, NY, USA, 2014.
N. Wei, X. Li, Z. Fang et al., “Regional resource distribution of onshore carbon geological utilization in China,” Journal of CO2 Utilization, vol. 11, pp. 20–30, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Q. Zhang, J. Q. Guo, Y. J. Diao et al., “Technical method for selection of CO₂ geological storage project sites in deep saline aquifers,” Geology in China, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1640–1651, 2011 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
S. Q. Zhang, J. Q. Guo, and X. F. Li, Basics of CO₂ Geological Sequestration in China And Site Selection Geological Evaluation, Geological Press, Beijing, China, 2011 (Chinese).
J. Q. Guo, S. Q. Zhang, Y. J. Diao et al., “Site selection method of CO₂ geological storage in deep saline aquifers,” Journal of Jilin University (Earth Science Edition), vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1084–1091, 2011 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
J. Q, D. G. Guo, S. Q. Zhang et al., “Potential evaluation of CO₂ geological storage and pilot-scale projects,” Geological Survey of China, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 36–46, 2015 (Croatian).
View at: Google Scholar
X. F. Jia, Y. Zhang, H. Zhang et al., “Method of target area selection of CO₂ geological storage in China,” Journal of Jilin University (Earth Science Edition), vol. 4, pp. 255–267, 2014 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
X. C. Li and Z. M. Fang, “Status quo of connection technologies of CO₂ geological storage in China,” Rock and Soil Mechanics, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 2229–2233, 2007 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
Q. Li, X. Li, N. Wei, and Z. Fang, “Possibilities and potentials of geological co-storage CO2 and SO2 in China,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, pp. 6015–6020, September 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. C. Li, Y. F. Liu, B. Bai, and Z. M. Fang, “Ranking and screening of CO₂ saline aquifer storage zones in China,” Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 744–748, 2006 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
Y. F. Liu, X. C. Li, and B. Bai, “Preliminary estimation of CO₂ storage capacity of the deep saline formations in China,” Earth Science- Journal of China University of Geosciences, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 126–131, 2006 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
H. T. Zhang, D. G. Wen, and Y. L. Li, “Analysis of the CO₂ geological storage conditions in China and some suggestions,” Geological Bulletin of China, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 1101–1110, 2005 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
H. Y. Jiang, P. P. Sheng, X. F. Li et al., “Study into technologies for estimating theoretical volume of CO₂ stored underground worldwide,” Sino-Global Energy, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 93–99, 2008 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
W. Zhang, Y. L. Li, Y. Zheng, L. Jiang, and G. B. Qiu, “CO₂ storage capacity estimation in geological sequestration: issues and research progress,” Advances in Earth Science, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 1061–1069, 2008 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
Z. G. Xu, D. Z. Chen, and R. S. Zeng, “Principles of CO₂ geological storage and conditions,” Journal of Southwest Petroleum University (Science & Technology Edition), vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 91–97, 2009 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
Z. Xu, D. Chen, R. Zeng et al., “Geological storage framework of CO₂ subsurface burial trial area of daqingzijing block in the jilin oilfield,” Acta Geologica Sinica, vol. 83, no. 6, pp. 875–884, 2009 (Chinese).
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Z. Yang, P. P. Sheng, X. M. Song, S. Y. Yang, and Y. L. Hu, “Greenhouse gas geo-sequestration mechanism and capacity evaluation in aquifer,” Journal of Jilin University (Earth Science Edition), vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 744–748, 2009 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
W. Xu, X. S. Su, S. H. Du et al., “Capacity assessment and uncertainty analysis of CO₂ storage in deep saline aquifer in the central depression of Songliao Basin,” Quaternary Sciences, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 483–490, 2011 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
C. Guo, L. Pan, K. Zhang, C. M. Oldenburg, C. Li, and Y. Li, “Comparison of compressed air energy storage process in aquifers and caverns based on the Huntorf CAES plant,” Applied Energy, vol. 181, pp. 342–356, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. K. Ren, Y. J. Cui, X. P. Bu, Y. J. Tang, and J. Q. Zhang, “Analysis on CO₂ storage potentiality in Ordos Basin,” Energy of China, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 29–32, 2010 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
J. Xie, K. N. Zhang, and L. T. Hu, “Numerical investigation of geological CO₂ storage with multiple injection wells for the Shenhua Ordos CCS project,” Journal of Beijing Normal University (Natural Science), vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 90–96, 2015 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
