QER Analysis - A Review of The CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in The U.S - 0

National Energy
Technology Laboratory
OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline

Infrastructure in the U.S.
April 21, 2015

DOE/NETL-2014/1681
A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.
Disclaimer
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States
Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their
employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus,
product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views
and opinions of authors expressed therein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United
States Government or any agency thereof.
-
Author List:
Energy Sector Planning and Analysis (ESPA)
Matthew Wallace
Advanced Resources International
Lessly Goudarzi, Kara Callahan

OnLocation
Robert Wallace
Booz Allen Hamilton
This report was prepared by Energy Sector Planning and Analysis (ESPA) for the United States
Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis (EPSA) and the
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). This work was completed under DOE NETL
Contract Number DE-FE0004001. This work was performed under ESPA Task 200.01.03.
All images in this report are property of NETL unless otherwise noted.
The authors wish to acknowledge the excellent guidance, contributions, and cooperation of the
NETL and EPSA staff, particularly:
Anthony Zammerilli, NETL Technical Project Monitor
Judi Greenwald, EPSA Deputy Director for Climate Environment and Efficiency
James Bradbury, EPSA Senior Policy Advisor
David Rosner, EPSA Senior Policy Advisor
Maria Vargas, Technical Contracting Officer Representative
Donald Remson, NETL
DOE Contract Number DE-FE0004001

This page intentionally left blank.

Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................1
2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................2
3 Current CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure..............................................................................................3
3.1 Overview ..............................................................................................................................3
3.2 Permian Basin ......................................................................................................................4
3.3 Gulf Coast ............................................................................................................................7
3.4 Rocky Mountains .................................................................................................................8
3.5 Mid-Continent ....................................................................................................................10
3.6 Other U.S. CO2 Pipeline Networks ....................................................................................12
4 Potential CO2 Pipeline Network Expansion ...............................................................................12
4.1 Projections Based on Industry Announcements ................................................................12
4.1.1 Wyoming Pipeline Development and Greencore Pipeline Extension ......................12
4.1.2 Green Pipeline Laterals .............................................................................................13
4.1.3 Potential Additional CO2 Supplies from Natural Sources ........................................15
4.1.4 Additional CO2 from Industrial Sources ...................................................................16
4.2 Projections using the EIA NEMS analysis ........................................................................17
4.2.1 CO2 Price and CO2 Emissions Results......................................................................18
4.2.2 CO2 Pipeline Expansion Results ...............................................................................19
4.2.3 Rates of Projected Pipeline Construction .................................................................30
5 Permitting, Regulations, and Policies .........................................................................................31
5.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................31
5.2 Federal Regulation .............................................................................................................31
5.2.1 General Oversight .....................................................................................................31
5.2.2 Safety Oversight........................................................................................................32
5.3 Pipeline Siting and Eminent Domain .................................................................................32
5.3.1 Texas/New Mexico ...................................................................................................32
5.3.2 Mississippi ................................................................................................................32
5.3.3 Other States ...............................................................................................................33
5.4 Other State Policies ............................................................................................................33
6 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................33
7 Topics for Further Study .............................................................................................................34
7.1 Development of Oversight Authority ................................................................................34
8 Bibliography ...............................................................................................................................35
Appendix ........................................................................................................................................37
i
Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Geographic areas with large-scale CO2 pipeline systems operating currently in the U.S.
................................................................................................................................................. 3
Exhibit 2 Current CO2-EOR operations and infrastructure ............................................................ 4
Exhibit 3 Permian Basin CO2 pipeline infrastructure ..................................................................... 5
Exhibit 4 Permian Basin CO2 transportation pipelines ................................................................... 6
Exhibit 5 Gulf Coast CO2 pipeline infrastructure ........................................................................... 7
Exhibit 6 Gulf Coast CO2 transportation pipelines ......................................................................... 8
Exhibit 7 Rocky Mountain CO2 pipeline infrastructure ................................................................. 9
Exhibit 8 Rocky Mountain CO2 transportation pipelines ............................................................. 10
Exhibit 9 Mid-Continent CO2 pipeline infrastructure ................................................................... 11
Exhibit 10 Mid-Continent CO2 transportation pipelines .............................................................. 11
Exhibit 11 Other CO2 transportation pipelines in the U.S. ........................................................... 12
Exhibit 12 Denbury’s Wyoming CO2 pipeline developments ...................................................... 13
Exhibit 13 Planned Webster CO2 lateral pipeline ......................................................................... 14
Exhibit 14 Planned Conroe CO2 lateral pipeline .......................................................................... 14
Exhibit 15 Planned Lobos CO2 pipeline in New Mexico ............................................................. 15
Exhibit 16 Planned CO2 transportation pipelines ......................................................................... 16
Exhibit 17 CO2 Price under the Cap40 and CP 25 scenarios ........................................................ 18
Exhibit 18 CO2 Emission reductions for all sectors under the Cap40 and CP 25 scenarios......... 19
Exhibit 19 CO2 pipeline schematic ............................................................................................... 19
Exhibit 20 CO2 transportation by market segment (2040)............................................................ 20
Exhibit 21 CO2 transportation by miles as a function of pipeline diameter (2040) ...................... 21
Exhibit 22 Inter- and Intrastate pipeline segments (2040) ............................................................ 23
Exhibit 23 Transportation Costs for the Cap40 case .................................................................... 24
Exhibit 24 Transportation costs for the CP25 case ....................................................................... 24
Exhibit 25 Transportation cost as a function of CO2 throughput.................................................. 25
Exhibit 26 Oil produced by source for all three cases* ................................................................ 26
Exhibit 27 Oil Production by EOR in the Cap40 case .................................................................. 27
Exhibit 28 Oil Production by EOR in the CP25 case ................................................................... 28
Exhibit 29 Power plant pipeline build-out by 2040 for the Cap40 case ....................................... 29
Exhibit 30 Power plant pipeline build-out by 2040 for the CP25 case ......................................... 29
Exhibit 31 Power plant pipeline build-out by 2030 in the $25/tonne CO2, low carbon scenario . 30
Exhibit 32 Comprehensive List of U.S. CO2 Pipelines ................................................................ 37
Exhibit 33 State-Level Inter- and Intrastate Pipeline Segments for the Cap40 Case ................... 39
Exhibit 34 State-Level Inter- and Intrastate Pipeline Segments for CP25 Case ........................... 40
Exhibit 35 Cumulative CO2 Pipelines Construction ..................................................................... 41
Exhibit 36 Total Mass of anthropogenic CO2 Sequestered .......................................................... 41
Exhibit 37 Sequestered Anthropogenic CO2 Captured at Industrial vs. Power Sector Sources ... 42
Exhibit 38 Electric Capacity with Carbon Sequestration ............................................................. 42
Exhibit 39 U.S. Oil Production (MMBbls/day) Associated with CO2-EOR, in 2015, 2030, and
2040 (table) ........................................................................................................................... 42
Exhibit 40 U.S. oil production (MMBbls/day) associated with CO2-EOR, in 2015, 2030, and
2040 (graph) .......................................................................................................................... 43
ii
Acronyms and Abbreviations

