5:15 PM - 7:15 PM
[HSC06-P11] Storage cost comparison between injection using an inclined well from land and injection from offshore platforms
Keywords:CCS, Storage cost, transport
Global warming has become so serious that U.N. Secretary-General used a word “global boiling” instead of global warming. To mitigate global warming, many countries including Japan aim for achieving carbon neutral by around 2050. It is considered that Carbon dioxide (CO2) Capture and Storage (CCS) is essential technology to achieve carbon neutral. Japan is aiming to start CCS business projects by 2030. Before CCS projects is conducted as business, it is necessary to consider its cost. Geological Carbon dioxide Storage Technology Research Association has developed a tool to appropriately estimate costs for CCS (cost estimation tool), and released it on the internet this year.
In the cost estimation tool, the injection method is automatically selected based on the distance from the coast to offshore storage site, and the water depth there. When the storage site is near the coast, the injection method using an inclined well from land (hereafter referred to as onshore injection) is selected. For offshore storage far from the coast, injection methods from an offshore platform, a jack-up or semi-sub platform depending on the water depth, is selected. In the present tool, onshore injection is applied when the distance from the coast to the storage site is within 3 km. When the distance exceeds 3 km, injection using a jack-up platform is applied for sites with depths equal to or less than 100 m while a semi-sub platform is used for deeper sites. The cost increases in the order of onshore injection, jack-up platform, and semi-sub platform.
Users can select a CO2 transport method from the ships, land pipelines, and submarine pipelines. The cost for the pipeline, whether it is on land or in the sea, rises as the transport distance increases. By contrast, the cost for the ship transport remains to be almost the same even though the distance increase if the range of the transport distance is between approximately 100 km and 400 km. This is because the size of the ship required is the same regardless of the distance within this range. Therefore, the pipeline transport is cheaper than ship transport for short distances, whereas the latter is cheaper for longer distances.
In this presentation, as an example demonstrating the usefulness of the cost estimate tool, we discuss the costs of the following cases: the case where CO2 must be injected using an offshore platform but CO2 transport is unnecessary, and the case where CO2 must be transported but onshore injection can be applied. The results show that the onshore injection with pipeline transport is cheaper than the injection using an offshore platform without transport if the transport distance is shorter than around 200 - 300 km. It is, however, noted that the cost greatly depends on the scenario (condition). For example, even though the transport distance is the same, the cost for transport greatly changes depending on the amount of CO2 transport, and consequently, the distance at which the costs for the pipeline transport and the ship transport reverse also change. It is, therefore, necessary to consider for what scenarios the cost is estimated, and to discuss conditions that may correspond to these scenarios. It is also important to focus on the costs themselves, as well as the conditions under which the costs were estimated.
Acknowledgement: This presentation is based on results obtained from a project (JPNP18006) commissioned by the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO).
In the cost estimation tool, the injection method is automatically selected based on the distance from the coast to offshore storage site, and the water depth there. When the storage site is near the coast, the injection method using an inclined well from land (hereafter referred to as onshore injection) is selected. For offshore storage far from the coast, injection methods from an offshore platform, a jack-up or semi-sub platform depending on the water depth, is selected. In the present tool, onshore injection is applied when the distance from the coast to the storage site is within 3 km. When the distance exceeds 3 km, injection using a jack-up platform is applied for sites with depths equal to or less than 100 m while a semi-sub platform is used for deeper sites. The cost increases in the order of onshore injection, jack-up platform, and semi-sub platform.
Users can select a CO2 transport method from the ships, land pipelines, and submarine pipelines. The cost for the pipeline, whether it is on land or in the sea, rises as the transport distance increases. By contrast, the cost for the ship transport remains to be almost the same even though the distance increase if the range of the transport distance is between approximately 100 km and 400 km. This is because the size of the ship required is the same regardless of the distance within this range. Therefore, the pipeline transport is cheaper than ship transport for short distances, whereas the latter is cheaper for longer distances.
In this presentation, as an example demonstrating the usefulness of the cost estimate tool, we discuss the costs of the following cases: the case where CO2 must be injected using an offshore platform but CO2 transport is unnecessary, and the case where CO2 must be transported but onshore injection can be applied. The results show that the onshore injection with pipeline transport is cheaper than the injection using an offshore platform without transport if the transport distance is shorter than around 200 - 300 km. It is, however, noted that the cost greatly depends on the scenario (condition). For example, even though the transport distance is the same, the cost for transport greatly changes depending on the amount of CO2 transport, and consequently, the distance at which the costs for the pipeline transport and the ship transport reverse also change. It is, therefore, necessary to consider for what scenarios the cost is estimated, and to discuss conditions that may correspond to these scenarios. It is also important to focus on the costs themselves, as well as the conditions under which the costs were estimated.
Acknowledgement: This presentation is based on results obtained from a project (JPNP18006) commissioned by the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO).