An Overview of Power Plant CCS and CO2-EOR Projects

Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Rabat, Morocco, April 11-13, 2017
An Overview of Power Plant CCS and CO2-EOR Projects
Saber Kh. Elmabrouk
Petroleum Engineering Department
University of Tripoli
Tripoli, Libya
saber_elmabrouk@yahoo.com
Husen E. Bader
Power Project Generation Department
General Electricity Company of Libya (GECOL)
Tripoli, Libya
hossenbader@yahoo.com
Walid Mohamed Mahmud
Petroleum Engineering Department
University of Tripoli
Tripoli, Libya
walidt@hotmail.com
Abstract
CO2 has been used for many decades in the industrial processes and food manufacturing, including soft drinks.
Likewise, it is an essential component of other everyday items such as fire extinguishers. In very high
concentrations, CO2 like any dense gas, can act as an asphyxiate material, which can be dangerous to humans with
its adverse impact on respiration. Thus, CO2 is captured to minimize risks to humans’ health and the environment. A
general overview of the current carbon capture and storage (CCS) and CO2 based enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR)
projects is presented in this paper. This work provides a summary of the current worldwide CCS and CO2-EOR
projects along with their potential benefits. CCS is a process used to capture CO2 that is produced by industrial
facilities. The CCS technology involves CO2 capture, transport and storage. On the other hand, EOR is a generic
term for various techniques to increase recovery from oil fields. The injection of CO2 into underground rock
formation of oil reservoirs in order to improve their recovery is called CO2-EOR.
Keywords
CO2 Capture and Storage, CO2-EOR, ECBM, EGS, Post-combustion, Pre-combustion, and Oxy combustion
1. Introduction
Since the industrial revolution, the fossil fuel (coal, oil and natural gas) has become key energy source which
generates significant amount of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. This is believed to be the main cause of climate
change and a concern due to the CO2 emissions adverse effect on the environment. According to Global Carbon
Emissions (2017), CO2 emissions totaled between 35 and 40 billion tons in 2015. Moreover, fossil fuel emissions
were 0.6% above emissions in 2013 and 60% above emissions in 1990. Fig. 1 presents the monthly average
atmospheric ppm CO2 concentration during November 1959 and November 2016. The figure shows the global CO2
concentration in November 2016 passed 403 ppm. On the other hand, according to an intergovernmental panel on
climate change report (IPCC, 2000), without climate change mitigation policies it is estimated that global
greenhouse gas (GHG) emission in 2030 increases by 25-90% over the year 2000 level, with CO2-equivalent
concentrations in the atmosphere growing to as much as 600–1550 ppm. Likewise, Boden et al. (2015) reported that
in 2011 the top CO2 emitters were 28% from China, 16% from the United States, 10% from the European Union,
6% from India, 6% from the Russian Federation, 4% from Japan, and 30% from other countries. Fig. 2 demonstrates
the countries’ share of GHG emissions. These data include CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, as well as
cement manufacturing and gas flaring.

Fig. 1- Monthly average atmospheric CO2 concentration Nov. 1959 – Nov. 2016 (left) and Global CO2 emission
during 2011(right)
It is worth mentioning that, according to IEA (2010), more than 12 billion tons per year of CO2 emissions are
released into the atmosphere from the fuel combustion of power plants. The electricity production from fossil fuels
is predicted to increase by about 30% by 2035. Therefore, there must be genuine measures undertaken to minimize
the CO2 emissions in order to reduce climate change. Similarly, CO2 emissions should be captured and further
utilized or alternatively safely disposed. This study covers the overview of large-scale CCS projects, and then
focuses on projects that use CO2 emitted from power plants in EOR projects. This is due to the fact that CO2
emissions from power plants are the highest compared to other sources. Raw data was taken from Global CCS
Institute website (KAPSARC Data Portal — Large Scale Carbon Capture Projects Database).
Commonly, the amount of CO2 produced when fuel are burned is function of carbon content of the fuel. Amount of
energy produced, when fuel are burned, is mainly determined by carbon and hydrogen content of the fuel. Natural
gas has higher energy content relative to other fuels and produces relatively less CO2. According to a special report
on CCS by IPCC (2005), a critical GHG mitigation technology can contribute up to 55% of the cumulative global
mitigation effort. In 2013, IEA Global CCS roadmap predicts that CCS contributions to both coal and natural gas
must amount to 14% of cumulative CO2 emissions reductions required through 2050 in order to adequately stabilize
atmospheric levels of CO2. It has been identified that 44 large scale integrated CCS projects are currently presented
around the world. Global CCS Institute defined large-scale integrated CCS projects as projects involving capture,
transport and storage of CO2 at a scale of at least 800,000 tons of CO2 annually for a coal–based power plant, or at
least 400,000 tons of CO2 annually for other emissions–intensive industrial facilities including natural gas–based
power generation. Table 1 shows the life cycle stage of those projects along with emission sources and capture
capacity. The table illuminates that there are 15 large-scale CCS projects in operation stage, 7 in execute stage, 10
under define, 9 under evaluation, and 3 CCS under identify stage. Combined CO2 capture capacity of all these 44
projects is around 49.4 million tons per year.
2. Carbon capture and storage (CCS)
CCS involves a portfolio of technologies as described in Fig. 2. The figure shows that there are three stages to CCS;
capture, transport, and utilization/safe storage. In capture stage, CO2 is removed or separated from power plants or
from the manufacturers such as steel and cement. In storage stage, CO2 is compressed and transported to safe and
suitable storage sites.
2.1 Emission sources
Anthropogenic CO2 sources are part of our everyday activities and include those from power plants, public
transportation, industrial sources, chemical productions, petroleum productions, and agricultural practices. Many of
these source types burn fossil fuels including coal, oil, and natural gas, which are, as mentioned above, the leading
cause of CO2 emissions. A breakdown of the major stationary source emissions, shown in Fig. 3, provides a visual
representation of CO2 emission contributions of the power plants along with other industrial activities have on
anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The largest contributor to these emissions is from electricity (73 %). In fact,
electricity generation using carbon base fuels is responsible for a large fraction of CO2 emission worldwide. Of the
fossil fuels, coal is more carbon intensive than oil or natural gas, resulting in general volumes of CO2 emission per
unit of electricity generated. In fact, for every ton of coal burned, approximately 2.5 tons of CO2 are produced
(Derfa, 2014).

Table 1- Large-scale CCS projects
Project location
CCSProjects
Life Cycle stage
Source
CaptureCapacity106t/yr
NonPowerPlant
PowerPlant
Operate
Execute
Define
Evaluate
Identify
Algeria 1 1 - - - - 1 - 1.2*
Australia 3 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 11.5
Brazil 1 1 - - - - 1 - 0.7
Canada 6 3 2 1 5 1 9.2
China 9 - - 4 2 3 5 4 10.4
Netherlands 1 - - 1 - - - 1 1.1
Norway 2 2 - - - - 2 - 1.6
Saudi Arabia 1 1 - - - 1 - 0.8
South Korea 2 - 2 - 2 2
United Arab Emirates 1 - 1 - - - 1 - 0.8
United Kingdom 4 - - 2 2 - 1 3 10.1
United States 13 7 3 2 1 - 9 4 33.3
Total 44 15 7 10 9 3 29 15 49.4
* Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technology (http://sequestration.mit.edu)
Fig. 2 - CCS technology stages
As a result, in 2011, fossil fuel released 33.2 billion tons of CO2 emissions worldwide. According to IEA (2012),
coal is responsible for 43% of CO2 emissions; whereas, 36% is produced by oil and 20% from natural gas as
explained in Fig. 3. However, Table 1 shows that 15 large-scale CCS projects (34%) out of the total 44 projects have
CO2 sources from power plants; whereas the remaining 29 projects (66%) are from different CO2 sources.
Moreover, 23 out of the 44 projects are CO2-EOR and only 6 of which are from power plants’ CO2 capture as
illustrated in Table 2.

Fig. 3- Stationary anthropogenic CO2 emissions by major industry
Table 2- Large-scale CO2-EOR projects
Project
Location
CO2-EOR
Life Cycle stage CO2-EOR Projects
Operate
Execute
Define
Evaluate
Identify
Non-Power Plant
Power
Plant
Capture Capacity
106
t/yr
Brazil 1 1 - - - - 1 - 0.7
Canada 4 2 2 - - - 3 1 6
China 5 - - 4 1 - 3 2 6
Saudi Arabia 1 1 - - - - 1 - 0.8
United Arab Emirates 1 1 - - - 1 - 0.8
United States 11 7 2 1 1 - 8 3 0.29
Total 23 11 5 5 2 - 17 6 14.59
2.2 Capture and separation stage
Several studies addressed CO2 capture and separation technologies. Among them; Yx et al. (2012); Yang et al.