AEO2014 Annual Energy Outlook in Inch
BAU Business as usual ITC Investment Tax Credit
Bcf Billion cubic feet MBbl/d Million barrels per day
Bcf/d Billion cubic feet per day mi Mile
BLM Bureau of Land Management MM, mm Million
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy MMcfd Million cubic feet per day
CCA Cedar Creek Anticline MMBbls Million barrels of oil
CO2 Carbon dioxide MMBOE Million barrels of oil equivalent
CCS Carbon capture and storage MMT Million metric tons
CTUS Capture, transport, utilization, and NEJD North East Jackson Dome
storage NEMS National Energy Modeling System
DOE Department of Energy NETL National Energy Technology
DOT Department of Transportation Laboratory
EIA Energy Information Agency PCS Potash Corp of Saskatchewan
EIS Environmental Impact Statement PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
EOR Enhanced oil recovery Safety Administration
EPSA Energy Policy and Systems Analysis PTC Production Tax Credit
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory RCSP Regional Carbon Sequestration
Commission Partnerships
GAO General Accountability Office SACROC Scurry Area Canyon Reef Operators
GHG Greenhouse gas Committee
GW Gigawatt STB Surface Transportation Board
ICC Interstate Commerce Commission TBD To be determined
ICF ICF International U.S. United States
IGCC Integrated gasification combined WPA Wyoming Pipeline Authority
cycle
iii
This page intentionally left blank.
iv
1 Executive Summary
Spanning across more than a dozen U.S. states and into Saskatchewan, Canada, a safe and
regionally extensive network of carbon dioxide (CO2) pipelines has been constructed over the
past four decades. Consisting of 50 individual CO2 pipelines and with a combined length over
4,500 miles, these CO2 transportation pipelines represent an essential building block for linking
the capture of CO2 from electric power plants and other industrial sources with its productive use
in oilfields and its safe storage in saline formations. Expanding this system could help to enable
fossil-fired power generation in a carbon constrained environment and increase energy security
by enhancing domestic oil production.
The vast majority of the CO2 pipeline system is dedicated to enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR),
connecting natural and industrial sources of CO2 with EOR projects in oil fields. Roughly 80
percent of CO2 traveling through U.S. pipelines is from natural (geologic) sources; however, if
currently planned industrial CO2 capture facilities and new pipelines are built, by 2020 the
portion of CO2 from industrial-sources could be nearly equal to that from natural sources. In
terms of future potential, it is estimated that up to 4 million barrels per day of oil could
potentially be produced in the U.S. with CO2-EOR and that 85% of this would be reliant on
industrial CO2; contributing to significantly fewer oil imports and annual emissions reductions of
400 MMTCO2, by 2030.
Just over 4 percent of total U.S. crude oil production is currently produced through EOR, though
this is projected to increase to 7 percent by 2030, and a national carbon policy could significantly
change the outlook, creating incentives for electric power plants and other industrial facilities to
reduce CO2 emissions through carbon capture technologies and improving the economics for oil
production through EOR. In a low-carbon case, construction through 2030 would more than
triple the size of current U.S. CO2 pipeline infrastructure, through an average annual build-rate of
nearly 1,000 miles per year.
The regulation of CO2 pipelines is currently a joint responsibility of federal and state
governments. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, is responsible for overseeing the safe construction and operation of CO2
pipelines, which includes technical design specifications and integrity management
requirements. The development of a national CO2 pipeline network capable of meeting U.S.
GHG emission goals may require a more concerted federal policy, involving closer cooperation
among federal, state, and local governments. Federal policy initiatives should build on state
experiences, including lessons learned from the effectives of different regulatory structures,
incentives, and processes that foster interagency coordination and regular stakeholder
engagement.
1
2 Introduction
A safe, reliable, regionally extensive network of carbon dioxide (CO2) transportation pipelines is
already in place across more than a dozen United States (U.S.) states and into Saskatchewan,
Canada. This system could increasingly become an essential building block for linking the
capture of CO2 from industrial power plants with its productive use in oilfields (with CO2
enhanced oil recovery [CO2-EOR]) and its safe storage in saline formations. The current CO2
pipeline system consists of 50 individual CO2 pipelines with a combined length of 4,500 miles.
The bulk of the existing large-volume CO2 pipelines connect natural sources of CO2 (e.g., Bravo
Dome, New Mexico) with long-running CO2-EOR projects in large oil fields (e.g., Wasson, West
Texas). However, smaller volume pipelines also exist that connect point sources of industrial
CO2 (e.g., Coffeyville Chemical Plant, Kansas) with newer CO2-EOR projects in oil fields (e.g.,
North Burbank, Oklahoma).
Today’s CO2 pipeline system had its beginnings in the 1970s, built for delivering CO2 for CO2-
EOR to oil fields in the Permian Basin of West Texas and eastern New Mexico. With the recent
completion of two long-distance CO2 pipelines – the Green Pipeline in Louisiana and Texas
(2010), and the Greencore Pipeline in Wyoming and Montana (2012) – a much more
geographically diverse CO2 pipeline system is in place. A variety of shorter and smaller volume
laterals are being constructed to link these two large-scale CO2 pipelines to surrounding oil fields
that are amenable to CO2-EOR.
The vast majority of the CO2 pipeline system is dedicated to CO2-EOR, with a small fraction
used for other industrial uses, such as delivering CO2 to the beverage industry. Of the 3.53
billion cubic feet (Bcf) per day (68 million metric tons per year [MMT]) of CO2 transported, 2.78
Bcf per day (54 MMT per year) is from natural sources, and the remaining 0.74 Bcf per day (14
MMT per year) is from industrial sources, including gas processing plants. With new industrial
CO2 capture facilities coming on line (e.g., Air Products PCS Nitrogen plant in southern
Louisiana, Southern Company’s integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant in Kemper
County, Mississippi, etc.) – including over 600 miles of new pipeline – the volume of industrial
CO2 capture and transportation is expected to increase by over 2.5 times the current supply by
the year 2020.1
The regulation of CO2 pipelines is currently a joint responsibility of federal and state
governments. The federal government regulates only CO2 safety standards. State governments
are largely responsible for the oversight of CO2 transportation pipeline development and
operation. Some states, such as Wyoming and its Pipeline Authority, have begun to plan for and
establish corridors for future CO2 pipelines. However, the development of a national CO2
pipeline network capable of meeting proposed CO2 emission goals may require a more organized
approach and much closer cooperation among federal, state, and local governments than is
currently in place.
1
This is based on a comparison between 0.74 Bcf per day currently and 1.36 Bcf per day planned to begin construction by 2020 (Exhibit 16).
2
3 Current CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure

3.1 Overview
The initial large-scale CO2 pipeline in the U.S., the Canyon Reef pipeline, was built in the 1970s.
Much of the remainder of the current CO2 pipeline infrastructure was built between the 1980s
and 1990s. Today, there are nearly 50 CO2 transportation pipelines in the U.S. with a combined
length of over 4,500 miles, operated by over a dozen different companies. (See Exhibit 32 in the
Appendix for the comprehensive list of CO2 transport pipelines in the U.S.)
At present, about 80 percent of CO2 used for EOR is from natural sources. However, CO2
supplies from industrial sources (natural gas processing plants, other chemical processing plants,
and electric power facilities) are expected to provide upwards of 43 percent of the CO2 used for
EOR by the year 2020.2 Exhibit 1 illustrates the major CO2 transport pipelines that currently
exist in the U.S. Exhibit 2 shows the current CO2-EOR operations and infrastructure in the U.S.
A number of industrial CO2-capture facilities have been proposed and partially developed for
delivering CO2 to EOR fields over the past several decades. However, the significant amount of
capital required by many of these projects has inhibited a number of them from meeting their
announced CO2-capture goals on time, or coming online entirely. But, as new industrial CO2-
capture projects begin to provide greater volumes of CO2 to the EOR industry, it is anticipated
that development costs will begin to decrease. Proven industrial CO2-capture technology should
lower the perceived risk of providing CO2 supplies to the EOR industry.
Exhibit 1 Geographic areas with large-scale CO2 pipeline systems operating currently in the U.S.
U.S. Regions with Large-scale CO2 Miles of

Pipeline Systems in Operation Pipeline
Permian Basin (W. TX, NM, and S. CO) 2,600
Gulf Coast (MS, LA, and E. TX) 740
Rocky Mountains (N. CO, WY, and MT) 730
Mid-Continent (OK and KS) 480
Other (ND, MI, Canada) 215
2
This is based on a comparison between the 2.78 Bcf per day currently drawn from natural CO2 reservoirs and the total of 2.1 Bcf per day
expected from industrial sources by 2020.
3
Exhibit 2 Current CO2-EOR operations and infrastructure
3.2 Permian Basin

The Permian Basin contains the largest network of CO2 pipelines in the U.S. Over 2,600 miles of
CO2 pipelines in this region carry both natural and industrial CO2 supplies to CO2-EOR projects
throughout the region.
Three main pipelines deliver CO2 from four natural sources of CO2 to the Permian Basin
(Exhibit 3). The Cortez pipeline delivers CO2 from McElmo Dome and Doe Canyon in
southwestern Colorado. The Sheep Mountain pipeline delivers CO2 from the Sheep Mountain
CO2 field in central Colorado, and the Bravo pipeline delivers CO2 from Bravo Dome in
northeast New Mexico to the Permian Basin. All three of these major pipelines meet at the
Denver City CO2 hub, where CO2 is dispersed through a network of smaller CO2 pipelines to
various oil fields and their CO2-EOR projects. A smaller pipeline, the TransPetco/Bravo
pipeline, transports a modest amount of CO2 to the Postle CO2-EOR operation in western
Oklahoma, as discussed later in this report.
4
Exhibit 3 Permian Basin CO2 pipeline infrastructure
Three other important CO2 pipelines round out the large-scale pipeline system of the Permian
Basin:
 The Canyon Reef Carrier CO2 pipeline, the initial large-scale CO2 pipeline, links the CO2
captured from the gas processing plants in the Val Verde Basin (West Texas) with the
pioneering Scurry Area Canyon Reef Operators Committee (SACROC) CO2-EOR
project, 170 miles to the northeast.
 The Centerline and Central Basin CO2 pipelines deliver natural CO2 from the Denver
City CO2 hub to the oil fields in West Texas and New Mexico.
Exhibit 4 lists the CO2 transportation pipelines installed in the Permian Basin region.
5
Exhibit 4 Permian Basin CO2 transportation pipelines
Estimated
Length Diameter Flow
Scale Pipeline Operator Location
(mi) (in) Capacity
(MMcfd)
Cortez Kinder Morgan TX 502 30 1,300

Sheep Mtn Oxy Permian TX 408 24 590
Bravo Oxy Permian NM, TX 218 20 380
Large-Scale
Trunk-lines Canyon Reef
Kinder Morgan TX 170 16 220
Carriers
Centerline Kinder Morgan TX 113 16 220
Central Basin Kinder Morgan TX 143 16 220
Este I - to Welch,
ExxonMobil, et al TX 40 14 180
Tx
Este II - to Salt
Oxy Permian TX 45 12 130
Crk Field
Means ExxonMobil TX 35 12 130
North Ward Estes Whiting TX 26 12 130
Slaughter Oxy Permian TX 35 12 130
Mabee Lateral Chevron TX 18 10 110
Val Verde Oxy Permian TX 83 10 110
Rosebud Hess NM 50* 12 100*
Anton Irish Oxy Permian TX 40 8 80
Smaller-
Scale Dollarhide Chevron TX 23 8 80
Distribution
Llano Trinity CO2 NM 53 12 80
Systems
North Cowden Oxy Permian TX 8 8 80
Pecos County Kinder Morgan TX 26 8 80
Pikes Peak Oxy Permian TX 40 8 80
W. Texas Trinity CO2 TX, NM 60 12 80
Comanche Creek Oxy Permian TX 120 6 70
Cordona Lake XTO TX 7 6 70
El Mar Kinder Morgan TX 35 6 70
Wellman Trinity CO2 TX 25 6 70
Adair Apache TX 15 4 50
Ford Kinder Morgan TX 12 4 50
*Estimated
6
3.3 Gulf Coast

The 740 mile Gulf Coast CO2 pipeline network is owned and operated by Denbury Onshore LLC
(Exhibit 5). Two main pipelines service the region, the North East Jackson Dome (NEJD)
Pipeline and the Green Pipeline. These two pipelines connect the natural CO2 source in Jackson
Dome, Central Mississippi, to Denbury’s CO2-EOR projects in Mississippi, Louisiana, and East
Texas. Several industrial sources of CO2 are (or soon will be) connected to the Green Pipeline for
delivery to CO2-EOR. Exhibit 6 lists all of the CO2 transportation pipelines installed in the Gulf
Coast region.
Exhibit 5 Gulf Coast CO2 pipeline infrastructure
(1) Potential, proved, and produced-to-date tertiary reserves estimated as of 12/31/13 based on a
range of recovery factors. Proved reserves based on year-end 12/31/13 U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission reporting.
Source: Denbury Onshore LLC (1)
7
Exhibit 6 Gulf Coast CO2 transportation pipelines
Estimated
(mi) (in) Capacity
(MMcfd)
Denbury
Green Line LA, TX 314 24 930
Resources
Large-Scale Denbury
Delta MS, LA 108 24 590
Trunk-lines Resources
Northeast Jackson Denbury
MS, LA 183 20 360
Dome (NEJD) Resources
Denbury
Free State MS 85 20 360
Distribution Resources
Line Denbury
Sonat MS 50 18 170
Resources
3.4 Rocky Mountains

