Next Article in Journal
Determination of Energy Savings via Fuel Consumption Estimation with Machine Learning Methods and Rule-Based Control Methods Developed for Experimental Data of Hybrid Electric Vehicles
Previous Article in Journal
Modelling of Automated Store Energy Consumption
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Pragmatic Approach to the Economic Assessment of Green Synthetic Methane Power in the Baltics
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

A Comprehensive Review on Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Methods

Gregory Tarteh Mwenketishi
Hadj Benkreira
Nejat Rahmanian
School of Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Digital Technologies, University of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP, UK
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2023, 16(24), 7971;
Submission received: 2 October 2023 / Revised: 26 November 2023 / Accepted: 29 November 2023 / Published: 8 December 2023


Capturing and storing CO2 (CCS) was once regarded as a significant, urgent, and necessary option for reducing the emissions of CO2 from coal and oil and gas industries and mitigating the serious impacts of CO2 on the atmosphere and the environment. This recognition came about as a result of extensive research conducted in the past. The CCS cycle comes to a close with the last phase of CO2 storage, which is accomplished primarily by the adsorption of CO2 in the ocean and injection of CO2 subsurface reservoir formation, in addition to the formation of limestone via the process of CO2 reactivity with reservoir formation minerals through injectivities. CCS is the last stage in the carbon capture and storage (CCS) cycle and is accomplished chiefly via oceanic and subterranean geological sequestration, as well as mineral carbonation. The injection of supercritical CO2 into geological formations disrupts the sub-surface’s existing physical and chemical conditions; changes can occur in the pore fluid pressure, temperature state, chemical reactivity, and stress distribution of the reservoir rock. This paper aims at advancing our current knowledge in CO2 injection and storage systems, particularly CO2 storage methods and the challenges encountered during the implementation of each method and analyses on how key uncertainties in CCS can be reduced. CCS sites are essentially unified systems; yet, given the scientific context, these storage systems are typically split during scientific investigations based on the physics and spatial scales involved. Separating the physics by using the chosen system as a boundary condition is a strategy that works effectively for a wide variety of physical applications. Unfortunately, the separation technique does not accurately capture the behaviour of the larger important system in the case of water and gas flow in porous media. This is due to the complexity of geological subsurface systems, which prevents the approach from being able to effectively capture the behaviour of the larger relevant system. This consequently gives rise to different CCS technology with different applications, costs and social and environmental impacts. The findings of this study can help improve the ability to select a suitable CCS application method and can further improve the efficiency of greenhouse gas emissions and their environmental impact, promoting the process sustainability and helping to tackle some of the most important issues that human being is currently accounting global climate change. Though this technology has already had large-scale development for the last decade, some issues and uncertainties are identified. Special attention was focused on the basic findings achieved in CO2 storage operational projects to date. The study has demonstrated that though a number of CCS technologies have been researched and implemented to date, choosing a suitable and acceptable CCS technology is still daunting in terms of its technological application, cost effectiveness and socio-environmental acceptance.

1. Introduction

Previous studies have emphasised anthropogenic CO2 as well as other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that have indeed been recognised as the primary cause of global warming and climate change (MacDowell et al., [1]. The reports published by IEA 2016 and NASA 2017 confirmed that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have risen from 280 ppm in the mid-1800s to approximately 404 ppm in 2016, resulting in a nearly 1 °C increase in mean earth temperature above the pre-industrial levels. This temperature increase, which occurred between 1901 and 2010, resulted in a 20cm increase in the worldwide mean sea level (UK Met Office 2016). It is widely acknowledged that the average global temperature increase from pre-industrial rates must be maintained far below 2 °C by 2100 to avoid catastrophic climate change disasters (IPCC special report [2]). As a result, the European Union and the G7 countries have set a goal of reducing GHG emissions by at least 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 (IEA [3]) (ECF [4]).
Power plants and other energy-intensive sectors are regarded as significant CO2 emitters and are required to reduce their produced CO2 emissions substantially. The high carbon intensity of the power industry (World Nuclear Association), 42%, is due to the significant proportion of coal-fired facilities in the worldwide energy supply. Furthermore, the development of shale gas in North America has resulted in an increase in coal production and exports from the United States. This resulted in a significant decrease in coal pricing, which in turn resulted in a greater proclivity for coal-based power generation (Hanak et al., [5]). Therefore, de-carbonisation of the electricity and manufacturing sectors is critical to meeting emission reduction goals.
CCSI in 2011 provided evidence for carbon capture and storage (CCS) as the most crucial method for decarbonising the electricity and industrial sectors. It is predicted that CCS alone may contribute almost 20% of the decrease by 2050 and that excluding CCS can result in a 70% increase in the worldwide cost of meeting emission reduction goals (UK DECC 2012). Permanent CO2 sequestration is the US-DOE United States Department of Energy’s plan. USGS VSP Vertical Seismic Profile XRD (X-ray Diffraction) is the final step in the CCS chain and could be implemented using a range of strategies, primarily mineral carbonation, oceanic, and underground geological storage along with saline aquifers, oil and natural gas reservoirs, inaccessible coal seams, and other geological porous media. According to Yamasaki [6] the critical criteria of a viable CO2 storage option are net CO2 emission reduction, high storage capacity, long-term CO2 isolation (at least several hundred years), acceptable cost and energy penalty, and little environmental effect. However, public acceptance/embracing is another essential element that may have a significant impact on the technology’s adoption (Mabon et al., [7]).
Several reviews, including Bachu [8] and Bai et al. [9] have addressed various features of CO2 storage in the past. However, particular areas have yet to be addressed or thoroughly examined. Although CO2 storage is a technically established technique, further deployment is hampered by ambiguity and challenges related to estimating storage capacity, tracking verification and monitoring of CO2 during and after injection, characterising potential injection-induced seismicity, standardising storage evaluation criteria, and practical and ethical mechanisms. Furthermore, CO2 storage is a dynamic subject, and current success and growth must be examined and addressed as more information becomes available.
Within the framework of CCS, there exist various potential avenues for the sequestration of CO2. These options include underground geological storage, deep ocean storage, and mineral carbonation (IPCC Special Report, [2]). Underground geological storage, in particular, encompasses several subcategories, such as saline aquifers, depleted oil and gas reservoirs, un-mineable coal seams, hydrate storage, and CO2 storage within enhanced geothermal systems (Na J, et al., [10]).
This section offers a thorough examination of each storage approach and afterwards delineates potential avenues for future research that can enhance the existing knowledge. CCS is widely recognised as a crucial approach for achieving decarbonisation in the manufacturing and energy sectors (GCCSL, [11]). According to estimates, the implementation of CCS technology alone has the potential to achieve a reduction of about 20% in emissions by the year 2050. Furthermore, the absence of CCS might result in a significant rise of up to 70% in the overall global cost required to meet emission reduction targets (DECC, [12]). The final stage in the CCS process involves the long-term containment of CO2. This can be accomplished through several methods, such as mineral carbonation, oceanic storage, and underground geological storage. The latter includes storing CO2 in saline aquifers, depleted oil and gas reservoirs, un-mineable coal seams, and other geological formations. The primary attributes of a viable CO2 storage solution encompass a net decrease in CO2 emissions, substantial storage capacity, extended isolation of CO2 for a minimum of several centuries, cost-effectiveness and minimal energy penalty, as well as mitigated environmental consequences (Yamasaki, [6]). However, the acceptance and adoption of the technology by the general population is another crucial component that can have a substantial impact on its implementation (Mabon and Shackley, [7]).
Multiple scholarly articles have examined many facets of CO2 storage (Bachu, [13]), as indicated in Appendix A, Table A1. Nevertheless, certain aspects have not yet been addressed or thoroughly examined. Although CO2 storage has been demonstrated to be a technically viable technology, its widespread implementation is hindered by various uncertainties and challenges. These include difficulties in accurately estimating storage capacity, effectively tracking, verifying, and monitoring CO2 during and after injection, characterising the potential for induced seismic activity resulting from an injection, establishing standardised criteria for evaluating storage sites, and implementing effective ethical mechanisms. Furthermore, the topic of CO2 storage is rapidly advancing, necessitating a comprehensive examination and discourse on recent advancements and developments.
In the course of preparing this paper, a comprehensive and critical review has been carried out on the most up-to-date CCS methods and their applications, limitations and potential future work through research analyses have been identified.

2. CO2 Sequestration Methods

According to the IPCC Special Report from 2005, different CO2 sequestration methods that could be used for stored CO2 include deep ocean, geological and mineral carbonation, and several subterranean reservoir formations alternatives do exist, including saline aquifers, depleted oil and gas reserves, unreachable coal seams, hydrate storage, and CO2 inside improved geothermal systems (Bachu et al., [14]), (Han and Winston Ho [15]).
Figure 1 and Appendix A presents a comprehensive review of significant large-scale CSS initiatives that have been implemented globally. In the majority of these operations, CO2 has been sequestered in saline aquifers or utilised for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) purposes. The security of containment is a critical determinant for the success of storage projects. Therefore, it is imperative to consistently enhance the process of selecting and characterising sites, determining technical operation parameters, developing monitoring and verification systems, and conducting quantitative risk assessments. Taking a comprehensive approach to these variables will serve as the foundation for developing suitable technical rules and fostering a favourable public image, thus facilitating the smooth implementation of large-scale CSS operations.
The utilisation of underground geological storage has been widely regarded as the most feasible method for sequestration. Geological storage is considered a more advantageous method of sequestration when compared to carbonation and oceanic storage due to various factors. These factors encompass economic considerations and site accessibility (particularly relevant to ocean and mineral sequestration), as well as concerns related to the security of stored CO2 and the potential negative environmental consequences associated with mineralisation and ocean storage. This section will provide a full discussion of many potential geological storage alternatives, as depicted in Figure 2 below.

3. Storage in Subsurface Reservoir Formations

The most workable sequestration option is an underground geological storage system. The security of the CO2 being stored, as well as the detrimental effects on the ecosystem, are some of the key points that set geological storage from CO2 mineralisation and marine storage. Figure 2 depicts various possible geological storage systems that are considered to be effective and would need further investigation to be better understood.
Considering that available information in the overwhelming CSS can be managed at the vast majority of locations efficiently and safely, there is still a possibility that storage facilities might be put in danger by factors such as generated seismicity if these factors are not well analysed.

3.1. Brine Aquifers

Several researchers have acknowledged that storing CO2 in deep salty aquifers represents one of the most successful strategies for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere (Li et al., [19]) (Javaheri et al., [20]), (Yang et al., [21]), (Frerichs et al., [22]), and (Burnol et al., [23]), due to its already available technological and significant possible storage capacity, (Bachu et al., [14]). However, most saline aquifers are presently unsuitable for other synergistic or competing uses (Trémosa et al., [24]), especially in highly populated nations (Procesi et al., [25]; Quattrocchi et al., [26]). The absence of facilities including wells for CO2 injection, surface handling equipment, and transportation pipeline networks makes many salty aquifers less desirable as potential storage reservoir formation alternatives at present (Li et al., [27]).
Recently, the topic of discussion has been the potential for CO2 to be stored in salty aquifers (Bachu et al., [28]), (Wei et al., [29]) in combination with EOR storage (Boundary-Dam-Apache). These studies address topics including site description and long-term planning according to Bachu [28] as well as the range of complementary and competing subterranean uses (Procesi et al., [25]).
Because of their vast pore volume and high permeability, aquifer reservoir formations can hold massive amounts of CO2, cutting down on an overall number of CO2 injection wells required and easing pressure dissipation (Shukla et al., [17]). Upon flowing into the storage reservoir formation, supercritical CO2 dislocates brine in the pore spaces and initiates a chain reaction with the formation’s minerals (groundwater, gas, and rocks) that lead to either formation of different chemical substances or the breakdown of current minerals (Le Gallo et al., [30]) (Cantucci et al., [31]). Mineral formation and dissolution may alter rock porosity and, as a result, the capacity of the storage reservoir (Wdowin [32]).
Previous studies (Tapia et al., [33]) have shown that supercritical CO2 has a density of approximately 0.6–0.7 g/cm3 in saline reservoirs; the low density can influence the uprise movement of CO2 towards the cap-rock because of buoyancy forces due to density variation.
According to previous studies (Armitage et al., [34]), a large aquifer storage basin with a high sealing capacity of the cap-rock is necessary for long-term and stable CO2 storage. Cap-rock, a formation at the reservoir’s top with low to very low permeability (Fleury et al., 2010), should operate as a seal to prevent CO2 migration from the storage deposit below. With its low permeability, cap-rock is crucial for preventing CO2 from escaping the retention reservoir and minimising leakage. Another essential element that may result in cap-rock integrity loss and CO2 leakage is the existence of unrecognised fracturing and fault planes. However, as revealed by the review, no previous researchers have investigated the impacts of CO2–brine reactivity on injectivity and the fracturing network and fault plane for CO2 storage; as such, a thorough research study is required to investigate the effect of this reactivity and previous faults on cap-rock stability (Buttinelli et al., [35]).
Stratigraphical and/or Structural Trapping: When CO2 is introduced into a geological formation, it may move to the top and get trapped behind an impermeable top seal (Kim et al., [36]), where it can remain as a free phase that cannot go beyond or access the cap-rock pore region except by slow diffusion or fractures, as illustrated in Figure 3a above. This is the most common kind of subsurface trapping system.
CO2 Rock Pores Capturing: Injection of CO2 into aquifer porous rock gives rise to fluid displacement due to differences in density. Figure 3b above shows how the fluid displaced by the CO2 flows, returns, disconnects, and traps the remaining CO2 within pore spaces. It has been observed that the method occurs exclusively when water drainage processes occur during CO2 injection, rather than inside structural and stratigraphic traps (Bachu et al., [13]).
Solubility trapping: CO2 dissolves in brine through the chemical process of solubility, plummeting the quantity of CO2 gas-phase (Figure 3c). The density of brine is increased by the solubility of CO2, and this may cause gravitational instability, hastening the transition of injected CO2 to CO2–lean brine (Kneafsey et al., [38]).
Trapping due to Mineral: CO2 undergoes chemical interactions with minerals and salty water found around the rock’s periphery. Carbonate precipitation occurs as a consequence of these chemical reactivities and has the effect of sequestering CO2 in an inert lesser phase across a specific subsurface geological timeframe, as demonstrated in Figure 3d above (Bachu [14]). It is a more gradual process than the solubility capturing that takes place over a longer geologic period (Gunter et al., [39]) (Sundal et al., [40]).
Although a number of studies have argued that storing CO2 in salty aquifers would be more effective than storing CO2 in depleted oil and gas fields, these assessments neglect to take into consideration the expenses connected as a result of the use of storage in saline reservoirs. In many instances, hydrocarbon fields already have production facilities in place, which, with only relatively modest adjustments, may be modified to meet storage operations. These changes can be made in order to accommodate storage activities. In addition, they have been well defined throughout the stages of crude oil exploitation, and they may employ CO2 for storage as well as EOR. As a consequence, it is possible that storing CO2 in hydrocarbon formations is better than storing it in saltwater aquifers.