(2008); Blomen et al. (2009); Olajire (2010); Elwell and Grant (2006); and Buhre el al. (2005). It can be
implemented to isolate CO2 for power plants and non-power plants, such as absorption, adsorption, chemical
looping combustion, membrane separation, hydrate-based separation and cryogenics desalination. However, in
power plants there are three main technology options to capture CO2 namely; post-combustion, pre-combustion, and
oxy combustion as explained in Fig. 4. However, according to the large-scale CCS database, pre-combustion
technology is the most mature process for CO2 capture. It has been identified that 23 (52%) pre-combustion large
scale CCS projects are currently presented in different life cycles. The second place occupied by industrial
separation technology with 11 projects (25%) as illustrated in Fig. 5.
2.3 Transport and storage (utilization or elimination) stage
Once CO2 is captured, it needs to be transported to the facilities for its utilization (industrial or CO2-EOR projects)
or disposed in a suitable storage site. Whatever option is chosen, transport system should be safe and economically
feasible. Pipelines, trains, ships and trucks are used to deliver CO2 for pilots and smaller-scale operations. Leung et
al. (2014) pointed out that best option for CO2 transportation depends on variety of parameters including; (1) CO2
volumes to be transported; (2) planned life time of CO2 source (power plants or non-power plants); (3) distance
between CO2 source and storage area; (4) onshore vs. offshore; and (5) typology of transporting infrastructure
available. Fig. 6 shows the transporting system of most of large-scale CCS projects; 91% is pipelining. Only two
projects (Sleipner CO2 Storage Project in Norway and Petrobras Lula Oil Field CCS Project in Brazil) do not require
transporting captured CO2 since it is injected underground in place. Storage stage procedure is described in Fig. 7.

Fig. 4- Power plants CO2 capture technologies
Fig. 5- Capture technology of large-scale CO2
2.3.1 CO2 utilization
Researchers are considering a range of options for captured CO2 utilization in oil and gas industry or as a raw
material in different industrial processes. However, industrial uses of CO2 include chemical and biological processes
where CO2 is a reactant, such as in urea and methanol production, as well as in various technological applications
e.g. in horticulture industry, food packaging, welding, beverages and fire extinguishers. Typical lifetime of CO2
storage by industrial processes is only few days to months and do not contribute meaningfully to climate change
mitigation. Furthermore, total industrial use of CO2 is trivial compared to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Table 4- CO2 capture technology for large scale ccs projects
Project
Location
CCS Projects
Power Plants
Capture –Technology
Non-Power Plants
Capture –Technology
Post-
Combustion
Pre-
combustion
Oxy-
Combustion
Under
Evaluation
Post-
Combustion
Pre-
combustion
Oxy-
Combustion
Industrial
separation
Under
Evaluation
Algeria 1 1
Australia 3 1 1 1
Brazil 1 1
Canada 6 1 2 3
China 9 2 1 1 4 1
Netherlands 1 1
Norway 2 2
Saudi Arabia 1 1
South Korea 2 1 1
United Arab Emirates 1 1
United Kingdom 4 2 1
United States 13 1 3 5 4
Total 44 7 6 2 16 10 1
Fig 6 - Transportation system in large-scale CO2 projects
CO2-EOR has emerged as a major option for productively utilizing CO2 emissions captured from electric power and
other industrial plants. Typically, only about one-third of original oil in place is recovered from a conventional oil
field with traditional primary and secondary methods. In most cases, CO2 is compressed and pumped to oil
reservoirs to recover a significant portion of this “left behind” oil in a process known as enhanced oil recovery
(EOR) as described in Fig. 8a.
