1

CO2-
STORAGE

How can CO2 be stored underground and what are

the risks?

Bellona report apr. 29. 2024

 2

Briefly about Bellona:

The Bellona Foundation is an independent non-profit organization
with the goal of addressing climate and environmental issues. Since
1986, Bellona has been engaged in key environmental issues both
nationally and internationally, recognised for its technological
understanding and solution-oriented approach. Today, approximately
60 engineers, biologists, economists, lawyers, political scientists, and
journalists work at our offices in Oslo, Brussels, Berlin, and Vilnius. We
also have representatives in several EU countries and in the USA. Our
website is available in Norwegian, English, German, and Russian.

Disclaimer:
Limitation of Liability: The Bellona Foundation strive to ensure that the
information in this report is correct, and that the content does not
infringe upon the copyrights of any third-party. However, we cannot
guarantee that this is the case, and we accept no responsibility for
errors, inaccuracies, ambiguities or omissions in the information it
contains. Furthermore, we do not accept any responsibility for the
legal or financial consequences of the use, quoting or interpretation of
the content of this report by others.

Author: Mats Rongved Responsible Publisher: Bellona

Advisor for Bellona’s CCS-program ISBN-number: ISBN 978-82-92318-22-5
 3

Table of Contents
CO2-Storage: A summary 4

Why do we need it? 5

What is it? 6

How do we store it? 6

Basic version: 6
Detailed version: 7

Types of storage 9
Depleted Oil and Gas Reservoirs 10
Saline Aquifers 10
Basalt 10
Enhanced Oil/Gas Recovery in operational oil and gas fields 10

Risks of leakage 11
Leakage to the surface 11
Leakage out of the licensed area 13
In case of leakage to the surface 13
Environmental impacts 13
Financial impacts 14

Measurement, Monitoring and Verification (MMV) 14

Numerical models 14
3D and 4D Seismic surveys 16
Surface Deformation Monitoring 16
Overlying aquifer monitoring 17
Microseismic monitoring 17
Temperature and Pressure monitoring 17
Surface/Seabed monitoring 17

Examples of active storage projects 17

Sleipner 17
Quest 18

The storage situation in Europe: Do we have enough space? 18

Europe 18

Current Status of CCS 19

FAQ and/or common myths 20

Bibliography 21
 4

CO2-Storage: A summary
For effective and safe CO2 storage for the purpose of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS),
several considerations come into play. Firstly, selecting an appropriate reservoir is
paramount, one that minimises the risk of CO2 leakage and is strategically located near
existing or planned CO2 transport infrastructure to reduce costs. Ideally, this reservoir
should exhibit high porosity and permeability, ensuring a large storage capacity and
efficient injection rates. Enhancing storage security involves multiple layers of cap rocks
and increasing storage depth. Additionally, a detailed geomechanical assessment of the
site is necessary to ensure proper reservoir management, mitigate the risk of
compromising the cap rock, and inducing seismic activity. Open-access monitoring and
verification mechanisms are crucial not only to guarantee that the CO2 is permanently
stored but also to facilitate industry knowledge-sharing and build public confidence in
CCS technology. Operators need to evaluate the impact of old wells and faults that
traverse the cap rock, as they could jeopardise containment. A competent authority with
fit-for-purpose regulation is needed to ensure risks are handled in a responsible way, and
at the same time facilitating efficient storing and industry growth. Lastly, regions with a
history of significant seismic activity require particularly careful consideration in CCS
implementation.
 CO2 STORAGE 5

CO2-Storage: An overview
Why do we need it?
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), where CO2 is captured, transported, and permanently stored,
constitutes an indispensable component of the strategy for curbing CO2 emissions and mitigating
the severe consequences of climate change (IPCC, 2005). Anthropogenic emissions have been
pinpointed as the primary drivers of climate change, elevating atmospheric CO2 levels from 280
ppm in the 1800s to over 422 ppm in 2023 (NASA, 2023). Consequently, global mean temperatures
have already increased by 1°C from pre-industrial levels (IPCC, 2018). To adhere to the Paris
Agreement's target to keep the global average temperature increase to well below 2°C, substantial
emission reductions are imperative (IPCC, 2018).