J. Xie, K. N. Zhang, Y. S. Wang, L. Q. Tan, and C. B. Guo, “Performance assessment of CO₂ geological storage in deep saline aquifers in Ordos Basin, China,” Rock and Soil Mechanics, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 166–174, 2016 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
B. He, T. F. Xu, Y. L. Yuan et al., “An analysis of the influence factors on CO₂ injection capacity in a deep saline formation: a case study of Shiqianfeng Group in the Erdos Basin,” Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 136–142, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
X. Li, Q. Li, B. Bai, N. Wei, and W. Yuan, “The geomechanics of Shenhua carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) demonstration project in Ordos Basin, China,” Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 948–966, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Luo, A. L. Jia, T. J. Wei et al., “CO₂ storage conditions in the saline formation of the Shanxi Group 2 section in the Zizhou area of the Ordos basin and its capacity estimation,” Journal of Northeast Petroleum University, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 26–36, 2016 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
ADB, “Promoting carbon capture utilization and storage through carbon dioxide-enhanced oil recovery in the Peoples Republic of China,” p. 16, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Hao and Y. C. Song, “Research status of CO₂-EOR technology,” Drilling & Production Technology, vol. 33, pp. 59–63, 2010 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
X. G. Dong, P. H. Han et al., Pilot-scale field test of the CO₂-EOR in Daqing oilfield, Petroleum Industry Press, Beijing, China, 1999 (Chinese).
P. Guo, S. Y. Zhang, Y. Wu et al., “The minimum miscible pressure of CO₂ flooding in Dagang oilfield,” Journal of Southwest Petroleum University (Science & Technology Edition), vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 19–21, 1999 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
H. Y. Jiang, P. P. Shen, and T. X. Zhong, “The relationship between CO₂ geological storage and enhanced oil recovery,” Petroleum Geology and Recovery Efficiency, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 52–55, 2008 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
P. P. Shen and X. W. Liao, CO₂ geological storage and enhance oil recovery, Petroleum Industry Press, Beijing, China, 2009 (Chinese).
H. J. Yu, G. J. Zhu, and J. Tian, “EOR by CO₂ injection into offshore heavy oil-cap reservoir with strong edge and bottom waters,” Petroleum Geology & Oilfield Development in Daqing, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 137–142, 2013 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
X. A. Yue, R. B. Zhao, and F. L. Zhao, Technological Challenges for CO₂ EOR in China, Science paper online, 2007 (Chinese).
B. W. Guo, “Characteristics of tectonic coal and analysis on the location of CO₂,” Coal Geology & Exploration, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 28–30, 2001 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
L. Zhou, Q. Y. Feng, and X. D. Li, “Mechanism and application potential of geological sequestration of carbon dioxide in deep coal seams,” Earth and Environment, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 9–14, 2007 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
Q. Li, W. Fei, X. Liu, X. Wei, M. Jing, and X. Li, “Challenging combination of CO2 geological storage and coal mining in the Ordos basin, China,” Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 452–467, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Yang, “Studies on the injection of CO₂ into coalbed reservoir,” Petrochemical Industry Application, vol. 12, pp. 26–28, 2015 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
L. Hou, J. J. Tian, and Y. X. Zhang, “Numerical simulation on geological sequestration of CO₂ and coalbed methane displacement,” Shanxi Coal, vol. 1, pp. 78–81, 2016 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
K. Jiang, Z. P. Li, H. E. Dou, Z. Y. Cao, and G. Hong, “Potential evaluation model of CO₂ geological storage in Qinshui basin,” Special Oil and Gas Reservoirs, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 116–118, 2016 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
J. Shen, Y. Qin, C.-J. Zhang, Q.-J. Hu, and W. Chen, “Feasibility of enhanced coalbed methane recovery by CO₂ sequestration into deep coalbed of Qinshui Basin,” Journal of China Coal Society, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 156–161, 2016 (Chinese).
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S.-H. Tang, D.-Z. Tang, and Q. Yang, “Variation regularity of gas component concentration in binary-component gas adsorption-desorption isotherm experiments,” Journal of China University of Mining & Technology, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 448–452, 2004 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
S. H. Tang, D. Z. Tang, and Q. Yang, “Binary-component gas adsorption isotherm experiments and their significance to exploitation of coalbed methane,” Earth Science- Journal of China University of Geosciences, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 219–22, 2004.
