Energy Reviews 2 (2023) 100016

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reviews
journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/energy-reviews

Advances in subsea carbon dioxide utilization and storage

Jiashun Luo a, b, Yachen Xie a, c, *, Michael Z. Hou a, **, Ying Xiong b, d, Xunning Wu a, b,
Christian Truitt Lüddeke a, Liangchao Huang a, e
a
Institute of Subsurface Energy Systems, Clausthal University of Technology, 38678, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany
b
State Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology and Exploitation, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu, 610500, China
c
State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Science, Wuhan, 430071, China
d
School of Earth & Space Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China
e
Sino-German Research Institute of Carbon Neutralization and Green Development, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450001, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Decisive steps in innovation and competitiveness are needed to meet global greenhouse gas emissions and climate
Subsea goals. As an effective method for reducing carbon emissions, carbon dioxide (CO2) storage and utilization on the
CO2 storage and utilization seabed enable the transport of captured CO2 via pipelines or ships to permanent storage sites, such as saline
CO2 hydrate
aquifers or depleted oil and gas reservoirs in subsea sediments, or by injecting CO2 for the replacement and
Economic evaluation
Technical challenges
displacement of subsea resources (oil, gas, gas hydrates, etc.). Subsea CO2 utilization and storage (SCUS) involves
several research hotspots worldwide, including international and local laws and regulations, security, economics,
environmental impact, and public acceptance. Its current research and engineering progress are also of great
interest. In addition, the vigorous implementation of the energy transition and the rapid development of
renewable energy sources globally have resulted in significant advancements in SCUS. This paper provides an
overview of carbon dioxide storage and utilization mechanism in the seabed, analyzes key technical and economic
issues, and summarizes existing research on safety risks, monitoring technologies, and investment and operating
cost control to identify remaining knowledge gaps. This is followed by an overview of global engineering practice
to update on current progress. Finally, combined with the actualities of China, the potential and trend of China's
seabed carbon storage and utilization are summarized. This review demonstrates the enormous development
prospects for seabed carbon storage and utilization, although some risks remain including leakage and contam-
ination, with which innovation in monitoring technologies and the self-sealing effect of gas hydrate, safe subsea
utilization and storage of CO2 can be achieved. Additionally, considering the development of renewable energy
and the demand for large-scale energy storage, hydrogen, ammonia, or other energy carriers and carbon dioxide
storage and utilization can be coupled into an industrial chain to form an economically competitive carbon
geological storage mode.

1. Introduction
As the dominant greenhouse gas, CO2 is emitted from industrial
manufacturing, agriculture, the combustion of fossil fuels for trans-
portation and electrical generation, and many other practices [1]. Ac-
cording to the latest measurements, the concentration of atmospheric
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has currently reached 420 ppm, with
an increase of nearly 50% compared to pre-industrial levels (ca. 280 ppm
in 1700s) [2]. Along with other greenhouse gases, CO2 inhibits the heat
radiated from the Earth's surface, causing atmospheric temperatures to
rise and triggering a cascade of climatic effects, including extreme heat
and drought, as well as heavy rainfall, flooding, tropical storm, etc [3,4].
In addition, greenhouse gases also significantly impact the ocean sys-
tems, apart from increasing water temperatures, accelerating the rise of
sea levels, aggravating ocean acidification, and posing survival chal-
lenges for marine life [5,6]. In order to deal with these challenging
threats, human society worldwide is actively responding and taking
relevant measures. As a vital positive result and guideline for action, the
Paris Agreement was reached and proposed to control the temperature
increase within 1.5–2
C by reducing carbon emissions and achieving

* Corresponding author. Institute of Subsurface Energy Systems, Clausthal University of Technology, 38678, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yx91@tu-clausthal.de (Y. Xie), hou@tu-clausthal.de (M.Z. Hou).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enrev.2023.100016
Received 9 February 2023; Received in revised form 3 March 2023; Accepted 4 March 2023
2772-9702/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Shenzhen City Clean Energy Research Institute, Shenzhen University. This is an open access
article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
J. Luo et al.
carbon neutrality [7]. To date, more than 135 countries worldwide have
committed to carbon neutrality. Most European and American nations
have established the goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050, or even
earlier (e.g., Germany by 2045), and account for over 90% of tracked
countries mentioned above [8]. China, the world's largest emitter of CO2
with the largest population, has likewise put forward the goals of carbon
peaking by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060 [9,10]. In order to fulfill
the commitments, carbon reduction techniques such as carbon capture,
utilization, and carbon storage (CCUS) have received significant interest
globally. CCUS is regarded as a promising option to stabilize or even
reduce the atmospheric concentration of anthropogenic CO2. Depending
on its location, carbon storage can be categorized as either onshore
storage or offshore storage (see Fig. 1). Among them, terrestrial geologic
storage include injection into deep saline aquifers, oil and gas fields, and
deep coal seams. While offshore carbon sequestration enables carbon
dioxide to be stored directly on the subsea floor in liquid or hydrate form,
in addition to being stored in geological structures below the seafloor
(saline aquifers, depleted oil and gas reservoirs, etc.). Despite onshore
basins being essential and indispensable, offshore fields provide consid-
erable capacity and operational benefits. In addition, offshore fields
should be of specific value considering their locations are away from
population centers, resulting in lower societal risks and fewer drinking
water resources protection issues [11,12]. Moreover, due to the charac-
teristics of deep-sea environment (e.g., high pressure and low tempera-
ture), the generation of liquid CO2 and CO2 hydrate with higher density
and gravity stability than seawater can also achieve effective and reliable
CO2 storage [13,14]. Furthermore, in terms of CO2 offshore utilization, it
can also play an essential role in the development of subsea resources,
such as offshore oil and gas reservoirs. In parallel to displacing conven-
tional hydrocarbon resources, CO2 is able to promote the exploitation of
submarine gas hydrates as well, which is an attractive method of CO2
utilization [15,16].
In fact, the disposal mechanisms and potential evaluation inside the
seabed sedimentary layer, as well as the practical project of ocean carbon
sequestration and utilization, has been illustrated and demonstrated by
multiple investigations and projects from the 1990s. In terms of the CO2
disposal mechanisms, self-trapping of CO2-hydrate was proposed by
Koide et al. in addition to natural traps (hydrocarbon reservoirs, aquifer)
and chemical traps [17,18]. Subsequently, the significance of CO2 hy-
drates in the geological storage and utilization of CO2 on the seabed is
emphasized. Injected CO2 would partially migrate upward from deep
Fig. 1. Technical process of CCUS (BECCS: Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, DACCS: Direct air carbon capture and storage).
2
Energy Reviews 2 (2023) 100016
reservoirs and form a CO2 hydrate cap between 200 and 400 m roughly
below the water surface, which provides the sealing ability, was
demonstrated in cool sedimentary basins [17]. In comparison, even the
shallow sub-seabed (<200–300 m) is more competitive in terms of
technical and economic feasibility and safety compared to inland aquifer
storage [18,19]. The world's first industrial offshore CO2 injection project
started from 1996 in Norway, with the objective of fulfilling the emission
requirement and avoiding pollution of high CO2 content (ca. 9%) pro-
duced gas from the Sleipner Vest gas field. CO2 was captured and injected
into the saline aquifer near the production platform continuously with
more than 20 Mt CO2 injected [20]. Comparatively, since no complicated
pressure and temperature management is involved and the cap layer is
present, more engineering practices inject CO2 into depleted hydrocar-
bon reservoirs with caprocks to store CO2 in a supercritical state. For
instance, the Acorn CCS site, approximately 100 km northeast of the
Aberdeenshire coast, Scotland, covering multiple depleted hydrocarbon
fields, intends to employ the Goldeneye gas field as its first storage target
[21]. Similarly, the CCS projects have be carried out in depleted gas and
oil reservoirs in the Netherlands and Denmark respectively, as described
in more detail later. It is also worth noting that significant progress has
been made in the sequestration of CO2 in mineralization onshore and
offshore. In addition, the application of carbon dioxide to the exploita-
tion of seabed resources is also worthy of attention.
This paper reviews the subsea storage mechanisms of CO2 and sum-
marizes the research results on SCUS, including the progress of applica-
tions in various areas. Subsequently, the related key issues including the
policy, security, and environment impact, as well as economic will be
analyzed and identified. In addition, the implementation progress and
engineering projects in various countries will be summarized. Finally, the
potential and development pathway for China will be proposed,
considering China's actual situation and carbon neutrality targets.
2. SCUS mechanism
The mechanisms of CO2 storage in terrestrial geologic formation
include structural trapping, residual trapping, solubility trapping, and
mineral trapping [22,23]. Structural traps refer to the accumulation of
carbon dioxide in deep saline formations and depleted oil and gas res-
ervoirs (Fig. 2a). The injected CO2 usually moves upward, however, due
to the existence of caprocks, CO2 leakage can be effectively avoided. As a
physical trapping of CO2 in the pores, structural trapping is the
J. Luo et al.
Fig. 2. (a) Structural trapping; (b) Residual trapping (Reproduced under the terms of the license CC BY 4.0. [24,25], Copyright 2019, 2022, Spring, MDPI); (c)
Solubility trapping; (d) Mineral trapping.
mechanism that traps the greatest amount of CO2. Residual trapping
involves the transport of carbon dioxide and water. As a response of the
CO2 injection, the water saturation of the pores will decline while the
CO2 saturation rises, leading the carbon dioxide to be trapped in the pore
and pore throat space between the rock grains (Fig. 2b). In solubility
trapping, a portion of the injected CO2 will dissolve into the brine water
leading to solubility trapping, which depends on the water salinity,
reservoir temperature and pressure (Fig. 2c). It should be pointed out that
since the buoyancy is caused by density contrast, CO2 could migrate
upward in the terrestrial storage reservoirs consequently, hence an
impermeable sealing layer is indispensable, such as cap rock. Mineral
trapping is a geochemical reaction process, in which dissolved CO2 ini-
tiates reactions with the formation rock minerals leading to the formation
of carbonate minerals (Fig. 2d).
2.1. CO2 storage in different form
The physical properties of carbon dioxide are significantly affected by
pressure and temperature. As shown in Fig. 3a, the critical point of car-
bon dioxide is 31.1
C and 7.4 MPa, and the triple point is at a temper-
ature of -56.6
C and a pressure of 0.51 MPa [26]. Below the sea surface,
the water temperature generally decreases with the increase of the depth
(ca. 1–2
C for every 1000 m), the water temperature at the depth of 1000
Fig. 3. (a) CO2 phase diagram (Reproduced under the terms of the license CC BY-NC-ND, Copyright 2017, Goldthorpe); (b) Different form of injected CO2 (DAC: direct
air capture).
3
Energy Reviews 2 (2023) 100016
m is about 4–5
C, and the water temperature at 2000 m is 2–3
C. Deeper
than 3000 m, it is 1 to 2
C. Studies demonstrated that at 2
C, seawater
and liquid CO2 have the same density at 2715 m depth [27]. Besides, at a
depth of 6500 m and a temperature of 2
C, the density of liquid CO2 is 7%
greater than that of seawater, with values of 1.13 g/cm3 and 1.06 g/cm3,
respectively [27]. Moreover, CO2 hydrate trends to form under broad
areas of ocean floor deeper than about 300 m where the temperature of
sediments is lower than about 5
. Considering the CO2 hydrate's solid
structure, it can block the contact of liquid CO2 with seawater, thus
achieving a capping effect. Therefore, CO2 may be enriched in liquid or
solid form on the seafloor. Oppositely, in conventional terrestrial
geological storage, as the depth increases, the formation temperature will
gradually increase due to the geothermal gradient. As a result, CO2 exists
in the supercritical state in depleted oil and gas reservoirs and deep saline
aquifers.
2.1.1. Supercritical CO2
Under deep geologic structures, CO2 can be stored as a supercritical
fluid at specific temperature and pressure in excess of its critical point
(Fig. 3b) [28]. Supercritical CO2 exhibits characteristics of both a gas and
a liquid. Specifically, it displays a high density similar to a liquid and a
low viscosity characteristic of a gas [29]. One of the key benefits of
storing CO2 in this supercritical state is the reduction in storage volume
J. Luo et al.
compared to storing gaseous CO2 [30]. Generally, supercritical CO2 with
a density of around 600 kg/m3 may be injected and stored in deep
sedimentary formations [31], additionally, supercritical CO2 is employed
for oil and gas development activities benefited from phase capacity.
2.1.2. Liquid CO2
In contrast to conventional terrestrial reservoirs, in which the tem-
perature of the formation rises with depth, the temperature of the
seawater actually falls with depth. Moreover, as the depth of seawater
increases, the temperature and pressure change dramatically, creating an
environment dissimilar to that of sedimentary layers. In shallow (less
than 500 m) seawater, carbon dioxide is gaseous and rises due to buoy-
ancy (lower density than seawater). The liquid state of CO2 would exist
between 500 m and 2700 m in the water column, however, it would still
be lighter than seawater and will therefore rise in the water column.
Liquid CO2 becomes denser than seawater and settles slowly to the ocean
floor at depths over 3000 m due to water column compression [32,33].
As a denser liquid (or as a hydrate at depths below 400 m), it settles
despite the fact that dissolution occurs. Once the CO2 drops to and lands
on the seabed, it generates a pool at the ocean's bottom and is trapped in
situ [34]. Eventually a lake of carbon dioxide is formed (Fig. 3b). As a
result, the gas intentionally injected into the deep sea can be trapped in a
specific location in an unusual phase state, with the exception of those
that are allowed to diffuse.
2.1.3. CO2 hydrate
CO2 hydrate, with a formula of CO2⋅6H2O, is generated by CO2 and
water interacting at high pressures and low temperatures. As shown in
Fig. 3a, CO2 crystals form in a relatively narrow range of pressure and
temperature, and it has extremely low permeability. Therefore, in 1995,
the storage of CO2 hydrates in sedimentary layers was proposed by Koide
[17]. In this method, the gaseous carbon dioxide in the deep area will
migrate and leak upward due to buoyancy. When it encounters water
with a lower temperature after breaking through the caprock, it can mix
with water and generate CO2 hydrate under high-pressure conditions
[35]. Consequently, the CO2 hydrate can play the role of the second
capping layer (see Fig. 4). On the other hand, hundreds of meters below
the sea surface (more than 300 m), the sediments consist of alternating
mud-sand-mud layers. After carbon dioxide gas is injected into such
low-temperature and high-pressure seabed sediments, carbon dioxide
will migrate into the sand layer and gradually form hydrate. Hence, CO2
gas can be safely stored in sand deposits as gas hydrates.
2.1.4. Mineral carbonation
Mineral carbonation is a technology that injects captured CO2 into
underground reactive minerals or rocks (e.g., mafic or ultramafic li-
thologies), for mineralization into stable carbonate minerals such as
calcite (CaCO3), magnesite (MgCO3), and siderite (FeCO3) in-situ or ex-
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of CO2 hydrate cap layer (Adapted with permission
[36], Copyright 2023, Elsevier).
4
Energy Reviews 2 (2023) 100016
situ [37,38]. This process serves as a potentially attractive storage
technology for carbon dioxide's permanent and safe storage. In fact, this
reaction also exists in nature, namely silicate weathering, which occurs
on geological time scales. However, artificial mineral storage can
significantly shorten the time required for carbon fixation and consume
atmospheric carbon dioxide since the solubility trapping occurs imme-
diately after the injection [39]. Within two years of injection at 20–50
C,
the vast majority of the carbon is trapped as carbonate minerals [40,41].
In addition, the process of dissolving carbon dioxide into water may
occur either before or simultaneously with its injection. Since
CO2-charged water is denser than water without CO2, thus, it does not
tend to migrate upward, and cap rock is unnecessary accordingly. The
current atmospheric carbon mass is estimated to be approximately 800
Gt. Conversely, an abundant amount of carbon in the form of carbonate
rocks, such as marble and limestone, is present in the Earth's crust,
totaling 39 million Gt, which suggests that underground rock formations
has the potential to act as a substantial carbon sink [42,43]. In the process
of in-situ mineralization, CO2 will mix with water to form acidic water
with a pH value of around 3–5 before reaching the formation [44,45].
The acidic solution will promote the dissolution of silicate minerals. At
the temperature of the formation, protons will neutralize the acidic
gas-charged water and promote the precipitation of carbonate minerals
as the pH of the water increases. In addition, cations can form carbonate
minerals with dissolved CO2. Typically, calcium ions combine with dis-
solved CO2 to form calcite (CaCO3), dissolved magnesium reacts with
CO2 to form carbonates magnesite (MgCO3) and dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2)
[45]. Furthermore, siderite (FeCO3) can be observed in modern sedi-
mentary and basaltic rocks. Besides, some less stable hydromagnesite
(Mg5(CO3)4(OH)2⋅4H2O), dypingite (Mg5(CO3)4(OH)2⋅5H2O) and nes-
quehonite (MgCO3⋅3H2O) minerals also form in the formation [46].
2.2. CO2 utilization
2.2.1. CO2 enhanced oil/gas recovery
The application of CO2 as an injectant to enhance oil recovery is a
greenhouse gas carbon utilization method that enables partial geological
storage of CO2 while reducing the operating costs of CCUS. As a result,
the oil and gas industry, particularly in the development of conventional
and unconventional oil reservoirs, is increasingly interested in this
technology [47–49]. The primary displacement mechanisms of CO2
enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) include reducing oil viscosity, density,
and interfacial tensions, swelling oil, vaporizing and extracting light
components, and improving permeability due to the acidification effect
as well as dissolved gas drive [50–52]. Moreover, diffusion is a significant
factor in CO2-EOR in tight or shale oil reservoirs as well, where artificial
fractures are generated through hydraulic fracturing at the beginning of
development. According to the miscibility of carbon dioxide and crude
oil (usually depends on fluid properties and reservoir's temperature and
pressure), CO2-EOR can be divided into miscible flooding and immiscible
flooding. Basically, the injected CO2 interacts with oil in the rock matrix
and fractures to activate and displace more crude oil to the production
wells according to the mechanism mentioned above [53]. Notably, car-
bon dioxide injection is often employed for tertiary oil recovery (after
natural energy extraction and water injection) with a long history
considering the favorable economics ($10 to $60/ton revenue) [54].
Gas reservoirs which rely on natural energy depletion usually have
limited recovery [55]. Gas injection technology has been broadly utilized
in order to further fill the sufficient pore space. CO2 enhanced gas re-
covery (CO2-EGR) is a CCUS technology that increases gas recovery by
injecting CO2 to re-pressurize depleting or depleted gas reservoirs,
accompanied by lowering the dew point pressure of reservoir fluids in
wet gas reservoirs thereby performing a gas displacement effect. Besides,
the carbon dioxide separated from the produced gas can be injected back
into the reservoir, enabling the recycling of CO2 [56]. In addition, they
allow the long-term sequestration of carbon dioxide within a reservoir
sealed by impermeable cap rocks. As described in various studies, CO2
J. Luo et al. Energy Reviews 2 (2023) 100016

injection can contribute in an incremental recovery of up to 11% [57,58]. However, it should be acknowledged that as a promising technology, it
Remarkably, due to the high primary recovery in gas reservoirs (>60%), has yet to become a business model of sustainable profitability. Unlike
which is nearly double compared to oil reservoirs, depleted gas reservoirs the leakage of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, CO2 leakages into the
demonstrated a higher capacity to store CO2 than depleted oil reservoirs sea could acidify the water and affect aquatic organisms. Therefore, the
[59]. environmental impact is a crucial concern for utilizing and storing carbon
dioxide offshore. Moreover, some criteria and key technical issues in the
2.2.2. CO2 displacement of natural gas hydrate process need to be formulated and eliminated, all of which involve the
Natural gas hydrate (NGH) is a polyhedral cage crystal composed of legal framework and feasibility of offshore CCUS projects. This review
water and gas molecules (methane, ethane, etc.). Natural gas hydrates has extensively researched the policy and legal framework, environ-
are widely distributed in permafrost and deep-water areas (>500 m), mental impact and security risk, and economics issues, as shown in
considering the formation requires high pressure and low temperature Table 1.
[60,61]. NGH is a cleaner energy source with great potential due to the
benefits of abundant deposits and a high energy density. CO2 replacing
3.1. Policy and regulatory frameworks
NGH method was first proposed by Ebinuma in 1993 [62] which takes
advantage of the fact that CH4 hydrates and CO2 hydrates have distinc-
Driven by the climate targets for 2030 and 2050, a number of
tive phase equilibrium conditions. The replacement process involves a
important policies at the international and European Union (EU) level
complicated process of physical phase behaviors and injected gas mole-
have been formulated since 2012. The global policy and regulatory
cules and hydrate molecules that need to reach an equilibrium state to
framework has been evolving, particularly in Europe, which carried out
form a mixture of multiphase and multicomponent phases, which is
offshore carbon dioxide storage early, approved the EU Directive 2009/
necessary for the process to be successful and to allow the injection of
31/EC on the geological storage of carbon dioxide in 2009, and this
CO2 to displace the CH4 and then stay trapped as hydrates. However,
directive has already been transposed into national legislation in all EU
compared with conventional exploitation methods (heat injection,
member states, Norway and the UK. Significant progress was made in
depressurization, chemical inhibitor injection, or combined exploita-
2019 with a provision allowing for the geological storage of CO2 in sub-
tion), the CO2 replacement method is considered to be more secure and
seabed geological formations being amended for The London Protocol, a
stable. The main advantage of this method is that it allows the storage of
treaty that governs the disposal of waste at sea. It means that the
CO2 in seabed sediments while maintaining the cementation in the
amendment can be implemented by countries that have ratified the
sediment pores with hydrate that helps to prevent or reduce the weak-
protocol and cross-border transport of CO2 for geological storage in sub-
ening of the reservoir cementation caused by the dissociation of hydrate
seabed geological formations is now permissible. The EU CCS Directive,
and maintain the relative stability of the reservoir. Additionally, this
adopted in 2009, lays out the framework for the deployment of CCS in the
method is also beneficial to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and to
EU. It requires EU member states to establish a permitting process for CCS
store them permanently. Fig. 5 depicts two pathways for CH4–CO2
projects, and to put in place monitoring, reporting, and verification re-
replacement as well as certain experimental results [36]. CO2 molecules
quirements to ensure that stored CO2 remains permanently isolated from
could serve as a direct replacement for CH4 molecules in part large cages.
the atmosphere. As of June 2021, 19 European countries have laws and
On the other hand, CH4–CO2 mixed hydrates might be generated based
regulations in place to permit the geological storage of CO2 in accordance
on CO2, CH4 molecules, and water. Furthermore, due to its density and
with the EU CCS Directive. In the United States, unlike onshore storage
other factors, a portion of the CO2 rises and forms a cap layer. This
space, which is held by hundreds of owners, one entity (the US Bureau of
eventually creates a trap structure, providing a secure method for
Ocean Energy Management, BOEM) is primarily responsible for the
exploiting hydrates and ensuring stable storage of CO2.
leasing, licensing, and regulation of U.S. federal waters on the Outer
Continental Shelf. The BOEM is in process of creating a comprehensive
3. Research status and trends of SCUS
framework for establishing leases and oversight of offshore CCS facilities,
this is done to facilitate the development and deployment of CCS and
Offshore CO2 utilization and storage have received an explosion of
encouraging the development of new technologies, including those that
attention from commerce and related research institutes worldwide.
enable subsea injection of CO2. Currently, BOEM is transforming from

Fig. 5. (a) CH4–CO2 replacement mechanisms; (b) CH4–CO2 replacement experiment results (Adapted with permission [36], Copyright 2023, Elsevier).

5
J. Luo et al. Energy Reviews 2 (2023) 100016

Table 1
Summary of research on some key issues related to seabed CO2 utilization and storage.
Categories Key issues Methodology Remarks Source

Policy and regulatory Policy
framework Legal issues
Legal issues
CCS regulation
Regulations for marine monitoring
Environmental impact Containment risk management
and security risk
Sealing ability and caprock property
Well leakage
Monitoring
Remote geophysical monitoring
Monitoring, leakage and seismic
activity
Monitoring
Environmental CCS monitoring
Ecosystem
CO2-acidified seawater
Effects on marine organisms
Mobility of metals from acidification
Effects of CO2-induced acidification
on amphipod
Metal mobility bioaccumulation
Effects of acidification and
biological response consider
dissolved metals
Impact on megafauna species
Economic evaluation Carbon capture cost
CO2 pipeline transport
CO2 ship transport
CO2 storage
[]
Bow-tie risk assessment
methodology
Wireline logs
Numerical simulations and
Sleipner CO2 release
experiment
Pressure-monitoring method
Downhole gravimetric and
seismic monitoring
Seismic activity and pressure
& temperature monitoring
experiment study of sub-
seafloor CO2 release
CO2 leak experiment at 120 m
water depth
pH monitoring
Experiment
Experiment and numerical
simulation
Column leaching tests
Laboratory experiments
In situ experiments in different
pCO2/pH regimes.
Laboratory-scale experiments
Exposure experiments
Exposure experiments
CO2 leakage simulation
A sub-seabed CO2 release
Set up model for optimization
Developed an analytical buy-
down mode
Literature review
Built a flow mode
Cost calculation and
evaluation
Analyzed different
transportation scenarios
Analysis and calculation
Economic model
Statistics and analysis
Economic model
Multi-criteria analysis
Technical and costs evaluate
Offshore storage cost
Saline storage cost
Storage costs of different
reservoir
European Climate Law and National Energy and Climate Plans [63]
Offshore cross-border CO2 transport is allowed [64,65]
Offshore CCS needs a legal framework [66]
Lack of regulation created a lot of uncertainty for CCS project [67]
Define the minimal maritime monitoring requirements. [68]
The risk of containment breach is practically very low in a depleted [69]
gas field, UK North Sea
Drake Formation shale might act as an effective top seal [70,71]
CO2 leaks from a single well are deemed minor in terms of storage [72]
performance.
Pressure-monitoring technique can be widely applicable in onshore [73]
and offshore CO2 storage sites.
CO2 stored safely in gas reservoirs [20]
No CO2 leak detected, even with a 6.6-magnitude earthquake [74]
Sub-seafloor CO2 leakage can be reliably detected [75]
The experiment demonstrates that existing technologies and [76]
techniques can detect, attribute and quantify any escape of CO2 from
subseabed reservoirs.
pH changes are so small as to be undetectable [77]
The capacity of the most of leak detection and quantification [78]
approaches beyond the present legal requirements.
Long-term leakage along several wells might have a negative impact [72]
on the local marine ecosystem.
Reduction of pH value up to 0.9 [79]
A severe decrease of seawater pH would cause high mortality in [80]
marine organisms
CO2 leaks and ocean acidification affect species distributions [81]
Mobilization of the metals Al, Fe, Zn, Co, Pb, and Cu increases with [82]
acidification
CO2-related acidification would lead to lethal effects on amphipods [83]
(e.g. ampelisca brevicornis) as well as the mobility of metals which
increases sediment toxicity.
Seawater acidification caused by CO2 leakage would enhance metal [84]
mobilization, negatively impacting biota (e.g. polychaete Hediste
diversicolor).
Reduced pH and the presence of pollutants (mainly Zn, Co, and As) [85]
impaired egg fertilization and declined larval developmental success
of Paracentrotus lividus.
Impacts on natural macrofaunal communities could occur with even [86]
a little CO2 leak.
No abnormal behaviors occurs [87]
DAC technoligies have the potential to operate below 200$/t. [88]
Promote DAC cost towards $100 per ton [89]
Reviewed BECCS, afforestation and reforestation, DACCS, enhanced [90]
weathering, ocean fertilisation, biochar, and soil carbon
sequestration cost.
Summarized the costs of various carbon capture [91]
Established technical standards for carbon dioxide pipeline [92]
transportation
Evaluated the CO2 transport cost and CO2 conditioning [93]
Suggested that feasible transportation alternatives are pipelines [94]
Shuttle-type shipping and offshore CO2 injection from ship to [95]
well(s) being researched for technical and economic viability.
Investigated how to minimize the overall cost of CO2 transport [96]
Compared the investment cost of shipping and pipeline [97]
transportation
Described and investigated onshore pipeline transport, offshore [98]
pipeline transport, and ship transport
Concluded that transport costs ranged from 24 to 32 €/tCO2 [99]
depending on the choice and that ship transport is cheaper than
offshore pipeline transfer over 350 km.
Shipping may be utilized to reduce initial investment in CCS chains. [100]
Higher yearly capacity and volume favor pipeline transport [101,
102]
4–20 USD/tCO2 [103]
7–13 USD/tCO2 [104]
6–13 USD/tCO2 based on the reservoir qualities [105]

6
J. Luo et al.
only issuing leases for projects involving subsea injection of CO2 from
coal-fired power plants to a comprehensive framework for establishing
leases and oversight of offshore CCS facilities. In 2007, the Japanese
government did issue regulations to establish a licensing system for the
seabed storage of CO2 in order to fulfill Japan's international obligations
under the London Protocol. The Japanese regulations established a
licensing system for seabed CO2 storage, which was to be implemented
by the Ministry of the Environment, and the Ministry of Economy, Trade,
and Industry. This system requires applicants to submit detailed infor-
mation about their proposed CO2 storage project and to pass a thorough
environmental impact assessment process before receiving a license. The
regulations also established a system for monitoring and evaluating the
long-term effects of CO2 storage on the seabed, to ensure that it is safe
and environmentally sound. In Australia, the Commonwealth govern-
ment of Australia regulates CCS activities in the Commonwealth marine
area, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the states, under the Offshore
Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. This act, also known as
the Offshore Act, sets out the framework for the exploration, develop-
ment, and production of offshore petroleum resources, as well as the
storage of greenhouse gases in deep geological formations. The states, on
the other hand, regulate CCS activities within their respective jurisdic-
tions, both onshore and within their three-mile offshore limit. This in-
cludes areas such as permitting, environmental assessments, and
monitoring.
3.2. Security and environmental impact
Offshore and onshore CCUS storage options share certain common-
alities in development, including common technical challenges related to
CO2 capacity assessment, injection strategies, and the usage of similar
operational infrastructures such as wells, pipelines, and monitoring
[106]. In addition, CO2 utilization and storage require suitable geological
conditions, including sufficient porosity, permeability, and thickness of
the injection zone, as well as suitable sealing layers. It is widely under-
stood that injected CO2 has a lower viscosity and density than oil, water,
or other formation fluids, and is more buoyant, causing it to rise. How-
ever, CO2 under high pressure also follows paths of least resistance, such
as fractures and areas with higher permeability and porosity. These un-
derground pathways can guide CO2 in any direction. As CO2 flows, it can
be held in rock pores by capillary forces, stopped by other trapping
mechanisms, or continue to rise until it reaches a barrier, known as
caprock, which prevents it from escaping into higher geological layers or
the surface. Due to the uncertainties about the pathways, CO2 and other
fluids will contribute to the uncertainty of risk assessments. Furthermore,
considering acidification of seawater, contamination of subsurface nat-
ural resources, as well as damage to ecosystems, the security of offshore
carbon dioxide utilization and storage deserves special attention. In
general, the three categories of possible risk occurrences that raise the
most concern are: leakage, induced seismicity, and environmental
impact.
As shown in Fig. 6a, there is a greater chance of CO2 leakage from the
storage sites on the initial injection, and this decreases with each suc-
cessive injection. This is mostly due to geological complexity as well as an
absence of sufficient data. Consequently, a comprehensive geological
assessment and risk management system are crucial and necessary. The
International Energy Agency (IEA) has proposed a risk assessment,
management, and communication framework for CO2 sequestration
projects, as shown in Fig. 6b. According to this framework, the risks of
CO2 storage projects can be effectively reduced. This is followed by
planning, strategy, and monitoring methods to improve the safety of the
entire process.
3.2.1. CO2 leakage
A lot of research has been conducted in an attempt to create various
security assessments and guidelines for offshore CO2 storage site evalu-
ations. Basically, IPCC estimates that 70% of stored CO2 will remain in
7
Energy Reviews 2 (2023) 100016
the subsurface after 10,000 years, with an average leakage rate of
0.003% or 30 ppm. As for the offshore carbon storage, the related
practices in the North Sea was launched early and has contributed
significantly to research results on security assessment and monitoring.
Tucker et al. [69] employed the candidate CO2 storage site in Goldeneye
to perform the containment risk assessment. Based on the bow-tie risk
assessment technique, which is widely used for the assessment of facility
risks and is an integral part of the process used to demonstrate that CO2
leakage risks from the UK's offshore depleted gas field are relatively low.
Rahman et al. [70] assessed the tightness of the Lower Jurassic Drake
Formation shales and their feasibility as cap rocks for CO2 storage site
Aurora (the Longship/Northern Lights CCS project), located in the Horda
Platform area, offshore Norway. Results from pre-stack seismic-inverted
properties and post-stack seismic attributes combined with the wireline
log-based analysis demonstrated that the Drake Formation shale is suf-
ficiently sealed to store CO2 safely. Vielst€adte et al. [72] carried out a
field experiment in the North Sea to simulate the leaking of CO2 from
abandoned wells. Within 2 m above the seafloor, CO2 gas bubbles are
entirely dissolved at the experimental leakage rate (31 t/a). Therefore,
CO2 is not released into the atmosphere but rather is trapped in the North
Sea's lower water column. However, in consideration of the threats posed
by long-term leakage, it is necessary that further studies be conducted on
well integrity. Similarly, studies on the safety of offshore CO2 storage are
also performed in the Gulf of Mexico. The analysis of the light hydro-
carbon composition above the seismic gas chimney was used to deter-
mine the gas source and if active gas transport was occurring along the
feature to identify whether leakage was occurring at the offshore
geological CO2 storage site. Results indicate that geochemical traces
detected within the first few meters of subsea sediment were comparable
with normal background values and did not suggest leakage from deep
formation [108]. Consequently, injected sub-seabed CO2 trends leak
through abandoned wells rather than sediment layers. Well integrity is
the primary constraint for large-scale implementation of offshore CCUS
and a key issue for CO2 Low-risk storage. In addition, Anderson [109]
reviewed the long-term storage of carbon dioxide considering risk, lia-
bility, and economic perspectives. At the same time, Li et al. [110] pre-
sented a detailed review of the geological storage of carbon dioxide in
terms of the environment, health, and safety. However, the literature
mentioned above mainly focuses on onshore CO2 geological storage
issues.
3.2.2. Monitoring technologies
In order to detect and quantify possible leakages, monitoring is
required to verify the safety of long-term storage, especially in the case of
offshore CO2 storage where the survival of organisms is at risk. Several
methods are available and frequently employed, including in-well tem-
perature and pressure monitoring, acoustic and seismic monitoring,
chemical and oceanographic monitoring, remote sensing, geochemical
sampling, as well as gravimetric monitoring [20,68,111,112]. The
completed or ongoing monitoring projects we have noticed include QICS,
DigiMon, ETI-MMV, ACTOM, ACT4storage, SENSE, and STEMMCCS, etc.
Park et al. [73] proposed a pressure-monitoring technique to detect
leakage of CO2 injected into storage reservoirs. In addition, the method's
applicability and reliability are examined using two test problems.
However, the presented approach is not a direct method for identifying
CO2 leakage, and its efficiency is also constrained by the limitation of the
pressure sensor. In Japan, based on the onshore and offshore monitoring
system of the Tomakomai project, no anomalies of CO2 seepage into the
ocean were detected from the shallow Moebetsu formation, where a
cumulative 0.3 Mt of CO2 was injected since 2016 [74]. Over 20 years of
CO2-injection monitoring has been implemented at Sleipner, including
consistency monitoring, containment monitoring, and contingency
monitoring. Seismic monitoring, gravity monitoring, as well as
controlled source electromagnetic (CSEM) and repetitive resistivity
measurements provide convincing proof that CO2 is safely stored in the
storage unit and that Sleipner's CO2 injection has been a technical and
J. Luo et al.
economic success [20]. The STEMM-CCS project completed a large-scale
field experiment at a site near the Goldeneye platform in the North Sea.
The techniques in the first sub-seafloor-controlled CO2 release experi-
ment demonstrated that the leak could be successfully detected and
quantified [75]. Fig. 7 illustrates the overall experimental setup. Con-
nelly et al. [76] conducted a controlled release of 675 kg CO2 within
sediments at 120 m water depth, to simulate a leak and test novel
detection, quantification and attribution approaches. Results demon-
strated that CO2 could well be detected within sediments and the water
column even at a relatively modest release rate (6 kg/d).
The marine monitoring strategy for offshore geological carbon stor-
age can be summarized into three parts, understanding the baseline,
choosing a risk-based methodology, and a site-specific and flexible pro-
gram [113]. In terms of marine chemical monitoring, relevant chemical
sensors include CO2, O2, and pH sensors. In addition, metal-detection
sensors as well as a wide range of carriers (e.g., survey vessel, station-
ary template, AUV, gliders, etc.) could also be employed for monitoring
[113,114]. Utilizing an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) equipped
with sensors, Maeda et al. observed the CO2 plume in the vicinity of the
CO2 leakage. The results indicate that the pH shift caused by CO2 leakage
in the bay is scarcely visible. However, during low tide times, a pH
reduction due to CO2 leakage was detected [77]. Based on extensive
Fig. 6. (a) Conceptual risk profile of CO2 storage in geological porous media (Reproduced with permission [107]. Copyright 2021, Elsevier); (b) Risk assessment,
management and communication framework for CO2 storage projects.
8
Energy Reviews 2 (2023) 100016
artificial release experiments and numerical modeling studies, current
monitoring techniques could detect, attribute, or quantify low CO2
leakage rates in offshore environments, even exceeding current legal
requirements. For further industrial-scale operations, ships and
remotely-operated and autonomous vehicles are required along with
sophisticated sensors to increase the probability of detecting leakage,
thereby overcoming challenges effectively combined with onshore-based
deployments.
3.2.3. Environmental impact
Public concern regarding the environmental impact associated with
offshore CCUS, especially the chemical and biological impact of carbon
dioxide leakage, is the key issue that must be highlighted in CCUS
boosting. It is well known that CO2-related acidification usually increases
the acidity in the vicinity of leaking wells due to its solubility, leading to a
drop in pH and thus even causing serious environmental perturbations to
marine ecosystems [79–85]. Field experiments and numerical simula-
tions have proved that the pH value drop by 2.0 near the leaking well
[72], which is classified as significantly harmful (i.e., increasing mor-
tality of fauna) according to the classification of EU-FP7 project ECO2
[115]. In addition, based on the real in-situ experiments, modest CO2
emissions can have detrimental effects on benthic marine organisms
J. Luo et al.
living near leaking wells, especially during periods of low or stagnant
currents. In shallow waters (12 m), CO2 release tests were carried out in
Ardmucknish Bay to analyze the effects of CCUS leakage on seawater
organisms. Conclusions suggest that small, short-term CO2 leak events
are able to cause localized effects on macrofauna species. Furthermore, it
occurs more rapidly closer to the leak site [86]. However, similar release
experiments in the case of CO2 leakage involves observations of Turri-
tellacommunis (Mollusca), Asterias rubens (Echinodermata), Pagurus
bernhardus (Crustacea), Liocarcinus depurator (Crustacea), and Gadus
morhua (Osteichthyes), and no abnormal behavior of these species was
observed. This test demonstrates that small-scale CO2 leakage does not
lead to abnormal responses in marine biota [87]. Above findings provide
some hope that offshore CCUS may be a viable climate change mitigation
strategy, despite posing risks to the marine environment including the
properties of seawater (pH, salinity, etc.) and marine microorganisms
(shellfish, mollusks, etc.), especially in the vicinity of wells. However, if
leaks are small and detected rapidly based on the advanced monitoring
equipment, these impacts are limited.
3.3. Economic evaluation
Offshore CCUS involves onshore or offshore CO2 capture (power
plant, air direct capture, etc.), carbon transport (pipelines, ships, etc.)
and injection processed and technology options. Indeed, gas capture and
transport procedures require energy and decrease the efficiency of in-
dustrial facilities, as well as the construction of a pipeline network.
Therefore, due to the high costs, offshore CCUS technology is not
economically competitive for integration with existing facilities as well
as for widespread duplicated applications. This was one of the primary
challenges identified before its implementation [116,117]. However, the
global carbon prices have risen dramatically in recent years, particularly
in Europe, from less than €25/t at the start of 2020 to over €80/t in early
Dec 2021 (see Table 2) [118], providing economic feasibility for the
further development of CCUS projects. The cost of offshore carbon di-
oxide storage and utilization mainly originated from CO2 sources, CO2
transportation (including CO2 pre-treatment), and CO2 injection infra-
structure, as well as the purpose of storage or utilization (i.e., enhanced
oil or gas recovery) [119]. Over the past decade, the booming develop-
ment of various technologies is contributing to the economic competi-
tiveness of CCUS such as pre- and post-combustion, oxygen-enriched
combustion capture. Furthermore, separation from industrial processes
such as hydrogen and ammonia production and natural gas processing
also gained considerable interest.
3.3.1. Capture
Similar to the onshore CCUS project, electric power generation, nat-
ural gas processing facilities, steam methane reforming for hydrogen
production, and other industrial sources (fertilizer, ethanol production
etc.) are regarded to be the major sources of CO2 currently. Moreover,
direct air capture (DAC) also shows exceptional promise as a new tech-
nology, particularly offshore DAC. However, the current comparatively
high costs ($100-600/ton CO2) puts its feasibility in question [88–90].
For current technologies, the costs of the following coal-fired power
plants: pulverized coal power plant (PC Plant) and integrated coal gasi-
fication combined cycle power plant (IGCC Plant) range from $20 to
$132 per ton. The costs of capture from natural gas power plants are $49
to $150 per ton [91]. As for the capture from industrial sources, the cost
of capture from ammonia production is approximately $22–32 per ton,
capture from ethanol production and cement production is $26–36 and
$19–49 per ton, respectively, and the cost of capture from steel mills is
$8–35 per ton [91,120]. In addition to fossil-based energy conversion
processes, CO2 could also be captured in the production of hydrogen, a
widely used raw material for chemicals, but also broadly regarded as a
potential energy carrier in future energy systems. Here, the cost of CO2
capture in hydrogen production is $65–$136 per ton, with an additional
cost of 5% to 30% for hydrogen production [68,91].
9
Energy Reviews 2 (2023) 100016
3.3.2. Transport
For offshore CO2 storage and utilization, the transport of CO2 is
different from onshore, with ships and subsea pipelines being considered
the most economical methods of transport. The cost elements of pipelines
are divided into three major parts: construction costs (including mate-
rials, labor, etc.), operation and maintenance costs (including moni-
toring, maintenance, etc.), and other costs (e.g., design). Reports indicate
that offshore pipelines are 40%–70% more costly than onshore pipelines
of the same diameter (Fig. 8) [68]. From an engineering perspective, 250
km is the longest pipeline distance that does not require a CO2 relay
compression station. Hence, 250 km is usually set as the critical value for
matching carbon dioxide sources and sinks. In addition, pipeline trans-
port is particularly necessary where a constant flow from the CO2 capture
sites is required. Carbon dioxide transported by pipelines is usually vapor
or dense phase, with pressure and temperature in the range of 4.8–20
MPa and 283–307 K [92], respectively. Moreover, the pipeline does not
require components such as liquefaction equipment and intermediate
storage (expected to account for 80% of the cost) [121], even with some
flexibility in shipping, prompting pipelines to attract numerous invest-
ment decisions.
Shipping costs for CO2 are mainly derived from specialized transport
vessels, terminals, and pressurization equipment that enable transition of
CO2 to liquid phase [95]. Ship transportation is less affected by the
geological layering of the seabed, and it is not like submarine pipelines
that earthquakes could damage, thus no environmental problems can be
caused by leakage [122,123]. Additionally, ships can extend the feasi-
bility of CCUS to smaller emitters where pipeline deployment is
economically unfeasible, and they can employ comparatively more minor
storage sites without high costs. Europe, Japan, South Korea, and other
areas that lack land-based storage sites have given increased consider-
ation and usage to shipping. For example, the Northern Lights project is
planned to capture CO2 from a cement plant and an ammonia plant in
Norway and ship them to a collection hub offshore before permanent
storage in the North Sea. Fig. 9 provides an overview of the breakdown of
the total shipping cost, which suggested that the major cost factors for
exporting CO2 are liquefaction and shipping costs, including capital
expenditure (capex), operational expenditure (opex), and fuel. It shows
that the capex, opex, and fuel cost account for 27%, 43%, and 30%,
respectively. Significant research efforts are under way to demonstrate
the applicability and advancement of both approaches. Numerous studies
suggested that CO2 shipment is economically advantageous over pipe-
lines [96–99]. Conversely, pipeline technology showed better perfor-
mance and shipping was viewed as a temporary option for the early CCUS
in some assessments [100–102]. Consequently, the economy of transport
is influenced by the distance, the volume of transport and the loading
capacity of the vessel, while pipelines and ships have their own appli-
cability (see Table 3).
3.3.3. Storage
The cost of offshore carbon dioxide storage is closely related to the
storage reservoir type (e.g., saline formation, depleted field, etc.),
geological conditions (e.g., porosity, permeability, depth), and storage
methods (e.g., liquid, mineral carbonation, etc.) as well as utilization
methods (enhanced oil/gas recovery, displace natural gas hydrate, etc.).
According to the IPCC report and other research results, the costs of
storage are shown in Table 4. It can be observed that geological storage
(saline aquifers, depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs) offers a significant
economic benefit, especially the storage type that reuses the existing oil
and gas wells reduces the initial capital expenditure. Conversely, ocean
and mineralized storage seem more costly, particularly mineralized
storage associated with additional costs originated from CO2 dissolution
processes and corresponding infrastructure. Nowadays, ocean storage is
not a focus of international research and initiatives. However, due to its
threat to marine life it requires further investigation. Contrarily, CO2
sequestration under the seabed is encouraged. Offshore storage was ex-
pected to be between 4 and 20 USD/tCO2 in ZEP's cost projections [103],
J. Luo et al.
Fig. 7. Schematic diagram of the CO2 release experiment and the deployed detection techniques (Adapted under the terms of the license CC BY 4.0 [75], Copyright
2021, Elsevier).
while the US Department of Energy created a CO2 saline storage cost
model and calculated the CO2 storage cost to be approximately 7–13
USD/tCO2 [104]. Besides, the GCCSI presented the storage cost in the
range of 6–13 USD/tCO2 based on the reservoir qualities [105].
3.3.4. Cost-saving coupled renewable energy and energy storage
Incorporating renewable energy in the offshore CCUS process is
considered to reduce its cost effectively, including wind power, photo-
voltaics, hydrogen (H2), geothermal energy, etc. [126–129].
In the carbon capture phase, DAC is an energy-intensive process due
to the significant amount of air that must be converted in order to extract
carbon dioxide. Renewable energy, such as wind power, potentially
provides sufficient clean electricity, particularly offshore, where DAC
apparatus can be combined with wind turbines. Obviously, this also
applies to other renewable energy. For instance, energy from a
geothermal power plant for this purpose is located in Iceland [130]. In
addition, carbon dioxide can be obtained from the production of clean
energy sources, such as hydrogen. H2 is considered to achieve sustainable
development to satisfy the increasing demand for energy in trans-
portation and manufacturing (e.g., ammonia, steel, and petrochemical
industries), which motivated a strong policy push for hydrogen supply
chain development worldwide. In particular, the EU, Australia, and
Japan have delivered national roadmaps and strategies [131–134].
Japan aims to obtain hydrogen from the global hydrogen supply chain in
order to meet its energy requirements, whereas Australia is proposing to
become a hydrogen exporter and CCUS leader based on its domestic
natural gas resources and offshore carbon reserves. Due to its low cost
and high efficiency, steam methane reforming (SMR) supports 97% of the
global H2 demand currently, which generates 4.5 kg CO2 while
Table 2
Carbon price of several markets (until Dec. 2022) [118].
Markets Carbon price (per ton)
EU ETS €87.83
California, USA $29.03
China $8.31
Australia (AUD) $33.50
New Zealand (NZD) $83.25
South Korea $11.65
10
Energy Reviews 2 (2023) 100016
producing 1 kg H2 [135]. Currently, there has been growing interest in
capturing CO2 from these SMR plants to create low emission “blue H2”.
On the other hand, H2 can also be sourced from renewable energy within
a CO2-free process through the electrolysis of water by wind or solar
power. This type of hydrogen, referred to as "green hydrogen " could be
combined with nitrogen to synthesize ammonia, which is secure and
convenient to transport. In addition to its direct application as a chemical
feedstock, ammonia also could be decomposed into hydrogen, making it
an ideal hydrogen storage medium.
In October 2021, Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp. (JOGMEC)
and Mitsui & Co Ltd said they would jointly conduct a feasibility study for
CCS using Mitsui's facilities in Western Australia. The study will
concentrate on investigating the production and export of ammonia
based on hydrogen, which will be generated from the Waitsia natural gas
field [136]. Based on CCS data from the Tomakomai project, this mode's
CCS costs are 54 USD/t CO2, and abatement costs are 64 USD/t with an
annual capacity of 1 Mt for hydrogen and ammonia production through
IGCC (Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle) [137].
Likewise, in addition to CO2-EOR or CO2-EGR to reduce costs during
the storage phase, some cutting-edge technologies can also offset some
storage costs. One example is biomethanation, which involves hydrogen
and carbon dioxide aiming to promote carbon cycle economy, under-
ground energy storage, and enhance the scale of carbon circular utili-
zation [138]. Hydrogen and carbon dioxide are mixed or injected
sequentially into the offshore depleted or depleting gas reservoirs, which
can act as a biochemical reactor. A small percentage of injected carbon
dioxide is sequestrated underground through mineralization or dissolu-
tion, and most of the injected gas is bio-converted to water and renew-
able methane under the catalysis of methanogens during the long-time
well shut-in. In addition to industrial by-products and methane reform-
ing, raw hydrogen could be generated through direct electrolysis from
seawater, which has been demonstrated to be a very promising tech-
nology [139]. At the same time, carbon dioxide can be obtained from
inland or direct air capture for the next stage of biomethanation. This
concept of CO2 capture, circular utilization, and storage effectively uti-
lizes offshore depleted oil and gas reservoirs to store carbon dioxide,
artificial natural gas produced can offset part of the cost simultaneously
(see Fig. 10).
J. Luo et al.
Fig. 8. (a) CO2 transport costs range for onshore and offshore pipelines per 250 km; (b) Transport costs for onshore pipelines, offshore pipelines and ships, by distance,
in US$/ton CO2. Pipeline costs are given for a CO2 mass flow of 6 MtCO2/year. Ship costs include intermediate storage facilities, port fees, fuel costs and loading costs.
These costs also include additional liquefaction costs beyond compression (Reproduced under the terms of the CC BY-NC license [68]. Copyright 2005, Cam-
bridge University).
4. Global engineering progress of SCUS
4.1. Europe
The level of knowledge, the quality of datasets, and the format of
presentation of CCS resources and potential vary significantly from
country to country. Some countries, such as Norway, the United
Kingdom, Spain, and the Nordic countries have developed detailed and
comprehensive national storage atlases and databases, to identify the
best storage sites and opportunities for CCS projects, and to support the
decision-making on policy and investment in the CCS technology.
Moreover, they provide a clear picture of their CCS resources and po-
tential. Other countries have performed less detailed or partial assess-
ments, while in some countries, particularly in Eastern and South-Eastern
Europe, only basic assessments have been carried out. Studies conducted
in Europe, show that there is sufficient geological storage capacity for
Fig. 9. Cost components of CO2 shipping under case assumptions (Data
from Ref. [124]).
11
Energy Reviews 2 (2023) 100016
CCS to be deployed at scale. The most prevalent storage options
considered in Europe are saline aquifers, which have been identified in
25 countries, and depleted or depleting hydrocarbon fields, which have
been identified in 22 countries. The majority of countries with coastlines
prefer offshore as the location for their storage sites, as it tends to provide
greater storage capacity and reduced risk of subsurface interaction.
4.1.1. Norway
The recent total estimate for offshore storage capacity for CCS in
Norway is around 70 Gt [140], which is a significant increase from
previous estimates of 29 Gt by Vangkilde-Pedersen [141] and 48.4 Gt by
Halland et al. [142] due to the discovery of more appropriate aquifers for
storage and the possibility of storage at several stratigraphic levels. The
North Sea region, in particular, has a large storage capacity considering
the presence of aquifers suitable for storage at several levels, with the
Jurassic formation being the main potential target for CO2 injection. As a
consequence, the total capacity of the North Sea aquifers is much larger
than in other regions. Nevertheless, the majority of this capacity is still in
the exploration phase, and not all of it may be deemed as viable after
additional research and analysis. In addition, these estimations are based
on the existing level of knowledge and technology. Further studies in the
area of CCS might result in the identification of an even larger potential
capacity.
In Norway, two large-scale CO2 storage sites are currently in opera-
tion, namely Sleipner and Snøhvit, both in the Norwegian Sector of the
North Sea. The Sleipner field, which is located in the North Sea and
operated by the Norwegian energy company Equinor, has been sepa-
rating and re-injecting CO2 as part of a CCS project since 1996. The
project captures close to one million metric tons of CO2 per year from the
natural gas produced at the field and re-injects it into the Utsira For-
mation, a deep saline aquifer located beneath the North Sea [20,143,
144]. The Snøhvit field is a natural gas field located in the Barents Sea
produced from 2007, and since 2008, the facility has been separating
CO2 from the gas production and re-injecting it into the Stø formation, a
subterranean rock formation. The facility captures about 0.7 Mt of CO2
annually from the production of Nordmela and Stø Formations. Initially,
the company had planned to re-inject the CO2 into the Early Jurassic
Tubåen Formation, however, it was discovered that the storage capacity
of that formation was less than expected. The CO2 is separated from the
natural gas at the onshore pipeline terminal, then it's pumped back to the
field for reinjection into the Stø Formation for underground storage
[145]. Moreover, as a full-scale CCS value chain, the Northern Lights
project was granted by Norwegian authorities in January 2019. Equinor,
J. Luo et al.
Table 3
Offshore carbon dioxide transportation alternatives.
Method Conditions Phase Transport cost Capacity
($/t/km)
Pipelines 4.8–20 MPa, Vapor, 0.02–0.04 ~100 Mt CO2/year 6500 km
283–307 K dense of pipeline transport in
phase operation
Ships 0.65–4.5 MPa, Liquid 0.03–0.08 >70 Mt CO2/year
221–283 K
Table 4
Offshore storage costs (modified from Ref. [68]).
Storage option Cost Range ($/ton CO2 stored)
Depleted Oil/Gas Field – reusing wells 2–9
Depleted Oil/Gas Field – no reusing wells 3–14
Saline Formations 6–20
Ocean (Pipeline) 6–31
Ocean (Ship) 12–16
Mineral Carbonation 50–100
Shell, and Total are cooperating on this project to capture up to 1.5 Mt of
CO2 annually from industrial sources on land, transport it via ship and
pipeline, and then store it underground in the Johansen and Cook For-
mations at 2700 m depth, southeast of the Troll field in the North Sea.
4.1.2. UK
CO2Stored provides an overview of CO2 storage data for over 500
potential CO2 storage sites around offshore UK [146]. Overall theoretical
capacity is 68 Gt CO2. The first two CCS projects that were successfully
implemented were the White Rose CCS project and the Peterhead CCS
project launched in 2012 [65]. In addition, in the above two projects, the
injection sites of carbon dioxide are the saline aquifer of the Bunter
Sandstone Group (also known as the Endurance structure) and the Cap-
tain Sandstone Formation of the Goldeneye field. In the Peterhead CCS
project, near 10 Mt CO2 is estimated to be captured from the Peterhead
gas-fired power plant over a 10-year period. Furthermore, combined with
Eni, Equinor, National Grid, Shell and Total, BP launched a joint project,
namely Northern Endurance Partnership, to develop offshore CO2 stor-
age in the UK North Sea. In addition, some later projects have also been
proposed, such as ACORN and HyNet. ACORN aims to deliver the
captured CO2 from the St Fergus Gas Terminal (near Aberdeen) to the
Captain Sandstone Formation by 2023 in the northeast offshore of
Scotland. Comparatively, the UK considers hydrogen production from
natural gas in the HyNet North West project. HyNet plans to collect CO2
from existing and future industries including hydrogen production,
transport and store it in the Liverpool Bay area (Hamilton, Hamilton
North and Lennox depleted hydrocarbon fields). Similarly, from 2025
HyNet will capture and store carbon from industry, as well as produce,
store and distribute hydrogen in the North West of England and North
Wales [65].
4.1.3. Iceland
In Iceland, due to a lack of suitable sedimentary basins for CO2
storage, alternative methods of CCS such as in-situ mineral storage are
being explored. This method involves injecting CO2 into reactive rocks,
such as mafic or ultra-mafic rocks, for the purpose of rapid mineraliza-
tion. The CO2 reacts with these rocks, such as basalt, to form solid car-
bonates, effectively locking the CO2 away permanently. Approximately
90% of Iceland's bedrock is basaltic in nature which is well-suited for in-
situ mineral storage due to its high reactivity and the large amounts of
magnesium and iron they contain to form solid carbonates [65]. Thus,
CO2 storage in basalts is now considered to be a promising option for
Icelandic carbon reduction plan with a theoretical storage potential es-
timate of up to 2500 Gt CO2 [65]. Unlike other storage methods, such as
12
Energy Reviews 2 (2023) 100016
Remarks Source
Higher capital costs, lower operating costs; Low-pressure [68,
pipelines cost 20% more than dense phase transmission; Well- 92–94]
established for EOR USE
Higher operating costs, lower capital costs; Used in beverages [94,95,
and food for lesser amounts and diverse conditions; Enhanced 124,125]
sink-source matching
underground reservoirs, this method has the potential to supply
long-term, stable, and safe CO2 storage in the subsurface. However, it's
worth noting that there are still technical and economic challenges that
need to be overcome before in-situ mineral storage of CO2 in basaltic
rocks can be implemented on a large scale in Iceland.
The Carbfix project, a collaboration between Reykjavik Energy, the
University of Iceland, and several other organizations, was established to
develop and demonstrate technologies for the capture, injection, and
long-term storage of CO2 at the Hellisheidi geothermal power plant in
Iceland. The first phase of the project, Carbfix1, involved a pilot-scale
demonstration of the technology, in which a small amount of CO2 was
captured from the plant's flue gas and injected into basalts, a type of
volcanic rock that is abundant in Iceland. The second phase, Carbfix2,
was a scaled-up version of the project, in which larger amounts of CO2
were separated from the plant's flue gas and injected into the basalt
formations, in two stages [65]. The gas separated from the geothermal
power plant also gradually changed from pure carbon dioxide to a 75%
CO2–25% H2S gas mixture. Based on the successful CarbFix pilot oper-
ations, a full-scale capture plant incorporating direct air capture (DAC)
was established and had been operating since 2016. To date, the Hell-
isheidi power plant has captured and injected over 0.065 Mt of CO2.
Currently, more than 50% of the injected CO2 has been fixed under-
ground in the form of carbonate minerals within a few months. As a
result, the cost of on-site CCS operation in Hellisheiði has been reduced to
$24.8/t, which is lower than the recent average price of a carbon quota in
the EU Emission Trading System [65].
4.1.4. Netherlands
The Netherlands have emphasized storing carbon dioxide in depleted
offshore gas fields as a result of large storage capacities and existing
infrastructure in these fields. It is estimated that the total theoretical
storage capacity in Dutch offshore gas reservoirs is around 1.6 Gt,
distributed over 150 fields [65]. However, the effective capacity, is ex-
pected to be approximately 0.9 Gt since not all locations are suitable for
CO2 storage [65].
While Neele et al. estimated the storage capacity for selected saline
aquifers in the Dutch offshore to be between 1.37 and 1.49 Gt of CO2 in a
study [147]. From 2004 to 2017, a demonstration pilot to store CO2 in
the offshore K12–B gas reservoir was active, so about 100 kilotons of CO2
were injected [148]. The Porthos project, currently the most developed
full-chain Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) project in the
Netherlands, aims to transport CO2 from suppliers via an onshore pipe-
line to a compressor station, and then by pipeline offshore to depleted
natural gas fields for storage (20–25 km from the coast). Three offshore
storage sites are planned as part of the Porthos project, the P18-2, P18-4,
and P18-6 depleted gas fields, all are accessible from the P18-A platform,
and all lie in the North Sea. The objective of the project is to demonstrate
long-term storage of the captured CO2 and the technical, environmental,
and economic feasibility of the technology [65]. The Dutch government
and several companies have been working to develop CO2 storage in
these fields and to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of the tech-
nology. The Netherlands is also home to several CO2 capture and storage
projects and research centers, such as the Carbon Storage and Conversion
Centre of Expertise at TU Delft which is focusing on the development of
technologies and solutions for CO2 capture, transport, and storage [149].
J. Luo et al.
Fig. 10. Future subsea carbon dioxide utilization pathways combined with renewable energy and energy storage. (SES: seawater electrolysis system; NGH: natural
gas hydrates).
It is worth noting that although the absence of large-scale offshore
CCUS projects underway in some European countries, research efforts in
this field are still ongoing. For instance, Germany has invested in sig-
nificant research efforts, such as the SUGAR project. SUGAR project is
focused on exploring the potential of producing natural gas from marine
methane hydrates, as well as sequestering carbon dioxide from industrial
sources by converting it into CO2-hydrate in marine sediments [150,
151]. The project was launched in 2008 in Kiel, Germany and aimed to
explore the technological and economic feasibility of these processes.
4.2. Asia-Pacific
4.2.1. China
China is the largest carbon emitter, the huge incentive to reduce
carbon emissions has contributed to the rapid development of CCUS
technologies with the policy support over the last decades. In 2006, CCUS
was first mentioned by the State Council in the ‘Outline of the National
Medium and Long Term Science and Technology Development Program’.
Following that, the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of
Ecology and Environment, and the National Development and Reform
Commission successively issued CCUS technical routes and guidelines.
Driven by policy, CCUS has been greatly promoted as an important car-
bon reduction measure, especially in coastal areas, such as Guangdong
Province. Currently, about 40 CCUS demonstration projects are in
operation or under construction in China, mainly for oil displacement
and capture demonstration in the petroleum, coal chemical, and power
industries. Out of these, over ten projects have involved geological uti-
lization and storage, including enhanced oil recovery projects carried out
by PetroChina Company Ltd. (CNPC), China Petroleum & Chemical
Corporation (Sinopec) and Shaanxi Yanchang Petroleum Group, as well
as a coal bed methane replacement pilot implemented by China United
Coalbed Methane Corp., Ltd. (CUCBM) [152]. However, currently these
projects are still dominated by inland areas (Table 5) (see Table 6).
In 2021, China's first offshore carbon dioxide storage demonstration
project carried out by CNOOC was officially launched in the Pearl River
Mouth Basin (PRMB) of the South China Sea. The carbon dioxide asso-
ciated with the development of offshore oilfields will be permanently
stored in 800-m deep seabed reservoirs, with an annual storage of about
0.3 Mt and a total of over 1.46 Mt [153].
4.2.2. Japan
In October 2020, Japan announced a commitment to net-zero emis-
sions and climate-neutrality by 2050. A year later, the Japanese Ministry
of Economy, Trade & Industry (METI) proposed an energy plan dedicated
to increasing the proportion of renewable energy utilization.
13
Energy Reviews 2 (2023) 100016
Japan is an island country rich in marine resources, and the potential
for geological storage of carbon dioxide is also considerable, with cor-
responding estimates of coastal area storage ranging between 150 and
240 Gt. The estimated capacity at depths less than 200 m is around 146
Gt, while the additional storage potential at depths between 200 and
1,000 m is approximately 90 Gt. However, industrial areas with high CO2
emissions are mainly located in coastal areas on the Pacific side, while
areas suitable for storing CO2 are mainly located on the Sea of Japan side,
which also means that pipeline transport is challenging due to the long
distances between emission sources and planned storage sites, and that
ship transport will play a crucial role. In Tomakomai (Hokkaido), Japan's
first large-scale CCS demonstration project for CO2 collection (injection,
storage, and monitoring) has been in operation since 2012. The captured
CO2 is compressed and pumped via pipes to two underground reservoirs
located 3 to 4 km offshore at varying depths beneath the seabed.
Furthermore, activation of the first demonstration plant occurred in
2016, and by November 2019, a total of 0.3 Mt CO2 had been injected
into the subsurface before operations were paused for monitoring.
Research on carbon dioxide hydrate originated in Japan has made
remarkable progress and demonstrated the beneficial role of carbon di-
oxide hydrate for geological storage on the seafloor (as a caprock to
prevent leaks). Moreover, Japan is also actively researching more cost-
efficient CCUS technologies and exploring international cooperation
mode combined with hydrogen and other renewable energy. For
instance, several Japanese companies, such as Kawasaki Heavy In-
dustries, started studying the possibility of producing and exporting
hydrogen and ammonia using facilities in Western Australia. The
hydrogen for ammonia production originates from the Waitsia natural
gas field. In addition, they are considering storing carbon dioxide
released from ammonia synthesis in nearby depleted gas fields.
Comparatively, the costs for a practical model with an annual capacity of
1 Mt for hydrogen and ammonia production are more competitive, with
an estimated CCUS cost of 54 USD/t CO2, while the estimated average
cost of other CCS is 90 USD/t CO2.
4.2.3. Australia
Australia has a significant CO2 storage capability due to its extensive
land and marine area. The best-known areas of saline formations storage
are located near Victoria, Western Australia, and possibly the Northern
Territory. Parts of Queensland and north-eastern South Australia may
also have significant onshore storage capacity [160–162]. By 2022, more
than 15 CCS projects have been pre-feasibility studied or implemented in
Australia, covering LNG, hydrogen, and ammonia production, enhanced
oil recovery, basalt mineralization, onshore saline aquifer and offshore
storage, etc. [163]. The Gorgon Project is the first commercial project
J. Luo et al. Energy Reviews 2 (2023) 100016

involving geo-sequestration in Australia, operated by Chevron, Shell, and Table 5

ExxonMobil. After the natural gas containing carbon dioxide is extracted, Carbon dioxide geological utilization and storage projects in China.
part of it is used to produce liquefied natural gas for export while the rest Field Project type CO2 stored capacity References
is used for power generation. The separated carbon dioxide is injected (Mt)
into the Dupuy Formation located around 2000 m beneath Barrow Island Daqing Oilfield, CNPC Onshore EOR 0.200 [152–159]
[164]. Additionally, the Gorgon project, which supplies 15.6 Mt of LNG Jilin Oilfield, CNPC Onshore EOR 0.250
annually in Western Australia, is one of the world's most significant LNG Shengli Oilfield, Onshore EOR 0.040
projects. Moreover, it has permanently removed and stored nearly 5 Mt Sinopec
Zhongyuan Oilfield, Onshore EOR 0.100
of carbon dioxide underground until July 2021 [165]. CarbonNet Project Sinopec
aims to establish a commercial carbon capture and offshore storage (CCS) Huadong Oilfield, Onshore EOR 0.100
network in Victoria, Australia, based on the undersea pipeline and the Sinopec
hydrocarbon reservoirs in the Gippsland Basin. This project is currently Qilu Petrochemical, Onshore EOR 1.000
Sinopec
in the development phase and plans to store 5 Mt of CO2 per year at the
Xinjiang Oilfield, CNPC Onshore EOR 0.050–0.100
initial Pelican site from 2027. In August 2022, two permits for new Changqing Oilfield, Onshore EOR 0.050
offshore greenhouse gas storage sites were awarded in Western Australia CNPC
(Browse Basin) and Northern Territory (Bonaparte Basin), meaning that Yanchang Oilfield Onshore EOR 0.050
Australia's offshore CO2 storage has gained competitiveness. In Browse Enping oilfield, CNOOC Offshore storage 0.300
Shizhuang CBM Field Onshore ECBM 0.001
Basin, the CStore1 project aims to store at least 1.5 Mt CO2 per year, Liulin CBM Field Onshore ECBM 0.001
which consist of capturing CO2 from industrial sources in Australia and Shenhua Aquifer Onshore saline 0.100
the Asia-Pacific region, shipping of liquid CO2 from capture sites to a CO2 aquifer
floating storage and injection hub facility, and injecting CO2 to subsea
formations via injection wells [166].
stages of evaluation and demonstration. It should be mentioned here that
the preliminary study on the mineralization and storage of CO2 in seabed
4.2.4. South Korea
basalt has also been carried out based on the CarbonSAFE project.
Due to insufficient onshore storage capacity, offshore seabed forma-
Pre-feasibility studies offshore Washington State and British Columbia,
tions in South Korea are potentially major candidates for CO2 storage,
particularly the Cascadia Basin, where there is a large sub-seabed basalt
similar to Japan. Meanwhile, most of the largest CO2 emission sources
rock formation, have shown that 50MMt of injected CO2 could be stored
such as fossil power plant and industrial plants are located along the
safely and permanently through mineralized sequestration based on
coastal area in Korea. According to KNOC's (Korea National Oil Coop-
chemical reactions beneath the seafloor [172]. Notably, the carbon
eration) assessment of exploration data within the continental margin,
sources are mainly from Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, Canada,
several structures have the possibility of acting as hydrocarbon traps and
and Alberta, Canada, where a total of over 100,000 MT/year of carbon is
CO2 storage in Ulleung Basin, Kunsan Basin, and Jeju Basin [167].
emitted and then transported by ship and pipeline to the planned storage
Onshore pipelines and offshore shipping were integrated with the
site [172].
demonstration plan, and initial assessments indicated that over 1
MtCO2/year can be transported and securely stored in marine geological
4.3.2. Others
formations (mainly saline aquifers) [168].
As a significant economy in South America, Brazil has also conducted
an assessment of offshore CO2 storage. According to studies, 85 reservoirs
4.3. America
could provide between 1.04 Gt and 3.12 Gt of CO2 storage capacity in the
eastern sea of Brazil, which is also near the central economic provinces
4.3.1. USA
and carbon emission sources [173]. For example, a statement from Pet-
Offshore geologic storage of carbon dioxide in the USA is distributed
robras indicates that the company significantly boosted the quantity of
in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), offshore of the Southeastern United States,
carbon dioxide it reinjected into offshore oilfields, and 6.7 Mt of CO2
and offshore of Washington State and British Columbia. The Gulf of
separated from oil extraction process have been injected back from
Mexico borders the states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and
January to September [174]. However, offshore CCUS research is like-
Florida, and possesses the majority of the US offshore CO2 storage ca-
wise in its infancy in Brazil, as well as the public's perception of the
pacity. The primary target sites for carbon dioxide storage is depleted oil
notion.
and gas reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico, where there are over 1295 oil
fields including 13289 oil and gas reservoirs. Agartan et al. demonstrated
5. Potential and perspectives of SCUS in China
that the CO2 storage capacity in all 1295 depleted and active fields
(13,289 reservoirs) in the GOM should be 21.57 Gt [169]. Meanwhile,
China's 14 coastal provinces (including 2 islands) are highly popu-
within the east sea area of Florida and offshore of Georgia and South
lated and economically developed, comprising approximately 14% of the
Carolina, there is a thick sequence of post-rift stratigraphy, considered a
country's land area and 49% of its GDP. Consequently, offshore storage of
semi-closed saline aquifer. Fukai et al. estimated that the Cretaceous and
CO2 is particularly advantageous as it allows CO2 to be stored far from
Jurassic sandstone offshore of the northeastern United States could
population centers and environmental issues (groundwater contamina-
potentially store 37–403 Mt of CO2 with a geological storage efficiency of
tion, leaks etc.) are less vital. In addition, a large number of power plants,
1–13% [170]. Furthermore, recent research in the Lower Cretaceous
oil refineries and cement factories are located in coastal areas yielding
Strata of the Offshore Atlantic, Southeastern United States, indicates the
41% of its total carbon emissions, ensuring an adequate and highly
prospective storage resources to be between 450 and 4700 Mt of CO2
economic source of carbon as well as carbon source-sink pairing. More-
[171]. In fact, since the 1980s, several CO2-EOR projects have been
over, existing field infrastructure, such as platforms, wells, and subsea
implemented on the coastline and offshore of Louisiana, such as Week's
pipelines, may be utilized for CCS or CCUS, hence decreasing capital and
Island CO2 EOR Project, Bay St. Elaine EOR Project, Timbalier Bay CO2
operational costs. Fig. 11a illustrates the energy-related carbon dioxide
EOR Project, etc., and results indicated that CO2 injection significantly
emissions of Chinese counties and the total carbon emissions of China's
improved production. However, further investment for large-scale
coastal provinces.
CO2-EOR projects has been restricted probably due to low oil prices
Notably, China has performed extensive research into the viability
[54]. However, offshore CO2 storage and utilization projects in the US
and potential for geological CO2 storage over the past decade, with
have not been implemented on a large scale and are still in the early

14
J. Luo et al. Energy Reviews 2 (2023) 100016

Table 6
Completed, operating, and planned offshore CO2 storage and utilization projects.
Country Ongoing and planned projects Operation date Storage type Reservoir type Transportation type Capacity (Mt/year)

Norway Sleipner 1996 Geological Saline aquifer, Pipeline and ship Total >20 Mt
Sn€ohvit 2008 storage Depleted hydrocarbon Pipeline and ship Total 0.7
reservoir
Northern Lights planned Saline aquifer Pipeline and ship Phase one: 1.5, phase
two: 5
UK Acorn planned Geological Depleted oil and gas Pipeline and ship 0.3
storage fields
Net Zero Teesside (NZT) and Zero Carbon planned Saline aquifer Pipeline 450
Humber (ZCH)
HyNet planned Depleted oil and gas Pipeline and ship 10
fields
CO2SeaStone, Carbfix 2022 Mineralization Basalt reservoir Ship 0.004
Netherlands K12–B 2004 Geological Gas reservoir Pipeline 0.1
Porthos planned storage Depleted gas reservoir Pipeline 37
Denmark Greensand 2021 (pilot Geological Sandstone reservoir Ship 2025: 1.5 2030: 8
phase) storage
China Enping 2021 Geological Saline aquifer In-situ separation 0.3
storage injection
Japan Tomakomai 2016 Geological Saline aquifer Pipeline 0.3
storage
Australia CarbonNet planned Geological Depleted hydrocarbon Pipeline 5
storage reservoir
CStore1 planned Geological Saline aquifer Ship 1.5–7.5
storage
South Korea Donghae Gas Field 2022 Geological Depleted gas reservoir Pipeline and ship 10
storage
USA Houston Ship Channel planned Geological Depleted hydrocarbon Pipeline 100
storage reservoir
Timbalier Bay 1984 CO2-EOR Oil reservoir Pipeline Total 0.01
Quarantine Bay 1981 CO2-EOR Oil reservoir Ship Total 0.028
Brazil Lula 2011 CO2-EOR Oil reservoir FPSO 1.0

results suggesting that the country's ten largest offshore sedimentary
basins have the capability of storing between 573 and 779 Gt CO2 [175,
176], Especially in the hydrocarbon reservoir and saline aquifers of South
China Sea and the Bohai Sea [12]. The basins distribution and storage
potential in China's offshore are shown in Fig. 11b and c. Studies
demonstrated that the overall carbon dioxide storage potential in oil and
gas reservoirs of the NSCS's (Northern South China Sea) four geological
basins (Pearl River Mouth Basin, Beibuwan, Qiongdongnan, and Ying-
gehai) is between 1015.8 and 1151.5 Mt. Correspondingly, approxi-
mately 84% of the storage potential exists in gas reservoirs and 16% in oil
reservoirs [177]. While this is remarkable, the storage capacity of un-
derwater saline aquifers is significantly greater. The East China Sea Basin
has the largest storage space, corresponding to 770,000 km2, with a net
thickness of nearly 300 m. The storage capacity in saline aquifers reaches
125–1,469 Mt, with a mean of 489 Mt [120]. Furthermore, the effective
storage capacity of the deep saline formations in the Pearl River Mouth
Basin (PRMB) was previously estimated to be 70–308 Gt based on the
CSLF and USDOE formulas [178], while the CO2 storage capacity esti-
mation of the Yinggehai Basin ranges between 56 and 160 Gt, the Bei-
buwan Basin between 24 and 57 Gt, and the Qiongdongnan Basin to 41
Gt [12,178,179]. Comparatively, the mean effective storage capacity of
the Cenozoic sedimentary rocks in the offshore Bohai Basin is approxi-
mately 192 Gt based on the pore volume method, providing storage
capability for hundreds of years of CO2 emissions from the region sur-
rounding the Bohai-Sea region [180]. Recently, the Ministry of Natural
Resources of China has published the results of its assessment of carbon
dioxide storage potential in China's sea regions. The findings reveal an
enormous capacity for storage, estimated to be around 2580 Gt [181].
With regard to further offshore CO2 storage and utilization, a stable
supply of carbon, safe and dependable monitoring technologies, and cost-
effective transport options are fundamental to the project's operation
efficiency, and correspondingly, there is a greater demand for econom-
ical and more efficient carbon capture technologies, monitoring equip-
ment and techniques.
Moreover, studies demonstrated about 1.2  1017 m3 of natural gas
exists in the seabed reservoir in the form of hydrate, while China is a
global leader in natural gas hydrate development [185]. Over the past
decade, gas hydrate resource exploration has been carried out in the
South China Sea (including Dongsha, Shenhu, Xisha and southeastern
Hainan waters). The South China Sea gas hydrate resources amount to 85
trillion cubic meters, which is 2.12 times more than China's total
land-based conventional gas reserves [61,186,187]. CO2 replacement of
methane from gas hydrates is regarded as a win-win method that could
simultaneously achieve methane extraction and CO2 reduction and
storage, as well as maintain the geomechanical stability of gas hydrate
deposits and reduce the risk of slope instability. Therefore, it is consid-
ered to be another potential technology for offshore CO2 utilization and
storage. However, the mechanism of CO2 replacement of natural gas
hydrate is unclear and controversial, and the efficiency of replacement is
limited [16,188]. In addition, the supporting technologies and facilities
for carbon dioxide capture and sinks in CO2 replacing are not well
developed, and the quantitative evaluation system of carbon storage
capacity (i.e. the space available for CO2 storage) in hydrate deposits is
not well studied [15,189].
Overall, China's offshore CCUS is still in its infancy and costs are
relatively high (both economic and environmental). However, with the
continuous advancement of technology, the costs mainly related to the
four main aspects of capture, transportation, storage and utilization will
decrease steadily. It is estimated that by 2030, China's CO2 capture cost
will be 90–390 yuan/ton, and 20–130 yuan/ton in 2060; the pipeline
transportation cost in 2030 and 2060 is expected to be 0.7 and 0.4 yuan/
(t/km) respectively. In 2030, the cost of CO2 storage will be 40–50 yuan/
ton, and in 2060, the cost will be 20–25 yuan/ton (see Table 7). Thus,
combining fixed and operating costs, the future total abatement cost of
offshore CCUS in China is $60–70/t, close to Australia and Japan ($54/t
and $60–193/t respectively).

15
J. Luo et al. Energy Reviews 2 (2023) 100016

Fig. 11. (a) China mainland’s country-level CO2 emissions (Mt) from energy combustion in 2017. Blue lines indicate the 14 coastline province administrative areas
and the figures represent the sum of emissions for each province; (b) The offshore China sedimentary basin map for CO2 geological storage; (c) CO2 storage capacity
estimated for China's ten offshore basins (data form [12,177–179,182–184], reproduced under the terms of the CC BY license [12]. Copyright 2022, Elsevier). (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Table 7
Technical cost of all aspects of CCUS in China from 2025 to 2060 (modified form [120,152]).
Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050 2060

Capture cost (Yuan/ton) Pre-combustion 100–180 90–130 70–80 50–70 30–50 20–40
Pre-combustion 230–310 190–280 160–220 100–220 80–150 70–120
Oxy-fuel combustion 300–480 160–390 130–220 110–230 90–150 80–130
Transport cost (Yuan/ton) Truck 0.9–1.4 0.8–1.3 0.7–1.2 0.6–1.1 0.5–1.1 0.5–1
Pipeline 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.45 0.4
Ship 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35
Storage cost (Yuan/ton) 50–60 40–50 35–40 30–35 25–30 20–25

6. Conclusions 1) Structural trapping, solubility trapping, and mineral trapping

Seabed CO2 storage and utilization is expected to play a crucial role in
enabling the global implementation of carbon capture, utilization, and
storage, which is growing rapidly in the industry and establishing itself as
an important technology for reducing carbon emissions. Despite some
technical and operational gaps, implementing seabed CO2 storage and
utilization could promote early decarbonization in a wide range of
countries and industries. Moreover, the flexible combination of renew-
able energy and energy storage can turn seabed CO2 storage into a
profitable industry for countries which have high coastal carbon emis-
sions and possess significant offshore storage capacities. In particular, the
following key messages can be extracted:
contribute to the high maturity of CO2 storage in saline aquifers,
depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs, and mineralized storage. Similarly,
the main corresponding utilization technologies are CO2-EOR and
CO2-EGR, while CO2 replacement of gas hydrates is also considered a
potential carbon utilization technology. Overall, the global potential
for seabed CO2 storage and utilization is enormous, particularly for
coastal regions with substantial carbon emissions.
2) The environmental and ecological impact of CO2 leakage on the
seabed currently remains a major concern. However, sufficient se-
curity in CO2 storage can be ensured relying on the self-sealing ben-
efits of CO2 hydrates and remote monitoring technologies.

16
J. Luo et al.
3) Cost issues are a major barrier limiting the large-scale implementa-
tion n of subsea CO2 storage. However, the feasibility and economics
is also boosted by the rising carbon prices. Moreover, the develop-
ment of renewable energy sources is the solution to this challenge, i.e.
by establishing an international full industry chain coupling mode
with a focus on renewable energy sources and carbon circular econ-
omy. Represented by hydrogen and ammonia, a new mode of "subsea
CCUS þ renewable energy" and "subsea CCUS þ energy storage" can
be formed, storing the CO2 generated during the process of hydrogen
production or transported from other countries on the seabed, which
can effectively reduce costs.
4) China's offshore storage potential is also tremendous, with a rough
estimate of nearly 2500 Gt. Furthermore, the well source and sink
compatibility conditions, with coastal carbon emissions, provide a
stable source of carbon for offshore storage. In addition, engineering
practice has already begun in the Pearl River Estuary basin in China.
Saline aquifers and depleted oil and gas reservoirs are the main
storage targets in the short term. In terms of carbon utilization, in
addition to CO2 to enhance oil and gas recovery, the use of CO2 to
replace gas hydrates is also a highly promising utilization considering
the huge gas hydrate reserves in China.
Conflict of interest and authorship conformation form
All authors have participated in (a) conception and design, or analysis
and interpretation of the data; (b) drafting the article or revising it crit-
ically for important intellectual content; and (c) approval of the final
version.
This manuscript has not been submitted to, nor is under review at,
another journal or other publishing venue.
The authors have no affiliation with any organization with a direct or
indirect financial interest in the subject matter discussed in the
manuscript
The following authors have affiliations with organizations with direct
or indirect financial interest in the subject matter discussed in the
manuscript:
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge for financial support of the
project from Henan Institute for Chinese Development Strategy of Engi-
neering & Technology (Grant No. 2022HENZDA02), Science & Tech-
nology Department of Sichuan Province (Grant No. 260 2021YFH0010)
and China Scholarship Council (CSC File No. 201808510186).
References
[1] W.F. Lamb, T. Wiedmann, J. Pongratz, R. Andrew, M. Crippa, J.G. Olivier,
D. Wiedenhofer, G. Mattioli, A. Al Khourdajie, J. House, A review of trends and
drivers of greenhouse gas emissions by sector from 1990 to 2018, Environ. Res.
Lett. 16 (7) (2021), 073005.
[2] N.O.a.A. Administration, Carbon dioxide now more than 50% higher than pre-
industrial levels. https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/carbon-dioxide-now-more
-than-50-higher-than-pre-industrial-levels.
[3] M. Aamir, K.K. Rai, M.K. Dubey, A. Zehra, Y.N. Tripathi, K. Divyanshu, S. Samal,
R. Upadhyay, Impact of climate change on soil carbon exchange, ecosystem
dynamics, and plant–microbe interactions, in: Climate Change and Agricultural
Ecosystems, Elsevier, 2019, pp. 379–413.
[4] C. Mora, D. Spirandelli, E.C. Franklin, J. Lynham, M.B. Kantar, W. Miles,
C.Z. Smith, K. Freel, J. Moy, L.V. Louis, Broad threat to humanity from cumulative
climate hazards intensified by greenhouse gas emissions, Nat. Clim. Change 8 (12)
(2018) 1062–1071.
[5] G. Diaz-Pulido, K.R. Anthony, D.I. Kline, S. Dove, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, Interactions
between ocean acidification and warming on the mortality and dissolution of
coralline algae 1, J. Phycol. 48 (1) (2012) 32–39.
[6] T. Weir, L. Dovey, D. Orcherton, Social and cultural issues raised by climate
change in Pacific Island countries: an overview, Reg. Environ. Change 17 (4)
(2017) 1017–1028.
[7] C.-F. Schleussner, J. Rogelj, M. Schaeffer, T. Lissner, R. Licker, E.M. Fischer,
R. Knutti, A. Levermann, K. Frieler, W. Hare, Science and policy characteristics of
the Paris Agreement temperature goal, Nat. Clim. Change 6 (9) (2016) 827–835.
17
Energy Reviews 2 (2023) 100016
[8] O. Wallach, Race to net zero: carbon neutral goals by country. https://www.visua
lcapitalist.com/sp/race-to-net-zero-carbon-neutral-goals-by-country/.
[9] L. Chen, G. Msigwa, M. Yang, A.I. Osman, S. Fawzy, D.W. Rooney, P.-S. Yap,
Strategies to achieve a carbon neutral society: a review, Environ. Chem. Lett.
(2022) 1–34.
[10] X. Zhao, X. Ma, B. Chen, Y. Shang, M. Song, Challenges toward carbon neutrality
in China: strategies and countermeasures, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 176 (2022),
105959.
[11] D.P. Schrag, Storage of carbon dioxide in offshore sediments, Science 325 (5948)
(2009) 1658–1659.
[12] J. Li, Accelerate the Offshore CCUS to Carbon-Neutral China. Fundamental
Research, 2022.
[13] K. Nealson, Lakes of liquid CO2 in the deep sea, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103
(38) (2006) 13903–13904.
[14] Y. Teng, D. Zhang, Long-term viability of carbon sequestration in deep-sea
sediments, Sci. Adv. 4 (7) (2018), eaao6588.
[15] V.N. Khlebnikov, S.V. Antonov, A.S. Mishin, D.A. Bakulin, I.V. Khamidullina,
M. Liang, V.A. Vinokurov, P.A. Gushchin, A new method for the replacement of
CH4 with CO2 in natural gas hydrate production, Nat. Gas. Ind. B 3 (5) (2016)
445–451.
[16] T. Liu, P. Wu, Z. Chen, Y. Li, Review on carbon dioxide replacement of natural gas
hydrate: research progress and perspectives, Energy Fuels 36 (14) (2022)
7321–7336.
[17] H. Koide, M. Takahashi, H. Tsukamoto, Y. Shindo, Self-trapping mechanisms of
carbon dioxide in the aquifer disposal, Energy Convers. Manag. 36 (6–9) (1995)
505–508.
[18] H. Koide, Y. Shindo, Y. Tazaki, M. Iijima, K. Ito, N. Kimura, K. Omata, Deep sub-
seabed disposal of CO2—the most protective storage, Energy Convers. Manag. 38
(1997) S253–S258.
[19] P.G. Brewer, G. Friederich, E.T. Peltzer, F.M. Orr Jr., Direct experiments on the
ocean disposal of fossil fuel CO2, Science 284 (5416) (1999) 943–945.
[20] A.-K. Furre, O. Eiken, H. Alnes, J.N. Vevatne, A.F. Kiær, 20 Years of monitoring
CO2-injection at sleipner, Energy Proc. 114 (2017) 3916–3926.
[21] R.J. Arts, V.P. Vandeweijer, C. Hofstee, M.P.D. Pluymaekers, D. Loeve, A. Kopp,
W.J. Plug, The feasibility of CO2 storage in the depleted P18-4 gas field offshore
The Netherlands (the ROAD project), Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 11 (2012)
S10–S20.
[22] D. Zhang, J. Song, Mechanisms for geological carbon sequestration, Procedia
IUTAm 10 (2014) 319–327.
[23] F. Yang, B. Bai, D. Tang, D.-N. Shari, W. David, Characteristics of CO2
sequestration in saline aquifers, Petrol. Sci. 7 (1) (2010) 83–92.
[24] T. Ajayi, J.S. Gomes, A. Bera, A review of CO 2 storage in geological formations
emphasizing modeling, monitoring and capacity estimation approaches, Petrol.
Sci. 16 (2019) 1028–1063.
[25] A. Peter, D. Yang, K.I.-I.I. Eshiet, Y. Sheng, A review of the studies on
CO2–brine–rock interaction in geological storage process, Geosciences 12 (4)
(2022) 168.
[26] S. Trædal, J.H.G. Stang, I. Snustad, M.V. Johansson, D. Berstad, CO2 liquefaction
close to the triple point pressure, Energies 14 (24) (2021) 8220.
[27] S. Goldthorpe, Potential for very deep ocean storage of CO2 without ocean
acidification: a discussion paper, Energy Proc. 114 (2017) 5417–5429.
[28] U. Zahid, Y. Lim, J. Jung, C. Han, CO2 geological storage: a review on present and
future prospects, Kor. J. Chem. Eng. 28 (3) (2011) 674–685.
[29] P. Kelemen, S.M. Benson, H. Pilorge, P. Psarras, J. Wilcox, An overview of the
status and challenges of CO2 storage in minerals and geological formations,
Frontiers in Climate 1 (2019).
[30] M. Ali, N.K. Jha, N. Pal, A. Keshavarz, H. Hoteit, M. Sarmadivaleh, Recent
advances in carbon dioxide geological storage, experimental procedures,
influencing parameters, and future outlook, Earth Sci. Rev. 225 (2022).
[31] National Academies of Sciences, E., and Medicine Negative Emissions Technologies
and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda; 0309484529, The National
Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2019.
[32] D. HUME, ocean storage of CO2. https://maritime-executive.com/features/ocea
n-storage-of-co2.
[33] D.C.-F. Shih, Y.-M. Wu, J.-C. Hu, Potential volume for CO2 deep ocean
sequestration: an assessment of the area located on western Pacific Ocean, Stoch.
Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 24 (5) (2010) 705–711.
[34] K.Z. House, D.P. Schrag, C.F. Harvey, K.S. Lackner, Permanent carbon dioxide
storage in deep-sea sediments, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103 (33) (2006)
12291–12295.
[35] S. Circone, L.A. Stern, S.H. Kirby, W.B. Durham, B.C. Chakoumakos, C.J. Rawn,
A.J. Rondinone, Y. Ishii, CO2 hydrate: synthesis, composition, structure,
dissociation behavior, and a comparison to structure I CH4 hydrate, J. Phys.
Chem. B 107 (23) (2003) 5529–5539.
[36] Q. Liu, Y. Liu, J. Xu, Y. Teng, Z. Ling, Y. Zhang, L. Jiang, Y. Song, A review of the
gas hydrate phase transition with a microfluidic approach, Energy Rev. 2 (1)
(2023).
 Snæbj€
[37] S.O. ornsdottir, B. Sigfússon, C. Marieni, D. Goldberg, S.R. Gislason,
E.H. Oelkers, Carbon dioxide storage through mineral carbonation, Nat. Rev.
Earth Environ. 1 (2) (2020) 90–102.
[38] C.D. Hills, N. Tripathi, P.J. Carey, Mineralization technology for carbon capture,
utilization, and storage, Front. Energy Res. 8 (2020) 142.
[39] B. Sigfusson, S.R. Gislason, J.M. Matter, M. Stute, E. Gunnlaugsson, I. Gunnarsson,
E.S. Aradottir, H. Sigurdardottir, K. Mesfin, H.A. Alfredsson, Solving the carbon-
dioxide buoyancy challenge: the design and field testing of a dissolved CO2
injection system, J Greenh Gas Control 37 (2015) 213–219.
J. Luo et al.
[40] J.M. Matter, M. Stute, S.O.  Snæbj€ornsdottir, E.H. Oelkers, S.R. Gislason,
E.S. Aradottir, B. Sigfusson, I. Gunnarsson, H. Sigurdardottir, E. Gunnlaugsson,
Rapid carbon mineralization for permanent disposal of anthropogenic carbon
dioxide emissions, Science 352 (6291) (2016) 1312–1314.
[41] P.A. Pogge von Strandmann, K.W. Burton, S.O. Snæbj€ ornsd
ottir, B. Sigfússon,
E.S. Arad ottir, I. Gunnarsson, H.A. Alfredsson, K.G. Mesfin, E.H. Oelkers,
S.R. Gislason, Rapid CO2 mineralisation into calcite at the CarbFix storage site
quantified using calcium isotopes, Nat. Commun. 10 (1) (2019) 1–7.
[42] E.H. Oelkers, S.R. Gislason, J. Matter, Mineral carbonation of CO2, Elements 4 (5)
(2008) 333–337.
[43] G. Montes-Hernandez, M. Bah, F. Renard, Mechanism of formation of engineered
magnesite: a useful mineral to mitigate CO2 industrial emissions, J. CO2 Util. 35
(2020) 272–276.
[44] S. Yadav, Carbon storage by mineral carbonation and industrial applications of
CO2, Mater Sci Energy Technol 3 (2020) 494–500.
[45] D.E. Clark, E.H. Oelkers, I. Gunnarsson, B. Sigfússon, S.O.  Snæbj€ ornsdottir,
E.S. Aradottir, S.R. Gíslason, CarbFix2: CO2 and H2S mineralization during 3.5
years of continuous injection into basaltic rocks at more than 250
C, Geochem.
Cosmochim. Acta 279 (2020) 45–66.
[46] P. Ballirano, C. De Vito, S. Mignardi, V. Ferrini, Phase transitions in the
MgCO2H2O system and the thermal decomposition of dypingite, Mg5 (CO3) 4
(OH) 2⋅ 5H2O: implications for geosequestration of carbon dioxide, Chem. Geol.
340 (2013) 59–67.
[47] R.C. Ferguson, C. Nichols, T. Van Leeuwen, V.A. Kuuskraa, Storing CO2 with
enhanced oil recovery, Energy Proc. 1 (1) (2009) 1989–1996.
[48] V.A. Kuuskraa, M.L. Godec, P. Dipietro, CO2 utilization from “next generation”
CO2 enhanced oil recovery technology, Energy Proc. 37 (2013) 6854–6866.
[49] J. Luo, Z. Hou, G. Feng, J. Liao, M. Haris, Y. Xiong, Effect of reservoir
heterogeneity on CO2 flooding in tight oil reservoirs, Energies 15 (9) (2022) 3015.
[50] S.G. Ghedan, In Global Laboratory Experience of CO2-EOR Flooding, SPE/EAGE
reservoir characterization and simulation conference, OnePetro, 2009, 2009.
[51] M. Andrei, M. De Simoni, A. Delbianco, P. Cazzani, L. Zanibelli, Enhanced Oil
Recovery with CO2 Capture and Sequestration, 2010.
[52] D. Alfarge, M. Wei, B. Bai, CO2-EOR mechanisms in huff-n-puff operations in shale
oil reservoirs based on history matching results, Fuel 226 (2018) 112–120.
[53] B. Jia, J.-S. Tsau, R. Barati, A review of the current progress of CO2 injection EOR
and carbon storage in shale oil reservoirs, Fuel 236 (2019) 404–427.
[54] R.E. Sweatman, S. Crookshank, S. Edman, In Outlook and Technologies for
Offshore CO2 EOR/CCS Projects, Offshore Technology Conference, OnePetro,
2011, 2011.
[55] M. Kühn, A. F€ orster, J. Großmann, J. Lillie, P. Pilz, K. Reinicke, D. Sch€afer,
M. Tesmer, C. Partners, The Altmark natural gas field is prepared for the enhanced
gas recovery pilot test with CO2, Energy Proc. 37 (2013) 6777–6785.
[56] A. Al-Hasami, S. Ren, B. Tohidi, In CO2 Injection for Enhanced Gas Recovery and
Geo-Storage: Reservoir Simulation and Economics, SPE Europec/EAGE Annual
Conference, OnePetro, 2005, 2005.
[57] T. Clemens, S. Secklehner, K. Mantatzis, B. Jacobs, In Enhanced Gas Recovery,
Challenges Shown at the Example of Three Gas Fields, SPE Europec/Eage Annual
Conference and Exhibition, OnePetro, 2010, 2010.
[58] C. Khan, R. Amin, G. Madden, Carbon dioxide injection for enhanced gas recovery
and storage (reservoir simulation), Egypt J Petrol 22 (2) (2013) 225–240.
[59] U. Odi, In Analysis and Potential of CO2 Huff-N-Puff for Near Wellbore
Condensate Removal and Enhanced Gas Recovery, SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, OnePetro, 2012, 2012.
[60] E.D. Sloan, Fundamental principles and applications of natural gas hydrates,
Nature 426 (6964) (2003) 353–359.
[61] J. Wei, Y. Fang, H. Lu, H. Lu, J. Lu, J. Liang, S. Yang, Distribution and
characteristics of natural gas hydrates in the Shenhu sea area, South China sea,
Mar. Petrol. Geol. 98 (2018) 622–628.
[62] T. Ebinuma, Method for Dumping and Disposing of Carbon Dioxide Gas and
Apparatus Therefor, Google Patents, 1993.
[63] T. Dixon, A. Birchenough, In exporting CO2 for offshore storage–the London
protocol's export amendment, in: Proceedings of the 15th Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies Conference, 2021, 2021, pp. 15–18.
[64] IEAGHG, Exporting CO2 for Offshore Storage – the London Protocol's Export
Amendment And Associated Guidelines And Guidance, 2021.
[65] CO2GeoNet, State-of-play on CO2 Geological Storage in 32 European Countries —
an Update, CO2GeoNet Report, 2021.
[66] R.M. Webb, M.B. Gerrard, Overcoming impediments to offshore CO2 storage: legal
issues in the United States and Canada, Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 49 (2019),
10634.
[67] L.L. Davies, K. Uchitel, J. Ruple, Understanding barriers to commercial-scale
carbon capture and sequestration in the United States: an empirical assessment,
Energy Pol. 59 (2013) 745–761.
[68] B. Metz, O. Davidson, H. De Coninck, M. Loos, L. Meyer, IPCC Special Report on
Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
2005.
[69] O. Tucker, M. Holley, R. Metcalfe, S. Hurst, Containment risk management for
CO2 storage in a depleted gas field, UK North Sea, Energy Proc. 37 (2013)
4804–4817.
[70] M.J. Rahman, M. Fawad, J. Jahren, N.H. Mondol, Influence of depositional and
diagenetic processes on caprock properties of CO2 storage sites in the northern
North Sea, offshore Norway, Geosciences 12 (5) (2022).
[71] M.J. Rahman, M. Fawad, N.H. Mondol, Organic-rich shale caprock properties of
potential CO2 storage sites in the northern North Sea, offshore Norway, Mar.
Petrol. Geol. 122 (2020).
18
Energy Reviews 2 (2023) 100016
[72] L. Vielst€adte, P. Linke, M. Schmidt, S. Sommer, M. Haeckel, M. Braack,
K. Wallmann, Footprint and detectability of a well leaking CO2 in the Central
North Sea: implications from a field experiment and numerical modelling, Int. J.
Greenh. Gas Control 84 (2019) 190–203.
[73] Y.-C. Park, D.-G. Huh, C.-H. Park, A pressure-monitoring method to warn CO2
leakage in geological storage sites, Environ. Earth Sci. 67 (2) (2012) 425–433.
[74] D. Tanase, J. Tanaka, In progress of CO2 injection and monitoring of the
Tomakomai CCS demonstration project, in: Proceedings of the 15th Greenhouse
Gas Control Technologies Conference, 2021, 2021, pp. 15–18.
[75] A. Flohr, A. Schaap, E.P. Achterberg, G. Alendal, M. Arundell, et al., Towards
improved monitoring of offshore carbon storage: a real-world field experiment
detecting a controlled sub-seafloor CO2 release, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control (2021)
106.
[76] D.P. Connelly, J.M. Bull, A. Flohr, A. Schaap, D. Koopmans, J.C. Blackford, et al.,
Assuring the integrity of offshore carbon dioxide storage, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. (2022) 166.
[77] Y. Maeda, K. Shitashima, A. Sakamoto, Mapping observations using AUV and
numerical simulations of leaked CO2 diffusion in sub-seabed CO2 release
experiment at Ardmucknish Bay, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 38 (2015) 143–152.
[78] A. Lichtschlag, C.R. Pearce, M. Suominen, J. Blackford, S.M. Borisov, J.M. Bull,
D. de Beer, M. Dean, M. Esposito, A. Flohr, J. Gros, M. Haeckel, V.A.I. Huvenne,
R.H. James, D. Koopmans, P. Linke, M. Mowlem, A.M. Omar, A. Schaap,
M. Schmidt, S. Sommer, J. Strong, D.P. Connelly, Suitability analysis and revised
strategies for marine environmental carbon capture and storage (CCS) monitoring,
Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control (2021) 112.
[79] M.C. Payan, B. Galan, A. Coz, C. Vandecasteele, J.R. Viguri, Evaluation through
column leaching tests of metal release from contaminated estuarine sediment
subject to CO2 leakages from carbon capture and storage sites, Environ. Pollut.
171 (2012) 174–184.
[80] M.D. Basallote, A. Rodríguez-Romero, J. Blasco, A. DelValls, I. Riba, Lethal effects
on different marine organisms, associated with sediment–seawater acidification
deriving from CO2 leakage, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 19 (7) (2012)
2550–2560.
[81] P. Calosi, S. Rastrick, M. Graziano, S. Thomas, C. Baggini, H. Carter, J. Hall-
Spencer, M. Milazzo, J. Spicer, Distribution of sea urchins living near shallow
water CO2 vents is dependent upon species acid–base and ion-regulatory abilities,
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 73 (2) (2013) 470–484.
[82] M.R. de Orte, A.M. Sarmiento, M.D. Basallote, A. Rodríguez-Romero, I. Riba,
Effects on the mobility of metals from acidification caused by possible CO2
leakage from sub-seabed geological formations, Sci. Total Environ. 470 (2014)
356–363.
[83] M.D. Basallote, M.R. De Orte, T.A.n. DelValls, I. Riba, Studying the effect of CO2-
induced acidification on sediment toxicity using acute amphipod toxicity test,
Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (15) (2014) 8864–8872.
[84] A. Rodriguez-Romero, M.D. Basallote, R. Manoela, T.A.  DelValls, I. Riba, J. Blasco,
Simulation of CO2 leakages during injection and storage in sub-seabed geological
formations: metal mobilization and biota effects, Environ. Int. 68 (2014) 105–117.
[85] M.D. Basallote, A. Rodríguez-Romero, M.R. De Orte, T.A.  DelValls, I. Riba, CO2
leakage simulation: effects of the pH decrease on fertilisation and larval
development of Paracentrotus lividus and sediment metals toxicity, Chem. Ecol.
34 (1) (2018) 1–21.
[86] S. Widdicombe, C.L. McNeill, H. Stahl, P. Taylor, A.M. Queir os, J. Nunes, K. Tait,
Impact of sub-seabed CO 2 leakage on macrobenthic community structure and
diversity, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 38 (2015) 182–192.
[87] J. Kita, H. Stahl, M. Hayashi, T. Green, Y. Watanabe, S. Widdicombe, Benthic