Energy-intensive industries stand as some of the largest CO2 emitters and can achieve significant
emission reductions through CCS. Certain industries, such as cement production and waste-to-
energy, currently lack viable alternatives to CCS for emissions reduction. Cement production alone
accounts for approximately 8% of global CO2 emissions, making emissions reductions in this sector
vital for attaining the Paris Agreement targets (Olivier, Janssens-Maenhout, Muntean, & Peters,
2016). Thus, the need for CCS is crucial, particularly in sectors like cement and waste-to-energy,
and in addition CCS offers the most cost-effective means to reduce emissions in several energy-
intensive industries (IPCC, 2023; Bellona & E3G, 2023).

In most projections for future emission pathways to stay below 2°C of warming, there is also an
explicit need to remove carbon from the atmosphere, commonly called “negative emissions” (IPCC,
2023). A frequently mentioned strategy for achieving the necessary negative emissions is
Bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) (IPCC, 2023). BECCS, or more broadly, Bio-CCS, commonly involves
the combustion or processing of biomass (or biofuel) for energy production or serving as a reducing
agent in metals production. Subsequently, CCS is applied to capture the resulting emissions.

The climate benefit is based on the assumption that biomass is carbon-neutral and can then be
seen as a net transfer of CO2 from the atmosphere to the underground storage, with the benefit of
a non-fossil energy source. It is, however, important to take the whole process into account when
determining the amount of carbon removed (Tanzer & Ramírez, 2019). Other strategies of potential
carbon removal include Direct Air Capture and Storage, but this is currently a relatively expensive
and energy intensive application of CCS (IEA, 2023)).
 CO2 STORAGE 6

What is it?
To prevent captured CO2 from entering the atmosphere, it needs to be permanently stored. This is
normally done deep underground, in places where the CO2 is naturally prevented from reaching
the surface again. In a similar way as oil and gas have been trapped underground for millions of
years, the same type of traps can be used to store CO2. Instead of drilling wells to extract trapped
oil and gas, wells can be drilled to inject CO2. With decades of experience and knowledge from the
oil and gas industry, this is a proven method, and hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 have already
been stored safely and permanently underground over the last decades, with no reported leaks
(Aminu et al., 2017).

How do we store it?

Basic version:
First, we need a place to store the CO2; a reservoir. This reservoir should have a large storage
capacity and allow for high daily injection rates. Second, we need a trap to prevent the CO2 from
reaching the surface again. This is normally a cap rock overlying the reservoir in a shape that
prevents the CO2 from migrating upwards. The CO2 cannot flow through the cap rock, and the cap
rock acts as a seal over the reservoir. Lastly, we need a well in the reservoir to pump down the CO2
(see figure 1 for an illustration of how to store CO2 in the subsurface).

Figure 1: Overview of geological storage options for CO2. The grey and striped rock represents a cap rock, that in
several locations illustrates how the injected CO2 is prevented from flowing towards the surface (Figure courtesy of
IEA).
 CO2 STORAGE 7

Detailed version:

The reservoir:
It is a common misconception that we inject CO2 into a large cavern of space underground. In
reality, it is injected into a rock, like sandstone, with a large number of tiny pores which in total offer
a lot of space. The percentage of pore space in the rock is called porosity 1 and is normally around
30% in quality reservoir rocks. One can, however, not access all this space, so when calculating
storage capacity, it is often estimated that 4-8% of the total reservoir pore volume can be accessed
safely (Halland, 2014). Luckily many of these reservoirs are gigantic and still offer plenty of space.
To be able to access as much of the reservoir as possible, with high injection rates, the CO2 needs
to flow easily into the reservoir. Therefore, a reservoir of high porosity and high permeability 2 is
desired (see figure 2 for an illustration). In addition, depths greater than approximately 800 meters
are desired to have a reservoir pressure and temperature where the CO2 is in a supercritical phase.
In the supercritical phase, which occurs at high temperature and high pressures, the CO2 takes up
substantially less space than in a gaseous phase.

Figure 2 illustrates compositions of rock grains and pore space compatible with different porosities and permeabilities.

1
Porosity: A measure of the volume of pore space in a rock, relative to the total rock volume.
2
Permeability: A measure of how easily a fluid can flow through a rock.
 CO2 STORAGE 8

The cap rock:

As the CO2 is less dense than the fluids already present in the reservoir, it will tend to move upwards
due to buoyancy3 forces. For it not to reach the surface, we need a seal above the reservoir in such
a shape that it stops the CO2 from moving upwards towards the surface. These seals are normally
what we call a cap rock. The cap rock is of low permeability, meaning it is difficult for the CO2 to
flow through it.