Likewise, coal beds that are too deep or too thin to be economically mined for coal represent potential CO2 storage
sites. Since these formations typically contain a certain amount of methane (CH4), CO2 can be used for the recovery
of CH4 gas, known as enhanced coal bed methane (ECBM) recovery. It is a method of producing additional coal bed
CH4 from a source rock, which is similar to CO2-EOR applied to oil fields. CO2 is injected into a coal bed that
would occupy porous space and would also adsorb in coal at almost twice the rate of CH4, allowing potential for
enhanced gas recovery. This process is further clarified in Fig. 8b. Due to higher absorptivity of CO2 with respect to
CH4, CO2 stays in the coal beds and displaces the adsorbed methane. Ultimately, most of CH4 is recovered and the
coal bed contains mainly CO2 which remains there permanently separated from the atmosphere.

Geothermal energy offers clean, consistent and reliable power without the need for grid-scale energy storage, unlike
most renewable energy alternatives (Randolph and Saar, 2011). A geothermal heat pump can extract enough heat
from shallow rocks anywhere in the world to provide heat, but industrial applications need higher temperatures of
deep resources (Lund, 2007). The techniques have some shortcomings such as low heat extraction, precipitation and
dissolution of rock minerals, large power requirements for water circulation, and water scarcity in some regions
(Pruess, 2010). Brown (2000) proposed to operate EGS with CO2 instead of water as heat transmission fluid. He
pointed out that CO2 has attractive properties as an operating fluid for EGS. This process is further illuminated in
Fig. 8c.
Fig. 7 – CO2 storage (utilization or elimination stage) stage
2.3.2 CO2 elimination
Researchers are considering a range of options for CO2 exclusion, but mainly focus on underground geological
storage (Gunter et al., 2004; Hepple and Benson, 2005; Benson and Surles, 2006; Marini, 2007). Depleted oil or gas
reservoirs, deep saline formations, and unmineable coal seams are relatively well-known geological formations that
can provide safe storage of CO2. In any of the above sequestration scenarios, CO2 is trapped by impermeable rocks
known as cap rock. Moreover, in order to start a CCS project, one of the main priorities is to define and estimate the
site's CO2 storage capacity. Methods of estimating CO2 storage capacity have been extensively studied and
discussed (DOE, 2007; CSLF, 2008; Burruss et al., 2009; Brennan et al., 2010; Jin et al., 2012; IEA, 2013; Blondes
et al., 2013).
Other options of CO2 disposal include deep underground salt water formations as they are brine-saturated layers of
porous rock. Similarly, basaltic rocks have the potential to store large volumes of CO2 (Goldberg et al., 2008;
Kelemen and Matter; 2008; and Andreani et al., 2009). Basaltic rocks are composed of up to 25% calcium,
magnesium and iron and are also common, covering up to 10% of the Earth’s surface as well as significant areas of
the ocean floor. This technology is currently under investigation.
Ocean storage is likewise considered as an option for CO2 disposal. It could be done by injecting CO2 into the water
column, where CO2 is denser than water which delays its dissolution into the surrounding environment. However,
ocean storage and its ecological impacts are still under investigation.
According to the database of large-scale CCS projects 52% (23 project) captured CO2 is stored into geological strata
while 41% (18 project) captured CO2 is utilized in EOR as shown in Fig. 9.

(a) CO2-EOR project (b) ECBM project
(c)
Fig. 8 – CO2 utilization in oil and gas projects
Fig. 9 - Large-scale CO2 storage technology
3. Current CO2-EOR large-scale projects
The database of the large-scale CCS projects shows that there are only 6 CO2-EOR large-scale projects that obtain
their CO2 from power plants. The projects are briefly described below.
3.1 Boundary Dam carbon capture and storage project
Boundary Dam Power Station is the largest coal fired station owned by SaskPower, located near Estevan,
Saskatchewan, Canada. SaskPower operates eighteen electricity generating facilities that include three coal-fired
base load facilities, 6 natural gas-fired facilities, seven hydroelectric facilities and two wind power facilities. Despite

that, SaskPower suffered some start-up problems, the CO2 capture facility currently delivers CO2 through Cenovus
Energy via a separate pipeline of 66 km to Weyburn oil field for EOR purposes (Brown, et al., 2016). Boundary
Dam power station entered into operation in October 2014; it captures CO2 from a retrofitted coal-fired power
station. It was announced to capture one million tons of CO2 per year, but in its first year of operation the CO2
captured was around 400,000 tons, falling short of the announced design capacity of one million tons per year. The
project currently captures 2200 to 3000 tons per day (Brown, et al., 2016, D’Aprile, 2016). SaskPower keeps exact
figures private to the paid sponsors of the Weyburn-Midale Project (SaskPower, 2017).