View at: Google Scholar
H. G. Yu, Study of characteristics and prediction of CH₄, CO₂, N₂ and binary GAS adsorption on coals and CO₂/CH₄ replacement, Shandong University of Science and Technology, Qingdao, China, 2005.
W. P. Jiang, Y. J. Cui, Q. Zhang, and Y. H. Li, “The quantum chemical study on the coal surface interacting with CH₄ and CO₂,” Journal of China Coal Society, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 237–242, 2006 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
W. Z. Wu, Characteristics of the inert group structure of the coal in Shendong and the molecular simulation of its reaction with CH₄ [M. S., thesis], Taiyuan University of Technology, 2010 (Chinese).
W. B. Fei, Q. Li, X. C. Wei, R. R. Song, M. Jing, and X. C. Li, “Interaction analysis for CO₂ geological storage and underground coal mining in Ordos Basin, China,” Engineering Geology, vol. 196, pp. 194–209, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. P. Ye, Y. Qin, and D. Y. Lin, Coalbed methane resources in China, China University of Mining & Technology Press, Xuzhou, China, 1998.
Y. F. Liu, X. C. Li, and B. Bai, “Preliminary estimation of CO₂ storage capacity of coalbeds in China,” Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 24, no. 16, pp. 2947–2952, 2005 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
Y. F. Liu, X. C. Li, Z. M. Fang, and B. Bai, “Preliminary estimation of CO₂ storage capacity of gas reservoirs in China,” Rock and Soil Mechanics, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 2277–2281, 2006.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Z. Dong, C. N. Zou, H. Yang et al., “Progress and prospects of shale gas exploration and development in China,” Acta Petrolei Sinica, vol. 33, supplement 1, pp. 107–114, 2012 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
Y. S. Zhu, X. X. Song, Y. T. Guo et al., “High-pressure adsorption characteristics and controlling factors of CH₄ and CO₂ on shales from Longmaxi formation, Chongqing, Sichuan Basin,” Natural Gas Geoscience, vol. 27, pp. 1942–1952, 2016 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
T. F. Xu and W. Zhang, “Enhanced geothermal systems: international developments and Chinas prospects,” Petroleum Science Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 38–44, 2016 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
F. G. Wang, Effect of CO₂-EGS-water-rock on the characteristics of formation porosity and permeability , Master thesis at [M, S. thesis], Jilin University, 2013 (Chinese).
F. G. Wang, J. Na, and X. X. Geng, “The impacts of different CO₂ injection temperature on heat extraction rate in CO₂ enhanced geothermal system: based on the CCS demonstration project in Erdos,” Science & Technology Review, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 34–39, 2013 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
Y. Shi, The operating mechanism and optimization research on carbon dioxide plume geothermal system in Quantou formation of Songliao Basin [Ph.D. thesis], Jilin University, 2014 (Chinese).
Z. Y. Hou, T. F. Xu, B. He, B. Feng, and J. Na, “Laboratory experimental study of dissolution using supercritical CO₂ as a stimulation agent for enhanced geothermal system (EGS) in SongLiao basin,” in Renewable Energy Resources, vol. 1, pp. 122–128, 2016 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
M. Z. Liu, B. Bai, X. C. Li, and rtal, “Experimental study of fracturing characteristics of sandstone under CO₂-water two-phase condition and effective stress model,” Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 38–47, 2016 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
G. Z. Lv, Q. Li, S. Wang, and X. Li, “Key techniques of reservoir engineering and injection-production process for CO₂ flooding in China's SINOPEC Shengli oilfield,” Journal of CO₂ Utilization, vol. 11, pp. 31–40, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
“China United Coalbed Methane Corporation (CUCMC), Ltd,” Alberta Research Council, “The pilot-scale field test of CO₂-ECBM technology in China” Geological Press, Beijing, China, 2008.
View at: Google Scholar
C. H. Qu, “Discussion on developing the technology of CO₂ capture and storage,” China Science and Technology Periodical Database Industry, vol. 8, pp. 1–3, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
Department of Social Development (DSD), “CO₂ capture, utilization and storage technologies in China,” The Administrative Center for China’s Agenda 21 ACCA21, p. 22, 2010 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
Y. K. Du, Study on the mechanism of supercritical carbon dioxide efflux in the rock breaking mechanism [Ph.D. thesis], China University of Petroleum, Huadong, China, 2009 (Chinese).
Q. Fang, CO₂ Geological Storage Combined with Brine Production in High-salinity and Low-permeability Aquifers [Ph.D. thesis], China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China, 2014 (Chinese).
X. H. Zhang, X. B. Lu, and Q. J. Liu, “The effect of the characteristics of Cap on the escaping velocity of CO₂,” Soil Engineering and Foundation, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 67–70, 2009 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