3.2. Drained Hydrocarbon Reservoir Formations

The sequestration of CO2 in depleted oil and gas reservoirs is widely recognised as one of the most efficient techniques of CO2 storage. Among these advantages are the following: (a) drained hydrocarbon reservoirs have been the subject of substantial research both before and during the hydrocarbon exploration period, including research about their storage capacity; (b) both onshore and offshore infrastructural facilities, existing infrastructure, including CO2 injection wells and transportation, may be used with little modification for the storage process (Sigman et al., [41]); (c) if this was not the case, CO2 gas injection to enhance oil recovery would have been less attractive and abandoned many years ago. Suitable hydrocarbon field data as an analogue may be utilised for illustrating the efficacy of cap-rock across a geologic timeframe to strengthen oil and gas reservoirs (Heinemann et al., [42]).
Reservoir rocks and brine properties are similar and commonly found in both hydrocarbon reservoirs and deep aquifer storage systems (Li et al., [19]). Oil and gas reservoirs, on the other hand, may be considered for EOR, making them more economically advantageous than saline aquifers (Zangeneh et al., [43]) (Gao et al., [44]). Because the worldwide average recovery factor from a typical oilfield is about 40% (BGS, [45]), usually, many barrels of oil are still in the hydrocarbon reservoirs. This is the primary motivation for the global deployment of EOR. However, technological deployment difficulties remain challenging; although these issues may have been foreseen and handled throughout the exploration and production phase of a field, they have just recently come to light.
Gas injection is the most frequently utilised among the current EOR alternatives such as gas, thermal, chemical, and plasma-pulse injection techniques. Miscible gases (CO2, nitrogen, and natural gas) are injected into the reservoir using the gas injection process to decrease the interfacial tension between oil and water and increase oil displacement efficiency while preserving reservoir pressure. CO2 injection seems to be the optimal choice because it may reduce oil viscosity and is less expensive than liquefied natural gas (Jaramillo et al., [46]). More CO2 for improved oil recovery is anticipated to be accessible from vital gathering point sources with the introduction of CCS technology (IPCC Special Report [47]). It has been claimed, for example, that the use of CO2 for EOR has resulted in an increased output of about 260,000bopd in the U.S.A. (GCCSI [11]).
The International Energy Agency (IEA) [2] set out the following as the primary criteria for the implementation of CO2 oil recovery support (EOR) projects:
  • Additional site characterisation involves investigating potential leakage risks, such as the condition of the cap rock and any abandoned wells with integrity problems;
  • Additional evaluations of surface processing plants’ fugitive and discharging emissions;
  • Leakage rates may be estimated from specific locations, and the normality of the reservoir’s behaviour can be determined by increased monitoring and field surveillance.
In addition to the criteria mentioned above, governments must address legal problems and enact laws to cover storage facility operations. These issues arise because CO2-EOR and CO2 permanent storage fall under two distinct regulatory umbrellas; the former focuses on resource recovery whereas the latter is concerned with waste management Marston [48]. Legal issues might arise, for instance, regarding the proper decontamination of oil left in situ after production ceases, if hydrocarbon recovery is prioritised. Such a scenario may be jurisdiction-specific and especially significant when onshore mineral and storage rights are owned privately.
One of the critical variables that must be rigorously defined before a CO2-EOR project is initiated involves the kind and number of contaminants in CO2 streams. Depending on the CO2 source and the accompanying collecting procedures, a variety of contaminants might be contained as part of the CO2 injection fluid (Porter et al., [49]). The permissible impurities and concentrations are determined by a mix of transit, storage, and economic factors. CO2 streams must meet a minimum purity standard of roughly 90%vol (Jarrell et al., [50]). In the case of CO2, increasing impurity levels may cause the phase boundaries to move to even higher pressures, which demonstrates the requirement for higher injection pressures to keep the injected CO2 in a higher concentration. It has also been established that non-condensable contaminants lower the CO2 storage capacity by a factor that is larger as compared to the mole percentage of contaminants present in the CO2 injection system (IEAGHG [51]).
The most typical issue connected to contaminants is corrosion. Due to the corrosive effects that impurities (such as SO2, NO2, CO, H2S, and Cl) may have on transportation and injection systems, it is essential to limit the quantity of contaminants on a scenario rationale. Additionally, it is essential to develop feasible mitigation solutions for potential problems (Porter et al., [49]). It is important to note that even though certain impurities such as CO, H2S, and CH4 have a naturally occurring propensity to be combustible, safety considerations for combustibility are not typically factored into the evaluation of safety measures. This is because it is highly unlikely that the CO2 injection stream will be combustible due to the low quantities of the impurities in question. Another issue that may influence the effectiveness of the CO2-EOR process is an excessive concentration of O2 in CO2 streams. The presence of O2 in the reservoir may stimulate microbial activity (Porter et al., [49]), which can ultimately lead to operational problems such as injection obstruction, oil deterioration and oil souring.
Previous studies (Igunnu et al., [52]) have connected environmental problems of EOR with volumes of water production that may include radioactive compounds and dangerous heavy metallic substances. If an appropriate waste management and disposal strategy is not implemented, these chemicals may pollute drinkable water sources. Although restrictions exist, governments must ensure that operators follow current laws when brine re-injection for recovery is permitted. For example, White [53] provided evidence to show that the Weyburn-Midale CO2 storage project in Canada is an example of how, collected in the Weyburn oilfield, CO2 might be used for EOR and retention. Not only does this procedure recover a significant amount of previously unrecovered oil, but it also increases the oilfield’s useful lifespan by 20–25 years (Thomas, [54]). According to Zaluski et al. [55]) and Verdon [56], long-term surveillance can enable seismicity evaluation of CO2’s impact on the reservoir and the fluids’ mutual effect; oil and minerals have been the primary focuses of CO2-EOR research (Hutcheon et al., [57]). The Weyburn case history inspired (Cantucci et al., [31]) to study the geochemical equilibrium between brine and oil and develop a biogeochemical model for CO2 storage in underground reservoirs. A hundred years into the future, they predicted precipitation and disintegration processes based on research into reservoir formation during CO2 injection. During the first year of the simulation, they discovered that the two most significant chemical processes taking place in the reservoir were those involving CO2 and the dissolution of carbonate. Furthermore, the development of chemical characteristics over time indicated that CO2 might be securely stored via mineral and solubility trapping.
Perera [58] acknowledges that though the CO2-EOR method has substantially improved oil recoveries, further improvement is needed using the following strategies: (a) using numerical evidence, Tenasaka [59] proved that this was possible within the normal range of CO2 injection. In the San Joaquin basin, scientists injected around 2.0HCPV (hydrocarbon pore volume) of CO2 to prove that there was a greater possibility to extract more oil; almost 67% of the originally present oil (OOIP) was recovered. In addition, Tenasaka [59] demonstrated that there was a greater recovery of oil using his numerical methodology; (b) using better and innovative CO2 flooding design and well management can positively influence more oil recovery from the reservoir; and (c) increasing the mobility ratio by raising water’s viscosity (Thomas [54]). Kuuskraa [60] presented a method for minimising miscibility pressure using miscibility-enhancing agents.

3.3. In-Accessible Coal Seams

An additional option for sequestering human-caused CO2 is the use of inaccessible coal seams. Since cleats are present inside the coal matrix, the system is somewhat permeable. In addition, the matrix of coal is full of tiny holes (micropores) that may take in a lot of air. Coal has a greater affinity for CO2 in the gas phase than methane, and this is the basis for the CO2 trapping process. According to Shukla [17], this means that the methane output could be increased while the CO2 was permanently stored. Thus, large amounts of CO2 may be stored while commercial unconventional shale methane (CBM) processes are made more productive and profitable (Krooss et al., [61]) (Gilliland et al., [62]). It should be underlined that although CO2 increases CBM synthesis, the overall quantity of methane generated is not always higher than without the addition of CO2. The International Energy Agency Working Group on Greenhouse Gases IEAGHG [51] provided an overview of the essential technical parameters needed for the effective implementation of enhanced coal seam production, which include (a) the homogeneity reservoir; (b) threshold of fractures and fault planes; (c) upper depth limit; (d) coal geomorphology; and (e) permeability adequacy.
Two experimental locations, the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line (ACTL) in Canada and the San Juan Basin pilot in the United States, have reportedly used the ECBM approach. The conclusions of the evaluations for the Alberta project (Krooss et al., [61]) were as follows: (a) even in constrained reservoirs, continuous CO2 injection is feasible; (b) injection may be performed notwithstanding a decrease in injectivity; (c) significantly enhanced CBM production is expected; (d) the injected carbon dioxide stays in the reservoir, boosting sweep efficiency Lakeman [63].
Key findings from the San Juan Basin pilot study revealed that methane recovery exceeded the predicted ultimate primary production. Second, the pilot project was not cost-effective because of the price of gas at the time it launched. However, if the price of gas continues to climb in the years to come, the pilot project may end up being lucrative; thirdly, because fuel prices were high when the project was first implemented, the trial project was not profitable. An additional pilot study of a coal field is being carried out in the Appalachian Basin, with a focus on a variety of surveillance and verification techniques, and accounting (MVA) methods are being utilised to understand better storage complexity (Gilliland et al., [62]). Furthermore, the possible ECBM implementation, as well as the significant variations in output across nearby wells with the same stratigraphic, has been studied in the beginning. However, further research is needed to characterise and portray such disparities adequately.
While CO2 EOR has been used successfully for years in the upstream oil and gas sector, the utilisation of CO2 during ECBM is still limited in its recognition. There are still many unknowns when it comes to ECBM recovery; however, the current understanding of how the CO2 EOR process works could help alleviate some of those worries. For example, the creation of technically recoverable shale in ECBM could require a look at already-existing technology from the oil industry that might be converted with very little work. Existing well materials may be utilised as a baseline for good integrity in ECBM production following suitable changes. Furthermore, field and reservoir management techniques processes, such as risk monitoring and evaluation, may be modified from those already in place and used at any point in the lifetime of a project.