Initial CO2 injection rates in the Weyburn field amounted to approximately 5,000 tons/day or 95 million scf/day (2.7
million m3/d); this would otherwise have been vented to the atmosphere from the Dakota Gasification facility.
Current CO2 injection by Cenovus at Weyburn is up to 6500 tons per day. Apache Canada is injecting approximately
1500 tons per day into the Midale field.
The impact of injecting CO2, as an EOR method, into Weyburn oil field is significant in terms of increased oil
production. CO2 injection currently accounts for 5,000 oil barrels of the 20,000 barrels per day total production at
Weyburn oil filed. Moreover, it is estimated that CO2 will directly lead to an increase in the recovery factor by 10%
(an additional 130 million oil barrels) of stock tank original oil in place and prolong the life of the field by 25 years
(Verdon, 2012).
3.2 Huaneng GreenGen IGCC project (Phase 3)
The third phase of the program involves construction and operation of a 400 MW IGCC power plant with associated
carbon capture facilities capable of capturing up to two million tons of CO2 per year. It is anticipated that carbon
capture at the 400 MW power plants may begin around the 2020 timeframe. Storage locations are presently under
evaluation and include EOR opportunities and geologic storage options.
3.3 Sinopec Shengli power plant CCS project
The Shengli oil field is the second largest oil field in China producing around 200 million barrels of annually. The
capture facility of its Power Plant CCS project is designed to use an amine-based absorption technology to capture
up to 80% or more of CO2 from a 200 MW flue gas slipstream of the 600 MW coal-fired generating unit. The CO2
capture facilities are expected to begin operation after 2020. A typical post-combustion CO2 capture process is
implemented for the project including flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and De-NOx units. After FGD and De-NOx,
CO2 is captured by an MEA-based chemical absorption process and high purity CO2 is produced. The produced CO2
is then compressed and delivered by pipelines to the Shengli oil field for EOR purposes.
3.4 Petra Nova carbon capture project
Petra Nova is the world's largest post-combustion CO2 capture system facility in operation which uses an advanced
amine-based absorption technology to capture at least 90% or 1.4 Million tons per year of CO2 from a 240 MW flue
gas slipstream of the 610 MW pulverized coal-fired generating unit. The captured CO2, pure up to 99% or more, is
transported by 82-mile long, 12-inch diameter underground pipeline to the West Ranch oil field and injected through
nine injection wells for EOR purposes.
3.5 Kemper County energy facility
This Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant is supplied by lignite coal and consists of two major
systems: lignite gasification including CO2 capture and combined-cycle power generation. The gasification systems
consist primarily of lignite handling, gasification and synthesis gas (syngas) processing and clean-up. A key element
of the gasification system is two commercial-scale gasifiers that are able to convert up to 4.5 million tons per year of
lignite to produce syngas. The facility also includes a carbon capture system using a physical solvent-process
sufficient to reduce CO2 emissions up to 65% by removing carbon from the syngas during the gasification process.
This is equivalent to the capture of around 3 million tons per year of CO2. It is then pumped from the plant through
61-mile pipeline to be injected in the Jackson Dome for EOR purposes. The facility is expected to be full operational
in mid-March 2017 (Mississippi Power, 2017).
3.6 Texas clean energy project (TCEP)
The TCEP is a poly-generation facility incorporating electricity generation, fertilizer manufacture and CO2 capture
of approximately 3.1 million tons per year. Feedstock for the plant is sub-bituminous coal and at full capacity, the

plant is expected to use approximately 1 million tons of coal per year. TCEP’s integrated gasification combined
cycle (IGCC) generating plant with carbon capture technology and its integrated fertilizer manufacturing plant are
able to convert the coal feedstock into a hydrogen-rich synthesis gas (syngas). The syngas is further processed and
'cleaned' by an acid gas removal (AGR) system that separates CO2 from the entire syngas stream. The AGR system
also captures sulphur-containing gases for conversion to a sulphuric acid product. Furthermore, after the separation
of CO2, the clean hydrogen-rich syngas is used to generate electricity from the gas combustion and steam turbines
and as a feedstock in fertilizer manufacture. Around one-half of this clean hydrogen-rich syngas is used to fuel the
combustion turbines, the other half would be used in the ammonia/urea complex. The separated or captured CO2
stream is partly used in ammonia/urea production with the majority going to EOR operations.