The well:
To reach these underground storage sites trapping the CO2 in various ways, a well is needed. This
is already standard procedure in the oil and gas industry, and with small adjustments made to
facilitate for CO2 flow, it is a technology which is readily available. If the wells are poorly designed,
they can, however, provide an escape route back to the surface, and should therefore be treated
with care and a high level of quality assurance.

In figure 1, an illustration of reservoirs, with overlying cap rock(s) and penetrated by wells, can be
seen. The injected CO2 (blue) is prevented from moving upwards by an overlying cap rock, similar
to the way oil would be prevented from moving towards the surface.

Secondary trapping mechanisms

The structural trapping of CO2 by an overlying cap rock should be a prerequisite for any storage
site, but with time other trapping mechanisms can come into effect. See figure 3 for illustrations of
the different trapping mechanisms.

Residual trapping: As CO2 flows through the reservoir, it displaces the pre-existing water. As it
continues its movement, the water gradually reoccupies the space, and certain portions of the CO2
become entrapped in small bubbles within the pore spaces. The bubbles are trapped there due to
forces acting between the surface of the CO2 bubble and the solid reservoir rock, known as
capillary forces, resulting in what is termed residual trapping.

Solubility trapping: When the injected CO2 comes in contact with the reservoir fluid it will start to
dissolve until an equilibrium is reached. The fluid will increase in density as CO2 dissolves and starts
to sink. This process is normally quite slow, and it can take thousands of years for the CO2 to be
completely dissolved (Zhang & Song, 2014). It has, however, been shown in several modelling

3
Buoyancy: When something light is submerged in something heavy, it will float upwards. Like helium
balloons towards the sky, and air bubbles in water towards the surface. CO2 is less dense than the fluids
normally found underground and will therefore tend to float back up towards the surface.
 CO2 STORAGE 9

studies that diffusion of CO2 into brine can increase storage capacity and may reduce the chance
of migration of CO2 to the surface (Aminu et al., 2017).

Mineral trapping: Mineral trapping occurs if the CO2 reacts with the formation minerals or organic
matter, and precipitates into a solid. This is a permanent trapping, but often only happens on very
large time scales of thousands of years. In some specific conditions it can happen quite quickly, for
example when dissolved CO2 in water is injected into young basalt formations, as the Carbfix
project in Iceland is an example of.

Figure 3 shows different trapping mechanisms for CO2 in the subsurface (Aminu et al. 2017)

See Aminu et al. (2017) and Zhang & Song (2014) for more information on secondary trapping
mechanisms.

Types of storage
We have several options to where we can geologically store the CO2, with the most common being
depleted oil and gas reservoirs, saline aquifers, active oil and gas fields (through Enhanced Oil
Recovery (EOR)), and in basalt. Both onshore and offshore options exist, where offshore storage is
generally more expensive. For more information on different storage options see Aminu et al.
(2017). It should be noted that EOR based CO2 storage is mostly done with the focus of enhanced
oil production and is generally not considered a positive climate initiative.
 CO2 STORAGE 10

Depleted Oil and Gas Reservoirs

When the oil and gas has been extracted from a reservoir, it can be filled up with the same volume
of CO2. Since the reservoir has trapped oil and gas there for millions of years it can hold CO2 as well
unless we created a leakage through, for example, a poorly constructed well. The benefits with
depleted oil and gas fields are that they already have existing infrastructure, information, and
experience from the reservoir, which can significantly lower costs, risks, and rate of deployment.
The negatives are limited global storage capacity, it can be in conflict of interest with the petroleum
industry, and older wells can pose some risk of leakage. An example of storage in a depleted
reservoir is the Greensand project in Denmark, aiming at storing up to 1.5 Mt of CO2 a year (see
Project Greensand (2023)).

Saline Aquifers
Saline aquifers are large underground reservoirs containing brine as pore fluid. If there are good
cap rocks above the reservoir, it can store CO2 in the same way as with depleted O&G reservoirs.
The benefits of saline aquifers are that they are much more abundant, greater in storage capacity,
and therefore allow for more flexibility in choosing locations. The negatives are that there is often
little information about the reservoir, no wells and little or no infrastructure which can significantly
increase cost. There is also risk of increased cost due to the need to verify cap rock integrity, extra
reservoir modelling, and in general operating with an unknown reservoir. Examples of storage in
saline aquifers are the Sleipner and Snøhvit projects, which have the capacity to inject around 1.5
Mt of CO2 per year (Eiken, et al., 2011).