The CO2-EOR operations in the Rocky Mountain region are serviced by two major sources of
CO2: the Shute Creek natural gas processing plant and the Lost Cabin Gas Plant (Exhibit 7). The
Shute Creek pipeline, operated by ExxonMobil, is the central trunk-line (i.e., a pipeline that
originates at a transshipment node) for several smaller pipelines, which deliver CO2 to CO2-EOR
projects in central Wyoming, as well as the Rangely CO2-EOR project in northwest Colorado.
Denbury completed construction of the Greencore pipeline in 2012, which delivers CO2 supplies
from the Lost Cabin Gas Plant to the Salt Creek, Bell Creek, and other CO2-EOR projects in the
Rocky Mountain region.
Exhibit 8 lists the CO2 transportation pipelines installed in the Rocky Mountain region, including
a short, 40-mile delivery pipeline from McElmo Dome to the Aneth CO2-EOR project in Utah.
8
Exhibit 7 Rocky Mountain CO2 pipeline infrastructure
9
Exhibit 8 Rocky Mountain CO2 transportation pipelines
Length Diameter Estimated Flow

(mi) (in) Capacity (MMcfd)
Shute
Creek/Wyoming ExxonMobil WY 142 30-20 1,220-220
Large-Scale CO2
Trunk-lines
Denbury
Greencore WY, MT 230 22 720
Resources
Powder River
Anadarko WY 125 16 220
Basin CO2
Raven Ridge Chevron WY, CO 160 16 220
Smaller Kinder
Scale McElmo Creek CO, UT 40 8 80
Morgan
Distribution
Systems Monell Anadarko WY 33 8 80
Lost
Merit WY 30 16 43
Soldier/Wertz
Beaver Creek Devon WY 53 8 30
3.5 Mid-Continent
The Mid-Continent CO2 pipeline system (Exhibit 9) is mainly a set of fragmented source-to-field
pipelines supplying captured CO2 from industrial sources to individual CO2-EOR operations.
Chaparral owns and operates the majority of these smaller pipelines while Anadarko controls the
Enid-Purdy pipeline in Central Oklahoma. A small amount of natural CO2 from Bravo Dome is
delivered to the Postle CO2-EOR operation via the TransPetco Pipeline. These CO2 pipelines are
listed in Exhibit 10.
10
Exhibit 9 Mid-Continent CO2 pipeline infrastructure
Exhibit 10 Mid-Continent CO2 transportation pipelines
Estimated
(mi) (in) Capacity
(MMcfd)
Chaparral
Coffeyville- Burbank KS, OK 68 8 80
Energy
Enid-Purdy
Anadarko OK 117 8 80
Small Scale (Central Oklahoma)
Distribution TransPetco TransPetco TX, OK 110 8 80
Systems Chaparral
TexOk OK 95 6 70
Energy
Chaparral
Borger TX, OK 86 4 50
Energy
11
3.6 Other U.S. CO2 Pipeline Networks

Two other CO2 pipeline networks exist, one in North Dakota and one in Michigan. The Dakota
Gasification pipeline delivers captured CO2 from the Great Plains Synfuels plant to the Weyburn
CO2-EOR project in Saskatchewan, Canada. (3) The White Frost pipeline delivers captured CO2
from the Antrim Gas Processing plant to several small-scale CO2-EOR projects in Otsego
County, Michigan. (4) These CO2 pipelines are listed in Exhibit 11.
Exhibit 11 Other CO2 transportation pipelines in the U.S.
Estimated
Region Pipeline Operator Location
(mi) (in) Capacity
(MMcfd)
Dakota Gasification
Other Dakota Gasification ND, SK 204 14 130
(Souris Valley)
Other White Frost Core Energy, LLC MI 11 6 70
4 Potential CO2 Pipeline Network Expansion

This section provides industry-announced CO2 pipeline projects as well as potential CO2 pipeline
expansion based on economic modeling with a Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Policy and
Systems Analysis office version of the National Energy Modeling System model (hereafter
referred to as EP-NEMS).
4.1 Projections Based on Industry Announcements

Several new CO2 pipeline projects have been announced by industry, most of which would
connect industrial facilities with CO2-EOR projects. A summary of these announcements can be
found at the end of this section (Exhibit 16).
4.1.1 Wyoming Pipeline Development and Greencore Pipeline Extension
Denbury has announced plans for major CO2 pipeline developments in Wyoming (Exhibit 12).
The company is planning to install a major pipeline to connect new sources of CO2 at the Riley
Ridge Gas Plant to its CO2-EOR operations in Wyoming. This new pipeline will extend
approximately 250 miles, utilizing some existing CO2 pipeline corridors before linking to the
Greencore Pipeline south of the Lost Cabin CO2 source. Installation of this pipeline is expected
between 2019 and 2020 at a cost of approximately $500 million. (6)
Denbury is also planning an extension of the Greencore Pipeline from its current termination at
the Bell Creek field to a number of recently acquired oil fields in East Central Montana and
Western North Dakota known collectively as the Cedar Creek Anticline (CCA). This new section
of the Greencore Pipeline would extend approximately 130 miles from Bell Creek to the CCA, at
an estimated cost of $225 million. While the CCA properties were recently acquired, the pipeline
extension has been delayed until 2021 while water flooding and field development is conducted
in advance of CO2-EOR operations. (6)
12
Exhibit 12 Denbury’s Wyoming CO2 pipeline developments
4.1.2 Green Pipeline Laterals

Denbury also has plans to extend two significant CO2 pipeline laterals from the Green Pipeline to
CO2-EOR operations in East Texas. (6)
Construction of the first lateral began in mid- 2014. This is a 9-mile, 16-inch lateral from the
Green Pipeline to the Webster oil field near Harris, Texas (Exhibit 13). Delivery and injection of
CO2 is scheduled for 2016. The cost for construction of this pipeline is estimated at $23 million.
The Webster CO2-EOR project is expected to produce roughly 15,000 barrels of oil per day from
a potential 68 million barrels of CO2-EOR oil. (6)
A second lateral to connect the Conroe CO2-EOR project to the Green Pipeline is also underway
(Exhibit 14), with permitting and route selection currently ongoing. The lateral is expected to
extend roughly 90 miles from the Green Pipeline near the border of Texas and Louisiana to the
Conroe oil field. Construction on the 20-inch pipeline is expected to begin in 2016, with first
delivery and injection of CO2 in 2017, and first oil production in 2018. The Conroe CO2-EOR
operation is expected to yield a peak production of between 15,000 and 20,000 barrels of oil per
day from a potential 130 million barrels of CO2-EOR oil. (6)
13
Exhibit 13 Planned Webster CO2 lateral pipeline
Exhibit 14 Planned Conroe CO2 lateral pipeline
14
4.1.3 Potential Additional CO2 Supplies from Natural Sources

Kinder Morgan planned to invest approximately $310 million in a new 16-inch CO2 pipeline to
connect St. Johns Dome, a large natural CO2 source located on the border of Arizona and New
Mexico, to CO2-EOR projects in the Permian Basin (Exhibit 15).3 The pipeline would have
extended approximately 214 miles from St. Johns Dome to Torrance County, New Mexico,
where it will link with the Cortez Pipeline. Kinder Morgan also planned to expand the capacity
of the Cortez pipeline by 300 million cubic feet per day to accommodate additional CO2 volumes
from St. Johns Dome. However, Kinder Morgan recently has withdrawn their Right-of-Way
request with the BLM for Lobos pipeline construction. They cite the decline in oil price and a
shift in their business strategy as reasons for withdrawal, however the opportunity is open for
future development4.
Exhibit 15 Planned Lobos CO2 pipeline in New Mexico
Pending permission from Kinder Morgan
3
http://www.kindermorgan.com/business/CO2/lobospipeline/default.cfm
4
http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/prog/more/lands_realty/lobos_co2_pipeline.html
15
4.1.4 Additional CO2 from Industrial Sources

Based on recent announcements5 (Exhibit 16), industry is on the brink of capturing significant
volumes of CO2 from industrial sources, in addition to the 740 million cubic feet per day of
industrial CO2 utilized for CO2-EOR. Using industrial data and published reports, the volume of
CO2 supplies from industrial facilities could reach 3,060 million cubic feet per day by the end of
the decade, an increase of over four times the current CO2 capture and transportation volume.
Many of the proposed industrial capture facilities are being developed with CO2-EOR in mind.
The locations of a number of proposed facilities are within a moderate distance (less than 100
miles) from viable CO2-EOR oil fields. The construction of these facilities will include pipelines
directly to the proposed CO2-EOR facilities. For example, the Petra Nova Capture Project will
capture CO2 emissions from the W.A. Parish power plant in Thompson, Texas and deliver CO2
supplies to the CO2-EOR project at the West Ranch field in Vanderbilt, Texas, via an 80-mile
CO2 pipeline.
Several other proposed industrial capture projects will tie into existing CO2 pipelines for delivery
of CO2 to established CO2-EOR operating areas. These projects will require shorter (less than 50
miles) lateral pipelines to connect directly with major CO2 trunk-lines. For example, CO2
captured from the Lake Charles Gasification facility in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana will be
transported to the Green Pipeline via a 12-mile lateral. This CO2 will eventually be utilized by
CO2-EOR facilities in East Texas.
Exhibit 16 provides the CO2 transportation pipelines associated with proposed industrial CO2
capture projects.
Exhibit 16 Planned CO2 transportation pipelines
Est. CO2 Transport