4. Summary
The global CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in November 2016 passed 403 ppm. In 2011, the top CO2 emissions
from fossil fuel combustion, cement manufacturing and gas flaring were 28% from China, 16% from the United
States, 10% from the European Union, 6% from India, 6% from the Russian Federation, 4% from Japan and 30%
from other countries. Additionally, more than 12 billion tons per year of CO2 emissions are released into the
atmosphere from fuel combustion of power plants. The electricity production from fossil fuels is predicted to
increase by about 30% by 2035. Nonetheless, according to IEA, coal is responsible for 44% of CO2 emissions;
whereas 36% is produced by oil and 20% from natural gas. Consequently, there must be genuine measures
undertaken to minimize CO2 emissions in order to reduce climate change. CO2 capture is one key to reducing risks
of climate change. At the same time, CO2 emissions should be captured and further utilized or alternatively safely
disposed. It has been identified that 44 large-scale integrated CCS projects are currently operational/developed
around the world at different life cycles. Out of the 44 projects, 15 large-scale integrated CCS projects have CO2
sources from power plants; whereas the remaining 29 projects are from different CO2 sources. Moreover, 23 out of
the 44 projects are CO2-EOR and only 6 of which are from power plants’ CO2 capture.
CCS technologies involve three stages: (1) Capture stage: the CO2 is removed or separated from power plants, or
from manufacturers such as steel and cement. However, three are there main technology options to capture CO2 in
power plants namely; post-combustion, pre-combustion, and oxy combustion. According to the large-scale CCS
database, the pre-combustion technology is the most mature process for CO2 capture. It has been identified that 23
pre-combustion large scale integrated CCS projects are currently presented in different life cycles. The second place
occupied by industrial separation technology with 11 projects. (2) Transport stage: Once CO2 is captured, it needs
to be transported to the facilities for its utilization (industrial or CO2-EOR projects) or disposed in a suitable storage
site. The transporting system of most of the large-scale integrated CCS projects is pipelining. Only two projects do
not require transporting captured CO2 since it is injected underground in place. (3) Utilization or safe storage stage:
several options are considered for CO2 utilization in oil and gas industry or as raw material in different industrial
processes. However, significant research and industrial experience in recent decades provide great confidence that
underground storage of CO2 is feasible and safe especially with EOR. CO2 is compressed and pumped to oil
reservoirs to recover a significant portion of oil that is left behind after exhaustion of primary and secondary oil
production systems. Furthermore, researchers are considering a range of options for CO2 exclusion. Depleted oil or
gas reservoirs, deep saline formations, and unmineable coal beds are relatively well-known geological formations
that can provide safe storage of CO2. Moreover, selling CO2 for EOR provides revenue to help offset costs of CO2
capture. The cost gap could be covered through power price premiums and such.
According to the database of the large-scale CCS projects, there are 23 projects that store captured CO2 into
geological strata. Other 18 projects utilize captured CO2 in EOR. Furthermore, the database shows that there are
only 6 CO2-EOR large-scale integrated projects that obtain their CO2 from power plants (Boundary Dam carbon
capture and storage project, Huaneng GreenGen IGCC project, Sinopec Shengli power plant CCS project, Petra
Nova carbon capture project, Kemper County energy facility and Texas clean energy project).
