Cost Comparison
Recently Published Documents





Matthew S. Lee ◽  
Mark Assmus ◽  
Deepak Agarwal ◽  
Tim Large ◽  
Amy Krambeck

Energies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (18) ◽  
pp. 5635
Simon Roussanaly ◽  
Han Deng ◽  
Geir Skaugen ◽  
Truls Gundersen

The pipeline has historically been the preferred means to transport CO2 due to its low cost for short distances and opportunities for economies of scale. However, interest in vessel-based transport of CO2 is growing. While most of the literature has assumed that CO2 shipping would take place at low pressure (at 7 barg and −46 °C), the issue of identifying best transport conditions, in terms of pressure, temperature, and gas composition, is becoming more relevant as ship-based carbon capture and storage chains move towards implementation. This study focuses on an in-depth comparison of the two primary and relevant transport pressures, 7 and 15 barg, for annual volumes up to 20 MtCO2/year and transport distances up to 2000 km. We also address the impact of a number of key factors on optimal transport conditions, including (a) transport between harbours versus transport to an offshore site, (b) CO2 pressure prior to conditioning, (c) the presence of impurities and of purity constraints, and (d) maximum feasible ship capacities for the 7 and 15 barg options. Overall, we have found that 7 barg shipping is the most cost-efficient option for the combinations of distance and annual volume where transport by ship is the cost-optimal means of transport. Furthermore, 7 barg shipping can enable significant cost reductions (beyond 30%) compared to 15 barg shipping for a wide range of annual volume capacities.

2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. e199
Mariya Kochubey ◽  
Rachel Dirks ◽  
Misaki M. Kiguchi ◽  
Bianca Cutler ◽  
Jaclyn Kliewer ◽  

Clinton Yeaman ◽  
Lauren O'Connor ◽  
Jennifer Lobo ◽  
Anthony DeNovio ◽  
Rebecca Marchant ◽  

NEJM Catalyst ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (9) ◽  
Jiayin Xue ◽  
John Hinkle ◽  
Mary-Grace Reeves ◽  
Luo Luo Zheng ◽  
Vengadesan Natarajan ◽  

2021 ◽  
Hemant Priyadarshi ◽  
Matthew Fudge ◽  
Mark Brunner ◽  
Seban Jose ◽  
Charlie Weakly

Abstract The paper introduces lateral buckling mitigation techniques (sleepers, distributed buoyancy sections, and residual curvature method or RCM) used in deep water fields and provides a total installed cost comparison of these solutions in relative terms. A hypothetical deep-water scenario is used to compare all techniques within the same site environment. Historic benchmarks have been used to make a relative comparison of these buckle mitigation methods on the engineering, procurement, fabrication, and installation fronts. In addition, risks associated with engineering, procurement/fab and installation have been listed to illustrate the risks versus rewards tradeoff. While sleepers and distributed buoyancy have been previously used in deep water, RCM doesn't have a significant track record yet. RCM is a proven and cost-effective buckle mitigation solution in shallow water. This paper compares its application in deep water to the prevailing buckle mitigation methods and confirms if it creates value (savings and reduces risks) for an offshore installation project. It is assumed that each mitigation method is appropriate for the hypothetical deep-water scenario.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document