Est. Start Length
Project Name Project Type Location Capacity Required
Date (mi)
(MMcfd)
Illinois Industrial
CCS Decatur, Il 2015 1 50
Carbon Capture
Thompson,
Petra Nova CO2-EOR 2016 82 70
TX
Point
Sargas Texas CO2-EOR 2017 50 40
Comfort, TX
Lake Charles Calcasieu
CO2-EOR 2018 12 200
Co-Generation Parish, LA
Medicine Bow Medicine
CO2-EOR 2018 TBD 130
CTL Bow, WY
South Heart,
Quintana Syngas CO2-EOR 2018 TBD 108
SD
5
http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/large-scale-ccs-projects#overview
16
Est. CO2 Transport

Est. Start Length
Project Name Project Type Location Capacity Required
Date (mi)
(MMcfd)
Hydrogen
Kern County,
Energy California CO2-EOR 2019 3 124
CA
(HECA)
Indiana
CO2-EOR Rockport, IN 2019 430 285
Gasification
Texas Clean
CO2-EOR Penwell, TX 2019 1 140
Energy Project
Mississippi
Clean Energy CO2-EOR TBD TBD TBD 210
Project
4.2 Projections using the EIA NEMS analysis

Three cases were run using EP-NEMS to provide a range of potential CO2 pipeline expansion
scenarios. The first case used a similar set of assumptions to EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook
(AEO2014) Reference Case projection. In this case, EP-NEMS projects limited additional
expansion of U.S. CO2 pipeline infrastructure, from 2015 through 2040. However, analysis of
scenarios that examine the implications of illustrative national climate policies reveals that such
policies could significantly change the outlook for CO2 pipelines. A national carbon policy
would create incentives for electric power plants and other industrial facilities to reduce CO2
emissions through carbon capture technologies, improving the economics for oil production
through CO2-EOR.
Reference Case
The AEO2014 Reference Case, which assumes no new policies or changes to current policies,
deployed carbon capture and storage (CCS) to a level below a minimum threshold at which new
pipelines were constructed. Since NEMS did not build out new pipelines due to the lack of CO2
capture, the following discussions include no further comparisons between the Reference Case
and the two other cases.
Extended Policies Case (Cap40)
In the EIA Extended Policies Case, existing tax credits that have sunset dates are assumed not to
sunset, and other policies (i.e., Corporate Average Fuel Economy [CAFE] standards, appliance
standards, and building codes) are expanded beyond current provisions. The EP-NEMS run for
this report is not an EIA side case. It was developed for DOE’s Energy Policy and Systems
Analysis (EPSA) office, using the standard EIA Extended Policy Case as the basis for the run
and including additional assumptions and modifications affecting several sectors. In particular, in
the transportation sector, aviation efficiency was assumed to improve by 1.5 percent per year. In
addition, heavy duty vehicle fuel economy (measured in miles per gallon) was assumed to
improve by 9 percent by 2040. Biofuels were assumed to realize a 20-30 percent reduction in
cost while biomass was assumed to experience a 20 percent decrease in fuel supply costs. (7)
The Extended Policies Case further assumed higher building efficiency standards and a
significant reduction in energy consumption by the industrial sector. The Production Tax Credit
(PTC) and the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for wind and solar were assumed to be extended
17
indefinitely and an economy-wide CO2 emissions cap was imposed, reducing emissions by 40
percent from 2005 by 2030 and a total of 80 percent from 2005 levels by 2050. Finally, nuclear
at risk retirements that were stated in the Reference case were removed from this case. (7)
AEO2014 Early Release Case with a carbon price of $25/tonne (CP25)
The CP25 case assumes a $25/tonne price on CO2 emissions. The price on is economy wide,
begins in 2015, and increases by 5 percent annually through 2040. This pathway matches the
EIA’s AEO2014 $25 Carbon Price side case. (8) This illustrative national carbon policy is not
intended to represent any actual or proposed policy, but instead is used as a means to understand
the extent to which a climate policy would drive growth in CO2-EOR demand, and consequently
in CO2 pipeline infrastructure. Currently, just over 4 percent of total U.S. crude oil production is
currently produced through EOR, though this is projected to increase to 7 percent by 2030. (5)
4.2.1 CO2 Price and CO2 Emissions Results
The price of CO2 in the CP25 case, as stated above, begins at $25/tonne in 2015 and increases to
$52/tonne in 2030, and nearly $85/tonne by 2040, as seen in Exhibit 17. The Cap40 CO2 price
begins at $0/tonne and does not increase until the 2021 time frame. The price then increases at an
exponential rate, reaching $38/tonne by 2030 and nearly $200/tonne by 2036, where it remains
for the rest of the model time horizon.
Exhibit 17 CO2 Price under the Cap40 and CP 25 scenarios
Carbon Price
250
200
Carbon Price $/tonne
150
Cap40
100 CP25
50
0
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
As the price per tonne of CO2 increases, the amounts of CO2 emissions decrease in each case.
Exhibit 18 shows that the Cap40 reduces CO2 emissions at a greater rate than the CP25 case, and
by 2040, reduces CO2 emissions by nearly 1 billion more tonnes cumulatively than the CP25
case and almost 3 billion more tonnes than the Reference case.
18
Exhibit 18 CO2 Emission reductions for all sectors under the Cap40 and CP 25 scenarios
Annual CO2 Emissions from All Sectors

7,000
6,000
Million Metric Tonnes CO2
5,000
4,000 Cap40
3,000 CP25
BAU
2,000
1,000
-
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
4.2.2 CO2 Pipeline Expansion Results

CO2 pipelines are segmented into different types depending on where in the supply chain they
are located and how they are used. The following is a list of how different segments of pipeline
are defined, and Exhibit 19 provides a schematic of the CO2 pipeline infrastructure.
 Direct – Dedicated pipeline from CO2 source to sink
 Feeder – Dedicated pipeline from source to transshipment node
 Trunk-line – Shared pipeline from transshipment node to any other node or sink
 Interstate – Pipeline that crosses between two states
 Intrastate – Pipeline that stays within one state
Exhibit 19 CO2 pipeline schematic
In the CP25 case, by 2030, EP-NEMS projects over 11,000 miles of new CO2 pipelines (Exhibit
35), primarily from electric power plants to EOR projects and saline storage sites. By 2030,
19
there are 56 new pipeline segments in use to transport captured CO2 from its source to a terminal
sink (EOR or Saline Storage). Under this scenario, regional oil production from EOR occurs
predominantly in the Southwest; however, production also significantly increases in the
Midcontinent, West Coast and Gulf Coast regions.
In terms of sources for the CO2, by 2030, the CP25 case projects a tripling of CO2 capture in the
U.S., with over 99 percent of this coming from the power sector (Exhibit 37). Under this
scenario, an 11 percent reduction in CO2 emissions (94 MMT CO2) from the U.S. power sector
(Exhibit 36) would come through the application of carbon capture technologies to over 32 GW
of generation capacity (Exhibit 38)6.
In terms of sinks for the CO2, oil production from CO2-EOR is projected to increase to over 10
percent of total U.S. production by 2030 (Exhibit 39). This would account for nearly 95 percent
of CO2 sequestration, with the balance being stored in underground saline formations.
In the CP25 case, direct pipelines make up 48 percent of the total pipeline miles and 23 percent
of the tonne-miles transported. This is significantly less than the 79 percent of total miles
dedicated to direct pipelines in the Cap40 case. Additionally, there is about 5,000 miles more of
pipeline in the CP25 than in the Cap40 case; nearly all of that difference comes from an increase
in the use of shared trunk-lines. While the CP25 results in fewer GWs of power plant capacity
with capture (about 71 GW vs. 79 GW in the Cap40 case), they are distributed over a greater
number of plants, thus increasing the total pipeline mileage in the CP25 case (Exhibit 20).
Exhibit 20 CO2 transportation by market segment (2040)
Cap40 Results
Pipe Type Total Miles % Average Miles Million Tons CO2 %
Total 15,194 100 205 468,906 100
Direct 11,977 79 244 269,674 58
Feeder 2,458 16 123 65,309 14
Trunk-lines 760 5 152 133,923 29
Interregional 7,448 49 219 221,823 47
Intraregional 8,411 55 210 247,083 53
CP25 Results
Pipe Type Total Miles % Average Miles Million Tons CO2 %
Total 21,496 100 197 841,086 100
Direct 10,355 48 280 194,038 23
Feeder 5,475 25 112 125,794 15
Trunk-lines 5,666 26 246 521,254 62
Interregional 11,478 53 239 370,276 44
Intraregional 10,018 47 164 470,810 56
6
Of this 32 GW, 5.9 GW is coal-fired and 26.5 GW is gas-fired.
20
In the Cap40 case, 12-inch pipes are used exclusively in direct connections; however, 85 percent
of them crossed state lines. 60 percent of the 16-inch pipeline miles are associated with direct
connections, with 45 percent of them being interstate pipelines. All of the pipes greater than 16
inches were used as either feeders into trunk-lines or as trunk-lines, 27 percent of which were
interstate lines (Exhibit 21).
In the CP25 case, 12-inch pipes make up almost 90 percent of all the direct pipelines, with the
balance carried by 16-inch pipelines. As in the Cap40 case, in the CP25 case, 12-inch pipes are
used exclusively in direct connections and a large majority (78 percent in this case) cross state
lines. The larger plants (those with emissions >3.25 MMT/yr – approximately equivalent to the
emissions of a 500 MW coal plant) fed into trunk-lines while most of the smaller plants used
direct pipelines.
Exhibit 21 CO2 transportation by miles as a function of pipeline diameter (2040)
Cap40
Pipeline Miles
Pipeline Diameter (in)
Pipe Type
12 16 20 24 36
Total 8,623 5,632 192 582 165
Direct 8,623 3,354 - - -
Feeder - 2,171 192 94 -
Trunk-lines - 107 - 488 165
Interregional 3,866 3,488 - 94 -
Intraregional 4,758 2,145 192 488 165
MMT-Miles 135,434 185,295 13,101 97,877 43,199
% of Total 29 40 3 20 9
CP25
Pipeline Miles
Pipeline Diameter (in)
Pipe Type
12 16 20 24 36
Total 9,251 6,706 158 4,370 1,011
Direct 9,251 1,104 - - -
Feeder - 5,317 158 - -
Trunk-lines - 285 - 4,370 1,011
Interregional 6,693 2,014 - 2,006 765
Intraregional 2,558 4,692 158 2,365 246
MMT-Miles 147,141 186,374 4,840 322,990 179,740
% of Total 17 22 1 38 21
Total CO2 pipeline development costs depend on a number of variables, including length,
pipeline diameter, terrain, and other regional variations. However, total cost for a CO2 pipeline
project in a given region can be determined by examining a similar project in the Permian Basin.
21
Similar to oil field infrastructure development, capital costs for CO2 pipelines are lowest in the
Permian Basin. For example, the 214 mile, 16-inch Lobos pipeline is expected to cost
approximately $300 million. Other announced CO2 pipelines in the Gulf Coast and Rocky
Mountain regions are expected to cost between 25 percent and 33 percent more per inch-mile
than the Lobos pipeline. These additional costs are likely due to harsher terrain, navigation
through denser populations, and less competition among developers capable of undertaking such
technically-demanding work.
Based on recent announcements7, industry is on the brink of capturing significant volumes of
CO2 from industrial sources, including the 740 million cubic feet per day of industrial CO2
utilized for CO2-EOR. Using industrial data and published reports, the volume of CO2 supplies
from industrial facilities could reach 3,060 million cubic feet per day by the end of the decade,
an increase of over four times the current CO2 capture and transportation volume from industrial
sources.
Exhibit 22 shows that the average cost per mile of pipeline is $562,000 in the CP25 case, which
is about 40 percent higher than in the Cap40 case. This difference is largely attributed to the
greater use of larger diameter trunk-lines in the CP25 case. A trunk-line is built when it is more
economical (on a $/tonne basis) for more than one source to share a pipeline than build a
dedicated (direct) pipeline. Because the trunk-line carries the combined volume of two or more
sources, a larger diameter pipeline is required. The larger the diameter of a pipeline, the greater
the cost per mile, although the cost per tonne of CO2 carried may be less than a smaller pipeline
(depending upon utilization). Exhibit 33 and Exhibit 34 in the Appendix provide state-level
detail for inter- and intra-state pipeline segments.
7
http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/large-scale-ccs-projects#overview
22
Exhibit 22 Inter- and Intrastate pipeline segments (2040)
Cap40
Interstate Intrastate
Units Total/Average
Pipelines Pipelines
Number of Links 37 37 74
Direct 30 19 49
Feeder 6 14 20
Trunk-lines 1 4 5
Average
mi 278 133 243
Distance
Average Cost MM$ 119 49 105
Total Miles mi 10,278 4,916 15,194
Total CO2 MMT 1,059 1,181 2,240
Total Tonne- MMT-
10,880,053 5,803,705 16,683,758
miles mi
Average Cost/mi ($1000) 362 203 330
CP25
Interstate Intrastate
Units Total/Average
Pipelines Pipelines
Number of Links 60 49 109
Direct 24 13 37
Feeder 20 29 49
Trunk-lines 16 7 23
Average
mi 251 132 244
Distance
Average Cost MM$ 199 73 173
Total Miles mi 15,036 6,460 21,496
Total CO2 MMT 1,960 2,380 4,340
Total Tonne- MMT-
29,477,059 15,378,094 44,855,153
miles mi
Average Cost/mi ($1000) 624 323 562
Transportation costs are calculated as the cost to transfer one tonne of CO2 from its origin
(capture point) to its terminus. There are only two path options: direct (a dedicated pipeline from
origin to terminus) and shared (where several sources of CO2 are collected at a transshipment
point and then transported via a trunk-line to the terminus).
In the Cap40 case, for both direct and shared pipelines, the majority of the costs are below
$8/tonne (Exhibit 23). While the distribution of costs is much greater for the direct pipelines
versus shared, the median cost of transport is similar between the two: $7.92 for direct pipelines
and $8.46 for shared.
23
Exhibit 23 Transportation Costs for the Cap40 case
Transport Cost ($/tonne): Direct Transport Cost ($/tonne): Shared