3.4. Subsurface Basalt Formations

There exists a considerable body of literature on subsurface basalt deposits within central igneous provinces, and many researchers (McGrail et al., [64]) (Pollyea et al., [65]) (Matter et al., [66]) have suggested subsurface basalt deposits as a possible CO2 storage solution. Basaltic rocks make up around 8% of the continents and a large portion of the ocean bottom. As a result, basaltic rocks have a massive theoretical CO2 storage capacity (Anthonsen et al., [67]). One of the most important advantages of such rocks’ potential to store CO2 is that their physical and chemical characteristics, as well as the amount of divalent metal ions they contain, may fix CO2 during past geological periods (Van Pham et al., [68]). The permeability and porosity of basalt flows, on the other hand, are very variable and often consist of an interior low-permeability region surrounded by periphery regions with high permeability. That said, the rubbly zones between separate flows are the most critical portions of a basalt sequence for CO2 storage.
Complimentary CO2 injected into subsurface basalts (the CarbFix pilot scheme, Iceland) may replace water in the rock’s pore spaces and cracks (Matter et al., [66])). The decrease in water content may impede basalt carbonation and hydration. Therefore, it may be possible to inject CO2 and the right amount of water into the same reservoir based on the following points: (a) because it offers sufficient depth, denser CO2 liquid may sink, which delays the release of CO2 back into the atmosphere; (b) it makes it possible to form stable carbonates in a shorter amount of time than would normally be required by geologic processes; (c) it prevents acidic basement fluids from rising via an impervious sediment layer; (d) it can be converted into a stable hydrate; (e) it is essential to remember that a small quantity of CO2 leaking does not inevitably damage the sea bottom ecosystems.
Because of the anticipated development of dolomitic carbonate minerals, with the possibility of CO2 being trapped in basalts for thousands of years, changes in rock volume and the chance of fracture self-healing are key issues to consider. Quantitative research on such issues has been conducted (Van Pham et al., [68]). These researchers found that, at 40 degrees Celsius, oxide consumed a significant amount of calcium, limiting its use to the creation of siderite and ferromagnesian carbonates. Magnesite formed with ankerite and siderite at temperatures between 60 and 100 degrees Celsius. In addition, they found that the carbonation and hydration processes both increased solid volume and inhibited pore access, decreasing the maximum quantity of CO2 stored.
In addition to studying the mineral assemblages present in basalt, researchers have looked at the mechanisms of mineral carbonation in serpentinites, intending to acquire a more thorough comprehension of the fundamentals of CO2 storage for the future utilising basic magnesium silicates. In serpentinites, rocks that are both plentiful and thermodynamically suitable for the production of magnesium carbonates, CO2 combines with magnesium silicates to produce magnesium carbonates Seifritz [69]. Andreani et al. [70]) conducted an analysis of the carbonation process using flow parameters that were optimised. They found out that low-flow or low-diffusion regions are the only ones where porosity and permeability decrease. In contrast, higher flow rates contribute to armouring of mineral surfaces associated with the initial disintegration.
Further reason for alarm has been the occurrence of fractures in the basalt formations’ protective cap-rock. Due to the possibility of leakage via the fissures, basalts are not likely to be suitable for CO2 storage. However, CO2 seeping via fissures has the potential to mineralise and be trapped inside the formation, delaying its escape to the surface (IEAGHG [51]. As such, further research is required to characterise the kinetics of CO2–basalt interactions.
Alternate storage alternatives, including serpentinite and basaltic reservoir formations, could be necessary; knowledge improvement is required to identify possible uncertainties and investigate mitigation techniques. To do so, it may be necessary to apply computational techniques and to research the impact of carbon dioxide and rock contact on the ease or difficulty of migration, as well as to clarify CO2 migration in the presence of likely fault plane fractures.

3.5. CO2 Sequestration in Hydrate Deep Formations

Previous studies (Nobre et al. [71]) have shown that subsurface CO2 storage systems as hydrates represent another potential, modern strategy that uses a lattice of water molecules to capture CO2 molecules. When water and the right level of pressure and temperature are present, CO2 hydrate may form rapidly (Circone et al., [72]). Furthermore, its rapid formation kinetics may allow for some self-sealing in the rare crack development in the hydrate top layer formation. The development of CO2 hydrate might have applications in both underground geology and the storage of CO2 in the ocean. Because the formation of hydrate turns out to be very stable at higher pressure and low temperature of about 10 °C (Rochelle et al. [73]), they can only be used in certain situations, such as shallower sediments under cold oceans bed and under extensive areas of icy hydrate formation, where it is possible that there is a lack of sufficient space for a CO2 collection plant.
The process of the CO2 hydrate storage mechanism involves buoyancy and drives the migration of liquid CO2, which is capped by a developing impermeable CO2 hydrate cap (Figure 4). The CO2 hydrate equilibrium zone is lowered by injecting liquid carbon dioxide into deep water or sub-permafrost sediments (Rochelle et al., [73]). As more liquid CO2 moves into the colder hydrate stable zone, a layer of impenetrable CO2 hydrates builds inside the pore holes of the sedimentary reservoir rock. The US Department of Energy (DOE), on the other hand, proposed a CO2-EGR-based hydrate storage technology (enhanced gas recovery). CO2 is injected into sediments that contain methane hydrates, releasing the methane from the hydrates and forming CO2 hydrates in its place (Burnol et al., [23]). Because CO2-EGR is still a novel idea, research into its effectiveness has been limited so far. According to Oldenburg [74], one of the primary issues is the use of methane, which might in turn react with the injected CO2 in an enhanced gas cycle, resulting in the gas resources being depleted.
Presently, the technology required to store CO2 in hydrates is not very advanced, with most researchers (Jemai et al., [75]) (Talaghat et al., [76]) focusing on theoretical modelling and lab-scale experiments (Ghavipour et al., [77]) (Ruffine et al., [78]) (Rehder et al., [79]). For this reason, there are still a number of challenges to be solved, especially with CO2-EGR. However, local temperature and pressure fluctuations caused by drilling through hydrate-bearing sediments may destabilise the hydrate formation in its entirety (Khabibullin et al., [80]). How the CO2–CH4 hydrate exchange mechanism affects methane production and how to characterise the hydrate cap development may constitute the major outstanding problems that need to be solved to improve the evaluation of hydrate storage viability.

3.6. Enhanced Geothermal Systems Based on CO2

Previous studies (Garapati et al., [81]) and Pruess, [82] have emphasised that dense-phase CO2, like water, has thermal characteristics that allow it to transfer large quantities of heat. However, it has better physical characteristics, such as substantially lower viscosity, more excellent compressibility, and expansibility. As a result, CO2 may be utilised in the process of geothermal energy by extracting heat from the ground. CO2 can efficiently reach the rock mass due to its low viscosity and may be considered a medium for enhanced geothermal systems’ operating fluid Pruess [82]. Enhanced geothermal systems that use water as the heat transmission fluid suffer from the drawback of fluid loss. The inability to provide adequate water supplies is associated with financial difficulties because of the value placed on this resource. On the other hand, if upgraded geothermal systems (EGS) were to lose their reliance on CO2, this would make underground geological storage of CO2 possible, which might have further benefits.
It is essential for the effectiveness of CO2-EGS storage that the rock mass loaded with CO2 be separated from the surrounding rock mass, which is filled with water. These conditions are maintained in large part due to the formation of crystals of carbonate minerals at the interface between the CO2 and heavy centre of EGS with the brine-rich outside. Only countries with subsurface resources at economically feasible depths where the temperature is high enough would be able to use this technology. Additionally, synergistic use of the subsurface may be more complicated and need more collaboration in heavily populated nations.
The technique is still in its early stages of technology readiness (TRL), with most research so far focused on theoretical modelling (Plaksina et al., [83]) and small-scale laboratory experiments. The main challenge to this method’s development is the lack of clarity about the efficiency of closing off the area surrounding the CO2 source. To top it all off, nothing is known about the interactions between CO2 and rocks at high temperatures. Understanding how CO2 affects dissolution and precipitation, and how that affects changes in fracture permeability and EGS functioning, requires further study.

4. Carbonation of Mineral

Seifritz [69], was the first person to suggest the idea of CO2 carbonation happening in the mineral as an alternative CO2 sequestration method. The collected CO2 is sequestered using this technique via the mineralisation process; in the presence of oxides or hydroxides of alkaline metals found in minerals, carbonates are produced via the reaction of CO2.
Incorporation of CO2 into minerals may be accomplished in two ways: both in and out of place. The in-place technique includes injecting CO2 into a geologic formation to produce carbonates. Meanwhile, the out-of-place process is carried out above the surface in a factory utilising rock that has been excavated earlier or rock that is indigenous to the area (Assima et al., [84]). In situ, mineral carbonation is often discussed in high-magnesium, high-iron, and high-calcium silicate rocks like basalts and ophiolites (Ekpo Johnson et al., [85]). The in situ mineral carbonation technique has significant benefits since it does not need substantial mining and requires just a few boreholes to complete the process. However, there may be significant unknowns, such as the absence of geological characteristics or the lack of knowledge on the possible cap-rock or seal.
CO2(g) + MgO(s) → MgCO3(s), ΔH ≈ −118 KJ/mol
CO2(g) + CaO(s) → CaCO3(s), ΔH ≈ −179 KJ/mol
Geochemical processes may also decrease reactivity, porosity, and permeability, lining the resultant flow channels. There are both direct and indirect techniques that could be used to carbonate minerals outside of their natural environments. The direct gas-based technique comprises the interaction of gaseous CO2 with minerals to form carbonates, as previously shown (Bobicki et al., [86]) (Lim et al., [87]). Gas–solid carbonation normally occurs at temperatures below 65 °C, with the rate of chemical reaction and the amount of space available in rocks being the key limiting variables (Calabrò et al., [88]). The direct aqueous-based process consists of a single stage, which entails CO2 interacting with mineral deposits in the presence of water. This step takes place in the presence of water (Bobicki et al., [86]). Direct mineral carbonation has significant challenges in commercial deployment and development due to minerals and carbon dioxide being dissolved and forming a product layer dispersion Olajire [89]; (Bobicki et al., [86]). When looking at the feasibility of long-term mineral carbonation that allows for the underground sequestration of carbon dioxide, Matter et al., [66] turned to natural analogues. According to their findings, sedimentary rocks that have magnesium and calcium elements in quite high concentrations tend to have a high rate of mineralisation. Their results reveal that carbonate mineral precipitation may fill gaps already present, but that the tension caused by fast precipitation may also cause fracture and an increase in pore volume. The mining industry has a snowball impact on the environment because some mineral deposits that are rich in calcium and magnesium may also include asbestiform components as well as other pollutants that are harmful to human health (IPCC Special Report [47]).
Two of the most common alkali and alkaline-earth metal oxides, magnesium oxide (MgO) and calcium oxide (CaO), do not develop as binary oxides in free existence. Magnesium oxide has the chemical formula MgO, while calcium oxide has the chemical formula CaO. Compounds based on silicon dioxide, such as serpentine, are typical examples of this kind of assemblage. Cipolli et al. [90] and Bruni et al. [91] conducted studies on the effects of carbon dioxide on serpentine that had been retrieved from the spring waters of Genova. Serpentinization modifies the complex interaction of ultramafic rocks with meteoric fluids, according to the results of a geochemical study of serpentinite-derived high-pH fluids and reaction-path simulation for aquifer-scale sequestration (Cipolli et al., [90]). MgHCO3 waters are formed when CO2 reacts with the rock, whereas Na-HCO3 and Ca-OH type fluids are synthesised by further interactions with the host rock in a strongly lowering closed loop. Prior to employing reaction path modelling to simulate the process of injecting CO2 at elevated pressure into aquifer formation, the findings suggested that serpentinites might be exploited for CO2 sequestration because of their ability to create carbonate minerals. It should be emphasised that this method was only successful in reducing aquifer porosity under the circumstances of a closed system. This indicates that such consequences have to be examined thoroughly in both field and laboratory research.
Bruni et al., in [91], conducted research on the spring waters of the Genova area employing irreversible water–rock mass transfer. As a result of their investigation, they found some non-aligned Mg-HCO3 fluids with several higher-pH Ca-OH fluids connected with serpentinites. They investigated whether CO2 sequestration is possible in the near and far future by dissolving serpentinite and then precipitating calcite. This was carried out in order to find out how effective this method might be. They determined that the interaction of these meteoric waters results in a gradual evolution in the chemistry of the aqueous phase. This development starts with magnesium-rich, low-salinity SO4Cl facies and then moves on to intermediates facies made up of more developed Ca-OH and Mg-HCO3 compounds. In order to arrive at this result, scientists examined dissolved N2 and Ar in addition to water’s stable isotopes. The higher alkalinity of calcium oxide solvent can capture CO2 and transform it into deposits of calcite formation or solute; this methodology might be used to sequester anthropogenic CO2.
The implementation of a commercial process necessitates the extraction, pulverisation, and grinding of mineral-rich ores, as well as their transportation (Peletiri et al., [92]). to a processing facility that receives a concentrated stream of CO2 from a capture plant (Figure 5). A comprehensive review of capture technologies was given elsewhere by Kheirinik et al. [93]). The energy consumption associated with the carbonation process is estimated to account for around 30 to 50% of the total output of the capture plant. When taking into account the supplementary energy demands associated with the capture of CO2, it can be observed that a CCS system employing mineral carbonation necessitates an energy input per kilowatt-hour that is 60 to 180% higher compared to an electrical plant without capture or mineral carbonation, serving as a reference. The energy demands associated with this technology significantly increase the cost per metric tonne of CO2 that is mitigated. The most exemplary case examined thus far pertains to the wet carbonation process of naturally occurring silicate olivine. The projected cost of this procedure is roughly 50–100 USD/tCO2 net mineralised, accounting for CO2 capture and transportation expenses, while also considering the supplementary energy demands.
The mineral carbonation process necessitates the extraction of about 1.6 to 3.7 tonnes of silicates per tonne of CO2 and results in the disposal of 2.6 to 4.7 tonnes of materials per tonne of CO2 stored as carbonates. Consequently, the proposed endeavour would constitute a substantial undertaking, with an environmental footprint akin to that of existing extensive surface mining operations. Serpentine is frequently found to contain chrysotile, which is a naturally occurring variant of asbestos.
The existence of this phenomenon necessitates the implementation of monitoring and mitigation strategies similar to those utilised in the mining sector. In contrast, the by-products of mineral carbonation do not contain chrysotile, as it is the most reactive constituent of the rock and hence undergoes conversion to carbonates at the earliest stage.