megafauna and CO 2 bubble dynamics observed by underwater photography
during a controlled sub-seabed release of CO 2, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 38
(2015) 202–209.
[88] F. Sabatino, A. Grimm, F. Gallucci, M. van Sint Annaland, G.J. Kramer,
M. Gazzani, A comparative energy and costs assessment and optimization for
direct air capture technologies, Joule 5 (8) (2021) 2047–2076.
[89] K.S. Lackner, H. Azarabadi, Buying down the cost of direct air capture, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 60 (22) (2021) 8196–8208.
[90] S. Fuss, W.F. Lamb, M.W. Callaghan, J. Hilaire, F. Creutzig, T. Amann, T. Beringer,
W. de Oliveira Garcia, J. Hartmann, T. Khanna, Negative emissions—Part 2: costs,
potentials and side effects, Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (6) (2018), 063002.
[91] J.M. Moch, W. Xue, J.P. Holdren, Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage:
Technologies and Costs in the, U.S. Context, 2022.
[92] K. Patchigolla, J.E. Oakey, Design overview of high pressure dense phase CO2
pipeline transport in flow mode, Energy Proc. 37 (2013) 3123–3130.
[93] S. Roussanaly, G. Skaugen, A. Aasen, J. Jakobsen, L. Vesely, Techno-economic
evaluation of CO2 transport from a lignite-fired IGCC plant in the Czech Republic,
Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 65 (2017) 235–250.
[94] R. Svensson, M. Odenberger, F. Johnsson, L. Str€ omberg, Transportation systems
for CO2––application to carbon capture and storage, Energy Convers. Manag. 45
(15–16) (2004) 2343–2353.
[95] M. Ozaki, T. Ohsumi, R. Kajiyama, Ship-based offshore CCS featuring CO2 shuttle
ships equipped with injection facilities, Energy Proc. 37 (2013) 3184–3190.
[96] P. Coussy, S. Roussanaly, G. Bureau–Cauchois, T. Wildenborg, Economic CO2
network optimization model COCATE European Project (2010-2013), Energy
Proc. 37 (2013) 2923–2931.
[97] G.F. Weihs, K. Kumar, D. Wiley, Understanding the economic feasibility of ship
transport of CO2 within the CCS chain, Energy Proc. 63 (2014) 2630–2637.
[98] ZEP, The Costs Of CO2 Transport: Post-Demonstration CCS in the EU, European
Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants Brussels, 2011.
J. Luo et al.
[99] S. Decarre, J. Berthiaud, N. Butin, J.-L. Guillaume-Combecave, CO2 maritime
transportation, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 4 (5) (2010) 857–864.
[100] S. Roussanaly, E.S. Hognes, J.P. Jakobsen, Multi-criteria analysis of two CO2
transport technologies, Energy Proc. 37 (2013) 2981–2988.
[101] S. Roussanaly, J.P. Jakobsen, E.H. Hognes, A.L. Brunsvold, Benchmarking of CO2
transport technologies: Part I—onshore pipeline and shipping between two
onshore areas, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 19 (2013) 584–594.
[102] S. Roussanaly, A.L. Brunsvold, E.S. Hognes, Benchmarking of CO2 transport
technologies: Part II–Offshore pipeline and shipping to an offshore site, Int. J.
Greenh. Gas Control 28 (2014) 283–299.
[103] Z. memorandum, The Cost of Subsurface Storage of CO2, European Zero Emission
Technology and Innovation Platform, Brussels, 2019.
[104] D. Morgan, T. Grant, J. Simpson, P. Myles, A. Poe, J. Valenstein, FE/NETL CO2
Transport Cost Model: Description and User's Manual, US Dept of Energy, National
Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA, 2014.
[105] GCCSI, Economic Assessment Of Carbon Capture And Storage Technologies: 2011
Update, Global CCS Institute, 2011.
[106] A. Wendt, A. Sheriff, C.Y. Shih, D. Vikara, T. Grant, A multi-criteria CCUS
screening evaluation of the Gulf of Mexico, USA, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control
(2022) 118.
[107] R. Gholami, A. Raza, S. Iglauer, Leakage risk assessment of a CO2 storage site: a
review, Earth Sci. Rev. 223 (2021), 103849.
[108] J.S. Anderson, K.D. Romanak, T.A. Meckel, Assessment of shallow subsea
hydrocarbons as a proxy for leakage at offshore geologic CO2 storage sites, Int. J.
Greenh. Gas Control 74 (2018) 19–27.
[109] S.T. Anderson, Risk, liability, and economic issues with long-term CO2 storage—a
review, Nat. Resour. Res. 26 (1) (2016) 89–112.
[110] Q. Li, G.J. G.c. s. Liu, Risk Assessment of the Geological Storage of CO 2: A Review,
Geologic carbon sequestration, 2016, pp. 249–284.
[111] M. Dean, J. Blackford, D. Connelly, R. Hines, Insights and guidance for offshore
CO2 storage monitoring based on the QICS, ETI MMV, and STEMM-CCS projects,
Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 100 (2020), 103120.
[112] Y. Tanaka, Y. Sawada, D. Tanase, J. Tanaka, S. Shiomi, T. Kasukawa, Tomakomai
CCS demonstration project of Japan, CO2 injection in process, Energy Proc. 114
(2017) 5836–5846.
[113] A.E.A. Blomberg, I.-K. Waarum, C. Totland, E. Eek, Marine monitoring for offshore
geological carbon storage—a review of strategies, technologies and trends,
Geosciences 11 (9) (2021).
[114] C. Totland, E. Eek, A.E.A. Blomberg, I.-K. Waarum, P. Fietzek, A. Walta, The
correlation between pO2 and pCO2 as a chemical marker for detection of offshore
CO2 leakage, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 99 (2020).
[115] M. Haeckel, J. Blackford, CCT2 Synthesis Report on Predicted Impacts and
Uncertainties, 3, ECO2 Deliverable D12, 2014.
[116] J.K. Eccles, L. Pratson, Economic evaluation of offshore storage potential in the US
Exclusive Economic Zone, Greenhouse Gases: Sci. Technol. 3 (1) (2013) 84–95.
[117] E.S. Rubin, J.E. Davison, H.J. Herzog, The cost of CO2 capture and storage, Int. J.
Greenh. Gas Control 40 (2015) 378–400.
[118] Live carbon prices today. https://carboncredits.com/carbon-prices-today/?gclid
¼CjwKCAiA-dCcBhBQEiwAeWidtRzuVJghghqazTmyDb1OILYzq05EUXSuek8Erh
P35OQzRQhbayx-DRoC1zIQAvD_BwE.
[119] D. Sachde, R. McKaskle, J. Lundeen, Review of Technical Challenges, Risks, Path
Forward, and Economics of Offshore CO2 Transportation and Infrastructure,
Offshore Technology Conference, OnePetro, 2019, 2019.
[120] K. Zhang, H.C. Lau, S. Liu, H. Li, Carbon capture and storage in the coastal region
of China between Shanghai and Hainan, Energy (2022) 247.
[121] M. Knoope, A. Ramírez, A. Faaij, Investing in CO2 transport infrastructure under
uncertainty: a comparison between ships and pipelines, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control
41 (2015) 174–193.
[122] H. Nam, T. Lee, J. Lee, H. Chung, Design of carrier-based offshore CCS system:
plant location and fleet assignment, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 12 (2013)
220–230.
[123] M. Ozaki, T. Ohsumi, CCS from multiple sources to offshore storage site complex
via ship transport, Energy Proc. 4 (2011) 2992–2999.
[124] ElementEnergy, Shipping UK Cost Estimation Study, 2018. https://assets.publish
ing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
761762/BEIS_Shipping_CO2.pdf.
[125] G. Gassnova, Feasibility study for full-scale CCS in Norway, Minist Petrol Energy
(2016) 1–62.
[126] V. Nikulshina, D. Hirsch, M. Mazzotti, A. Steinfeld, CO2 capture from air and co-
production of H2 via the Ca (OH) 2–CaCO3 cycle using concentrated solar
power–Thermodynamic analysis, Energy 31 (12) (2006) 1715–1725.
[127] S.P. Singh, P. Hao, X. Liu, C. Wei, W.Q. Xu, N. Wei, X. Li, H. Lu, A.Y. Ku, Large-
scale affordable CO2 capture is possible by 2030, Joule 3 (9) (2019) 2154–2164.
[128] H. Ishaq, O. Siddiqui, G. Chehade, I. Dincer, A solar and wind driven energy
system for hydrogen and urea production with CO2 capturing, Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 46 (6) (2021) 4749–4760.
[129] H. Pilorge, P. Psarras, J. He, J.L. Wilcox, Combining Geothermal Potential and
Direct Air Capture for Negative Emission Power Generation in California, 2019,
Geothermal Resources Council, 2019.
[130] T.M. Ratouis, S.O.  Snæbj€ ornsdottir, M.J. Voigt, B. Sigfússon, G. Gunnarsson,
E.S. Aradottir, V. Hj€ orleifsd
ottir, Carbfix 2: a transport model of long-term CO2
and H2S injection into basaltic rocks at Hellisheidi, SW-Iceland, Int. J. Greenh. Gas
Control 114 (2022), 103586.
[131] S. Iida, K. Sakata, Hydrogen technologies and developments in Japan, Clean
Energy 3 (2) (2019) 105–113.
19
Energy Reviews 2 (2023) 100016
[132] F.C.a.H.J. Undertaking, Hydrogen Roadmap Europe: A Sustainable Pathway for
the European Energy Transition, 2019.
[133] IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2020, IEA, Paris, 2020.
[134] B. S, T. M, H. J, S. E, M. C, P. D, H. P, National Hydrogen Roadmap, CSIRO,
Australia, 2018.
[135] P. Sun, A. Elgowainy, Updates of Hydrogen Production from SMR Process in
GREET® 2019, Argonne National Laboratory, 2019.
[136] M. Cames, S. Chaudry, F. Keimeyer, J. Sutter, L. von Vittorelli, R. Hasegawa,
J. Schilling, Current Situation and Ongoing Projects on Carbon Capture and
Storage and Carbon Capture and Utilization in Germany and Japan, ECOS Consult
GmbH, Berlin, 2022.
[137] T.I. METI - Ministry of Economy, Report of Tomakomai CCS Demonstration Project
at 300 Thousand Tonnes Cumulative Injection, NEDO, 2020.
[138] Y. Xiong, Z. Hou, H. Xie, J. Zhao, X. Tan, J. Luo, Microbial-mediated CO2
Methanation and Renewable Natural Gas Storage in Depleted Petroleum
Reservoirs: A Review of Biogeochemical Mechanism and Perspective, Gondwana
Research, 2022.
[139] H. Xie, Z. Zhao, T. Liu, Y. Wu, C. Lan, W. Jiang, L. Zhu, Y. Wang, D. Yang, Z. Shao,
A membrane-based seawater electrolyser for hydrogen generation, Nature 612
(7941) (2022) 673–678.
[140] E.K. Halland, Offshore storage of CO2 in Norway, Geophysics and
Geosequestration (2019) 195–205.
[141] P. Frykman, L.H. Nielsen, T. Vangkilde-Pedersen, K.L. Anthonsen, The potential
for large-scale, subsurface geological CO2 storage in Denmark, GEUS Bulletin 17
(2009) 13–16.
[142] F. Riis, E. Halland, CO2 storage atlas of the Norwegian continental shelf: methods
used to evaluate capacity and maturity of the CO2 storage potential, Energy Proc.
63 (2014) 5258–5265.
[143] A. Baklid, R. Korbol, G. Owren, In Sleipner Vest CO2 Disposal, CO2 Injection into a
Shallow Underground Aquifer, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
OnePetro, 1996, 1996.
[144] P.S. Ringrose, The CCS hub in Norway: some insights from 22 years of saline
aquifer storage, Energy Proc. 146 (2018) 166–172.
[145] S. Grude, M. Landrø, J. Dvorkin, Pressure effects caused by CO2 injection in the
Tubåen Fm., the Snøhvit field, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 27 (2014) 178–187.
[146] M. Bentham, T. Mallows, J. Lowndes, A. Green, CO2 STORage evaluation database
(CO2 Stored). The UK's online storage atlas, Energy Proc. 63 (2014) 5103–5113.
[147] F. Neele, J. ten Veen, F. Wilschut, C. Hofstee, Independent assessment of high-
capacity offshore CO2 storage options, TNO-Report, RCI-ISA Phase 3 (2012).
[148] V. Vandeweijer, C. Hofstee, H. Graven, In 13 Years of Safe CO2 Injection at K12-B,
Fifth CO2 Geological Storage Workshop, European Association of Geoscientists &
Engineers, 2018, pp. 1–5, 2018.
[149] M. Tambach, H. Visscher, Towards energy-neutral new housing developments.
municipal climate governance in The Netherlands, Eur. Plann. Stud. 20 (1) (2012)
111–130.
[150] E.B. Burwicz, L. Rüpke, K. Wallmann, Estimation of the global amount of
submarine gas hydrates formed via microbial methane formation based on
numerical reaction-transport modeling and a novel parameterization of Holocene
sedimentation, Geochem. Cosmochim. Acta 75 (16) (2011) 4562–4576.
[151] C. Deusner, N. Bigalke, E. Kossel, M. Haeckel, In studies towards the development
of a CH4 production technology by CO2 sequestration into submarine hydrate
reservoirs, in: 75th EAGE Conference & Exhibition Incorporating SPE EUROPEC
2013, 2013, EAGE Publications BV, 2013, 300271 cp-348.
[152] B. Cai, L. Qi, Z. Xian, China carbon dioxide capture utilization and storage (CCUS)
annual report, in: China CCUS Pathway Study; Ministry of Ecology and
Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, The Administrative Center for China's
Agenda, 2021, 21 2021.
[153] L. Xu, J. Wang, D. Tian, Y. Li, In Innovation Conceptual Design On Carbon Neutrality
Deepwater Drilling Platform, the 32nd International Ocean and Polar Engineering
Conference, OnePetro, 2022, 2022.
[154] L.B. Hill, X. Li, N. Wei, CO2-EOR in China: a comparative review, Int. J. Greenh.
Gas Control 103 (2020), 103173.
[155] H. Guo, J. Dong, Z. Wang, H. Liu, R. Ma, D. Kong, F. Wang, X. Xin, Y. Li, H. She, In
2018 EOR Survey In China-part 1, SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference,
OnePetro, 2018, 2018.
[156] H. Li, H.C. Lau, X. Wei, S. Liu, CO2 storage potential in major oil and gas reservoirs
in the northern South China Sea, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 108 (2021), 103328.
[157] Y. Diao, S. Zhang, Y. Wang, X. Li, H. Cao, Short-term safety risk assessment of CO2
geological storage projects in deep saline aquifers using the Shenhua CCS
Demonstration Project as a case study, Environ. Earth Sci. 73 (11) (2015)
7571–7586.
[158] M.C. Nguyen, X. Zhang, N. Wei, J. Li, X. Li, Y. Zhang, P.H. Stauffer, An object-
based modeling and sensitivity analysis study in support of CO2 storage in deep
saline aquifers at the Shenhua site, Ordos Basin, Geomechanics and Geophysics for
GeoMech Geophys Geo-Energy Geo-Resour 3 (3) (2017) 293–314.
[159] N. Wei, X. Li, R.T. Dahowski, C.L. Davidson, S. Liu, Y. Zha, Economic evaluation on
CO2-EOR of onshore oil fields in China, J Greenh Gas Control 37 (2015) 170–181.
[160] J. Bradshaw, B. Bradshaw, G. Allinson, A. Rigg, V. Nguyen, L. Spencer, The
potential for geological sequestration of CO2 in Australia: preliminary findings
and implications for new gas field development, The APPEA Journal 42 (1) (2002)
25–46.
[161] C. Gibson-Poole, S. Lang, J. Streit, G. Kraishan, R. Hillis, In Assessing a basin's
potential for geological sequestration of carbon dioxide: an example from the
Mesozoic of the Petrel Sub-basin, NW Australia, in: Proceedings of the West
Australian Basins Symposium III, Oilfield Publications, 2002, 2002.
J. Luo et al.
[162] J. Sayers, C. Marsh, A. Scott, Y. Cinar, J. Bradshaw, A. Hennig, S. Barclay,
R. Daniel, Assessment of a potential storage site for carbon dioxide: a case study,
southeast Queensland, Australia, Environ. Geosci. 13 (2) (2006) 123–142.
[163] CO2CEC further opportunities for CCS in Australia – two more CO2 storage
permits awarded. https://co2crc.com.au/further-opportunities-for-ccs-in-australia
-two-more-co2-storage-permits-awarded/.
[164] M. Trupp, J. Frontczak, J. Torkington, The gorgon CO2 injection project–2012
update, Energy Proc. 37 (2013) 6237–6247.
[165] M. Quinn, Carbon capture and storage: a review of Australian projects, The APPEA
Journal 62 (1) (2022) 334–341.
[166] IEA, Carbon Capture, Utilisation And Storage: the Opportunity In Southeast Asia,
2021.
[167] K. Lee, M.-H. Park, Y. Kim, G. Browne, J. Kaldi, CO 2 Sequestration in Deep
Sedimentary Formations of the Southwestern Margin of the Ulleung Basin, Offshore,
East Sea, Korea, 2012 Oceans-Yeosu, IEEE, 2012, pp. 1–4, 2012.
[168] C. Huh, S.-G. Kang, M.-H. Park, K.-S. Lee, Y.-G. Park, D.-J. Min, J.-S. Lee, Latest
CO2 transport, storage and monitoring R&D progress in Republic of Korea:
offshore geologic storage, Energy Proc. 37 (2013) 6520–6526.
[169] E. Agartan, M. Gaddipati, Y. Yip, B. Savage, C. Ozgen, CO2 storage in depleted oil
and gas fields in the Gulf of Mexico, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 72 (2018) 38–48.
[170] I. Fukai, L. Keister, P.R. Ganesh, L. Cumming, W. Fortin, N. Gupta, Carbon dioxide
storage resource assessment of Cretaceous- and Jurassic-age sandstones in the
Atlantic offshore region of the northeastern United States, Environ. Geosci. 27 (1)
(2020) 25–47.
[171] D.S. Almayahi, J.H. Knapp, C. Knapp, Quantitative evaluation of CO2 storage
potential in the offshore Atlantic lower cretaceous Strata, southeastern United
States, Energies 15 (13) (2022).
[172] D. Goldberg, L. Aston, A. Bonneville, I. Demirkanli, C. Evans, A. Fisher, H. Garcia,
M. Gerrard, M. Heesemann, K. Hnottavange-Telleen, Geological storage of CO2 in
sub-seafloor basalt: the CarbonSAFE pre-feasibility study offshore Washington
State and British Columbia, Energy Proc. 146 (2018) 158–165.
[173] M. Ciotta, D. Peyerl, L.G.L. Zacharias, A.L. Fontenelle, C. Tassinari, E.M. Moretto,
CO2 storage potential of offshore oil and gas fields in Brazil, Int. J. Greenh. Gas
Control (2021) 112.
[174] Reuters Brazil's Petrobras dramatically boosts CO2 re-injection. https://www.re
uters.com/business/energy/brazils-petrobras-dramatically-boosts-co2-re-injection
-2021-12-29/.
[175] R.T. Dahowski, X. Li, C.L. Davidson, N. Wei, J.J. Dooley, Regional Opportunities for
Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in China: A Comprehensive CO2 Storage Cost
Curve and Analysis of the Potential for Large Scale Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage
20
Energy Reviews 2 (2023) 100016
in the People's Republic of China; Pacific Northwest National Lab.(PNNL), 2009.
Richland, WA (United States).
[176] H. Jin, A. Wood, A. Seiler, Roadmap for Carbon Capture and Storage
Demonstration and Deployment in the People's Republic of China, Asian
Development Bank, 2015.
[177] H. Li, H.C. Lau, X. Wei, S. Liu, CO2 storage potential in major oil and gas reservoirs
in the northern South China Sea, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control (2021) 108.
[178] D. Zhou, Z. Zhao, J. Liao, Z. Sun, A preliminary assessment on CO2 storage
capacity in the Pearl River Mouth Basin offshore Guangdong, China, Int. J.
Greenh. Gas Control 5 (2) (2011) 308–317.
[179] P. Li, D. Zhou, C. Zhang, Y. Zhang, J. Peng, Potential of sub-seafloor CO2
geological storage in Northern South China Sea and its importance for CCS
development in South China, Energy Proc. 37 (2013) 5191–5200.
[180] G. Li, C. Huo, T. Su, B. Liu, Assessment of the CO2 storage potential in the deep
saline Formation of offshore Bohai Basin, China, Environ. Eng. Geosci. 22 (1)
(2016) 67–79.
[181] H. Gao, The predicted potential for carbon dioxide geological storage in China's
sea area reaches 2.58 trillion tons. https://m.mnr.gov.cn/dt/ywbb/202301/t20
230116_2773942.html.
[182] K. Zhang, H.C. Lau, S. Liu, H. Li, Carbon capture and storage in the coastal region
of China between Shanghai and Hainan, Energy 247 (2022), 123470.
[183] P. Li, D. Zhou, C. Zhang, G. Chen, Assessment of the effective CO2 storage capacity
in the Beibuwan Basin, offshore of southwestern PR China, Int. J. Greenh. Gas
Control 37 (2015) 325–339.
[184] N. Wei, X. Li, Y. Wang, R.T. Dahowski, C.L. Davidson, G.S. Bromhal, A preliminary
sub-basin scale evaluation framework of site suitability for onshore aquifer-based
CO2 storage in China, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 12 (2013) 231–246.
[185] Z. Xu, T. Hu, X.-Q. Pang, E.-Z. Wang, X.-H. Liu, Z.-Y. Wu, D. Chen, C.-R. Li, X.-
W. Zhang, T. Wang, Research progress and challenges of natural gas hydrate
resource evaluation in the South China Sea, Petrol. Sci. 19 (1) (2022) 13–25.
[186] N. Wei, R. Bai, J. Zhao, Y. Zhang, J. Xue, The prospect of natural gas hydrate
(NGH) under the vision of Peak Carbon Dioxide Emissions in China, Petroleum 7
(4) (2021) 357–363.
[187] D. Gao, Discussing on development modes and engineering techniques for
deepwater natural gas and its hydrates, Nat. Gas. Ind. 40 (2020) 169–176.
[188] J. Zhao, K. Xu, Y. Song, W. Liu, W. Lam, Y. Liu, K. Xue, Y. Zhu, X. Yu, Q. Li,
A review on research on replacement of CH4 in natural gas hydrates by use of
CO2, Energies 5 (2) (2012) 399–419.
[189] P. Ndlovu, S. Babaee, P. Naidoo, Review on CH4-CO2 replacement for CO2
sequestration and CH4/CO2 hydrate formation in porous media, Fuel (2022) 320.