12 12
10 10
8 8
frequency
frequency
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 15 20 25 30 40 50 More 2 4 6 8 10 12 15 20 25 30 40 50 More
$/tonne $/tonne
Unlike the Cap40 case, which saw similar costs per tonne between the direct and the shared
pipelines, there is a greater difference between the pipeline types in the CP25 case with the
median cost of a direct pipeline at $6.38/tonne and that of a shared pipeline being $20.75/tonne
(Exhibit 24).
Exhibit 24 Transportation costs for the CP25 case
Transport Cost ($/tonne): Direct Transport Cost ($/tonne): Shared

18 18
16 16
14 14
12 12
frequency
frequency
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 15 20 25 30 40 50 More 2 4 6 8 10 12 15 20 25 30 40 50 More
$/tonne $/tonne
Pipeline transportation costs are heavily reliant on the volume of product moved through them.
Exhibit 25 shows that as the amount of CO2 that is transported increases, there is a notable
decrease in costs per MMT of CO2 delivered due to economies of scale.
24
Exhibit 25 Transportation cost as a function of CO2 throughput
Despite more miles of pipeline being built in the CP25 case, less CO2 is captured compared to
the Cap40 case. This ultimately results in less oil produced from EOR. Exhibit 26 shows that in
2040, there are 1.3 MMBbls/day of oil produced under the CP25 case, while 1.5 MMBbls/day is
produced in the Cap40 case. For each case, this represents over 16 percent of total oil production
in 2040, with the majority of the CO2 captured for EOR production coming from power plants,
while the amount of naturally sourced CO2 decreases in the Cap40 case and remains nearly
constant from 2015 - 2040 in the CP25 case. By comparison, the Reference case sees a very
small increase in CO2 production from power plants over the modeled period.
25
Exhibit 26 Oil produced by source for all three cases*
Oil Produced by Source: Reference v. Cap40 v. CP25

1.6
1.4
1.2
MBbl/day
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-
Cap40
Cap40
Cap40
Cap40
Cap40
Cap40
Ref
CP25
Ref
CP25
Ref
CP25
Ref
CP25
Ref
CP25
Ref
CP25
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Power Plants Natural Ethanol
Refineries, Hydrogen Natural Gas Processing Ammonia
* Approximately 0.4 tonnes CO2/barrel oil
Regional oil production from EOR in the Cap40 case is dominated by the Southwest, where
nearly half of the EOR oil production is derived. The Midcontinent and Gulf Coast regions also
significantly increase production. There is a small increase in production on the West Coast,
while the Rocky Mountain region remains steady through the 2040 period (Exhibit 27).
26
Exhibit 27 Oil Production by EOR in the Cap40 case
EOR Oil Production Cap40

1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
MMBbls/day
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
East Coast Gulf Coast Midcontinent

Southwest Rocky Mountains West Coast
The regional distribution of CO2 is similar in the CP25 when compared to the Cap40 case, as
Exhibit 28 shows, with the Southwest playing the most significant role (followed by the Midwest
and the West Coast)
27
Exhibit 28 Oil Production by EOR in the CP25 case
EOR Oil Production CP25

1.40
1.20
1.00
MMBbls/day
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
East Coast Gulf Coast Midcontinent

Southwest Rocky Mountains West Coast
In the Cap40 case, by 2040, there are 73 new pipeline segments in use for CO2 capture, transport,
utilization, and storage (CTUS) from its source to a terminal sink (EOR or Saline Storage). The
greatest activity occurs in Texas, where EOR activity in the Permian basin attracts CO2. Trunk-
lines are typically employed where there are a relatively high concentration of sources, such as
Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana (Exhibit 29).
28
Exhibit 29 Power plant pipeline build-out by 2040 for the Cap40 case
In the CP25 case (Exhibit 30), by 2040, there are 107 new pipeline segments in use to transport
captured CO2 from its source to a terminal sink (EOR or Saline Storage). As in the Cap40 case,
the greatest activity occurs in Texas, where EOR activity in the Permian basin attracts CO2, and
trunk-lines are typically employed where there are a relatively high concentration of sources,
such as Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
Exhibit 30 Power plant pipeline build-out by 2040 for the CP25 case
29
Exhibit 31 Power plant pipeline build-out by 2030 in the $25/tonne CO2, low carbon scenario
4.2.3 Rates of Projected Pipeline Construction

In the CP25 case, construction through 2030 would more than triple the size of current U.S. CO2
pipeline infrastructure, through an average annual build-rate of nearly 1,000 miles per year. As
noted above, just over 600 miles (or 5 percent) of additional pipelines are coming online8 (i.e.,
not modeling projections, but actual projects) for construction by the end of this decade, which
would be consistent with the pace of CO2 pipeline construction in the past, averaging roughly
100 miles per year.
Over a dozen different companies currently operate in this sector, including ExxonMobil, Kinder
Morgan, Chevron, Devon, and Anadarko. Among the most active is Denbury Resources, which
recently completed two long-distance CO2 pipelines – the Green Pipeline in Louisiana and Texas
and the Greencore Pipeline in Wyoming and Montana, totaling roughly 550 miles in length –
both of which were constructed between 2009 and 2013. As another point of reference, it is
worth noting that ICF International (ICF) (9) projects significant expansions in large-diameter
petroleum product and natural gas pipelines over the next two decades (through 2035): up to
17,000 and 47,000 miles total, respectively; at average annual rates greater than 1,000 miles per
year.9
8
New industrial CO2 capture facilities coming on line (e.g., Air Products PCS Nitrogen plant in southern Louisiana, Southern Company’s
integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant in Kemper County, Mississippi, etc.)
9
This total includes ICF estimates of all new pipelines greater than 8 inches in diameter. If smaller diameter pipelines (e.g., gathering lines) are
included, the estimated miles of new natural gas and petroleum product pipelines is nearly an order of magnitude greater.
30
5 Permitting, Regulations, and Policies