S. Q. Zhang, Y. J. Diao, X. X. Cheng et al., “geological storage leakage routes and environment monitoring,” Journal of Glaciology and Geocryology, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1251–1261, 2010 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
Q. Li, “The potential environmental impacts and risk studies during CO₂ geological storage-safety evaluation,” in Workshop on Greenhouse Gas Control and Environmental Impacts Evaluation, Chinese Academy for Environmental Planning, Shamen, p. 20, 2011 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
L. H. Peng, J. J. Wang, W. J. You, and L. S. Xu, “Environmental issues and advances of carbon dioxide geological storage,” Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 104–110, 2013 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
H. Shi, L. C. Liu, and Q. Li, “A comparative study of geo-environmental impacts of CO₂ geological storage and high level nuclear waste geo-disposal , China Population,” Resources and Environment, vol. 25, pp. 203–207, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
X. Y. Zhang, J. M. Cheng, and J. Liu, “Advances on the research of CO₂ sequestration,” Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology, vol. 4, pp. 58–88, 2006 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
Z. G. Xu, D. Z. Chen, and R. S. Zeng, “The leakage risk assessment and remediation options of CO₂ geological storage,” Geological Review, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 373–385, 2008.
View at: Google Scholar
The Climate Group, CCUS in China: 18 hot-spot problems, 2011 (Chinese).
Greengen Corporation Limited, Challenging the global climate changes-CO₂ capture and storage, China Water & Power Press, Beijing, China, 2008 (Chinese).
E. S. Rubin, J. E. Davison, and H. J. Herzog, “The cost of CO2 capture and storage,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 40, pp. 378–400, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Huang, S. Xu, S. Gao et al., “Industrial test and techno-economic analysis of CO2 capture in Huaneng Beijing coal-fired power station,” Applied Energy, vol. 87, no. 11, pp. 3347–3354, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Y. Chen, Z. X. Wu, and W. Z. Wang, “The strategy of CO₂ capture and storage and its potential effect on the long term reduction in CO₂ emission in China,” Environmental Science, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 1178-1179, 2007 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
J. Chen, C. Zheng, W. Chen, and W. Y. Fei, “The emergency in reducing the CO₂ emission and the development of capture technology,” in Proceedings of the in Proceedings of the 10th Annual Meeting of China Association for Science and Technology: reduction in CO<sub>2</sub> emission and its clean utilization and development workshop, pp. 10–13, 2008 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
X. Y. Zhang, C. Di, and L. C. Lei, CO₂ corrosion and treatment, Chemistry Industry Press, Beijing, China, 2000 (Chinese).
M. J. Wu, “Studies on the corrosion of the ground system in tertiary oil recovery with CO₂ flooding and treatment,” Oil-Gasfield Surface Engineering, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 16–18, 2004 (Chinese).
View at: Google Scholar
K. van Alphen, Q. van Voorst tot Voorst, M. P. Hekkert, and R. E. H. M. Smits, “Societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies,” Energy Policy, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 4368–4380, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. K. Haug and P. Stigson, “Local acceptance and communication as crucial elements for realizing CCS in the Nordic region,” in Proceedings of the 8th Trondheim Conference on CO2 Capture, Transport and Storage, TCCS 2015, pp. 315–323, June 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Kapetaki, J. Simjanović, and J. Hetland, “European carbon capture and storage project network: Overview of the status and developments,” in Proceedings of the 8th Trondheim Conference on CO2 Capture, Transport and Storage, TCCS 2015, pp. 12–21, June 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z.-A. Chen, Q. Li, L.-C. Liu et al., “A large national survey of public perceptions of CCS technology in China,” Applied Energy, vol. 158, pp. 366–377, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Li and G. Liu, “Risk assessment of the geological storage of CO₂: a review,” in Geologic Carbon Sequestration: Understanding Reservoir Behavior, V. Vishal and T. N. Singh, Eds., pp. 249–284, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
Q. Li, Z. A. Chen, J.-T. Zhang, L.-C. Liu, X. C. Li, and L. Jia, “Positioning and revision of CCUS technology development in China,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 46, pp. 282–293, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Li, R. Song, X. Liu, G. Liu, and Y. Sun, “Monitoring of carbon dioxide geological utilization and storage in China: a review,” in Acid Gas Extraction for Disposal and Related Topics, Y. Wu, J. J. Carroll, and W. Zhu, Eds., pp. 331–358, Wiley-Scrivener, New York, NY, USA, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2017 H. J. Liu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