Limitation and Future Work

There are several unresolved concerns that must be addressed before any assessments of the storage capacity of mineral carbonation can be provided. The concerns encompass evaluations of the technological feasibility and associated energy demands on a significant scale, as well as the proportion of silicate deposits that may be viably and economically utilised for CO2 storage. The potential of mining, waste disposal, and product storage may be limited due to their environmental impact. The current feasibility of utilising mineral carbonation remains uncertain due to the lack of knowledge regarding the potential quantity of exploitable silicate reserves and the presence of environmental concerns, as previously mentioned.
Another crucial inquiry pertains to the potential of industrial utilisation of CO2 to yield a net decrease in CO2 emissions on a comprehensive scale, through the substitution of alternative industrial processes or products. Accurate evaluation of the CO2 utilisation processes necessitates the consideration of appropriate system boundaries for energy and material balances, as well as the execution of a comprehensive life-cycle study pertaining to the intended utilisation of CO2. The existing body of literature pertaining to this subject is constrained in scope, although it reveals the challenges associated with accurately quantifying specific data. Moreover, it suggests that in numerous instances, the utilisation of industrial practices may result in an overall rise in emissions rather than a net decrease. Based on the limited amount of CO2 kept, the modest quantities utilised, and the potential for substitution resulting in elevated CO2 emissions, it may be deduced that the impact of industrial applications of captured CO2 on mitigating climate change is anticipated to be minimal. Currently, there has been limited effort in evaluating and quantifying the aforementioned external costs. The examination of CCS is conducted within the framework of exploring various strategies for achieving worldwide reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Likewise, mineral carbonation might cause issues for both humans and the environment. Mineral carbonation processes have the potential to change the topography of an area in two different ways: via large-scale mining activities and, later on, through the disposal of reacted minerals. In addition, asbestiform phases and other potentially harmful pollutants may be present in some calcium and magnesium-rich mineral formations (IPCC Special Report [47]). Accordingly, future research should concentrate on (a) the potential for less terrain change; (b) mineral carbonation in terms of mineral and CO2 dissolution; (c) material stratum diffusion; and (d) managing mineral impurities throughout the sequestration process.

5. CO2 Sequestration on Ocean Floor

Intentionally injecting CO2 into the deep ocean floor is another option for anthropogenic CO2 sequestration IPCC [47]. The oceans cover around 70% of the planet. In the industrial era, they sucked up over a third of all man-made CO2 emissions from the atmosphere and had an average depth of 3.8 km (Adams et al., [95]) (Tanhua et al., [96]). Mathematical simulations have indicated that injected CO2 may linger in the water for hundreds of years. This cold (1 °C) and profound (4 to 5 km) water flows slowly and may stay isolated from the atmosphere for millennia.
There are two potential methods for ocean storage: the injection and dissolution of CO2 into the water column, typically below 1000 m, using a fixed pipeline or a floating ship; or the deposition of CO2 onto the sea floor at depths below 3000 m, using a fixed pipeline or an offshore platform. In the latter method, CO2, being denser than water, is expected to form a concentrated “lake” that would delay its dissolution into the surrounding environment (Figure 6 below). The investigation of ocean storage and its ecological consequences is currently in the research phase.
Direct CO2 dissolution into seawater is the principal technique that could be used in ocean storage. The first involves releasing CO2 directly into the ocean floor, where it will form droplet plumes that will rise into the air. As an alternate method, liquid CO2 is injected into a column, where it has the potential to interact with saltwater at a pace that is under control, therefore producing hydrate (Adams et al., [95]). Since there is a potential for localised acidification of water from the sea in the vicinity of CO2 injection location, the storage of CO2 on the ocean floor is viewed with scepticism by a number of experts. This would have a deleterious effect on the benthic organisms. This is according to a series of recent studies published by (Hofmann et al. [97]). Furthermore, it is unclear if international laws will permit CO2 storage in the ocean as a development project. The London Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter into the Sea signed in 1996 put an end to the practice of discharging wastes from industrial processes into the ocean (Nobre et al. [71]). Therefore, it is prohibited to dump CO2 into the ocean if it is considered industrial waste. Although CO2 was added to the “reverse list” in the London Protocol modification that allowed for the storage of CO2 beneath the seabed in 2006, there is still no agreement on whether or not CO2 should be classified as industrial waste. “CO2 may only be stored in compliance with an authorisation or permit given by the Party’s competent authority”, as stated in the North-East Atlantic Convention with the Interest of Preserving the Quality of the Marine Environment (Anon [98]) (ZeroCO2 [99]). Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the ambiguity surrounding ocean sequestration and its effects on the ecosystem and to provide solutions to possible problems that may arise.
Oceanic sequestration efficiency may be evaluated based on a number of criteria, the most important of which are injection depth, residence time, and CO2 concentration allocation. Xu et al. [100] constructed a regional ocean general circulation model that assumed there was no air-to-sea CO2 exchange and investigated the prospect for CO2 sequestration in the North Pacific by using a wide range of sub-grid mesoscale mixing parameters. According to their findings, storage depth is a crucial factor in sequestering CO2 and limiting its emissions back into the atmosphere. It was discovered that a depth of injection of more than 1000 metres is necessary to slowly release CO2 into the water over a few hundred years.
Following fifty years of constant injection of CO2, more than ten percent of the dissolved CO2 would be released back into the environment. This leakage should be considered as a major concern. In 2004, Adcroft et al. used an ocean circulation model to assess the storage efficiency of impulse injections based on mean residence time. CO2 sequestration was more successful in the North Atlantic over hundreds of years, whereas it was more successful in the Pacific basin over shorter periods. Although the magnitudes that were tested were low and the impact of air–sea CO2 circulation was ignored, the relevance of this effect over large borders is still a concern and calls for more research.
In order to assess the efficacy of a potential sequestration location, the variation in CO2 concentration after injection might be considered. A place where CO2 is adequately diluted while having little environmental impact is preferable. However, by simulating CO2 injection into a number of models of the ocean’s main circulation at several sites around Japan, the spatial variability of CO2 content concerning the injection rate and eddy activity distribution has been studied (Masuda et al., [101]). These researchers used an ocean general circulation model to perform their research. Specifically, the data indicated that the highest CO2 concentration may vary by a factor of 10 across places, where the principal driver of this variation is the regionalisation of turbulent events. Additionally, it has been established that keeping injection rates below 20 Mt/a would have little long-term impact on biota.

Limitation and Future Work

In order to advance the discussions surrounding the evaluation of oceanic sequestration, previous research has shown that a number of improvements and unknowns need to be investigated and resolved in future studies. One way to boost ocean storage efficiency is by updating the present numerical model to account for CO2 exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean, and second, by reducing the number of assumptions underlying the model, further investigating the determination of storage efficiency.
The advancement of ocean CSS can be facilitated by addressing many significant gaps in knowledge and understanding. Some of these gaps include the following: (a) further engineering and advancement of technology for operating in the deep sea, as well as the development of various equipment such as pipes, nozzles, and diffusers, that can be efficiently utilised in deep-sea environments while ensuring minimal costs for operation and maintenance; (b) biological and ecological factors—investigations pertaining to the impact of increased CO2 levels on biological systems inside the deep sea, encompassing investigations of greater duration and larger size than those previously conducted; (c) research centres–these are establishments dedicated to conducting scientific research and developing technologies related to ocean storage. They provide a platform for assessing the effectiveness and impacts of various ocean storage concepts, such as the release of CO2 from a fixed pipe or ship, as well as carbonate-neutralisation approaches. These assessments are carried out in situ, on a small scale, and on an ongoing basis; (d) finally, the future focus should be on the advancement of methodologies and sensor technologies to detect CO2 plumes, as well as understanding their ecological and geochemical impacts.

6. Conclusions and Outlook

This paper provides a comprehensive review of the current advancements in CO2 sequestration with special interest in geological CO2 storage. This highlights significant steps that have been covered so far, as well as obstacles that still need to be addressed for geological subsurface CO2 sequestration, and approaches adopted in calculating CO2 storage capacity.
Even though CO2 sequestration by storage in the ocean and storage through the process of carbonation has been established, CSS remains the most viable practical alternative because of financial concerns, vast geographical dispersal, and environmental difficulties. This is the case because it has been proven that CO2 can be sequestered.
Mineral CO2 sequestration, on the other hand, remains a more protracted alternative in comparison to other potential carbon sequestration methods. The current state of technological progress restricts the short-term sequestration potential. In addition, the present costs associated with its sequestration are somewhat excessive when compared to alternative sequestration methods, taking into account the projected prices of CO2 in the near future. Feasibility may be limited to specific uses that offer an extra benefit, such as the practical utilisation of the carbonated product. Mineral CO2 sequestration has the potential to evolve into a viable technology for employment, forming an integral component of a diverse range of CO2-reducing technologies. It is crucial to use each technology in its most suitable context within a comprehensive portfolio. The field of mineral CO2 sequestration is a relatively recent area of study, and significant advancements have been achieved in improving the pace at which carbonation occurs. The aforementioned observation, in conjunction with the enduring nature of CO2 sequestration and its substantial potential for sequestration, justifies the need for additional investigation into mineral CO2 sequestration.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.T.M.; methodology, and validation, G.T.M. and N.R., formal analysis, G.T.M. and investigation, G.T.M.; writing—original draft preparation, G.T.M., writing—review and editing, N.R. and G.T.M.; principal supervision, N.R. and associate supervision H.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are openly available in references number [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115].


This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. This work is an outcome of PhD project on the Chemical Engineering Program, School of E, Faculty of Engineering and Digital Technologies, University of Bradford, in Carbon Capture and Utilisation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


ACTLAlberta Carbon Trunk Line
CBMCoal Bed Methane
CCSCarbon Capture and Storage
CO2CRCThe Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies
DOEDepartment of Energy
ECBMEnhanced Coal Bed Methane recovery
EGSEnhanced Geothermal System
EOREnhanced Oil Recovery
GHGGreenhouse Gas
HCPVHydrocarbon Pore Volume
IPCCIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LNGLiquefied Natural Gas
MITMassachusetts Institute of Technology
MVAMonitoring, Verification and Accounting
OGIPOriginal Gas in Place
OOIPOriginal Oil in Place
TRLTechnology Readiness Level
UKCCSRCUK Carbon Capture and Storage Research Centre
US-DOEUnited States Department of Energy
USGSUnited States Geological Survey
VSPVertical Seismic Profile
XRDX-ray Diffraction