Basalt
Basalt storage is based on pumping dissolved CO2 in water into a young basalt reservoir, where it
will mineralise to a solid (95% within two years) and considered permanently stored (Carbfix, 2023).
This might offer storage sites for CO2 in locations where more traditional storage options are not
available or too expensive. The negatives are that large amounts of water are needed (27 times the
CO2) which again demands more storage space. More research and testing are needed to verify
this method as a large-scale alternative, but an example of basalt storing is the Carbfix concept
which has injected around 0.1 Mt of CO2 since 2014 (Carbfix, 2023).

Enhanced Oil/Gas Recovery in operational oil and gas fields

Several CO2 -EOR fields are in commercial activity but may have limited capacity in the big picture
and are generally not a positive climate initiative. These fields may also have different regulation
than normal CCS, and calculating the actual amount CO2 stored is not straight forward due to
injected CO2 eventually ending up in the production well. The climate impact of EOR and EGR also
depends on the ratio of CO2 stored and CO2 emitted during the combustion of the fossil fuel
 CO2 STORAGE 11

extracted in the enhanced recovery process, normally resulting in a significant addition of CO2 to
the atmosphere.

Risks of leakage
The concept of CO2 storage in geological structures is already commercially active, there are
several examples of successful storage, and there is a lot of competence transfer from the O&G
industry. It is not, however, without risks and challenges.

Leakage to the surface

One of the primary concerns associated with CCS is the potential for stored CO2 to escape back to
the surface, and into the atmosphere. In reservoirs featuring a robust cap rock, risks are normally
associated with factors like faults, induced fractures, and wells (see figure 4). However, it's worth
noting that numerous projected storage sites have few or no old wells, have no faults, and are
unlikely to experience fracturing during injection, resulting in a very low risk of leakage.

For reservoirs where some of these factors are present, it doesn't necessarily indicate an
inadequate seal, but it does necessitate additional caution when evaluating risks, implementing
monitoring activities, and formulating response plans. In certain instances, when the risk is deemed
excessively high, the reservoir may need to be abandoned. Competent governmental oversight is
crucial to ensure the quality of these assessments.

Figure 4 shows various risks that can be associated with CO2 storage, where the white arrows show potential
pathways for CO2 flow. Figure courtesy of Damen, Faaji, & Turkenburg (2006).
 CO2 STORAGE 12

Faults:
Faults represent larger fractures already existing in the subsurface and can either be fully sealed,
acting as effective barriers, or allow for fluid flow, serving as pathways through the cap rock. Thus,
it is of importance to thoroughly assess risks when faults go through the cap rock. This assessment
should also contain appropriate monitoring strategies and response plans. Fault properties and
sealing mechanisms have been extensively studied over the past 20-30 years, particularly in the oil
and gas industry (Pei, Paton, Knipe, & Wu, 2015). However, it's important to acknowledge that faults
introduce an elevated level of risk and may, in certain cases, render a reservoir unsuitable for CO 2
storage.

Fractures:
Injecting fluids into the subsurface alters reservoir pressure and can induce fractures. Induced
fractures typically pose a concern only if they penetrate the cap rock, and in some instances, they
are desired to facilitate improved CO2 injection. A key consideration is conducting site-specific risk
assessments with geomechanical analysis. Tests can be performed to determine fracture
pressures, coupled with close monitoring of borehole pressures, enabling safe injection practices.
Nonetheless, if injection pressures increase past safety margins and injectivity decreases, reservoir
abandonment may become necessary. Microseismic monitoring can prove beneficial in reservoirs
with an elevated risk of fracturing.

Wells:
Wells are designed to prevent undesirable fluid migration within and around them. However, poorly
designed wells can inadvertently create leakage pathways. This is particularly critical to assess
when multiple old wells exist in the reservoir, which is often the case in depleted oil and gas
reservoirs. It is important to establish monitoring and response plans to effectively manage the
heightened risk associated with the presence of old wells.

Earthquakes:
Earthquakes occur when energy stored in the Earth's crust is suddenly released as a fault slips.
Energy accumulates in the crust over time due to tectonic forces and when the stress acting on
the fault exceeds its strength, it slips. Most earthquakes take place at tectonic plate boundaries,
but they can also happen within a plate's interior.