5. References
Andreani, M., Luquot, L., Gouze, P., Godard, M., Hoise, E. & Gibert, B. (2009). Experimental study of carbon
sequestration reactions controlled by the percolation of CO2-rich brine through peridotites. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 43(4), 1226-1231
Benson, S. M. & Surles, T. (2006). Carbon dioxide capture and storage: An overview with emphasis on capture and
storage in deep geological formations. Proc. IEEE 94(10), 1795-1805

Blomen E, Hendrils C, Neele F. (2009) Capture technologies: Improvements and promising developments. Energy
procedia; 1: 1550-12
Blondes, M.S., Brennan, S.T., Merrill, M.D., Buursink, M.L., Warwick, P.D., Cahan,S.M., Cook, T.A., Corum,
M.D., Craddock, W.H., DeVera, C.A., Drake, R.M., DrewII., L.J, Freeman, P.A., Lohr, C.D., Olea, R.A.,
Roberts-Ashby, T.L., Slucher, E.R.,Varela, B.A., (2013). U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013-1055
2013. National assessment of geologic carbon dioxide storage resources – methodology implementation
Boden, T.A., Marland, G., and Andres, R.J. (2015). National CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement
Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2011,
Brennan, S.T., Burruss, R.C., Merrill, M.D., Freeman, P.A., Ruppert, L.F., (2010). U.S. Geological Survey Report
Series, Report 2010-1127 2010. A probabilistic assessment methodology for the evaluation of geologic carbon
dioxide storage
Brown, D.W. (2000). A Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Energy Concept Utilizing Supercritical CO2 Instead of Water,
Proceedings, Twenty-Fifth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, pp. 233–238, Stanford University
Gunter, W. D., Bachu, S. & Benson, S. M. (2004). The role of hydrogeological and geochemical trapping in
sedimentary basins for secure geological storage for carbon dioxide. In: Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide:
Technology, S. Baines and R. H. Worden, eds., London, U.K. Geological Society, Special Pub. 233
Brown, K. et al., (2016) The history and development of the IEA GHG Weyburn-Midale CO2 Monitoring and
Storage Project in Saskatchewan, Canada (the world largest CO2 for EOR and CCS program), Petroleum,
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.petlm.2016.12.002
Buhre BJP, Elliott LK, Sheng CD, Gupta RP, Wall TF. (2005). Oxy-fuel combustion technology for coal-fired
power generation. Prog Energy Combust Sci; 31: 283–307.
Burruss, R.C., Brennan, S.T., Freeman, P.A., Merrill, M.D., Ruppert, L.F., Becker, M.F.,Herkelrath, W.N., Kharaka,
Y.K., Neuzil, C.E., Swanson, S.M., Cook, T.A., Klett,T.R., Nelson, P.H., Schenk, C.J., (2009) U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 2009-1035 2009. Development of a probabilistic assessment methodology for
evaluation of carbon dioxide storage.
Carbon Capture & Sequestration Technologies http://sequestration.mit.edu
Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF), (2008) Phase III Report. Comparison between methodologies
recommended for estimation of CO2 storage capacity in geological media.
D'Aprile, Aurora, (2016). Advances and Slowdowns in Carbon Capture and Storage Technology Development
(April 27, 2016). FEEM Working Paper No. 33.2016. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2771044
Defra,U.K.(2014) The 2014 Government Greenhouse Gas Conversion Factors for Company Reporting. London:
U.K. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
Department of Energy (DOE), 2007. Carbon Sequestration Technology Road map and Program Plan. National
Energy Technology Laboratory Office of Fossil Energy.
Elwell L C, Grant W S. (2006) Technology options for capturing CO2 – special reports. Power; 150: 60–5
Global Carbon Emissions, (2017) www.co2.earth/global-co2 -emissions
Goldberg DS, Takahashi T, Slagle AL. (2008). Carbon dioxide sequestration in deep-sea basalt. Proc. Nat. Acad.
Sci. 105(29); 9920-9925
Hepple, R. P. & Benson, S. M. (2005). Geologic storage of carbon dioxide as a climate change mitigation strategy:
performance requirements and the implications of surface seepage. Environ. Geol. 47, 576-585
IEA (International Energy Agency), (2013). Methods to Assess Geologic CO2 Storage Capacity: Status and Best
Practice. International Energy Agency Workshop Report
IEA, (2013). Technology Roadmap, Carbon capture and storage. 2013 edition
International Energy Agency, IEA (2012) CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion. Paris: Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development, 2012.
International Energy Agency, IEA, (2010) World energy outlook. OECD/IEA
IPCC (2000). Special report on emissions scenarios: a special report of working group III of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, , 92-9169-1135Cambridge University Press, New York
IPCC (2005). Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage. Available from Cambridge University Press, The
Edinburgh Building Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 2RU ENGLAND
Jin, M., Pickup, G., Mackay, E., Todd, A., Sohrabi, M., Monaghan, A., Naylor, M., (2012). Static and dynamic
estimates of CO2 storage capacity in two saline formations in the UK. SPE J. 17, 1108–1118.