Appendix A

Table A1. Worldwide CCS initiatives encompassing large-scale commercial projects that have been previously operational and pilot development operations (MIT, [16]; Shukla et al., [17]; Global CCS Institute-CO2RE).
Table A1. Worldwide CCS initiatives encompassing large-scale commercial projects that have been previously operational and pilot development operations (MIT, [16]; Shukla et al., [17]; Global CCS Institute-CO2RE).
Facility NameFacility CategoryFacility StatusCountryOperationalFacility Industry
In Salah CO2 StorageCommercial CCS FacilityCompletedAlgeria2004Natural Gas Processing
Bridgeport Energy Moonie CCUS projectCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentAustralia2023CO2 Transport and Storage
Burrup CCS HubCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentAustralia CO2 Transport and Storage
Callide Oxyfuel ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedAustralia2012Power Generation
CarbonNetCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentAustralia CO2 Transport and Storage
Cliff Head CCS Project (Mid West Clean Energy Project)Commercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentAustralia2025CO2 Transport and Storage
CO2CRC OtwayPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalAustralia2008Natural Gas Processing
CTSCo Surat Basin CCS ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentAustralia2023Power Generation
Gorgon Carbon Dioxide InjectionCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalAustralia2019Natural Gas Processing
Hazelwood Carbon Capture and Mineral Sequestration Pilot PlantPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedAustralia2009Power Generation
Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain (HESC) projectCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentAustralia Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain (HESC) projectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedAustralia2028Hydrogen Production
INPEX CCS Project DarwinCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentAustralia2026Natural Gas Processing
Mid-West Modern Energy HubCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentAustralia Hydrogen Production
Moomba CCS hub (Santos Cooper Basin CCS Project)Commercial CCS FacilityIn ConstructionAustralia2024Hydrogen Production
National Geosequestration Laboratory (NGL) AustraliaPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalAustralia2015Research and Development
Otway Natural Gas Plant CCSCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentAustralia2026Natural Gas Processing
Post-Combustion Capture (PCC)@CSIROPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalAustralia2005Power Generation
South East Australia Carbon Capture HubCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentAustralia2025Natural Gas Processing
South West HubPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedAustralia Fertiliser Production
Wallumbilla Renewable Methane Demonstration ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentAustralia2021Direct Air Capture
Antwerp@C-BASF Antwerp CCSCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentBelgium2030Chemical Production
Antwerp@C-Exxonmobil Antwerp Refinery CCSCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentBelgium2030Chemical Production
Antwerp@C–Borealis Antwerp CCSCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentBelgium2030Chemical Production
Antwerp@C–Ineos Antwerp CCSCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentBelgium2030Chemical Production
LEILACPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityIn ConstructionBelgium2025Cement Production
SteelanolUtilisation FacilitiesOperationalBelgium2023Iron and Steel Production
FS Lucas do Rio Verde BECCS ProjectCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentBrazil Ethanol Production
Miranga CO2 Injection ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedBrazil2009Fertiliser Production
Petrobras Santos Basin Pre-Salt Oil Field CCSCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalBrazil2008Natural Gas Processing
Air Products Net-Zero Hydrogen Energy ComplexCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentCanada2024Hydrogen Production
Alberta Carbon Conversion Technology Centre (ACCTC)Pilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalCanada2018Power Generation
Alberta Carbon Trunk Line (ACTL)Commercial CCS FacilityOperationalCanada2020CO2 Transport and Storage
Blue But BetterCommercial CCS FacilityIn ConstructionCanada2024Hydrogen Production
Boundary Dam Unit 3 Carbon Capture and Storage Facility (BD3 CCS facility)Commercial CCS FacilityOperationalCanada2014Power Generation
Capital Power Genesee CCS ProjectCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentCanada2026Power Generation
Caroline Carbon Capture Power ComplexCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentCanada2025Power Generation
CMC Research Institutes (CMCRI)Pilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalCanada2018Research and Development
CO2 Solutions Valleyfield Carbon Capture Demonstration ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedCanada2015Research and Development
Enhance Energy Clive CO2-EOR (ACTL)Commercial CCS FacilityOperationalCanada2020CO2 Transport and Storage
Federated Co-operatives Limited (Ethanol)Commercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentCanada2024Ethanol Production
Federated Co-operatives Limited (Refinery)Commercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentCanada2026Oil Refining
Glacier Gas Plant MCCSCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalCanada2022Natural Gas Processing
Husky Energy Lashburn and Tangleflags CO2 Injection in Heavy Oil Reservoirs ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalCanada2012Ethanol Production
Nauticol Energy Net Zero Methanol (ACTL)Commercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentCanada2025Methanol Production
Northwest Redwater CO2 Recovery Unit Sturgeon Refinery (ACTL)Commercial CCS FacilityOperationalCanada2020Oil Refining
Origins Project Carbon Storage HubCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentCanada2026CO2 Transport and Storage
Pembina Cardium CO2 Monitoring PilotPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedCanada2005Natural Gas Processing
Polaris CCS ProjectCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentCanada2025Hydrogen Production
QuestCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalCanada2015Hydrogen Production
Saskatchewan NET Power PlantCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentCanada2025Power Generation
Shand Carbon Capture Test Facility (CCTF)Pilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalCanada2015Research and Development
Southeast Saskatchewan CCUS Hub-StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentCanada CO2 Transport and Storage
Svante and Husky Energy VeloxoTherm Capture Process TestPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentCanada2018Oil Refining
WCS Redwater CO2 Recovery Unit (ACTL)Commercial CCS FacilityOperationalCanada2020Fertiliser Production
Zama Field Validation TestPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedCanada2005Natural Gas Processing
Australia-China Post Combustion Capture (PCC) Feasibility Study ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedChina2010Power Generation
Australia-China Post Combustion Capture (PCC) Feasibility Study ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedChina2010Power Generation
China Coalbed Methane Technology Sequestration ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedChina2004Research and Development
China National Energy Guohua JinjieCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalChina2020Power Generation
China National Energy TaizhouCommercial CCS FacilityIn ConstructionChina2023Power Generation
Chinese-European Emission-Reducing Solutions (CHEERS)Pilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentChina2022Oil Refining
CNOOC Enping CCS Offshore ProjectCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalChina2023Natural Gas Processing
CNPC Jilin Oil Field CO2 EORCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalChina2018Natural Gas Processing
CNPC Jilin Oil Field EOR Demonstration ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedChina2008Natural Gas Processing
Daqing Oil Field EOR Demonstration ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalChina2003Natural Gas Processing
Guanghui Energy CCUSCommercial CCS FacilityIn ConstructionChina Methanol Production
Haifeng Carbon Capture Test PlatformPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalChina2018Power Generation
Huaneng GreenGen IGCC Demonstration-scale System (Phase 2)Pilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityIn ConstructionChina2025Power Generation
Huaneng Longdong Energy Base Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentChina2023Power Generation
ITRI Calcium Looping PilotPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalChina2013Cement Production
Jinling Petrochemical CCUS (Nanjing Refinery)Commercial CCS FacilityOperationalChina2023Oil Refining
Karamay Dunhua Oil Technology CCUS EOR ProjectCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalChina2015Methanol Production
PetroChina Changqing Oil Field EOR CCUSPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalChina2017Fuel transformation
Shenhua Group Ordos Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Demonstration ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedChina2011Fuel transformation
Shuncheng CO2-TO-METHANOL Anyang PetrochemicalUtilisation FacilitiesOperationalChina2022Chemical Production
Sinopec Nanjing Chemical Industries CCUS Cooperation ProjectCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalChina2021Chemical Production
Sinopec Qilu-Shengli CCUS ProjectCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalChina2022Chemical Production
Sinopec Shengli Oilfield Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage Pilot ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalChina2010Power Generation
Sinopec Shengli Power Plant CCSCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentChina2025Power Generation
Sinopec Zhongyuan Carbon Capture Utilization and StoragePilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedChina2006Chemical Production
Yanchang Integrated CCS DemonstrationCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalChina2012Chemical Production
Geothermal Plant with CO2 Re-injectionPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalCroatia2018Power Generation
CASTORPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedDenmark2006Power Generation
CESARPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedDenmark2008Power Generation
Copenhill (Amager Bakke) Waste to Energy CCSCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentDenmark2025Waste Incineration
Greenport ScandinaviaCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentDenmark2025Bioenergy
Project GreensandCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentDenmark2025CO2 Transport and Storage
Air Liquide CalCCCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentFrance2028Lime Production
Air Liquide Normandy CCSCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentFrance2025Hydrogen Production
C2A2 Field Pilot-Le HavrePilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedFrance2013Power Generation
DMX™ Demonstration in DunkirkPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalFrance2022Iron and Steel Production
K6Commercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentFrance2028Cement Production
Lacq CCS Pilot ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedFrance2010Power Generation
CEMEX, Rüdersdorf, GermanyCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentGermany2026Cement Production
Ketzin Pilot ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedGermany2004Power Generation
Schwarze Pumpe Oxy-fuel Pilot PlantPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedGermany2008Power Generation
Wilhelmshaven CO2 Capture Pilot PlantPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedGermany2012Power Generation
MOL Szank field CO2 EORCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalHungary1992Natural Gas Processing
CarbFix ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalIceland2012Power Generation
CODA ShippingCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentIceland2026CO2 Transport and Storage
CODA Terminal Onshore InfrastructureCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentIceland2026CO2 Transport and Storage
CODA Terminal PipelineCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentIceland2026CO2 Transport and Storage
CODA Terminal StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentIceland2026CO2 Transport and Storage
MammothCommercial CCS FacilityIn ConstructionIceland2024Direct Air Capture
OrcaCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalIceland2021Direct Air Capture
Carbon Clean Solutions Solvay Vishnu Capture ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedIndia2012Power Generation
NTPC Vindhyachal Super Thermal Power Station CCSUtilisation FacilitiesOperationalIndia2022Power Generation
Tata Steel Jamshedpur Steel PlantPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalIndia2021Iron and Steel Production
Tuticorin (TTPS)-Carbon Clean SolutionUtilisation FacilitiesOperationalIndia2016Power Generation
Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.Pilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalIndia2016Chemical Production
Arun CCS HubCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentIndonesia2029CO2 Transport and Storage
Gundih CCS PilotPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentIndonesia2025Natural Gas Processing
PAU Central Sulawesi Clean Fuel Ammonia Production with CCUSCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentIndonesia2025Fertiliser Production
Repsol Sakakemang Carbon Capture and InjectionCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentIndonesia2026Natural Gas Processing
Sukowati CCUSCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentIndonesia2028Oil Refining
Ervia Cork CCSCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentIreland2028Power Generation
Heletz, Israel pilot CO2 injection sitePilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedIsrael2026Research and Development
Brindisi CO2 Capture Pilot PlantPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedItaly2010Power Generation
Ravenna CCS HubCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentItaly2027CO2 Transport and Storage
COURSE 50-CO2 Ultimate Reduction in Steelmaking Process by Innovative Technology for Cool Earth 50Pilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalJapan2008Iron and Steel Production
EAGLEPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedJapan2002Power Generation
Kashiwazaki Clean Hydrogen/Ammonia ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityIn ConstructionJapan2024Hydrogen Production
Mikawa Post Combustion Capture Demonstration PlantPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalJapan2020Power Generation
Nagaoka CO2 Storage ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedJapan2003Natural Gas Processing
Osaki CoolGen ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityIn ConstructionJapan2020Power Generation
Taiheiyo Cement CorporationPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalJapan2021Cement Production
Tomakomai CCS Demonstration ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalJapan2016Hydrogen Production
KasawariCommercial CCS FacilityIn ConstructionMalaysia2025Natural Gas Processing
Lang Lebah CCSCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentMalaysia2026Natural Gas Processing
Air Liquide Refinery Rotterdam CCSCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentThe Netherlands2024Hydrogen Production
Air Products Refinery Rotterdam CCSCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentThe Netherlands2024Hydrogen Production
Buggenum Carbon Capture (CO2 Catch-up) Pilot ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedThe Netherlands2011Power Generation
Delta Corridor Pipeline NetworkCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentThe Netherlands2026CO2 Transport and Storage
ExxonMobil Benelux Refinery CCSCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentThe Netherlands2024Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen 2 Magnum (H2M)Commercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentThe Netherlands2024Power Generation
K12-B CO2 Injection ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedThe Netherlands2004Natural Gas Processing
L10 Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentThe Netherlands2026Hydrogen Production
Porthos-Compressor StationCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentThe Netherlands2024CO2 Transport and Storage
Porthos-Offshore PipelineCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentThe Netherlands2024CO2 Transport and Storage
Porthos-Onshore PipelineCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentThe Netherlands2024CO2 Transport and Storage
Porthos StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentThe Netherlands2024CO2 Transport and Storage
Shell Energy and Chemicals Park RotterdamCommercial CCS FacilityIn ConstructionThe Netherlands2024Bioenergy
Yara SluiskilCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentThe Netherlands2025Fertiliser Production
Zeeland Refinery AzurCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentThe Netherlands2026Hydrogen Production
Project Pouakai Hydrogen Production with CCSCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentNew Zealand2024Hydrogen Production
Barents BlueCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentNorway2025Fertiliser Production
Borg CO2Commercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentNorway CO2 Transport and Storage
CEMCAPPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedNorway2015Cement Production
CO2 Capture Test Facility at Norcem BrevikPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedNorway2013Cement Production
Equinor Smeaheia (Norway)Commercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentNorway2028CO2 Storage
Fortum Oslo Varme-Shipping RouteCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentNorway2025Waste Incineration
Hafslund Oslo CelsioCommercial CCS FacilityIn ConstructionNorway2024Waste Incineration
Hafslund Oslo Celsio-Truck RouteCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentNorway2025Waste Incineration
Norcem Brevik-Cement PlantCommercial CCS FacilityIn ConstructionNorway2024Cement Production
Norcem Brevik-Shipping RouteCommercial CCS FacilityIn ConstructionNorway2024Cement Production
Northern Lights-PipelineCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentNorway2024CO2 Transport and Storage
Northern Lights-StorageCommercial CCS FacilityIn ConstructionNorway2024CO2 Transport and Storage
Polaris Carbon StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentNorway2024Hydrogen Production
Sleipner CCS ProjectCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalNorway1996Natural Gas Processing
Snohvit CO2 StorageCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalNorway2008Natural Gas Processing
Technology Centre Mongstad (TCM)Pilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalNorway2012Oil Refining
Project HajarCommercial CCS FacilityIn ConstructionOman2024Direct Air Capture
Papua LNG CCSCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentPapua New Guinea2027Natural Gas Processing
GO4ECOPLANETCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentPoland2027Cement Production
North Field East Project (NFE) CCSCommercial CCS FacilityIn ConstructionQatar2025Natural Gas Processing
Qatar LNG CCSCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalQatar2019Natural Gas Processing
Novatek Yamal LNG CCSCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentRussia2027Natural Gas Processing
Uthmaniyah CO2-EOR DemonstrationCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalSaudi Arabia2015Natural Gas Processing
Pilot Carbon Storage Project (PCSP)-Zululand Basin, South AfricaPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentSouth Africa2020Under Evaluation
Boryeong-KoSol Process for CO2 Capture (KPCC) TestPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedRepublic of Korea2010Power Generation
Hadong-Dry-sorbent CO2 Capture System TestPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedRepublic of Korea2014Power Generation
Korea-CCS 1 & 2Commercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentRepublic of Korea2025Power Generation
CIUDEN: CO2 Capture & Transport Technology Development PlantPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedSpain2012Power Generation