Although most earthquakes happen naturally, human activities like wastewater injection have been
known to trigger significant earthquakes (Ellsworth, 2013). Notably, the majority of injection wells
 CO2 STORAGE 13

worldwide don't induce earthquakes, but caution is crucial in areas with a history of seismic activity,
especially if the reservoir is near active faults. Here, continuous monitoring of injection pressure,
volumes, and seismic activity is essential.

Seismic activity thresholds, similar to those used in shale gas, wastewater, and geothermal systems,
can also be applied to CO2 storage to reduce injection when significant seismicity is experienced.
Earthquake risks are mainly associated with potential damage to nearby infrastructure, but can
potentially pose a risk for leakage if there are faults going through the cap rock (See Ellsworth (2013)
for more information).

Leakage out of the licensed area

In a regulatory context, leakage may also include migration of CO2 out of the licensed area (storage
complex), even though it does not leak towards the surface. This type of leakage is of importance
for several reasons including a conflict of interest with other operators and the new area might not
be risk assessed. Risk assessments regarding the conformance of CO2 within the licensed area
should be conducted for each individual reservoir, with a detailed monitoring and response plan.

In case of leakage to the surface

If there is proven leakage from a CO2 storage facility in Europe it could impact the environment and
have a financial impact on the operator, and possibly the government. Costs related to leakage can
include the cost of environmental restoration, reservoir intervention, cost of CO2 tax or emission
quotas, environmental fines and more. In addition, leakage can severely hurt public acceptance and
the deployment of CCS in society. To avoid this, robust regulation, careful site characterisation,
responsible operation, monitoring, and a clear financial liability is important.

Environmental impacts
Research, including natural CO2 site observations, laboratory experiments, and modelling,
indicates that most low-level fault or well-related leakage scenarios tend to have limited and
temporary spatial impacts, with rapid recovery (Jones, et al., 2015). Factors like mixing, dispersion,
and buffering reactions often mitigate effects, and harmful elements rarely exceed drinking water
guidelines. While larger releases from open wells or major pipeline leaks could have higher impacts,
they are less probable and should be more detectable and remediable (Jones, et al., 2015). Other
impacts to consider include increased pressure on ecosystems due to increased human activity,
such as an increased number of seismic surveys.
 CO2 STORAGE 14

Financial impacts
In the case of leakage, Article 19 on Financial Security, of the EU CCS Directive, aims to ensure that
CCS operators can cover the costs of monitoring, safety, environmental, and other obligations
(European Parliament, 2009). Thus, preventing these expenses from becoming a financial risk for
taxpayers. For more information on financial liability in the EU CCS Directive see Wifling (2020).

Measurement, Monitoring and Verification (MMV)

Once the CO2 is stored safely in the ground, we need to verify that the CO2 plume behaves as
expected. This is normally done through a variation of monitoring techniques depending on the
risks associated with the specific storage complex, data which again are used to create and update
a numerical model of the reservoir. In the EU, this is regulated through the CO2 storage directive
(European Parliament, 2009). See the Northern Lights injection permit for a detailed example of
how the CO2 directive is interpreted for a specific case (MDIR, 2023)

In short, we need a detailed plan for monitoring activities which is based on the risks associated
with the specific reservoir. Each of these monitoring activities must have a response plan based on
what is observed. A numerical model is needed to model CO2 behaviour and should be updated
based on new monitoring data. This plan should again be verified, approved, and followed up on
by a responsible governmental body. Monitoring data should of course be open access for the
possibility of quality assurance in case of doubt, to facilitate industry knowledge-sharing, and to
build public confidence in CCS technology. Below are brief descriptions of some of the more
common monitoring activities, and of numerical models.

Numerical models
A numerical model serves as a digital representation of subsurface conditions for CO2
storage. This allows for the testing and simulation of various injection scenarios and
strategies without the need for real-world experimentation. For instance, the model can
predict the time it takes for CO2 injected at a well to reach the boundary of the licensed
area. This is particularly valuable in subsurface environments, where accessing the
reservoir is both challenging and costly. See figure 5 for an example of information that can
be gathered from numerical simulations.

However, it's crucial to recognise the high uncertainties and limitations inherent in these
models. They offer a simplified view of the complex real-world conditions and provide
indications rather than precise predictions. Therefore, while they are valuable as learning
 CO2 STORAGE 15

tools to enhance decision-making and understanding of subsurface processes, they

should not be relied upon without scrutiny.