13163

Downloads

3915

Citations

Geofluids

Coupled Geoflow Processes in Subsurface: CO<sub>2</sub>-Sequestration and Geoenergy Focus

Worldwide Status of CCUS Technologies and Their Development and Challenges in China

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Worldwide Development of CCS and CCUS

2.1. CCS

2.2. CCUS: CO2-EOR

2.3. CCUS: CO2-ECBM

2.4. CCUS: CO2-EGR

2.5. CCUS: CO2-ESG

2.6. CCUS: CO2-EGS

3. CCS and CCUS Engineering Projects Worldwide

4. Current Status of CCS and CCUS Technologies in China

4.1. CCS

4.2. CCUS: CO2-EOR in China

4.3. CCUS: CO2-ECBM in China

4.4. CCUS: CO2-EGR in China

4.5. CCUS: CO2-ESG in China

4.6. CCUS: CO2-EGS in China

5. Status of CCUS Engineering Projects in China

6. Challenges in the Widespread Application of CCUS in China

6.1. Tackling Problems in Key Technologies

6.2. Negative Impacts on the Environment and Resources

6.3. Storage Capacity Data Is Not Clear

6.4. Policy Factor

6.5. High Investment Costs

6.6. Energy Price

6.7. Social Acceptance

7. Conclusions

Nomenclature

Conflicts of Interest

Acknowledgments

References

Copyright

2.2. CCUS: CO₂-EOR

2.3. CCUS: CO₂-ECBM

2.4. CCUS: CO₂-EGR

2.5. CCUS: CO₂-ESG

2.6. CCUS: CO₂-EGS

4.2. CCUS: CO₂-EOR in China

4.3. CCUS: CO₂-ECBM in China

4.4. CCUS: CO₂-EGR in China

4.5. CCUS: CO₂-ESG in China

4.6. CCUS: CO₂-EGS in China