CIUDEN: CO2 Storage Technology Development PlantPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalSpain2015Research and Development
ELCOGAS Pre-combustion Carbon Capture Pilot Project: PuertollanoPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedSpain2010Power Generation
La Pereda Calcium Looping Pilot PlantPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedSpain2012Power Generation
Cementa CCS (Slite Cement plant)Commercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentSweden2030Cement Production
Cinfracap-PipelineCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentSweden2026CO2 Transport and Storage
Cinfracap-Shipping RouteCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentSweden2026CO2 Transport and Storage
Karlshamn Field PilotPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedSweden2009Power Generation
Preem Refinery CCSCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentSweden2025Hydrogen Production
STEPWISE Pilot of SEWGS Technology at Swerea/MefosPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalSweden2017Iron and Steel Production
Stockholm Exergi BECCSCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentSweden2027Bioenergy
Stockholm Exergi BECCS-Shipping RouteCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentSweden2027Bioenergy
PTTEP Arthit CCSCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentThailandTBCNatural Gas Processing
Bayu-Undan CCSCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentTimor-Leste2027Natural Gas Processing
Abu Dhabi CCS (Phase 1 being Emirates Steel Industries)Commercial CCS FacilityOperationalUnited Arab Emirates2016Iron and Steel Production
Abu Dhabi CCS Phase 2: Natural gas processing plantCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUnited Arab Emirates2025Natural Gas Processing
Ghasha Concession FieldsCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUnited Arab Emirates2025Natural Gas Processing
Aberthaw Pilot Carbon Capture FacilityPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedUnited Kingdom2013Power Generation
AcornCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2024Hydrogen Production
Acorn (Minimum Viable CCS Development)Pilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2025CO2 Transport and Storage
Acorn CO2 PipelineCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2026CO2 Transport and Storage
Acorn Direct Air Capture FacilityCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2026Hydrogen Production
Acorn HydrogenCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2025Hydrogen Production
Acorn Storage SiteCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2025CO2 Transport and Storage
Buxton Lime Net ZeroCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2024Lime Production
Caledonia Clean EnergyCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2025Power Generation
CF Fertilisers Billingham Ammonia CCSCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2023Fertiliser Production
Damhead Pipeline (Medway Hub)Commercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom Power Generation
Damhead Power Station (Medway)Commercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom Power Generation
Drax BECCS ProjectCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2027Power Generation
Drax bioenergy carbon capture pilot plantPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalUnited Kingdom2019Power Generation
East Coast Cluster Humber PipelineCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2025CO2 Transport and Storage
East Coast Cluster Teesside PipelineCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2025CO2 Transport and Storage
Endurance Storage SiteCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2025CO2 Transport and Storage
Esmond and Forbes Carbon Storage (Medway Hub)Commercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom Power Generation
Ferrybridge Carbon Capture Pilot (CCPilot100+)Pilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedUnited Kingdom2011Power Generation
Grain Power Station (Medway)Commercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom Power Generation
H2NorthEastCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2027Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen to Humber SaltendCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2025Hydrogen Production
HyNet Hydrogen Production Project (HPP)Commercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2025Hydrogen Production
HyNet North WestCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2026Hydrogen Production
HyNet North West-Hanson Cement CCSCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2026Cement Production
HyNet PipelineCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2025CO2 Transport and Storage
Hynet Storage SiteCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2025CO2 Transport and Storage
Isle of Grain LNG Terminal (Medway Hub)Commercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2026Power Generation
Keady 3 CCS Power StationCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2027Power Generation
Killingholme Power StationCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2027Hydrogen Production
Medway Hub ShippingCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom Power Generation
Medway Power StationCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom Power Generation
NET Power Plant (East Coast Cluster)Commercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2025Power Generation
Net Zero Teesside-CCGT FacilityCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2025Power Generation
Net Zero Teesside—BP H2TeessideCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2027Hydrogen Production
Northern Gas Network H21 North of EnglandCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2026Hydrogen Production
Pembroke Power StationCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2030Power Generation
Peterhead CCS Power StationCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2026Power Generation
Phillips 66 Humber Refinery CCSCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2028Hydrogen Production
Prax Lindsey Carbon Capture Project (PLCCP)Commercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2028Oil Refining
Redcar Energy CentreCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2025Power Generation
Renfrew Oxy-fuel (Oxycoal 2) ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedUnited Kingdom2007Power Generation
Suez Waste to Energy CCS (East Coast Cluster)Commercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2027Waste Incineration
Tees Valley Energy Recovery Facility Project (TVERF)Commercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2026Bioenergy
UKCCSRC Pilot-scale Advanced Capture Technology (PACT)Pilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedUnited Kingdom2012Power Generation
Vertex HydrogenCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2025Oil Refining
Viking CCS PipelineCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2027CO2 Transport and Storage
Viking CCS Storage SiteCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2027CO2 Transport and Storage
Viridor Runcorn Carbon CaptureCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom Waste Incineration
VPI Immingham Power Plant CCSCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUnited Kingdom2027Power Generation
Whitetail Clean EnergyCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUnited Kingdom Power Generation
ADM Illinois IndustrialCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalUSA2017Ethanol Production
ArcelorMittal Texas (formerly voestalpine Texas)Commercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA Iron and Steel Production
Arkalon CO2 Compression FacilityCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalUSA2009Ethanol Production
Ascension Clean Energy (Louisiana)Commercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA2027Hydrogen Production
Atkinson Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Bayou Bend CCSCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2025CO2 Transport and Storage
Baytown Low Carbon HydrogenCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2027Hydrogen Production
Bell Creek-Incidental CO2 Storage Associated with a Commercial EOR ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalUSA2010Natural Gas Processing
Bonanza BioEnergy CCUS EORCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalUSA2012Ethanol Production
Borger CO2 Compression FacilityCommercial CCS FacilityCompletedUSA2001Fertiliser Production
Bushmills Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Cal CaptureCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2027–2028Power Generation
Cane Run CCSCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA Power Generation
Carbon TerraVault I ProjectCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA2025CO2 Transport and Storage
CarbonFree SkymineUtilisation FacilitiesOperationalUSA2015Cement Production
Casselton Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Central City Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Central Louisiana Regional Carbon Storage (CENLA) HubCommercial CCS FacilityIn ConstructionUSA2027CO2 Transport and Storage
Century PlantCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalUSA2010Natural Gas Processing
Clean Energy Systems BiCRS Plant-Madera CountyCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA2027Power Generation
Clean Energy Systems Carbon Negative Energy Plant-Central ValleyCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA2025Power Generation
CO2 Sequestration Field Test: Deep Unminable Lignite SeamPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedUSA2009Research and Development
Coastal Bend CCSCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA2026CO2 Transport and Storage
Coffeyville Gasification PlantCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalUSA2013Fertiliser Production
Core Energy CO2-EORCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalUSA2003Natural Gas Processing
Coyote Clean Power ProjectCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2025Power Generation
CPV Shay Energy Center (CPV West Virginia Natural Gas Power Station CCS)Commercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA Power Generation
Cranfield ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalUSA2009Research and Development
Cyclus Power GenerationCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA Bioenergy
Dave Johnston Plant Carbon CaptureCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA2025Power Generation
Deer Park Energy Centre CCS ProjectCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA Power Generation
Diamond Vault CCSCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA2028Power Generation
DonaldsonvilleCommercial CCS FacilityIn ConstructionUSA2025Ammonia Production
Dry Fork Integrated Commercial Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)Commercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA2025Power Generation
E.W. Brown 0.7 MWe Pilot Carbon Capture UnitPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalUSA2014Power Generation
El Dorado CCS ProjectCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA2026Fertiliser Production
Enid FertilizerCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalUSA1982Fertiliser Production
Fairmont Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Farley DAC ProjectCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA Direct Air Capture
Farnsworth Unit EOR Field Project-Development PhasePilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalUSA2013Ethanol Production
Freeport LNG CCS projectCommercial CCS FacilityCancelledUSA2024Natural Gas Processing
Frio Brine PilotPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedUSA2004Research and Development
Fuel Cell Carbon Capture Pilot PlantPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalUSA2016Power Generation
G2 Net-Zero LNGCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA Natural Gas Processing
Galva Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Gerald Gentleman Station Carbon CaptureCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2025Power Generation
Goldfield Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Grand Forks Blue Ammonia Capture plantCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA Natural Gas Processing
Grand Junction Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Granite Falls Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Great Plains Synfuels Plant and Weyburn-MidaleCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalUSA2000Hydrogen Production
Hackberry Carbon Sequestration Project (Sempra)Commercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA CO2 Transport and Storage
Haynesville Gas Processing (CENLA Hub)Commercial CCS FacilityIn ConstructionUSA2027Natural Gas Processing
Heartland Greenway StorageCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA2025Ethanol Production
Heartland Hydrogen HubCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA Power Generation
HeidelbergCement CCSCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2023Cement Production
Heron Lake Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Huron Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Illinois Allam-Fetvedt cycle power plantCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA2025Power Generation
Illinois Basin Decatur Project (CO2 Injection Completed, Monitoring Ongoing)Pilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedUSA2011Ethanol Production
James M. Barry Electric Generating Plant CCS ProjectCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2030Power Generation
Kevin Dome Carbon Storage Project-Development PhasePilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedUSA2013Research and Development
LafargeHolcim Cement Carbon captureCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA2025Cement Production
LafargeHolcim Ste. Genevieve Cement Plant CCSCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA Cement Production
Lake Charles MethanolCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2025Chemical Production
Lamberton Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Lawler Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Linde hydrogen plant for OCI fertilizer blue ammonia BeaumontCommercial CCS FacilityIn ConstructionUSA2025Hydrogen Production
Lone Cypress Hydrogen ProjectCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA2025Hydrogen Production
Lost Cabin Gas PlantCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalUSA2013Natural Gas Processing
Louisiana Clean Energy ComplexCommercial CCS FacilityIn ConstructionUSA2025Hydrogen Production
Marcus Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Marshall County ECBM ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedUSA2009Research and Development
Mason City Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Mendota BECCSCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA2025Bioenergy
Merrill Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
MGSC Validation Phase (Phase II): CO2 Storage and Enhanced Oil Recovery: Bald Unit Oil Field Test SitePilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedUSA2009Research and Development
MGSC Validation Phase (Phase II): CO2 Storage and Enhanced Oil Recovery: Sugar Creek Oil Field Test SitePilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedUSA2009Research and Development
Michigan Basin (Phase II) Geologic CO2 Sequestration Field TestPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedUSA2008Natural Gas Processing
Michigan Basin Large-Scale Injection TestPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalUSA2013Natural Gas Processing
Midwest AgEnergy Blue Flint ethanol CCSCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA2022Ethanol Production
Mina Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Mountaineer Validation FacilityPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedUSA2009Power Generation
Mt. Simon CCS Hub (Iowa Illinois Carbon Pipeline)Commercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA CO2 Transport and Storage
Mustang Station of Golden Spread Electric Cooperative Carbon CaptureCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA Power Generation
National Carbon Capture Center (NCCC)Pilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalUSA2011Research and Development
NET Power Clean Energy Large-scale Pilot PlantPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalUSA2018Power Generation
Nevada Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
NextDecade Rio Grande LNG CCSCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA2025Natural Gas Processing
Norfolk Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Northern Delaware Basin CCSCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2023Natural Gas Processing
NuDACCS-Nuclear Direct Air CCS ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA Direct Air Capture
OCI FertiliserCommercial CCS FacilityIn ConstructionUSA2025Fertiliser Production
One Earth Energy facility Carbon CaptureCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2025Ethanol Production
Onida Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Otter Tail Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Oxy-combustion of Heavy Liquid Fuels-15 MW Pilot TestPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedUSA2012Power Generation
PCS NitrogenCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalUSA2013Fertiliser Production
Petra Nova Carbon Capture ProjectCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalUSA2017Power Generation
Plainview Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Plant Barry & Citronelle Integrated ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedUSA2012Power Generation
Plant Daniel Carbon CaptureCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA Power Generation
Pleasant Prairie Power Plant Field PilotPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedUSA2008Power Generation
Polk Power Station CCSCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSAUnder EvaluationPower Generation
Prairie State Generating Station Carbon CaptureCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2025Power Generation
Project Interseqt-Hereford Ethanol PlantCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA2023Ethanol Production
Project Interseqt-Plainview Ethanol PlantCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Project TundraCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2026Power Generation
Red Trail Energy CCSCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalUSA2022Ethanol Production
Redfield Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
River Bend CCS Louisiana PipelineCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA2026CO2 Transport and Storage
San Juan Basin ECBM Storage TestPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedUSA2008Research and Development
Shenandoah Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Shute Creek Gas Processing PlantCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalUSA1986Natural Gas Processing
Sioux Center Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Steamboat Rock Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
STRATOS (1PointFive Direct Air Capture)Commercial CCS FacilityIn ConstructionUSA2024Direct Air Capture
Summit Carbon Solutions-StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024CO2 Transport and Storage
Summit PipelineCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Bioenergy
Superior Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Terrell Natural Gas Processing Plant (formerly Val Verde Natural Gas Plants)Commercial CCS FacilityOperationalUSA1972Natural Gas Processing
The Illinois Clean Fuels ProjectCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA2025Chemical Production
Valero Port Arthur RefineryCommercial CCS FacilityOperationalUSA2013Hydrogen Production
Velocys’ Bayou Fuels Negative Emission ProjectCommercial CCS FacilityEarly DevelopmentUSA2026Chemical Production
Wabash CO2 SequestrationCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2022Fertiliser Production
Watertown Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Wentworth Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
West Pearl Queen CO2 Sequestration Pilot Test and Modelling ProjectPilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityCompletedUSA2002Research and Development
Wood River Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production
Wyoming Integrated Test Center (ITC)Pilot and Demonstration CCS FacilityOperationalUSA2018Power Generation
York Biorefinery Carbon Capture and StorageCommercial CCS FacilityAdvanced DevelopmentUSA2024Ethanol Production


