Sammendrag
While most works on CCS in connection with CO2 EOR credit all the benefit of the additional oil production to the CCS entity, this work investigate the impact of alternative EOR methods on the valuation on CO2 EOR storage. Based on a generic model suitable for CO2 EOR in Norwegian oil fields, EOR production with CO2 injection is compared to the EOR production with chemical EOR for different scenarios.
The comparison shows that depending on the scenario combination considered the added value of using the CO2 EOR method instead of the chemical EOR method varies from -4 to 33 €/bblproduced equivalent to -4 to 56 €/tCO2,avoided. In most of the cases considered, the CO2 EOR method would therefore be preferred with however more or less value creation depending on the case. The evaluation shows that for an oil price minus the normal production costs equal to 50 €/bbl, the oil value which shall be considered for CO2 EOR application varies between 8 and 41 €/bbl, which can therefore be significantly lower than the 50 €/bbl which shall be considered if chemical EOR is not an alternative. The value one would be willing to pay to have CO2 delivered at a field varies between -4 and 56 €/tCO2 depending on the scenario combinations considered and can therefore also be significantly lower than in cases in which chemical EOR is not an alternative. For example, in the medium CO2 EOR scenario, the CO2 value is between 27 and 60% lower if chemical EOR is considered as an alternative option for EOR. As a consequence, a CCS chain including CO2 EOR would overestimate its benefits if it does not considered chemical EOR as an alternative to CO2 EOR for Oil & Gas companies. Finally, the sensitivity analyses identify the factors having the largest influence on the value one would be willing to pay to have CO2 delivered at its field.
The comparison shows that depending on the scenario combination considered the added value of using the CO2 EOR method instead of the chemical EOR method varies from -4 to 33 €/bblproduced equivalent to -4 to 56 €/tCO2,avoided. In most of the cases considered, the CO2 EOR method would therefore be preferred with however more or less value creation depending on the case. The evaluation shows that for an oil price minus the normal production costs equal to 50 €/bbl, the oil value which shall be considered for CO2 EOR application varies between 8 and 41 €/bbl, which can therefore be significantly lower than the 50 €/bbl which shall be considered if chemical EOR is not an alternative. The value one would be willing to pay to have CO2 delivered at a field varies between -4 and 56 €/tCO2 depending on the scenario combinations considered and can therefore also be significantly lower than in cases in which chemical EOR is not an alternative. For example, in the medium CO2 EOR scenario, the CO2 value is between 27 and 60% lower if chemical EOR is considered as an alternative option for EOR. As a consequence, a CCS chain including CO2 EOR would overestimate its benefits if it does not considered chemical EOR as an alternative to CO2 EOR for Oil & Gas companies. Finally, the sensitivity analyses identify the factors having the largest influence on the value one would be willing to pay to have CO2 delivered at its field.