5.1 Overview
The process of designing and constructing a CO2 pipeline is a significant task, requiring the
involvement of numerous agencies and stakeholders. Based on discussions with industry and
information from the 2013 Global CCS Institute survey of large-scale integrated CO2 capture,
transportation and utilization; it takes between one and two years for a project to navigate the
necessary permits for construction to begin on a CO2 pipeline. (10) Much of this time
requirement depends on the terrain and location of the pipeline. The majority of CO2 pipeline
projects are sited on farmland and industrial areas, which require the least amount of time for
permitting. Pipelines sited within populated areas, federal lands, protected areas, and rough
terrain require a more rigorous permitting process. If a pipeline crosses Federal land, permits
from the relevant Federal agencies and the accompanying environmental review under NEPA, in
addition to notifying potential stakeholders, are required by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) prior to siting and construction10.
CO2 transportation pipelines are subject to federal safety regulations set forth by the U.S.
Department of Transportation. However, except for safety, the federal agencies have asserted
limited direct oversight of CO2 pipeline infrastructure. Oversight of siting, construction, and
operations of CO2 pipelines is largely administered at the state level. State with laws that are
specific to CO2 pipelines, EOR and underground storage are varied and generally limited to
those regions with CO2-EOR projects. (11)
5.2 Federal Regulation

5.2.1 General Oversight
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is responsible for regulating the sale and
transportation of natural gas under the Natural Gas Act, Chapter 15B §717(b). (12) However,
FERC has rejected oversight of CO2 transportation pipelines following an inquiry by the Cortez
Pipeline Company in 1979. In its ruling, FERC determined that high-purity CO2, in this case
used for CO2-EOR, cannot be considered natural gas at the compositional level, and therefore is
not subject to FERC regulation. (13)
Similarly, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) determined that its oversight does not
include CO2 transportation pipelines following a similar petition by the Cortez Pipeline
Company in 1981. In its ruling, the ICC confirmed that interstate pipeline transportation of gas,
oil, or water is exempt from ICC oversight and concluded that CO2 is ultimately transported as a
gas (although it is typically in a supercritical liquid phase during transportation). (14)
Following these two decisions, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) determined
that ultimate oversight of CO2 transportation pipelines falls under the U.S. Department of
Transportation’s (DOT) Surface Transportation Board (STB), even though this office is
primarily responsible for regulating interstate transportation by rail or pipeline of commodities
10
“Currently, the Bureau of Land Management regulates CO2 pipelines under the Mineral Leasing Act as a commodity shipped by a common
carrier. See: 30 U.S.C. § 185(r).”
31
“other than water, oil, or gas.” (15) The STB has yet to be asked to hear a case involving the
transportation of CO2, so its oversight status remains unaddressed following the GAO decision.
(15)
5.2.2 Safety Oversight
CO2 transportation pipelines are subject to federal safety regulations that are administered by the
U.S. DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). PHMSA
directly oversees pipeline safety for all interstate lines, while intrastate pipelines are subject to
state agency oversight (as long as the standards are at least as stringent as the federal rules). (13)
The major risks of a CO2 pipeline incident are prolonged exposure to high CO2 concentrations.
However, of nearly 2,000 hazardous liquid and CO2 transport pipeline accidental release
incidents reported between 2010 and the March, 2015, a total of 21 incidents occurred for CO2
transport pipelines, none of which resulted in either fatality or injury. (16)
While CO2 is not considered a hazardous material by DOT, CO2 transportation pipelines are
regulated under 49 CFR Part 195, Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline. This
distinction is made due to the nature of the transportation pipelines, which carry the highly
pressurized CO2 in a liquid phase similar to other hazardous material transportation pipelines.
Smaller CO2 distribution lines, which transport the CO2 from the trunk-line to individual wells,
are generally not subject to these PHMSA safety standards.
5.3 Pipeline Siting and Eminent Domain

Builders are not required to obtain federal siting authority for construction of new CO2
transportation pipelines. However, the federal government also has no power of eminent domain
regarding CO2 pipelines, except when CO2 pipelines are to be built on federal lands. All CO2
pipeline issues of siting and eminent domain are subject to individual state regulation. (17)
5.3.1 Texas/New Mexico
In Texas, an operator may exercise its right of eminent domain if it has declared itself a common
carrier, which deems the CO2 pipeline open to transport for hire by the public. (18) This
provision does not limit the carrier to transporting CO2 specifically for EOR purposes. On the
other hand, New Mexico allows for any person, firm, or corporation to exercise eminent domain
to secure a right-of-way for a pipeline on both public and private lands. (19) The operator need
not be considered a common carrier to exercise eminent domain. Any disputes over eminent
domain are given to the State legislature to determine whether the property in question is
obtained for public use. (15) The state of Texas also has policy incentives, including a reduction
in its severance tax rate by eighty percent for oil produced from EOR using anthropogenic CO2.
5.3.2 Mississippi
The state of Mississippi exercises a more limited use of eminent domain for the construction of
CO2 transportation pipelines. Eminent domain in this case is reserved for pipelines transporting
CO2 for secondary or tertiary recover of liquid hydrocarbons. (20) Pipelines intended for use in
transporting CO2 solely for storage purposes will not be granted eminent domain rights as the
rule is currently written.
32
5.3.3 Other States

Many states have yet to fully address the issue of CO2 pipeline siting and eminent domain. It will
be up to the pipeline operators to engage the proper authorities and ensure compliance with
federal and state regulations as necessary. The time required to develop a CO2 pipeline project
will be determined by the familiarity of state agencies with proper pipeline regulation. An
additional learning curve could apply to states that are not familiar with pipeline oversight of any
kind, increasing the overall time necessary for development.
5.4 Other State Policies

The Wyoming Pipeline Authority (WPA) was created to “plan, finance, construct, develop,
acquire, maintain and operate a pipeline system or systems within or without the state of
Wyoming to facilitate the production, transportation, and distribution and delivery of natural gas
and associated natural resources produced in (the) state…” (21)
Rather than leave future pipeline planning up to individual operators, the WPA assists pipeline
developers through the pipeline construction process by serving as a facilitator and information
provider to industry, state government, and the public. As such, the WPA serves as one example
for states in terms of conducting early planning for potential CO2 pipeline projects and thus
helping advance CO2-EOR.
6 Conclusions
The bulk of the existing large-volume CO2 pipelines connect natural sources of CO2 with CO2-
EOR projects in large oil fields. In the coming 5 to 10 years, the completion of several planned
projects could deliver a five-fold increase in the capture of CO2 by industrial facilities, up to
levels that could exceed the scale of CO2 production from natural sources. This is expected to be
accompanied by a 12 percent increase in the total miles of CO2 pipeline infrastructure over the
period. While these new pipeline projects are primarily for the CO2-EOR industry, they will
provide valuable infrastructure for additional utilization of CO2 as well as potential future
transportation and storage of CO2 in saline formations.
However, under a U.S. climate policy case (i.e., $25/ton CO2), by 2030 the scale of U.S. CO2
pipeline infrastructure is projected to triple to enable the delivery of carbon captured by the U.S.
power sector to oil fields for CO2-EOR, and to a lesser extent, for storage in underground saline
formations. While this scenario would involve an unprecedented scale-up of CO2 pipeline
infrastructure, the pace would be comparable to that projected for pipeline construction in other
sectors (in which many of the same companies operate).
The development of a national CO2 pipeline network capable of meeting the Administration’s
greenhouse gas (GHG) emission goals may require a more concerted federal policy, involving
much closer cooperation among federal, state, and local governments than is currently in place.
In the low-carbon cases, several states that are projected to site new CO2 pipeline infrastructure
by 2030 do not yet have policies in place for permitting and operations. More can be learned
from Texas’ experience, as well as recent state policies like the WPA, under which early
planning, interagency coordination, and stakeholder engagement efforts are key government
actions for enabling CO2 pipeline project development and construction.
33
7 Topics for Further Study

7.1 Development of Oversight Authority
Reducing atmospheric carbon emissions with CO2 capture and geologic storage will require a
significant expansion of the existing CO2 pipeline network. Early planning for these future CO2
transportation needs will help facilitate this process, as has been done in Wyoming. The large-
scale CO2 pipeline systems linking major emission areas, such as the Ohio Valley and its coal-
fired power plants, with safe, reliable, large-scale CO2 storage (or utilization) settings will
require large-scale CO2 pipelines to cross state lines (often times several state lines). As such, a
national or regional CO2 pipeline planning and coordination system may be required.
One approach could be to establish regional partnerships for developing common models for
CO2 pipeline regulation and oversight guidelines that could be shared by the member states. This
approach could mirror the current approach taken by DOE in its creation of the Regional Carbon
Sequestration Partnerships (RCSP).
These regional CO2 pipeline partnerships could provide technical assistance to individual states
and serve as an intermediary between pipeline operators and federal, state, and local
governments, similar to that of the WPA. Furthermore, a regional CO2 pipeline planning group
could provide such assistance, given the unique demographic, land use, terrain, and geologic
issues facing each region.
34
8 Bibliography
1. Denbury Onshore LLC. Denbury 2013 Annual Report Growth & Income. Denbury. [Online]
2013. http://www.denbury.com/files/doc_financials/2013/Denbury_Final_040814.pdf.
2. Murrell, Glen. Wyoming CO2 Status and Developments, from the 6th Annual Wyoming
CO2 Conference. University of Wyoming. [Online] July 11, 2013.
http://www.uwyo.edu/eori/conferences/CO2/2013%20presentations/murrell.pdf.
3. Dakota Gasification Company. CO2 Capture and Storage: The greatest CO2 story ever told.
Dakota Gasification Company. [Online] 2015.
http://www.dakotagas.com/CO2_Capture_and_Storage/.
4. National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Michigan Basin, MRCSP, Otsego CO.
Geologic Field Test Site. NETL. [Online] December 12-13, 2007.
https://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/07/rcsp/pdfs/Gupta_michbasinbrief_2007.pdf
.
5. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Oil and Gas Supply, Reference Case from
AEO2014. EIA. [Online] 2014.
6. Denbury Onshore LLC. Value Driven: Analyst Day Presentation. Denbury. [Online] Nov
2013. http://www.denbury.com/files/2014-02%20UPLOADS/2013-
11%20Analyst%20Day%20FINAL%20FULL%20SLIDE%20PRINT%20VERSION_v001_n45
0ml.pdf.
7. Energy Information Administration. Issues in Focus: No Sunset and Extended Policies

cases. EIA. [Online] April 21, 2014. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/updated_nosunset.cfm.
8. Energy Information Administration (EIA). AEO2014. EIA. [Online] 2014.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/.
9. ICF International. North American Midstream Infrastructure through 2035: Capitalizing on