Kelemen PB, Matter JM. (2008). In situ carbonation of peridotite for CO2 storage. PNAS; 105(45): 1795-17300.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/45/17295.full.pdf
Leung, Dennis Y.C., Caramanna, G. and Maroto-Valer, MM. (2014) An overview of current status of carbon
dioxide capture and storage technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 39 426-443]

Lund, John W. (2007), Characteristics, Development and utilization of geothermal resources, Geo-Heat Centre
Quarterly Bulletin, Klamath Falls, Oregon: Oregon Institute of Technology, 28 (2), pp. 1–9
Lv YX, Xu CQ, Yan GH, Guo DY, Xiao Q. (2012) A review on CO2 capture using membrane gas absorption
technology. Adv Mater Res: 616–618:1541–5.
Marini, L. (2007). Geological Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide: Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Reaction Path
Modeling. Vol. 11, Developments in Geochemistry. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 453 p.
Mississippi Power, (2017) http://mississippipowernews.com/2017/02/22/mississippi-power-issues-statement-
regarding-kemper-county-energy-facility-progress-and-schedule-2/
Monthly average atmospheric CO2 concentration) (www.co2.earth)
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), www.netl.doe.gov
Olajire Abass (2010). CO2 capture and separation technologies for end-of-pipe application – a review. Energy; 35:
2610 – 28.
Parsons, W. (2009) Strategic Analysis of the Global Status of Carbon Capture and Storage. Global CCS Institute
Pruess, K. (2010). Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) with CO2 as heat transmission fluid--A scheme for
combining recovery of renewable energy with geologic storage of CO2
Quéré, C Le et al, (2012). The global carbon budget 1959–2011. Earth System Science Data Discussions 5, no. 2,
1107-1157
Randolph, J., and Saar, M. (2011). Coupling carbon dioxide sequestration with geothermal energy capture in
naturally permeable, porous geologic formations: Implications for CO2 sequestration. Energy Procedia, 4, 2206-
2213
SaskPower, (2017) http://www.saskpower.com/our-power-future/carbon-capture-and-storage/carbon-storage-
research-centre
Verdon, J. P., (2012) Microseismic Monitoring and Geomechanical Modelling of CO2 Storage in Subsurface
Reservoirs, Springer Theses, Chapter 2  The Weyburn CO2 Injection Project, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-25388-
1_2, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
Yang H.Q., Xu Z, Gupta R, Slimane RB, Bland AE, Wright I. (2008) Progress in carbon dioxide separation and
capture: a review. J Environ Sci; 20: 14–27
Biography
Saber Kh. Elmabrouk received the Ph.D. degree in Petroleum Engineering from the prestigious University of
Regina, Canada. Dr. Saber is currently an assistant professor at the University of Tripoli, Petroleum Engineering
Department, Tripoli, Libya. He is, in addition, an adjunct faculty at the Engineering Project Management
Department, School of Applied Science and Engineering, The Libyan Academy, Tripoli, Libya. His research
interests include reservoir management, phase behavior, artificial intelligence techniques, modeling, optimization,
uncertainty, and risk management. His teaching career spans over 20 years. His current research interests include
CO2 capture and storage, risk assessment, and reservoir management.
Husen E. Bader is a postgraduate student in Engineering Project Management at the School of Applied Science and
Engineering, The Libyan Academy. He received a Bachelor degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering from
Elthady Technical University, Elbriga, Libya. Mr. Bader was employed by GECOL as an instrument and control
engineer from 2004 to 2005. From 2006 to 2015 he worked as a design review engineer for ACESCo as he handled
major responsibilities in electrical power plants and desalination Projects.
Walid Mohamed Mahmud is currently an Assistant Professor at the University of Tripoli, Libya. He has industry
experience as a Business Development Manager and Senior Reservoir engineer at Heinemann Oil GmbH in Austria
and Libya. He also gained teaching experience as a lecturer and assistant professor at the Department of Petroleum
Engineering, the University of Tripoli. His main general teaching and research interests are fluid flow in porous
media, network modeling, two and three-phase relative permeability and reservoir characterization and management.
His current research interests include CO2 capture and storage, CO2-EOR, two and three-phase flow, two and three
phase relative permeability and numerical network models.

An Overview of Power Plant CCS and CO2-EOR Projects

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Similar to An Overview of Power Plant CCS and CO2-EOR Projects (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

An Overview of Power Plant CCS and CO2-EOR Projects