  1. MacDowell, N.; Florin, N.; Buchard, A.; Hallett, J.; Galindo, A.; Jackson, G.; Adjiman, C.S.; Williams, C.K.; Shah, N.; Fennell, P. An overview of CO2 capture technologies. Energy Environ. Sci. 2013, 3, 1645–1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. International Energy Agency IEA. Storing CO2 through Enhanced Oil Recovery, Combining EOR with CO2 Storage (EOR) for Profit; IEA: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  3. IEA. World Energy Outlook; IEA: Paris, France, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  4. ECF. Roadmap 2050: A Practical Guide to a Prosperous, Low-Carbon Europe; European Climate Foundation: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  5. Hanak, D.P.; Anthony, E.J.; Manovic, V. A review of developments in pilot-plant testing and modelling of calcium looping process for CO2 capture from power generation systems. Energy Environ. Sci. 2015, 8, 2199–2249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yamasaki, A. An overview of CO2 mitigation options for global warming-emphasizing CO2 sequestration options. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 2003, 36, 361–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mabon, L.; Shackley, S. Public engagement in discussing carbon capture and storage. In World Social Science Report 2013—Changing Global Environments; OECD: Paris, France, 2013; pp. 398–403. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bachu, S. Review of CO2 storage efficiency in deep saline aquifers. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2015, 40, 188–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bai, X.; van der Leeuw, S.; O’Brien, K.; Berkhout, F.; Biermann, F.; Brondizio, E.S.; Cudennec, C.; Dearing, J.; Duraiappah, A.; Glaser, M.; et al. Plausible and desirable futures in the Anthropocene: A new research agenda. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 39, 351–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Na, J.; Xu, T.; Yuan, Y.; Feng, B.; Tian, H.; Bao, X. An integrated study of fluid–rock interaction in a CO2-based enhanced geothermal system: A case study of Songliao Basin, China. Appl. Geochem. 2015, 59, 166–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. GCCSI. Alberta Carbon Trunk Line (“ACTL”) with North West Sturgeon Refinery CO2 Stream. Glob CCS Inst. 2017. Available online: (accessed on 1 January 2020).
  12. DECC. CCS Roadmap—Supporting Deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage in the UK. 2012. Available online: (accessed on 1 January 2020).
  13. Bachu, S. Screening and selection criteria, and characterisation techniques for the geological sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2). In Developments and Innovation in Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Capture and Storage Technology; Woodhead Publishing Ltd.: Cambridge, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bachu, S.; Brulotte, M.; Grobe, M.; Stewart, S. Suitability of the Alberta Subsurface for Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Geological Media; Alberta Energy and Utilities Board: Calgary, AB, Canada, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  15. Han, Y.; Ho, W.S.W. Recent advances in polymeric facilitated transport membranes for carbon dioxide separation and hydrogen purification. J. Polym. Sci. 2020, 58, 2435–2449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. MIT. Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies. Massachusetts Inst Technol. 2015. Available online: (accessed on 1 October 2022).
  17. Shukla, R.; Ranjith, P.; Haque, A.; Choi, X. A review of studies on CO2 sequestration and caprock integrity. Fuel 2010, 89, 2651–2664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. CO2CRC. Injection & Storage 2015. 2021. Available online: (accessed on 20 June 2022).
  19. Li, Q.; Wei, Y.-N.; Liu, G.; Lin, Q. Combination of CO2 geological storage with deep saline water recovery in western China: Insights from numerical analyses. Appl. Energy 2014, 116, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Javaheri, M.; Jessen, K. Residual Trapping in Simultaneous Injection of CO2 and Brine in Saline Aquifers. In Proceedings of the SPE Western North American Region Meeting, Anchorage, AK, USA, 7–11 May 2011. [Google Scholar]
  21. Yang, F.; Pang, Z.; Lin, L.; Jia, Z.; Zhang, F.; Duan, Z.; Zong, Z. Hydrogeochem-ical and isotopic evidence for trans-formational flow in a sedimentary basin: Im-plications for CO2 storage. Appl. Geochem. 2013, 30, 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Frerichs, J.; Rakoczy, J.; Ostertag-Henning, C.; Krüger, M. Viability and Adaptation Potential of Indigenous Microorganisms from Natural Gas Field Fluids in High Pressure Incubations with Supercritical CO2. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 1306–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Burnol, A.; Thinon, I.; Ruffine, L.; Herri, J.M. Influence of impurities (nitro-gen and methane) on the CO2 storage capacity as sediment-hosted gas hydrate—Application in the area of the Celtic Sea and the Bay of Biscay. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2015, 35, 96–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Trémosa, J.; Castillo, C.; Vong, C.Q.; Kervévan, C.; Lassin, A.; Audigane, P. Long-term assessment of geochemical reactivity of CO2 storage in highly saline aquifers: Application to Ketzin, In Salah and Snøhvit storage sites. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2014, 20, 2–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Procesi, M.; Cantucci, B.; Buttinelli, M.; Armezzani, G.; Quattrocchi, F.; Boschi, E. Strategic use of the underground in an energy mix plan: Synergies among CO2, CH4 geological storage and geothermal energy. Latium Region case study (Central Italy). Appl. Energy 2013, 110, 104–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Quattrocchi, F.; Boschi, E.; Spena, A.; Buttinelli, M.; Cantucci, B.; Procesi, M. Synergic and conflicting issues in planning underground use to produce energy in densely populated countries, as Italy. Geological storage of CO2, natural gas, geothermics and nuclear waste disposal. Appl. Energy 2013, 101, 393–412. [Google Scholar]
  27. Li, S.; Wang, P.; Wang, Z. Strategy to Enhance Geological CO2 Storage Capacity in Saline Aquifer. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2023, 50, e2022GL101431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bachu, S. Screening and ranking of sedimentary basins for sequestration of CO2 in geological media in response to climate change. Environ. Geol. 2003, 44, 277–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wei, N.; Li, X.; Jiao, Z.; Stauffer, P.H.; Liu, S.; Ellett, K.; Middleton, R.S. A Hierarchical Framework for CO2 Storage Capacity in Deep Saline Aquifer Formations. Front. Earth Sci. 2022, 9, 777323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Le Gallo, Y.; Couillens, P.; Manai, T. CO2 Sequestration in Depleted Oil or Gas Reservoirs. In Proceedings of the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20–22 March 2002; pp. 1390–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cantucci, B.; Montegrossi, G.; Vaselli, O.; Tassi, F.; Quattrocchi, F.; Perkins, E.H. Geochemical modeling of CO2 storage in deep reservoirs: The Weyburn Project (Canada) case study. Chem. Geol. 2009, 265, 181–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wdowin, M.; Tarkowski, R.; Manecki, M. Petrographic-mineralogical and textural changes in reservoir and sealing rocks (Zaosie anticline) as a result of a long-term experiment in CO2-brine-rock interactions. Gospod. Surowcami Miner.-Miner. Resour. Manag. 2013, 29, 137–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tapia, J.F.D.; Lee, J.Y.; Ooi, R.E.H.; Foo, D.C.Y.; Tan, R.R. A review of optimi-zation and decision-making models for the planning of CO2 capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) systems. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2018, 13, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Armitage, P.J.; Worden, R.H.; Faulkner, D.R.; Aplin, A.C.; Butcher, A.R.; Espie, A.A. Mercia Mudstone Formation caprock to carbon capture and storage sites: Petrology and petrophysical characteristics. J. Geol. Soc. 2013, 170, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Buttinelli, M.; Procesi, M.; Cantucci, B.; Quattrocchi, F.; Boschi, E. The geo-database of caprock quality and deep saline aquifers distribution for geological storage of CO2 in Italy. Energy 2011, 36, 2968–2983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kim, Y.; Jang, H.; Kim, J.; Lee, J. Prediction of storage efficiency on CO2 sequestration in deep saline aquifers using artificial neural network. Appl. Energy 2017, 185, 916–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhao, X.; Liao, X.; Wang, W.; Chen, C.; Rui, Z.; Wang, H. The CO2 storage capacity evaluation: Methodology and determination of key factors. J. Energy Inst. 2014, 87, 297–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kneafsey, T.J.; Pruess, K. Laboratory Flow Experiments for Visualizing Carbon Dioxide-Induced, Density-Driven Brine Convection. Transp. Porous Media 2010, 82, 123–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gunter, W.D.; Bachu, S.; Benson, S. The role of hydrogeological and geochemical trapping in sedimentary basins for secure geological storage of carbon dioxide. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spéc. Publ. 2004, 233, 129–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sundal, A.; Hellevang, H.; Miri, R.; Dypvik, H.; Nystuen, J.P.; Aagaard, P. Variations in mineralization potential for CO2 related to sedimentary facies and burial depth—A comparative study from the North Sea. Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 5063–5070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sigman, D.M.; Fripiat, F.; Studer, A.S.; Kemeny, P.C.; Martínez-García, A.; Hain, M.P.; Ai, X.; Wang, X.; Ren, H.; Haug, G.H. The Southern Ocean during the ice ages: A review of the Antarctic surface isolation hypothesis, with comparison to the North Pacific. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2021, 254, 106732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Heinemann, N.; Stewart, R.; Wilkinson, M.; Pickup, G.; Haszeldine, R. Hydrodynamics in subsurface CO2 storage: Tilted contacts and increased storage security. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2016, 54, 322–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zangeneh, H.; Jamshidi, S.; Soltanieh, M. Coupled optimization of enhanced gas recovery and carbon dioxide sequestration in natural gas reservoirs: Case study in a real gas field in the south of Iran. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2013, 17, 515–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gao, R.S.; Sun, A.Y.; Nicot, J.P. Identification of a representative dataset for long-term monitoring at the Weyburn CO2-injection enhanced oil recovery site, Saskatchewan, Canada. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2016, 54, 454–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. BGS. Man-Made (Anthropogenic) Greenhouse Gases. 2017. Available online: (accessed on 23 September 2022).
  46. Jaramillo, P.; Griffin, W.M.; Matthews, H.S. Comparative Analysis of the Production Costs and Life-Cycle GHG Emissions of FT Liquid Fuels from Coal and Natural Gas. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 7559–7565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. IPCC. Special Report on Global Warming, Summary for Policymakers; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  48. Marston, P. Bridging the Gap: An Analysis and Comparison of Legal and Regulatory Frameworks for CO2-EOR and CO2-CCS; Global CCS Institute: Melbourne, Australia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  49. Porter, R.T.; Fairweather, M.; Pourkashanian, M.; Woolley, R.M. The range and level of impurities in CO2 streams from different carbon capture sources. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2015, 36, 161–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Jarrell, P.M.; Fox, C.E.; Stein, M.H.; Webb, S.L. Practical Aspects of CO2 Flood-ing; SPE Monograph Series No. 22; Society of Petroleum Engineers: Richardson, TX, USA, 2002; 220p. [Google Scholar]
  51. IEAGHG. Long Term Integrity of CO2 Storage—Well Abandonment; IEAGHG: Cheltenham, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  52. Igunnu, E.T.; Chen, G.Z. Produced water treatment technologies. Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol. 2012, 9, 157–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. White, D. Monitoring CO2 storage during EOR at the Weyburn-Midale Field. Geophysics 2009, 28, 838–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Thomas, S. Enhanced Oil Recovery—An Overview. Oil Gas Sci. Technol. Rev. L’ifp 2008, 63, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zaluski, W.; El-Kaseeh, G.; Lee, S.-Y.; Piercey, M.; Duguid, A. Monitoring technology ranking methodology for CO2-EOR sites using the Weyburn-Midale Field as a case study. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2016, 54, 466–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Verdon, J.P. Using microseismic data recorded at the Weyburn CCS-EOR site to assess the likelihood of induced seismic activity. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2016, 54, 421–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hutcheon, I.; Shevalier, M.; Durocher, K.; Bloch, J.; Johnson, G.; Nightingale, M.; Mayer, B. Interactions of CO2 with formation waters, oil and minerals and CO2 storage at the Weyburn IEA EOR site, Saskatchewan, Canada. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2016, 53, 354–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Perera, M.S.A.; Gamage, R.P.; Rathnaweera, T.D.; Ranathunga, A.S.; Koay, A.; Choi, X.A. Review of CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery with a Simulated Sensitivity Analysis. Energies 2016, 9, 481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tenasaka, I. Bridging the Commercial Gap for Carbon Capture and Storage; Global CCS Institute: Chevy Chase, MD, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  60. Kuuskraa, V.; Ferguson, R. Storing CO2 with Enhanced Oil Recovery; IEA: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  61. Krooss, B.; van Bergen, F.; Gensterblum, Y.; Siemons, N.; Pagnier, H.; David, P. High-pressure methane and carbon dioxide adsorption on dry and moisture-equilibrated Pennsylvanian coals. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2002, 51, 69–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Gilliland, E.S.; Ripepi, N.; Conrad, M.; Miller, M.J.; Karmis, M. Selection of monitoring techniques for a carbon storage and enhanced coalbed methane recovery pilot test in the Central Appalachian Basin. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2013, 118, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lakeman, B. Alberta Research Council Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery Project in Alberta, Canada; Advanced Resources International: Arlington, VA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  64. McGrail, B.P.; Schaef, H.T.; Ho, A.M.; Chien, Y.-J.; Dooley, J.J.; Davidson, C.L. Potential for carbon dioxide sequestration in flood basalts. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 2006, 111, B12201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pollyea, R.M.; Fairley, J.P.; Podgorney, R.K.; Mcling, T.L. Physical constraints on geologic CO2 sequestration in low-volume basalt formations. GSA Bull. 2014, 126, 344–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Matter, J.M.; Stute, M.; Snæbjörnsdottir, S.Ó.; Oelkers, E.H.; Gislason, S.R.; Aradottir, E.S.; Sigfusson, B.; Gunnarsson, I.; Sigurdardottir, H.; Gunnlaugsson, E.; et al. Rapid carbon mineralization for permanent disposal of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Science 2016, 352, 1312–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Anthonsen, K.; Aagaard, P.; Bergmo, P.E.; Gislason, S.; Lothe, A.; Mortensen, G.; Snæbjörnsdóttir, S. Characterisation and Selection of the Most Prospective CO2 Storage Sites in the Nordic Region. Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 4884–4896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Van Pham, T.H.; Aagaard, P.; Hellevang, H. On the potential for CO2 mineral storage in continental flood basalts—PHREEQC batch- and 1D diffusion–reaction simulations. Geochem. Trans. 2012, 13, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Seifritz, W. CO2 disposal by means of silicates. Nature 1990, 345, 486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Andreani, M.; Luquot, L.; Gouze, P.; Godard, M.; Hoisé, E.; Gibert, B. Experimental Study of Carbon Sequestration Reactions Controlled by the Percolation of CO2-Rich Brine through Peridotites. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 1226–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Nobre, C.A.; Sellers, P.J.; Shukla, J. Amazonian Deforestation and Regional Climate Change on JSTOR. 2012. Available online: (accessed on 28 August 2022).