When used by skilled professionals and updated regularly with new monitoring data,
numerical models can significantly improve decision-making and risk management.
Numerical models are actively employed in Measurement, Monitoring and Verification
activities for CO2 storage in Europe. It is therefore essential for government bodies to
possess comprehensive knowledge of both the benefits and limitations of these
subsurface numerical models.

Figure 5 shows various results from numerical simulations of injection at Northern Lights. Four hundred simulations were
run, and the dark blue line in the plots on the left column shows the average result. a) shows the migration distance, b)
shows the reservoir pressure, c) shows the CO2 plume expansion, d) shows the well pressure and e) shows the fraction
of mobile, dissolved and residually trapped CO2. Image courtesy of Northern Lights, and see (MDIR, 2023) for a more
detailed explanation of the simulations.
 CO2 STORAGE 16

3D and 4D Seismic surveys

3D seismic surveys gather information about the subsurface including rock layers and pore fluids
(see figure 6a for an illustration of how the information can be gathered). 4D seismic is a time lapse
of 3D seismic surveys, often at the time scale of years (figure 6b). This way we can observe changes
in, for example pore fluids over time, and consequently the migration of CO2 in the storage complex.
This is a very valuable method to observe how the CO2 behaves in the reservoir, update our
numerical models, and in general learn more about how CO2 behaves in the subsurface.

Figure 6: 6a: To the left an illustration of how seismic surveys can be done. Shooting soundwaves towards the seabed
and based on the reflected wave properties one can analyse both rock type and pore fluid. 6b: To the right a time-lapse
seismic data of the presence of CO2 where the presence of CO2 is illustrated by the blue and red colour (From
Hermandrud et al. (2009)) As can be seen the CO 2 is trapped under cap rock but migrates slightly laterally.

Surface Deformation Monitoring

When we inject or extract large amounts of fluid from underground reservoirs, we can sometimes
observe ground deformation on the surface as a result of the pressure changes. Onshore this can
be monitored through, for example, time lapse satellite radar imaging. An example of this service is
Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSar), which can monitor millimetre changes in ground
surface elevation. This is especially important when the reservoir is underlying infrastructure and/or
housing. The In Salah project experienced a couple of centimetres of surface elevation during
injection (Eiken, et al., 2011).
 CO2 STORAGE 17

Overlying aquifer monitoring

If the reservoir is underlying a different aquifer, one can monitor the CO2 levels in the aquifer to
detect leakages of CO2. Tracers could also be added to the injected CO2 to be able to verify that
the observed CO2 is from the injection process. This can, for example, also be part of a response
plan in the event where other monitoring activities have identified increased risk or unexpected
behaviour.

Microseismic monitoring
Microseismic monitoring can detect small movements in the ground, like activation of faults and
induced fractures. If several microseismic monitoring sensors, including sensors in the wells, are in
place it is also possible to locate the fracture or fault with some accuracy. This is of greater
importance if there are faults going through the cap rock, and if high injection pressures are
expected/experienced. But it is important to note that fracturing within the reservoir rock does not
necessarily compromise the cap rock and is sometimes positive as it can increase injectivity. As
with many of the other monitoring applications, the value of this one is site specific.

Temperature and Pressure monitoring

Downhole pressure and temperature can be monitored to provide information that helps assess
CO2 migration, fracturing and allow for updated reservoir models and injection strategies.

Surface/Seabed monitoring
The surface or seabed can be monitored to detect the unlikely event of CO2 leakage. This again can
be part of a response plan if unexpected behaviour is experienced through other monitoring
activities.

Examples of active storage projects

There are several active storage projects, but two of the most known and well researched sites are
Sleipner located offshore Norway, and Quest located onshore Canada.

Sleipner
The Sleipner Project in the North Sea is an example of CO2 storage in a saline aquifer. The project
has been injecting approximately 1 Mt CO2 per year into a nearby saline formation since September
1996. Evidence from 20+ years of experience of CO2 storage shows no detected leakages (Eiken, et
al., 2011).
 CO2 STORAGE 18

Quest
The Quest CCS project in Alberta, Canada stores around 1 Mt CO2 per year in a saline aquifer at a
depth of about 2 km below ground. As of December 2021, Quest has successfully injected over 6.8
million tons of CO2 since its project commencement in 2015, with reservoir performance
evaluations suggesting sustained injectivity throughout the project's lifespan. Measurement,
Monitoring, and Verification (MMV) data indicate that no CO2 has migrated beyond the storage
complex (Rock, 2017).