Our Energy Abundance, INGAA Foundation Report. s.l. : ICF International, 2014.
10. Global CCS Institute. The Global Status of CCS 2013. s.l. : Global CCS Institute, 2013.
Section 6.4, page 114.
35
11. Falwell, Patrick. State Policy Actions to Overcome Barriers to Carbon Capture and
Sequestration and Enhanced Oil Recovery. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. [Online]
September 2013. http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/CCS_EOR_Whitepaper_0.pdf.
12. Energy.gov. Energy.gov. Natural Gas Act, Chapter 15B §717(b). [Online]
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/2011usc15.pdf.
13. Southern States Energy Board. A Policy, Legal, and Regulatory Evaluation of the
Feasibility of a National Pipeline Infrastructure for the Transport and Storage of Carbon Dioxide.
Part 3.I.B.1.a. Southern States Energy Board. [Online] December 10, 2010.
14. Cortez Pipeline Co. 45 Fed. Reg. 85,177. [Online] 1980.
15. Nordhaus, Robert R, and Pitlick, Emily. Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Regulation. Energy Law
Journal. Energy Law Journal. [Online] Vol. 30:85, 2009.
http://felj.org/sites/default/files/docs/elj301/85_-_nordhaus_and_pitlick.pdf.
16. PHMSA. Hazardous Liquid Accident Data – 2010 to Present (zip). PHSMA Online Portal -
Distribution, Transmission & Gathering, LNG, and Liquid Accident and Incident Data. [Online]
2015.
17. Folger, P., and Parfomak, Paul W. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Pipelines for Carbon
Sequestration: Emerging Policy Issues. s.l. : CRS Report for Congress, 2017.
18. Texas Natural Resource Code Ann. . § 111.019(a),
19. New Mexico Stat. Ann. . § 70-3-5(a), 2009.
20. Mississippi Code Ann. . § 11-27-47, 2009.
21. Wyoming State Legislature. Wyoming State Code 37-5-102(a).
36
Appendix
Exhibit 32 Comprehensive List of U.S. CO2 Pipelines
Estimated
(mi) (in) Capacity
(MMcfd)
Bravo Oxy Permian NM, TX 218 20 380
Canyon Reef
Kinder Morgan TX 139 16 220
Carriers
Centerline Kinder Morgan TX 113 16 220
Central Basin Kinder Morgan TX 143 16 220
Cortez Kinder Morgan TX 502 30 1,300
Large-Scale Delta Denbury Resources MS, LA 108 24 590
Trunk-lines
Green Line Denbury Resources LA, TX 314 24 930
Greencore Denbury Resources WY, MT 230 22 720
Northeast Jackson
Denbury Resources MS, LA 183 20 360
Dome (NEJD)
Sheep Mtn Oxy Permian TX 408 24 590
Shute
ExxonMobil WY 30 30-20 1,220-220
Creek/Wyoming CO2
Adair Apache TX 15 4 50
Anadarko Powder
Anadarko WY 125 16 220
River Basin CO2 PL
Anton Irish Oxy Permian TX 40 8 80
Beaver Creek Devon WY 53 8 30
Borger Chaparral Energy TX, OK 86 4 50
Coffeyville- Burbank Chaparral Energy KS, OK 68 8 80
Comanche Creek Oxy Permian TX 120 6 70
Smaller Scale
Distribution Cordona Lake XTO TX 7 6 70
Systems Dakota Gasification
Dakota Gasification ND, SK 204 14 130
(Souris Valley)
Dollarhide Chevron TX 23 8 80
El Mar Kinder Morgan TX 35 6 70
Enid-Purdy (Central
Anadarko OK 117 8 80
Oklahoma)
Este I - to Welch, TX ExxonMobil, et al. TX 40 14 180
Este II - to Salt Crk
Oxy Permian TX 45 12 130
Field
37
Estimated
(mi) (in) Capacity
(MMcfd)
Ford Kinder Morgan TX 12 4 50
Free State Denbury Resources MS 85 20 360
Llano Trinity CO2 NM 53 12 80
Lost Soldier/Wertz Merit WY 30 16 40
Mabee Lateral Chevron TX 18 10 110
McElmo Creek Kinder Morgan CO, UT 40 8 80
Means ExxonMobil TX 35 12 130
Monell Anadarko WY 33 8 80
North Cowden Oxy Permian TX 8 8 80
North Ward Estes Whiting TX 26 12 130
Pecos County Kinder Morgan TX 26 8 80
Pikes Peak Oxy Permian TX 40 8 80
Raven Ridge Chevron WY, CO 160 16 220
Rosebud Hess NM 50* 12 100*
Slaughter Oxy Permian TX 35 12 130
Sonat Denbury Resources MS 50 18 170
TexOk Chaparral Energy OK 95 6 70
TransPetco TransPetco TX, OK 110 8 80
Val Verde Oxy Permian TX 83 10 110
W. Texas Trinity CO2 TX, NM 60 12 80
Wellman Trinity CO2 TX 25 6 70
White Frost Core Energy, LLC MI 11 6 70
Wyoming CO2 ExxonMobil WY 112 20 220
Total U.S. CO2 Pipeline Length 4,513 - -
*Estimate
38
Exhibit 33 State-Level Inter- and Intrastate Pipeline Segments for the Cap40 Case
Links
Averge
Distance
Total Transship- per Link Cost Total Total Total tonne- Cost/mile
Start Terminus Links Direct Feeder ment (Miles) ($mm) Miles MMT miles ($k/mile)
AL MS 1 1 - - 173.13 61.14 173.13 17.03 2,948.06 353.13
AR MS 1 1 - - 165.95 58.64 165.95 3.24 537.46 353.38
AZ CA 2 2 - - 394.77 361.05 789.55 88.50 69,871.66 457.28
AZ TX 2 2 - - 467.07 326.49 934.14 53.25 49,746.93 349.51
CO WY 1 1 - - 378.40 132.44 378.40 35.86 13,568.64 350.01
FL MS 1 1 - - 232.68 127.34 232.68 45.24 10,526.83 547.26
FL FL 4 4 - - 98.39 140.69 393.54 20.77 8,172.34 357.51
IA MI 1 1 - - 407.64 222.33 407.64 29.87 12,177.48 545.40
IA KS 2 - 2 - 165.06 218.46 330.12 74.92 24,731.64 661.75
ID WY 3 3 - - 402.54 422.48 1,207.61 59.71 72,104.64 349.85
IL MI 1 1 - - 325.33 114.01 325.33 11.06 3,598.40 350.44
IL IL 1 1 - - 85.10 30.56 85.10 7.05 599.53 359.09
IN IL 3 3 - - 190.70 244.22 572.10 27.95 15,992.99 426.88
KS OK 1 - - 1 204.20 216.19 204.20 206.31 42,127.37 1,058.73
LA MS 3 3 - - 150.62 159.96 451.87 111.66 50,455.90 353.99
MO KS 1 - 1 - 34.09 27.55 34.09 76.26 2,599.55 808.28
MO OK 1 - 1 - 142.62 78.44 142.62 30.23 4,310.80 550.00
MS MS 5 2 2 1 64.01 178.82 320.07 182.60 58,443.81 558.69
MT WY 1 1 - - 373.16 130.62 373.16 0.27 99.63 350.04
NE OK 2 2 - - 354.93 320.46 709.86 16.65 11,820.78 451.45
NE KS 2 - 2 - 164.27 180.40 328.55 55.14 18,114.94 549.07
NM TX 2 2 - - 330.47 231.59 660.95 15.57 10,290.55 350.39
NV CA 1 1 - - 311.09 109.06 311.09 12.66 3,938.62 350.58
OK OK 1 - - 1 81.55 45.28 81.55 30.23 2,464.87 555.30
SD ND 1 1 - - 318.44 111.61 318.44 5.88 1,872.02 350.50
TX TX 21 7 12 2 168.38 2,336.15 3,535.99 908.91 3,213,881.46 660.68
UT CA 1 1 - - 487.69 170.41 487.69 24.24 11,819.45 349.41
UT WY 1 1 - - 305.59 107.15 305.59 12.27 3,748.28 350.63
WY ND 2 2 - - 216.68 197.14 433.35 44.82 19,422.80 454.91
WY WY 5 5 - - 100.01 178.70 500.06 30.96 15,481.45 357.35
39
Exhibit 34 State-Level Inter- and Intrastate Pipeline Segments for CP25 Case
Links
Avg. Total tonne- Avg. Cost
Terminal Number Distance Avg. Cost Total Total CO2 miles ($000)/
Start Terminus Region of Links Direct Feeder Trunk (miles) ($mm) Miles (MMT) (MMT-mi) Mile
Inter-state Pipelines 60 24 20 16 251 199 15,036 1,960 29,477,059 624
AL MS OGSM2 1 0 0 1 182 100 182 2 449 548
AR MS OGSM2 1 0 0 1 254 269 254 135 34,246 1,058
AR OK OGSM3 1 0 0 1 236 250 236 63 14,902 1,058
AZ CA OGSM6 2 2 0 0 395 138 790 60 47,634 175
AZ CO OGSM5 1 0 0 1 207 219 207 93 19,225 1,059
AZ NM OGSM5 1 0 1 0 95 52 95 11 1,070 554
AZ TX OGSM4 3 3 0 0 314 132 943 38 36,190 140
CO NM OGSM5 1 0 0 1 295 312 295 207 60,963 1,057
CO WY OGSM5 1 1 0 0 378 206 378 91 34,539 546
FL MS OGSM2 2 2 0 0 363 127 726 16 11,919 175
IA KS OGSM3 2 0 2 0 165 109 330 35 11,443 331
ID CA OGSM6 1 1 0 0 503 176 503 8 4,016 349
ID ND OGSM7 1 1 0 0 205 72 205 19 3,899 352
ID WY OGSM5 2 2 0 0 355 124 710 34 24,358 175
IN KY OGSM1 1 0 1 0 183 101 183 2 330 548
KS OK OGSM3 1 0 0 1 204 216 204 60 12,286 1,059
KY TN OGSM1 1 0 0 1 314 332 314 20 6,268 1,057
MI IL OGSM1 1 1 0 0 85 31 85 1 115 359
MN ND OGSM7 1 1 0 0 474 166 474 1 498 349
MO KS OGSM3 1 0 1 0 196 108 196 26 5,007 548
NC AL OGSM2 1 0 0 1 431 455 431 2 1,063 1,056
NM OK OGSM3 1 0 0 1 413 877 413 177 73,240 2,122
NM TX OGSM4 1 0 0 1 352 746 352 41 14,388 2,122
NV CA OGSM6 1 1 0 0 311 109 311 14 4,297 351
NV ND OGSM7 2 2 0 0 492 172 984 7 6,894 175
NV UT OGSM5 1 0 1 0 178 98 178 10 1,816 549
NY PA OGSM1 1 0 1 0 207 113 207 10 2,077 548
OH KY OGSM1 1 0 0 1 246 260 246 16 3,961 1,058
OK TX OGSM4 1 0 0 1 274 289 274 92 25,292 1,057
PA OH OGSM1 2 0 1 1 234 212 468 15 6,944 452
SD WY OGSM5 1 1 0 0 472 165 472 0 63 349
TN KY OGSM1 1 0 1 0 50 28 50 2 104 563
TN MS OGSM2 1 0 0 1 316 334 316 20 6,315 1,057
TX AR OGSM3 5 0 5 0 81 45 405 130 52,538 111
TX MS OGSM2 4 2 1 1 200 142 800 238 190,700 177
TX OK OGSM3 5 1 4 0 60 33 299 107 32,151 111
UT CA OGSM6 1 1 0 0 488 170 488 25.88 12,620 349
UT CO OGSM5 2 0 1 1 167 149 334 114 38,031 448
UT WY OGSM5 2 2 0 0 349 122 697 15 10,143 175
Intrastate Pipelines 49 13 29 7 132 73 6,460 2,380 15,378,094 323
AR AR OGSM3 1 0 1 0 115 63 115 68 7,786 552
AZ AZ OGSM5 5 0 5 0 143 78 713 93 66,114 110
FL FL OGSM2 1 1 0 0 71 26 71 1 90 361
MI MI OGSM1 2 2 0 0 207 105 413 24 10,107 253
MS MS OGSM2 5 3 1 1 81 37 405 406 164,507 90
NC NC OGSM1 1 0 1 0 223 122 223 2 550 547
OH OH OGSM1 1 0 1 0 70 39 70 1 89 557
OK OK OGSM3 2 0 0 2 92 115 184 253 46,581 625
TX TX OGSM2 26 7 15 4 146 92 3,806 1,449 5,512,993 24
UT UT OGSM5 5 0 5 0 92 51 460 83 38,098 111
40
Exhibit 35 Cumulative CO2 Pipelines Construction
Pipeline 2030 2040

