查看文章

The purpose of this analysis is to assess the fiscal impact of using risk-based methods to define the area of review (AoR) and post-injection site care (PISC) duration for a geologic carbon dioxide (CO2) storage project. The Office of Fossil Energy (FE)/National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) CO2 Saline Storage Cost Model (“cost model”) was utilized to evaluate CO2 storage economics in this study. The cost model is a widely used tool for evaluating CO2 storage costs in geologic settings. It estimates costs for storage operations conducted under compliance to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class VI regulations. This analysis evaluates and compares the costs of storage (on a first-year break-even dollar per tonne [2018$] basis) at the proposed FutureGen 2.0 site as a case study storage location by implementing different approaches to determine AoR and PISC given the prevailing geologic conditions and injection volume and duration considerations. The approaches include the use of 1) risk-based methods to define AoR and PISC duration, 2) an EPA-approved AoR and PISC documented in the FutureGen 2.0 UIC Class VI permit applications, and 3) cost model default settings that utilize uncertainty multipliers to estimate CO2 plume and pressure front extent as part of AoR determination, as well as a 50-year PISC default. From all three sources, the AoR and PISC specified in the Class VI permit applications for FutureGen 2.0 were the largest and longest relative to the other two sources.