COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES FOR DETERMINING SECURE GEOLOGIC STORAGE

摘要

With the recent expansion of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 45Q tax credit for CO_2 storage, numerous projects are seeking to take advantage of this incentive. Guidance from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recommends that the U.S. Environmental Protection Association (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), under Subpart RR, be used to quantify CO_2 incidentally stored during CO_2-EOR, as well as for the injection of CO_2 for storage in depleted hydrocarbon and saline reservoirs. However, there now exists two possible alternatives to the GHGRP requirements that could be considered for quantifying storage. 1. ISO 27916: 2019, designed to quantify and document the annual mass of CO_2 stored in subsurface geologic complexes in association with CO_2-EOR operations, along with the assurance of storage integrity.~1 2. The California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)~2 and associated CCS Protocol, also designed to designed to quantify and document the annual mass of CO_2 stored in subsurface geologic complexes (both in saline aquifers and in association with CO_2-EOR operations, along with the assurance of storage integrity.~3 In addition, we discuss the provisions of the newly-established CO_2 Storage Resources Management System (SRMS),~4 and compare, where appropriate, to these other three mechanisms. This paper/presentation describes, what each methodology is intended to address (and what it is not), and compares and contrasts the methodologies, highlighting, as appropriate, the supporting materials necessary to quantify and validate CO_2 storage.