Diameter CP25 CAP40 CP25 CAP40
Pipeline Miles
12 4,077 3,240 9,251 8,623
16 3,048 1,298 6,706 5,632
20 - 192 158 192
24 3,277 204 4,370 582
36 660 165 1,011 165
Total 11,062 5,099 21,496 15,194
Number of Pipelines
12 16 11 33 36
16 24 5 54 32
20 - 2 1 2
24 13 1 17 3
36 3 1 4 1
Total 56 20 109 74
Exhibit 36 Total Mass of anthropogenic CO2 Sequestered
Power Sector
2015 2030 2040
CO2
Million metric
Ref Cap40 CP25 Ref Cap40 CP25 Ref Cap40 CP25
tonnes
Sequestered
3.48 2.89 3.48 6 92 94 6 229 171
Power CO2
Non
Sequestered 2,075 2,036 1,797 2172 788 743 2193 1 190
Power CO2
Total Power
2,078 2,039 1,801 2178 880 837 2199 230 361
CO2 Emissions
Percent
Sequestered 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 10.4% 11.2% 0.3% 99.6% 47.4%
CO2
41
Exhibit 37 Sequestered Anthropogenic CO2 Captured at Industrial vs. Power Sector Sources
Sequestered
Anthropogenic 2015 2030 2040
CO2
Million metric
tonnes
Industrial 0.4 0.7 0.4 31.6 0.1 0.1 46.7 8.2 1.0
Power Sector 3.5 2.9 3.5 6.3 91.9 94.0 6.2 228.6 170.7
Total 3.8 3.6 3.8 37.9 92.0 94.1 52.9 236.8 171.7
Percent Power
90.6%11 80.5% 90.6% 16.7% 99.9% 99.9% 11.8% 96.5% 99.4%
Sector CO2
Exhibit 38 Electric Capacity with Carbon Sequestration
GW 2015 2030 2040

Reference 0.6 1.0 1.0
Cap40 0.6 35.6 101.8
CP25 0.6 32.3 80.9
Exhibit 39 U.S. Oil Production (MMBbls/day) Associated with CO2-EOR, in 2015, 2030, and 2040
(table)
U.S. oil 2015 2030 2040

production Ref Cap40 CP25 Ref Cap40 CP25 Ref Cap40 CP25
EOR 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.59 0.64 0.85 0.74 1.47 1.30
Other Lower 48 8.29 8.29 8.29 7.48 7.26 7.36 6.47 6.34 6.31
Alaska 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.26 0.31 0.28
Total 9.04 9.04 9.04 8.31 8.14 8.45 7.48 8.12 7.89
EOR percentage
3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 7.1% 7.9% 10.1% 9.9% 18.2% 16.5%
of Total
11
The reference model assumes a demo plant is currently in operation, and the CO2 is from that plant.
42
Exhibit 40 U.S. oil production (MMBbls/day) associated with CO2-EOR, in 2015, 2030, and 2040
(graph)
Total Domestic Oil Production

10.00
8.00
MMBbls/day
6.00
EOR
4.00 Alaska
Other Lower 48
2.00
0.00
2015 2030 2040
43
Anthony Zammerilli Bob Wallace
anthony.zammerilli@netl.doe.gov wallace_robert@bah.com
www.netl.doe.gov
Pittsburgh, PA • Morgantown, WV • Albany, OR • Sugar Land, TX • Anchorage, AK
(800) 553-7681

QER Analysis - A Review of The CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in The U.S - 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

QER Analysis - A Review of The CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in The U.S - 0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

QER Analysis - A Review of The CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in The U.S - 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Energy

A Review of the CO2 Pipeline

April 21, 2015

Energy Sector Planning and Analysis (ESPA)

Lessly Goudarzi, Kara Callahan

Anthony Zammerilli, NETL Technical Project Monitor

James Bradbury, EPSA Senior Policy Advisor

David Rosner, EPSA Senior Policy Advisor

Maria Vargas, Technical Contracting Officer Representative

Donald Remson, NETL

DOE Contract Number DE-FE0004001

This page intentionally left blank.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

This page intentionally left blank.

3 Current CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure

U.S. Regions with Large-scale CO2 Miles of

Permian Basin (W. TX, NM, and S. CO) 2,600

Gulf Coast (MS, LA, and E. TX) 740

Rocky Mountains (N. CO, WY, and MT) 730

Mid-Continent (OK and KS) 480

Other (ND, MI, Canada) 215

Exhibit 2 Current CO2-EOR operations and infrastructure

3.2 Permian Basin

Exhibit 3 Permian Basin CO2 pipeline infrastructure

Exhibit 4 Permian Basin CO2 transportation pipelines

Cortez Kinder Morgan TX 502 30 1,300

3.3 Gulf Coast

Exhibit 5 Gulf Coast CO2 pipeline infrastructure

Exhibit 6 Gulf Coast CO2 transportation pipelines

3.4 Rocky Mountains

Exhibit 7 Rocky Mountain CO2 pipeline infrastructure

Source: Denbury Onshore LLC (1)

Exhibit 8 Rocky Mountain CO2 transportation pipelines

Length Diameter Estimated Flow

Exhibit 9 Mid-Continent CO2 pipeline infrastructure

Exhibit 10 Mid-Continent CO2 transportation pipelines

3.6 Other U.S. CO2 Pipeline Networks

Exhibit 11 Other CO2 transportation pipelines in the U.S.

4 Potential CO2 Pipeline Network Expansion

4.1 Projections Based on Industry Announcements

Exhibit 12 Denbury’s Wyoming CO2 pipeline developments

Source: Denbury Onshore LLC (6)

4.1.2 Green Pipeline Laterals

Exhibit 13 Planned Webster CO2 lateral pipeline

Source: Denbury Onshore LLC (6)

Exhibit 14 Planned Conroe CO2 lateral pipeline

Source: Denbury Onshore LLC (6)

4.1.3 Potential Additional CO2 Supplies from Natural Sources

Exhibit 15 Planned Lobos CO2 pipeline in New Mexico

Pending permission from Kinder Morgan

4.1.4 Additional CO2 from Industrial Sources

Exhibit 16 Planned CO2 transportation pipelines

Est. CO2 Transport

Est. CO2 Transport

4.2 Projections using the EIA NEMS analysis

Exhibit 17 CO2 Price under the Cap40 and CP 25 scenarios

Annual CO2 Emissions from All Sectors

4.2.2 CO2 Pipeline Expansion Results