The storage situation in Europe: Do we have enough

space?
The short answer is yes.

It’s a common misunderstanding that CCS is limited by CO2 storage capacity. The reality is, there
are more underground storage resources than are needed to meet climate targets. It can, however,
be argued that CCS is currently limited by available injection capacity as most reservoirs are not
ready for injection yet. The 2014 Zero Emissions Platform (ZEP) report “CCS and the Electricity
Market Modelling the lowest-cost route to decarbonizing European power” estimated that up to
27Gt of CO2 would be needed to be captured and stored in Europe. The EU 2050 Energy Roadmap
estimates that 3.5 to 12.8Gt of CO2 will be stored in Europe by 2050. With a theoretical capacity in
of around 80Gt in Norway alone, there is more than enough for the different scenarios (Halland,
2014).

Europe
The Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS):

Norway is on the trajectory of having licenses capable of injecting approximately 40 Mt CO2 /year
by 2030, which can easily be injected in the already over 1100 Mt of matured capacity. With
around 80000 Mt of estimated capacity which can be matured, the NCS also provides storage
space for significant volumes from Europe (Halland et al., 2014).

Brief overview:
1.1 Gt of matured storage space in the Utsira/Skade formation and the Johansen/Cook formation
43 Gt of estimated storage capacity in Saline Aquifers
24 Gt of estimated storage capacity in Depleted Oil and Gas reservoirs
 CO2 STORAGE 19

United Kingdom: Although no specific capacities are provided for 96 saline aquifers, 192
hydrocarbon fields offer a total storage capacity of 4 – 6 Gt.

Netherlands: The Netherlands has substantial storage capacity in hydrocarbon fields, estimated
at 10 Gt, and moderate capacity in 18 saline aquifers, approximately 1.4 Gt.

Belgium: Belgium's total storage capacity includes approximately 242 Mt in saline aquifers (mean
value) across six locations.

Denmark: A 2020 assessment estimated a storage capacity of 12 – 25 Gt in saline aquifers and

hydrocarbon fields.

See Anthonsen & Christensen (2021) for more information on the storage capacity in Europe.

CO2 purity specifications for storage

The purity specifications for the CO2 delivered for storage vary but are typically above 99%. Purity
is of importance for several reasons during both transport and storage, including corrosion, flow
behaviour and environmental impact. Water content is reduced to avoid risk of corrosion, impurities
reduced to have predictable flow behaviour, and toxic impurities are minimized as not to add a
further toxicity issue in the event of leakage (both during transport and storage).

Minimising corrosion, having predictable fluid behaviour, and minimising environmental impact in
case of leakage is crucial and needs to be addressed, but higher than necessary purity
specifications add unnecessary costs. Therefore, a global industry standard should be defined to
facilitate safe transport and storage at low costs.

Current Status of CCS

Currently, there are 30 operational CCS facilities, 11 under construction, and many in various stages
of development, capturing around 40 million tons of CO2 per year (as of 2022). The majority of these
operational facilities are in the US and Canada, often linked to Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
operations, but some large-scale storage projects in saline aquifers are active, like Sleipner, Snøhvit,
and Quest (See Global CCS Institute (2022) for more information on the global status of CCS). Most
of these CCS projects are full-value chain projects, including capture, transport, and storage.
However, more CCS networks are in deployment, where emitters share transport and/or storage
resources. It should, however, be noted that most of these projects are related to oil and gas
production, and great efforts are needed to accelerate CCS on hard to abate industrial emissions.
 CO2 STORAGE 20

FAQ and/or common myths

“The technology is unproven”: Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies have been
extensively tested and deployed successfully in various locations worldwide. Currently CCS
projects capture and inject over 40 million tons of CO2 per year, which have resulted in 100s of
millions of tons stored permanently over the last decades (Bui, et al., 2018; Global CCS Institute,
2022). In addition, the technical feasibility of the concept builds on decades of experience from the
oil and gas industry.

“There is not enough storage space”: There are ample suitable geological formations to
accommodate vast amounts of captured CO2, and in Norway alone there is enough capacity to
meet the needs of Europe to reach 2050 goals for CO2 storage (Halland, 2014). It is, however,
important to differentiate between readily available storage space and not.

“There is insufficient regulation”: Robust regulations and standards exist to govern CCS operations
and ensure safety in both Norway and the EU (European Parliament, 2009; Halland, 2014). It is,
however, important to make sure we compare and improve regulation on a global scale to make
sure we all operate under the same standard.

“We don't know the risks”: Extensive research and risk assessments have been conducted to
understand and mitigate potential risks associated with CCS, but it is always important to properly
assess the risks associated with each specific reservoir (Aminu, Nabavi, Rochelle, & Manovic, 2017)
In addition, governmental oversight (as by the Petroleum Safety Authority and Environmental
Agency in Norway) is important to ensure that risks are taken into account.

“There is a great chance of leakage”: Properly designed and managed CCS sites have very low risks
of CO2 leakage, and no leakages have been detected from current storage sites (Aminu, Nabavi,
Rochelle, & Manovic, 2017). In addition, even in the case of leakage the impacts are expected to be
limited (Jones, et al., 2015).

“Liability is not handled”: Legal frameworks and liability mechanisms are in place, in many locations
around the world, to address potential issues related to CCS operations. It is, however, a young
industry and it is important to focus on developing a strong regulatory framework for the entire CCS
project lifecycle to ensure predictability for operators and investors (Global CCS Institute, 2019;
Wifling, 2020).
 CO2 STORAGE 21

Bibliography
Aminu, M., Nabavi, S., Rochelle, C., & Manovic, V. (2017). A review of developments in carbon
dioxide storage. Applied Energy, 208, 1389-1419.

Anthonsen, K. L., & Christensen, N. P. (2021). EU Geological CO₂ storage summary. Geological
Survey of Denmark and Greenland.

Bellona; E3G. (2023). Carbon Capture and Storage Ladder.

Bui, M., Adjiman, C. S., Bardow, A., Anthony, E. J., Boston, A., Brown, S., . . . Hackett, L. A. (2018).
Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward. Energy & Environmental Science,
1062-1176.

Carbfix. (2023, September 06). Carbfix. Hentet fra https://www.carbfix.com/

Eiken, O., Ringrose, P., Hermanrud, C., Nazarian, B., Torp, T. A., & Høier, L. (2011). Lessons learned
from 14 years of CCS operations: Sleipner, In Salah and Snøhvit. Energy procedia, 5541-
5548.

Ellsworth, W. L. (2013). Injection-induced earthquakes. Science.

European Parliament. (2009). Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 23 April 2009 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide. Hentet fra
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0031

Global CCS Institute. (2019). LESSONS AND PERCEPTIONS: ADOPTING A COMMERCIAL

APPROACH TO CCS LIABILITY. Global CCS Institute.

Global CCS Institute. (2022). Global Status of CCS 2022. Global CCS Institute. Hentet fra
https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/global-status-of-ccs-2022/

Halland, E. (2014). CO2 storage Atlas, Norwegian Continental Shelf. Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate. Hentet fra http://www.npd.no/en/Publications/Reports/Compiled-CO2-atlas/

IEA. (2023, September 04). IEA- CCUS. Hentet fra Direct Air Capture:
https://www.iea.org/energy-system/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage/direct-air-
capture

IPCC. (2005). Carbon dioxide capture and storage . Cambridge University Press.

IPCC. (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C, An IPCC Special Report. IPCC.

 CO2 STORAGE 22

IPCC. (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. The Sixth Assessment Report. Geneva.

Jones, D., Beaubien, S., Blackford, J., Foekema, E., Lions, J., De Vittor, C., . . . Queiros, A. (2015).
Developments since 2005 in understanding potential environmental impacts of CO2
leakage from geological storage. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control.

NASA. (2023, September 4). Hentet fra Carbon Dioxide: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-

signs/carbon-dioxide/

Olivier, J. G., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Muntean, M., & Peters, J. A. (2016). Trends in global CO2
emissions: 2016 Report . The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

Pei, Y., Paton, D. A., Knipe, R. J., & Wu, K. (2015). A review of fault sealing behaviour and its
evaluation in siliciclastic rocks. Earth and Science reviews, 121-138.

Rock, L. a. (2017). The Quest CCS project: 1st year review post start of injection. Energy Procedia,
5320-5328.

Tanzer, S. E., & Ramírez, A. (2019). {When are negative emissions negative emissions?
Environmental Science.

Wifling, M. (2020). Financial precautions, carbon dioxide leakage and the European Directive
2009/31/EC on carbon capture and storage (CCS). Climatic Change.

Zhang, D., & Song, J. (2014). Mechanisms for geological carbon sequestration. Procedia IUTAm.
CO2 STORAGE 23
CO2 STORAGE