  72. Circone, S.; Stern, L.A.; Kirby, S.H.; Durham, W.B.; Chakoumakos, B.C.; Rawn, C.J.; Rondinone, A.J.; Ishii, Y. CO2 hydrate: Synthesis, composition, structure, dissociation behavior, and a comparison to structure I CH4 hydrate. J. Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107, 5529–5539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Rochelle, C.A.; Camps, A.P.; Long, D.; Milodowski, A.; Bateman, K.; Gunn, D.; Jackson, P.; Lovell, M.A.; Rees, J. Can CO2 hydrate assist in the underground storage of carbon dioxide? Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 2009, 319, 171–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Oldenburg, C.M. Carbon Sequestration in Natural Gas Reservoirs: Enhanced Gas Recovery and Natural Gas Storage; Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  75. Jemai, K.; Kvamme, B.; Vafaei, M.T. Theoretical studies of CO2 hydrates formation and dissociation in cold aquifers using retrasocodebright simulator. WSEAS Trans. Heat. Mass. Transf. 2014, 9, 150–168. [Google Scholar]
  76. Talaghat, M.; Esmaeilzadeh, F.; Fathikaljahi, J. Experimental and theoretical investigation of simple gas hydrate formation with or without presence of kinetic inhibitors in a flow mini-loop apparatus. Fluid Phase Equilibria 2009, 279, 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ghavipour, M.; Ghavipour, M.; Chitsazan, M.; Najibi, S.H.; Ghidary, S.S. Experimental study of natural gas hydrates and a novel use of neural network to predict hydrate formation conditions. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2013, 91, 264–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ruffine, L.; Donval, J.; Charlou, J.; Cremière, A.; Zehnder, B. Experimental study of gas hydrate formation and destabilisation using a novel high-pressure apparatus. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2010, 27, 1157–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Rehder, G.; Leifer, I.; Brewer, P.G.; Friederich, G.; Peltzer, E.T. Controls on methane bubble dissolution inside and outside the hydrate stability field from open ocean field experiments and numerical modeling. Mar. Chem. 2009, 114, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Khabibullin, T.; Falcone, G.; Teodoriu, C. Drilling through gas-hydrate sediments: Managing wellbore-stability risks. SPE Drill. Complet. 2011, 26, 287–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Garapati, N.; Randolph, J.B.; Saar, M.O. Brine displacement by CO2, energy extraction rates, and lifespan of a CO2-limited CO2-Plume Geothermal (CPG) system with a horizontal production well. Geothermics 2015, 55, 182–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Pruess, K. Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) using CO2 as working fluid—A novel approach for generating renewable energy with simultaneous sequestration of carbon. Geothermics 2006, 35, 351–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Plaksina, T.; White, C. Modeling coupled convection and carbon dioxide injection for improved heat harvesting in geopressured geothermal reservoirs. Geotherm. Energy 2016, 4, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Assima, G.P.; Larachi, F.; Molson, J.; Beaudoin, G. Impact of temperature and oxygen availability on the dynamics of ambient CO2 mineral sequestration by nickel mining residues. Chem. Eng. J. 2014, 240, 394–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Johnson, E.E.; Scherwath, M.; Moran, K.; Dosso, S.E.; Rohr, K.M. Fault Slip Tendency Analysis for a Deep-Sea Basalt CO2 Injection in the Cascadia Basin. Geohazards 2023, 4, 121–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Bobicki, E.R.; Liu, Q.; Xu, Z.; Zeng, H. Carbon capture and storage using alkaline industrial wastes. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2012, 38, 302–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Lim, M.; Han, G.-C.; Ahn, J.-W.; You, K.-S. Environmental Remediation and Conversion of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into Useful Green Products by Accelerated Carbonation Technology. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7, 203–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Calabrò, A.; Deiana, P.; Fiorini, P.; Girardi, G.; Stendardo, S. Possible optimal configurations for the ZECOMIX high efficiency zero emission hydrogen and power plant. Energy 2008, 33, 952–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Olajire, A.A. A review of mineral carbonation technology in sequestration of CO2. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2013, 109, 364–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Cipolli, F.; Gambardella, B.; Marini, L.; Ottonello, G.; Zuccolini, M.V. Geo-chemistry of high-pH waters from serpentinites of the Gruppo di Voltri (Genova, Italy) and reaction path modeling of CO2 sequestration in serpentinite aquifers. Appl. Geochem. 2004, 19, 787–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Bruni, J.; Canepa, M.; Chiodini, G.; Cioni, R.; Cipolli, F.; Longinelli, A.; Marini, L.; Ottonello, G.; Zuccolini, M.V. Irreversible water–rock mass transfer accompanying the generation of the neutral, Mg–HCO3 and high-pH, Ca–OH spring waters of the Genova province, Italy. Appl. Geochem. 2002, 17, 455–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Peletiri, S.P.; Rahmanian, N.; Mujtaba, I.M. CO2 Pipeline Design: A Review. Energies 2018, 11, 2184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kheirinik, M.; Ahmed, S.; Rahmanian, N. Comparative techno-economic analysis of carbon capture processes: Pre-combustion, post-combustion, and oxy-fuel combustion operations. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Huijgen, W.; Witkamp, G.; Comans, R. Carbondioxide Sequestration by Mineral Carbonation; Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN): Petten, The Netherlands, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  95. Adams, R.A.; Hayes, M.A. Water availability and successful lactation by bats as related to climate change in arid regions of western North America. J. Anim. Ecol. 2008, 77, 1115–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Tanhua, T.; Orr, J.C.; Lorenzoni, L.; Hansson, L. Monitoring ocean carbon and ocean acidification. WMO Bull. 2015, 64, 1. [Google Scholar]
  97. Hofmann, M.; Schellnhuber, H.J. Ocean acidification: A millennial challenge. Energy Environ. Sci. 2010, 3, 1883–1896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Geochemistry of Geologic CO2 Sequestration; Mineralogical Society of America: Chantilly, VA, USA, 2017. Available online: (accessed on 1 January 2020).
  99. Zero CO2. CCS-International Legislation. Zero Emiss Resour Organ. 2015. Available online: (accessed on 3 September 2021).
  100. Xu, Y.; Ishizaka, J.; Aoki, S. Simulations of the distribution of sequestered CO2 in the North Pacific using a regional general circulation model. Energy Convers. Manag. 1999, 40, 683–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Masuda, Y.; Yamanaka, Y.; Sasai, Y.; Magi, M.; Ohsumi, T. Site selection in CO2 ocean sequestration: Dependence of CO2 injection rate on eddy activity distribution. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2009, 3, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Szizybalski, A.; Kollersberger, T.; Möller, F.; Martens, S.; Liebscher, A.; Kühn, M. Communication Supporting the Research on CO2 Storage at the Ketzin Pilot Site, Germany—A Status Report after Ten Years of Public Outreach. Energy Procedia 2014, 51, 274–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Bachu, S.; Bonijoly, D.; Bradshaw, J.; Burruss, R.; Holloway, S.; Christensen, N.P.; Mathiassen, O.M. CO2 storage capacity estimation: Methodology and gaps. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2007, 1, 430–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Chen, M.; Masum, S.A.; Thomas, H.R. 3D hybrid coupled dual continuum and discrete fracture model for simulation of CO2 injection into stimulated coal reservoirs with parallel implementation. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2022, 262, 104103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Fleury, M.; Pironon, J.; Le Nindre, Y.M.; Bildstein, O.; Berne, P.; Lagneau, V.; Broseta, D.; Pichery, T.; Fillacier, S.; Lescanne, M.; et al. Evaluating Sealing Efficiency of Caprocks for CO2 Storage: An Overview of the Geocarbone-Integrity Program and Results. Oil Gas Sci. Technol. Rev. IFP 2010, 65, 435–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. GCCSI. Accelerating the Uptake of CCS: Industrial Use of Captured Carbon Dioxide; Global CCS Institute: Melbourne, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  107. Gilliland, E.; Ripepi, N.; Karmis, M.; Conrad, M. An examination of MVA techniques applicable for CCUS in thin, stacked coals of the central appalachian basin. In Proceedings of the 29th the International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 15–18 October 2012; Volume 3, pp. 1931–1938. [Google Scholar]
  108. IEAGHG. Effects of Impurities on Geological Storage of CO2; IEAGHG: Cheltenham, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  109. IEAGHG. CO2 Storage in Depleted Gas Fields; IEAGHG: Oxford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  110. Iglauer, S.; Pentland, C.H.; Busch, A. CO2 wettability of seal and reservoir rocks and the implications for carbon geo-sequestration. Water Resour. Res. 2015, 51, 729–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. IPCC. Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage; IPCC: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  112. Luo, T.; Zhou, L.; Jiao, Z.; Bai, Y.; Wang, S. The Ordos Basin: A Premier Basin for Integrating geological CO2 Storage with Enhanced oil Recovery Projects in China. Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 7772–7779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Matter, J.M.; Broecker, W.S.; Gislason, S.R.; Gunnlaugsson, E.; Oelkers, E.H.; Stute, M.; Sigurdardóttir, H.; Stefansson, A.; Alfreðsson, H.A.; Aradóttir, E.S.; et al. The CarbFix Pilot Project—Storing carbon dioxide in basalt. Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 5579–5585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Song, J.; Zhang, D. Comprehensive review of caprock-sealing mechanisms for geologic carbon sequestration. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Xue, W.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Z.; Liu, H. An integrated model with stable numerical methods for fractured underground gas storage. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 393, 136268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Worldwide CCS initiatives encompassing large-scale commercial projects that have been previously operational and pilot development operations (MIT, [16]; Shukla et al., [17]; Global CCS Institute-CO2RE).
Figure 1. Worldwide CCS initiatives encompassing large-scale commercial projects that have been previously operational and pilot development operations (MIT, [16]; Shukla et al., [17]; Global CCS Institute-CO2RE).
Energies 16 07971 g001
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of various geological storage systems for CO2 (courtesy CO2CRC, [18]).
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of various geological storage systems for CO2 (courtesy CO2CRC, [18]).
Energies 16 07971 g002
Figure 3. Illustration of the four major CO2-trapping subsurface systems (Zhao et al., [37]). The four major trapping processes that may safely handle CO2 storage are as follows: (a) structural/stratigraphic trapping, (b) residual trapping, (c) solubility trapping, and (d) mineral trapping.
Figure 3. Illustration of the four major CO2-trapping subsurface systems (Zhao et al., [37]). The four major trapping processes that may safely handle CO2 storage are as follows: (a) structural/stratigraphic trapping, (b) residual trapping, (c) solubility trapping, and (d) mineral trapping.
Energies 16 07971 g003
Figure 4. Diagram illustrating hydrate formation sequestration with its CO2 hydrate seal (Rochelle et al., [73]).
Figure 4. Diagram illustrating hydrate formation sequestration with its CO2 hydrate seal (Rochelle et al., [73]).
Energies 16 07971 g004
Figure 5. Illustration of the material fluxes and processes that are involved in the mineral carbonation of silicate rocks or industrial residues (W. Huijgen et al., [94]).
Figure 5. Illustration of the material fluxes and processes that are involved in the mineral carbonation of silicate rocks or industrial residues (W. Huijgen et al., [94]).
Energies 16 07971 g005
Figure 6. An illustration of many concepts related to the storage of CO2 in the ocean. The process of ocean storage can be classified into two types: dissolution type and lake type. In the dissolution type, CO2 undergoes rapid dissolution in ocean water. On the other hand, in the lake type, CO2 exists initially as a liquid on the sea floor (CO2CRC [18]).
Figure 6. An illustration of many concepts related to the storage of CO2 in the ocean. The process of ocean storage can be classified into two types: dissolution type and lake type. In the dissolution type, CO2 undergoes rapid dissolution in ocean water. On the other hand, in the lake type, CO2 exists initially as a liquid on the sea floor (CO2CRC [18]).
Energies 16 07971 g006
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mwenketishi, G.T.; Benkreira, H.; Rahmanian, N. A Comprehensive Review on Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Methods. Energies 2023, 16, 7971.

AMA Style

Mwenketishi GT, Benkreira H, Rahmanian N. A Comprehensive Review on Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Methods. Energies. 2023; 16(24):7971.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mwenketishi, Gregory Tarteh, Hadj Benkreira, and Nejat Rahmanian. 2023. "A Comprehensive Review on Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Methods" Energies 16, no. 24: 7971.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop