# A framework for selection of promising CCUS value chains in the Baltic and Mediterranean regions: CCUS ZEN project study

Kazbulat Shogenov, Alla Shogenova, Isaline Gravaud, Leandro Henrique Costa Sousa, Adam Wojcicki, Ane Elisabet Lothe, Eirik Silva, Caglar Sinayuc, Betül Yıldırım, Sevtaç Bülbül, et al.

► To cite this version:

Kazbulat Shogenov, Alla Shogenova, Isaline Gravaud, Leandro Henrique Costa Sousa, Adam Wojcicki, et al.. A framework for selection of promising CCUS value chains in the Baltic and Mediterranean regions: CCUS ZEN project study. 17th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-17, Oct 2024, Calgary, Canada. 10.2139/ssrn.5061466. hal-04901529

HAL Id: hal-04901529

https://brgm.hal.science/hal-04901529v1

Submitted on 20 Jan 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

17th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-17

20th -24th October 2024 Calgary, Canada

# A framework for selection of promising CCUS value chains in the Baltic and Mediterranean regions: CCUS ZEN project study

Kazbulat Shogenov<sup>a,m*</sup>, Alla Shogenova<sup>a,m</sup>, Isaline Gravaud<sup>b</sup>, Leandro Sousa<sup>c</sup>, Adam Wójcicki<sup>d</sup>, Ane Elisabet Lothe<sup>e</sup>, Eirik Falck da Silva<sup>e</sup>, Çağlar Sınayüç<sup>f</sup>, Betül Yıldırım<sup>f</sup>, Sevtaş Bülbül<sup>f</sup>, Florian Schmitt<sup>g</sup>, Matthias Honegger<sup>g,h</sup>, Ingvild Ombudstvedt<sup>i</sup>, Lena Østgaard<sup>i</sup>, Peter Frykman<sup>j</sup> and Laurianne Bouvier<sup>k</sup>

<sup>a</sup>Tallinn University of Technology, Department of Geology, Ehitajate tee 5, Tallinn 19086, Estonia

<sup>b</sup>BRGM, 3 avenue Claude Guillemin, 45060 Orléans Cedex 2, France

<sup>c</sup>Ramboll, Energy Transition department, Hannemanns Allé 53, Copenhagen S 2300, Denmark

<sup>d</sup>Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute, 4, Rakowiecka Street, 00-975 Warsaw, Poland

<sup>e</sup>SINTEF Industry, Applied Geoscience Department, Postbox 4760 Torgarden, 7465 Trondheim, Norway

<sup>f</sup>Middle East Technical University (METU) Petroleum Research Center, 06800 Ankara, Türkiye

<sup>g</sup>Perspectives Climate Research gGmbH, Hugstetter Str. 7, D-79106 Freiburg i. Breisgau, Germany

<sup>h</sup>Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands, PO Box 80125, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands

<sup>i</sup>IOM Law, Linerleveien 6 1554 Son, Norway

<sup>j</sup>GEUS – Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Øster Voldgade 10, 1350 Copenhagen, Denmark

<sup>k</sup>AXELERA, Rond point de l'échangeur Les Levées 69360 Solaize, France

<sup>l</sup>SHOGenergy, Pae 17a-27, Tallinn 11414, Estonia

## Abstract

This study proposes a framework for the initial screening of the most promising national and cross-border CCUS value chains at their very early stage of development. It applies to eight case studies from the Baltic and Mediterranean Sea regions conducted by the Horizon Europe CCUS-ZEN project. Technical and non-technical data were first collected and integrated into a common GIS project for eight countries in the Baltic Sea Region and five in the Mediterranean Sea Region. Internal and external groups of parameters were first developed to apply a SWOT analysis to the prospective CCUS cluster projects. Internal technical groups (strengths and weaknesses) include (1) CO₂ emission plants, (2) CO₂ storage sites, (3) available and planned infrastructure, and (4) CO₂ use options. An external technical group includes (1) characteristics of the area around the storage site, and non-technical external groups include (1) social, (2) political development, (3) international and national regulations, (4) MRV (Monitoring Reporting and Verification), (5) financial, (6) Readiness of CCUS value chain, which were analysed for opportunities and risks. The developed framework includes 24 internal quantitative technical parameters and 14 external qualitative parameters collected for eight CCUS value chains. For the qualitative parameters, an equivalent quantitative scaling method was designed to include external parameters in the quantitative SWOT analysis for the qualitative parameters. However, the export of CO₂ to offshore storage sites needs CO₂ storage regulations to be implemented internationally (London Protocol Amendment to article 6) and regionally (Helsinki and Barcelona Conventions), in addition to national regulations and permits needed for CO₂ storage both in onshore and offshore sites. Despite these differences,

<footnote>* Corresponding author. Tel.: +372 55 89001 E-mail address: kazbulat.shogenov@taltech.ee</footnote>
it is possible to perform a unified quantitative analysis for all projects (both onshore and offshore) by utilising common internal technical factors and a shortlist of external technical and non-technical parameters. Here, we reported the qualitative results of the analysis and the framework for the quantitative SWOT analysis, which will be performed at the next step of this study using statistical multivariate analysis.

Keywords: CCUS cluster; CO₂ emission sources; CO₂ storage site; CCS infrastructure; CCS regulations; SWOT analysis; Baltic Region; Mediterranean Region

# 1. Introduction

Today, CCUS projects around the world inject about 49 million tons of CO₂ underground for geological storage annually. To reach climate neutrality we must increase CO₂ storage from millions to billions of tons annually. CCUS clusters and hubs are one of the options to accelerate this needed scale-up. Application of CCUS clusters and hubs have several advantages: faster scale-up, a decrease of the unit cost, reduction in the risk of investment and cross-chain risk, governmental support, new jobs, CO₂ use revenues, synergy with renewables and CO₂ negative technologies, increased public awareness and improved perception.

This study proposes a framework for initial screening of the most promising national and cross-border CCUS clusters and hubs (value chains). The framework, developed by the Horizon Europe CCUS-ZEN project, is applied to eight case studies in the Baltic and Mediterranean Sea regions.

# 2. Data and methods

## 2.1. Data

Technical and non-technical data were first collected and integrated into a common GIS project for eight countries in the Baltic region and five countries in the Mediterranean region (Fig. 1). Technical data includes layers with large CO₂ emissions sources, CO₂ storage sites, available pipeline infrastructure and Natura 2000 areas (Fig. 1, [1]). Qualitative non-technical data were collected via literature searches, as well as expert judgment for key dimensions of readiness across social, regulatory (Fig. 2), political, MRV, and financial issues [2]. Eight large CCUS cluster projects, four in each studied region (Table 1), were selected for more detailed technical analysis, integration with CO₂ use options, and non-technical parameters [3].

## Nomenclature

CCUS CO₂ capture, transport, use and geological storage technology to mitigate climate change approved by EC

CO₂ Carbon Dioxide

H₂ Hydrogen

GIS Geographical Information System

IMO International Maritime Organization

LP London Protocol

MRV Monitoring Reporting and Verification

Natura 2000 A network of protected areas across the European Union aiming to conserve Europe's most valuable and endangered species and habitats.

PCI Projects of Common Interest

SRL Storage Readiness Level

SWOT Strategic planning technique used to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to project planning

ZEN Zero Emission Network
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. (a) The Location of 4 projects in the Baltic Sea Region selected for Cluster analysis is shown by red ellipse lines; yellow filled circles are CO₂ emission sources, red filled areas are storage sites; (b) Location of 4 projects selected for Cluster analysis in the Mediterranean Sea Region is shown by yellow ellipse lines, blue filled circles are CO₂ emission sources, red filled areas are storage sites.</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>Table 1. Technical parameters of the eight value chains in the Baltic and Mediterranean Regions selected for analysis</caption><thead><tr><th>CCUS ZEN Region</th><th>Value chain name</th><th>Involved countries</th><th>Total produced CO₂ emissions, Mt/y</th><th>Number of CO₂ sources</th><th>Number of CO₂ clusters</th><th>CO₂ captured/CO₂ used, Mt/y</th><th>Storage sites name</th><th>Estimated CO₂ storage capacity, Mt</th><th>Total years for storage</th><th>Distance from CO₂ sources to storage sites (min-max), km</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Baltic-1</td><td>Baltic Lat-Lit-onshore</td><td>Latvia, Lithuania</td><td>4.25</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>4.04/0.4</td><td>North Blidene, Blidene and Dobele</td><td>403</td><td>&gt;40</td><td>9-150</td></tr><tr><td>Baltic-2</td><td>DE DK SWE Jutland network</td><td>Germany, Denmark, Sweden</td><td>22.86</td><td>34</td><td>9</td><td>20.14/6.1</td><td>Gassum, Voldum, Jammerbugt, Inez, Bifrost, Greensand, Lisa, Thorning</td><td>928</td><td>&gt;40</td><td>5-750</td></tr><tr><td>Baltic-3</td><td>Copenhagen</td><td>Germany, Denmark, Sweden</td><td>5.9</td><td>16</td><td>4</td><td>5.62/0.56</td><td>Rødby, Havnsø, Stenlille</td><td>657</td><td>&gt;40</td><td>5-115</td></tr><tr><td>Baltic-4</td><td>North Poland onshore</td><td>Poland</td><td>8.19</td><td>11</td><td>4</td><td>7.78/0.78</td><td>Konary J, Kamionki K</td><td>381</td><td>52</td><td>4.2-38.2</td></tr><tr><td>Mediterranean-1</td><td>Soma - İzmir Aliağa - Prinos</td><td>Türkiye, Greece</td><td>40.0</td><td>16</td><td>2</td><td>18.64/5.59</td><td>Prinos</td><td>1000</td><td>25</td><td>120-360</td></tr><tr><td>Mediterranean-2</td><td>Ebro offshore</td><td>Spain and France</td><td>23.82</td><td>32</td><td>3</td><td>9.77/2.93</td><td>Castellon</td><td>200</td><td>20</td><td>50-470</td></tr><tr><td>Mediterranean-3</td><td>Beaucaire</td><td>France</td><td>1.17</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0.833/0.25</td><td>Haut d'Albaron</td><td>34</td><td>29</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>Mediterranean-4</td><td>Southern Italy and Athens, Greece</td><td>Italy and Greece</td><td>41.1</td><td>32</td><td>6</td><td>18.47/5.54</td><td>Bradanica</td><td>344-1376</td><td>7.8-19</td><td>50-450</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2. Examples of non-technical data layers are (a) National CCS regulations and (b) International regulations: London Protocol and related issues collected for the Baltic and Mediterranean Regions.</figcaption></figure>

## 2.2 Methodology of SWOT analysis

SWOT analysis is a strategic planning technique used to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to project planning. A SWOT analysis was conducted for prospective CCUS cluster projects encompassing technical and non-technical parameters. The internal group includes aspects characterised by the project's strengths and weaknesses, while the external group includes aspects characterising external opportunities and threats (risks). In this study, we assumed that internal parameters are the most important technical groups composing the various parts of the CCUS value chains. In contrast, external parameters are related to the larger area around the storage site (technical) or the whole country (non-technical).

The methodology reported and applied in [4] could be used to quantify SWOT analysis. The Quantified SWOT analytical method applies the concept of Multiple-Attribute Decision Making (MADM), using a multi-layer scheme to simplify complicated problems. We need to implement a statistical methodology to analyse both quantitative and qualitative data effectively. In this framework, we propose that the weights assigned to internal and external factors should be the same. The weights of the key factors can be calculated using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) applied to a SWOT analysis [4].

Internal technical groups (strengths and weaknesses) include (1) CO₂ emission plants, (2) CO₂ storage sites, (3) available and planned infrastructure, and (4) CO₂ use options. An external technical group including (1) characteristics of the area around the storage site and non-technical external groups: (1) social, (2) political development, (3) international and national regulations, (4) MRV, (5) financial parameters, (6) readiness of CCUS value chain - were analysed for opportunities and risks. These parameters are the most sensitive for the implementation of the CCUS value chains.

This comprehensive evaluation helps identify potential challenges and advantages for CCUS projects. The analysis of the technical factors identified several key strengths. For factor (1), we examined the piloting and planning of CO₂ capture, options for CO₂ utilisation, and H₂ production. In factor (2), which focuses on CO₂ storage sites, we assessed the porosity and permeability of reservoir rocks, the quality of the cap rock, CO₂ storage capacity, and the SRL.

For factor (3), which pertains to infrastructure, we analysed the availability of natural gas pipelines, total CO₂ emissions per unit of distance, operational and old abandoned wells, offshore infrastructure, and planned PCI. Lastly, for factor (4), we reviewed CO₂ utilisation projects that are currently operational, in development, or in the R&D phase, as well as the potential amount of CO₂ that could be utilised in the cluster.

The external technical factors analysed for the (1) storage site area include several factors: the storage site's location in a densely populated area, its ownership by landlords, its presence in a seismic risk area, and its proximity to Natura 2000 sites or other protected areas.

Regarding non-technical factors, specifically social and regulatory aspects (2) and (3), the following points were analysed: public acceptance, political developments, compliance with the LP and the Amendment to Article 6, adherence to the EU CCS Directive, and national permissions for CO₂ storage.
For monitoring of emissions and financial considerations, the parameters analysed include readiness for MRV and accounting and the availability of government financial support throughout the value chain (4) and (5).

# 3. Results

## 3.1. Framework for SWOT analysis

### 3.1.1 Internal technical factors

Internal technical factors are originally quantitative parameters, each characterised by its units and polarity (Table 2). Positive polarity shows if the strength is a higher number, and negative polarity shows if the strength is a lower number for factors.

<table><caption>Table 2. Factors considered in the technical aspects of the internal group of SWOT analysis</caption><thead><tr><th>Internal aspects</th><th>Factors</th><th>Polarity</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">CO<sub>2</sub> emission plants</td><td>(11) Number of countries</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>(12) Number of clusters</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>(13) Number of plants</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>(14) Fossil CO<sub>2</sub> emissions (Mt)</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>(15) Bio-CO<sub>2</sub> emissions (Mt)</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>(16) Captured CO<sub>2</sub> emissions (Mt)</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">CO<sub>2</sub> storage sites</td><td>(17) Number of plants planed CO<sub>2</sub> capture</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>(18) Number of plants planning H<sub>2</sub> production</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>(19) Number of storage sites</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>(110) Porosity of the reservoir rocks (average, decimal)</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>(111) Permeability of the reservoir rocks (average, Md)</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Infrastructure</td><td>(112) Well injectivity (Mt/y)</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>(113) Thickness of primary cap rocks, m</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>(114) CO<sub>2</sub> storage capacity (total, Mt)</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>(115) SRL (1-9)</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>(116) Transport distance (max, km)</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>(117) Transport distance (total, km)</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">CO<sub>2</sub> use options</td><td>(118) Total CO<sub>2</sub> emissions per distance unit (t/km)</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>(119) Number of wells in operation</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>(120) Number of old abandoned wells</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>(121) Number of planned PCI projects</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>(122) Number of CO<sub>2</sub> use projects in operation, or R&D</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">CO<sub>2</sub> use options</td><td>(123) Longevity of CO<sub>2</sub> use products (years)</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>(124) Bio-CO<sub>2</sub> to be used (Mt)</td><td>+</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.1.2 External factors

External factors are originally the qualitative parameters for non-technical (Table 3) and technical aspects (Table 4).

<table><caption>Table 3. Factors considered in the non-technical aspects of the external group of SWOT analysis</caption><thead><tr><th>Aspects</th><th>Factors</th><th>Polarity</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Public acceptance</td><td>(E1) Level of public acceptance: Low-1, Medium-2, High-3</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Political development</td><td>(E2) Political development: Favourable - 4-5, Business as usual - 2-3, Unfavourable - 1</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>International Regulations</td><td>(E3) LP: Non-member - 1, Member of London Convention - 2, Member of LP - 3, Amendment to Article 6 to LP implemented - 4, Provisional Application of Article 6 to LP - 5</td><td>+</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 4. Factors considered in the technical aspects (the area around the storage site) of the external group of SWOT analysis</caption><tr><td>National Regulations</td><td>(E4) EU CCS Directive implemented: Any CO2 injection banned – 1<br/>CO2 storage permitted for research – 2; CO2 storage: permitted offshore – 3, permitted onshore – 3, permitted offshore and offshore – 5, No CCS Regulations – 0</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>MRV</td><td>(E5) MRV Readiness: Low – 1, Medium – 2, High – 3<br/>(E6) Accounting Readiness: Low – 1, Medium – 2</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Business Model</td><td>(E7) Governmental financial support for CCUS projects: Not available – 0, available, but low – 1, available but could be higher – 2, available significantly – 3</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Readiness of CCUS value chain</td><td>(E8) Value chain readiness: Developing Capture – 1, Capture available – 2, Developing Capture &amp; Transport – 2, Capture and transport available – 4, Developing Capture, transport and storage – 3, Capture, transport and storage available – 6, Capture in development, storage is available – 3, None – 0</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Interaction with other decarbonization technologies</td><td>(E9) CCUS in Industrial strategy/plan: Yes – 3, No – 1, No strategy/plan – 0</td><td>+</td></tr></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Aspects</th><th>Factors</th><th>Polarity</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Density of population</td><td>(E10) Storage site located in the densely populated area<br/>Low – 1, medium – 2–3, high – 4</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Storage site ownership</td><td>(E11) Storage site area belonging to landlords: Yes – 4, No – 1</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Seismicity</td><td>(E12) Storage site located in seismic risk area: no seismic risk – 1, low seismic risk – 2, seismic risk in the neighbouring region – 3, average seismic risk – 4, high seismic risk – 5<br/>(E13) Storage site located in Natura 2000 area/other protected area: 100% located in the protected area – 5, 50% – 4, 25% – 3, 10% – 2, not located – 1</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Protected areas</td><td>(E14) Transport routes are going through Natura 2000 area/other protected area: 100% located in the protected area – 5, 50% – 4, 25% – 3, 10% – 2, not located – 1</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table>

To assign quantities, we created questions that can be answered with numbers ranging from 0 to 6 for non-technical parameters and 1 to 5 for technical ones. We applied positive polarity to the non-technical aspects and negative polarity to the technical external aspects.

## 3.2 Baltic Projects

### 3.2.1 Baltic-1 scenario (Latvian–Lithuanian onshore CCUS cluster)

The Baltic-1 onshore cluster includes four of the largest Latvian CO₂ emitters and two Lithuanian plants located close to the Latvian–Lithuanian border (Orlen refinery and Akmenes cement plant, owned by Schwenk, Fig. 3). This cluster will store 3.1 Mt of CO₂ annually (Mt/y) from three plants (Latvian and Lithuanian Schwenk-owned cement plants and Orlen Refinery) in the onshore North Blidene and Blidene structures. Latvian two Latvenergo PP and one Rigas Siltums TP located in the Riga region will transport about 0.95 Mt/y of CO₂ in the Dobele storage site in western Latvia using up to 150 km CO₂ pipelines [5]. 41% of CO₂ emissions in the Baltic-1 cluster are coming from the cement industry. The main advantages of the proposed project are the close location to the onshore storage sites, favourable reservoir properties of Deimena Formation sandstones, explained by low temperatures, high CO₂ density and therefore large storage capacity, high storage readiness level, and the readiness of the main industrial stakeholders to develop CCS projects (Schwenk Latvija, Latvenergo and Orlen). The main challenges of the proposed project are non-technical, including regulatory and social factors, considering that the storage site land is owned by local landlords and the CO₂ storage ban has not yet been raised. Governmental financial support from Latvia and Lithuania is not yet envisaged.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3. Map of the Baltic-1 scenario with pipeline routes modelled along natural gas pipeline corridors. Latvian Riga cluster of three power plants will transport CO₂ to the Dobele structure. Cement plants from Latvia, Lithuania and Orlen Lithuania will transport CO₂ to the North-Blidene structure in Latvia. The Blidene structure is proposed for H₂ storage.</figcaption></figure>

### 3.2.2 Baltic-2 scenario

The Baltic-2 project includes nine clusters of 34 emitters from three countries (Denmark, Sweden and Germany) with an annual CO₂ emissions volume of 22.86 Mt/y and respective captured CO₂ volume of 20.1 Mt, from which up to 6.1 Mt will be directed for utilisation. The Baltic-2 combined onshore and offshore cluster offers eight storage sites in Denmark, which have excellent reservoir properties (Fig. 4a). These sites have thick primary cap rocks and a high storage capacity of approximately one gigatonne of CO₂. There are various options for transporting CO₂ from nine emission clusters located across three countries to the eight storage sites, which are situated onshore, nearshore, and offshore. Additionally, CO₂ capture and use options are currently under development, and numerous research and demonstration projects related to CCUS are ongoing in Denmark [6].

The supportive CCS policies, regulations, and financial aid from the government in Denmark, combined with the implementation of international regulations in both Denmark and Sweden, present significant advantages. The two offshore sites are under development by commercial parties. An exploration license has been issued for the onshore Gassum site to Wintershall Dea International GmbH & INEOS E&P A/S. Two CO₂ utilisation pathways (near emitters or intermediate hubs) were explored within this region, converting CO₂ into methanol or synthetic jet fuel [3]. The Swedish FlagshipONE e-methanol project, the largest of its kind in Europe, was recently cancelled by Ørsted in August 2024, and no potential off-takers have been identified. However, Denmark and Germany still have active CO₂ utilisation projects. Notably, the Power-to-Liquid plant at H&R in Hamburg, developed by INERATEC, will produce about 200 tons of e-fuels for transport and 150 tons of e-waxes for cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and food industries.

The main risk for this project involves international regulations for Germany, which has not yet deposited a declaration of provisional application of the 2009 amendment enabling the export and import of CO₂ for offshore storage under the LP.

### 3.2.3 Baltic-3 scenario

The Baltic-3 project is a cross-border value chain with 5.9 Mt/y of CO₂ emissions produced by 16 plants from Denmark, Sweden and Germany and three storage sites (Havnsø, Stenlille and Rødby) onshore and nearshore Denmark in Zealand and Lolland (Fig. 4b). The total average storage capacity is about 224 Mt CO₂. The distance from CO₂ clusters to storage sites ranges from 5 to 115 km.

Two CO₂ emission clusters in Denmark (Copenhagen and North-western Zealand) produced about 1.9 Mt CO₂ in 2021; the South Sweden cluster produced 1.5 Mt CO₂, and the Rostock cluster produced 2.5 Mt CO₂.

The Baltic-3 combined onshore cluster has three storage sites available. Exploration licenses have been issued for
the onshore Havnsø site (Equinor Carbon Solutions Denmark A/S & Ørsted Carbon Solutions A/S) and the Rødby storage site (Carboncuts A/S). The proposed value chain promotes cross-border cooperation for three countries, translating potential investment possibilities being studied today by multiple parties.

The Copenhagen cluster also shows interesting potential for CCU applications, with the (now suspended) Lighthouse project of Green fuels for Denmark receiving IPCEI funding or the Vordingborg port project for producing CCU fuels from captured CO₂ and renewable H₂. The main challenge for this project could be the same as for the Baltic-2 project, connected with international regulations.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4. (a) Map of the Baltic-2 scenario showing CO₂ storage locations onshore, nearshore, and offshore. One of the offshore storage sites suggests reusing existing pipelines, while ship transport is assumed for the other offshore and nearshore sites; (b) Map of the Baltic-3 scenario.</figcaption></figure>

### 3.2.4 Baltic-4 scenario

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5. Map of the Baltic-4 scenario with pipeline routes modelled using (where possible) natural gas pipeline corridors.</figcaption></figure>

The Baltic-4 value chain includes the southern cluster of the Northern Poland region, the Kuyavia-Masovia cluster (Fig. 5). There are 18 emitters within the cluster, 11 in the case of old coal-fired energy installations are disregarded. The selected 11 emitters produce 8.19 Mt/y of CO₂ to be captured, stored, or used. Two saline aquifer structures (Konary and Kamionki) located near the four emitter subclusters are proposed as storage sites, where CO₂ can be delivered by pipelines of length 4.2–38.2 km, connecting the emission subclusters and storage sites.

Currently, there is no specific information regarding stakeholder plans for CO₂ usage among emitters in the value chain. However, Orlen's facilities in Płock and Włocławek produce H₂ and generate a relatively pure CO₂ stream as a byproduct, which can be used for various goods. At this moment construction of a CO₂ capture unit is planned in the Płock facility.
Additionally, at the Holcim-Lafarge cement plant, a capture unit is set to be operational in a few years, allowing some of the captured CO₂ to be utilised in concrete production. The value chain area features several onshore saline aquifer structures, with two selected as potential storage sites due to their significant capacity and proximity to industrial emission sources. This allows for easy development and expansion to include more emitters from north- central Poland.

The legal framework for CO₂ onshore storage and transport infrastructure in Poland is expected to be finalised by 2025. Facilities involved in the PCI ECO2CEE project, such as the Orlen refinery and Holcim Lafarge cement plant, may also consider onshore storage as an alternative to the planned railway and shipping transport through the Gdańsk CO₂ terminal to store beneath the North Sea seabed.

### 3.2.5 Qualitative analysis of the Baltic Projects

After conducting the qualitative SWOT analysis (Tables 3 and 4), we prioritised a list of CCUS value chains based on their level of readiness. Notably, the cross-border Baltic-2 and Baltic-3 CCUS projects emerged as the readiest. The Baltic-2 project centres on both onshore and offshore storage, while the Baltic-3 project is focused exclusively on onshore storage.

The key internal strengths of these two value chains include a high storage capacity due to excellent reservoir properties, the considerable thickness of primary cap rocks, a high density of total emissions per unit distance, and other strong technical parameters. The main external opportunities stem from favourable CCS policies and regulations in Denmark, where CO₂ storage sites are located. Germany, Sweden, and Denmark are Contracting Parties to the LP.

However, Germany faces a significant risk as it has not submitted a declaration for provisional application to the IMO. Such a declaration and a bilateral agreement or arrangement are necessary before Germany can export CO₂ for offshore storage. In contrast, Sweden and Denmark have submitted their declarations and are now able to export CO₂ for offshore storage.

The Baltic-1 and Baltic-4 value chains are categorised as less ready due to regulatory risks associated with CO₂ storage onshore in Latvia and Poland, respectively. Industrial-scale CO₂ storage is not permitted in Latvia. In Poland, CO₂ storage is now permitted offshore in the Baltic Sea. However, due to the prohibition of CO₂ storage in the Baltic Sea by the Helsinki Convention, it is currently not allowed to inject CO₂ offshore in the Baltic. Regulations related to onshore storage are still under development. Despite the planned changes in the CCS regulations and other available technical strengths, these regulatory changes in Latvia and Poland may take additional time, and the risks should be seriously considered.

The Baltic-2 project was selected for further techno-economic modelling and business case in the CCUS ZEN project, based on its highest impact on climate change and the highest level of readiness in the Baltic Region.

## 3.3 Mediterranean Projects

### 3.3.1 Mediterranean-1 scenario (M-1)

The M-1 value chain includes two emission clusters - the Soma cluster and the İzmir Aliağa cluster in Turkey, along with an offshore storage site in Greece (Fig. 6). CO₂ emissions from the Soma cluster are transported to İzmir Aliağa via a 120-km pipeline and then shipped to the Prinos storage site, 360 km away.

The M-1 value chain can enhance energy and environmental cooperation between Türkiye and Greece, fostering regional collaboration. Capturing CO₂ emissions from industrial areas like Aliağa and Soma can reduce their climate impact, helping Türkiye meet its Paris Agreement commitments and align with the European Green Deal. Additionally, the Prinos Basin has a good capacity for CO₂ storage, benefiting the local economy and the regional energy sector.

The M-1 value chain encounters several challenges, including technical, economic, social, and regulatory issues.

A major challenge in Türkiye is the lack of accessible annual CO₂ emission data, which forces reliance on IPCC reference approaches for calculations [7]. This reliance can introduce uncertainties in the overall emissions estimates. Furthermore, the seismic activity prevalent in both countries complicates the CO₂ storage process. Establishing new infrastructure, such as pipelines and ships, requires significant investment to ensure feasibility economically, and the absence of carbon pricing mechanisms makes this even harder.
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6. Map of the Mediterranean-1 scenario (M-1).</figcaption></figure>

### 3.3.2 Mediterranean-2 scenario (M-2)

The M-2 project features three emitter clusters and one offshore storage site in Spain (Fig. 7a, [6]). The Tarragona cluster has five emitters, the Barcelona cluster has 9, and the Fos-Marseille cluster in France has 18 emitters. The geological storage site for CO₂ storage is offshore Tarragona in the Ebro Basin, with a capacity exceeding 200 million tons. The targeted reservoir is in the upper Miocene Castellón Sandstones, which runs from approximately 1600 m to 1900 m and is overlain by the Ebro shales. Additionally, options for CO₂ utilisation are being assessed in France and Spain.

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7. (a) Map of the Mediterranean-2 scenario (M-2); (b) Map of the Mediterranean-3 scenario (M-3).</figcaption></figure>

In the M-2 scenario, the CCU facilities are located near the gathering station within each cluster. The M-2 CCUS value chain can significantly reduce emissions in selected clusters. The Fos-Marseille cluster is ahead in development, as the EU has classified it as a PCI for a CO₂ export terminal. REPSOL EXPLORACIÓN, a Spanish national company, is seeking a permit for CO₂ storage at the Castellón site within the project "TARRACO2", which would enable
offshore CO₂ storage in Spain with a capacity of 200 million tons, sufficient for 20 years of emissions. However, this may challenge the economic viability of the value chain.

### 3.3.3 Mediterranean-3 scenario (M-3)

The M-3 value chain is a localised project located in Southern France. It incorporates a paper plant and a cement plant near Beaucaire, which together emit 1.17 Mt/y of CO₂. The Haut d'Albaron saline aquifer, located 30 km away, will store up to 34 Mt of CO₂. Onshore pipelines will connect the emitters to the storage site (Fig. 7b).

The storage capacity is tailored to manage emissions from two neighbouring plants, providing a local solution for nearly 30 years. Transport infrastructure investments would be minimal, as distances would not exceed 40 km.

The Haut d'Albaron aquifer, located at a depth of 200 m, allows for CO₂ storage in the gaseous phase. However, despite a thick seal, this limits capacity and raises leakage concerns. Additionally, nearby protected areas, such as Natura 2000 sites and bird protection zones, could complicate the development of CO₂ storage and transportation in the region.

### 3.3.4 Mediterranean-4 scenario (M-4)

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8. Map of the Mediterranean-4 scenario (M-4).</figcaption></figure>

The M-4 case involves on-land pipelines in southern Italy, extending from Priolo Gargallo to Brindisi (Fig. 8). The Brandanica storage facility is near Taranto. Additionally, ship transport from France and Greece is proposed, with a harbour in Brindisi.

The main advantages for M-4 include a high-capacity CO₂ storage site with effective caprocks and nearby emitter hubs that can utilise pipelines from industrial clusters. Cross-border connections from Greece and France can be integrated, and there are good CO₂ utilisation options in sectors like cement, iron and steel, refineries, and chemicals.

However, challenges exist, including seismic risks in Italy and new regulations that permit experimental storage only in depleted offshore oil and gas fields, with ongoing injections in Ravenna. Additionally, densely populated areas and Natura 2000 sites within the storage zone complicate onshore storage options.

### 3.3.5 Qualitative Analysis of the Mediterranean Projects

In the Mediterranean Region, Mediterranean-2, -3 and -4 value chains, which include correspondingly emission sources and storage sites in Spain (M-2), France (M-3) and Italy (M-4), are assessed as ready, while M-1, including CO₂ emissions from Türkiye and CO₂ storage in Greece as less ready, considering the regulatory risks. There is a lack of CCS regulations and CO₂ capture and transport infrastructures in Türkiye. Türkiye and Greece are not Contracting Parties to the LP and are therefore not bound by its requirements for cross-border CO₂ transport (i.e. declaration of provisional application and arrangement/agreement). The study closes with an overview of readiness and recommendations for advancing ready and less ready cases toward CCUS implementation. Some projects in both regions also have risks for the storage site area (external group 1).
Italy is planning to implement an Amendment and provisional application to Article 6. However, the technical parameters of the storage site in France M-3 (Haut d'Albaron) are not qualified for the needed requirements (internal technical weakness). Technical risks for the area around the storage site (external group 1) in Italy and Greece: seismic risks should be checked for the storage site areas. Most countries have risks connected with the location of Natura 2000 areas close to the storage sites or intersected with storage sites.

The Mediterranean-2 project was selected for further techno-economic modelling and business case in the CCUS ZEN project based on its relatively high level of readiness and impact on climate change in the Mediterranean Region. The M-4 project has lower readiness, and the M-1 project has the lowest readiness. Both have seismic risks despite a higher impact on climate change compared to the M-2 project (Table 1).

## 4 Conclusions

Integrated quantitative analysis can be conducted for both offshore and onshore CCUS projects. However, the export of CO₂ to offshore storage sites needs CO₂ storage regulations to be implemented internationally (London Protocol Amendment to article 6) and regionally (Helsinki and Barcelona Conventions), in addition to national regulations and permits needed for CO₂ storage both in onshore and offshore sites.

Despite these differences, a unified quantitative analysis for all projects (both onshore and offshore) can be performed by utilising common internal technical factors and a shortlist of external technical and non-technical parameters.

One area with significant uncertainty involves CO₂ utilisation options. This uncertainty arises from the lack of established regulations for bio-CO₂ emissions, the early stages of project piloting and demonstration, and the uncertain market conditions for CO₂-based products using green energy for production, causing significantly higher costs compared to fossil fuel-based products.

## Acknowledgements

This study is supported by the CCUS ZEN project, which has received funding from the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101075693. This project has received funding from UK Research and Innovation -Innovative UK under the Innovation Funding Service (ISF).

## References

[1] Ringstad C, Falck da Silva E, Skagestad R, Heyn R, Biragnet C, Frykman P, Anthonsen KL, Gravaud I, Wójcicki A, Shogenova A, Shogenov K, Sınayuç Ç, Yıldırım B, Bulbul S, Sousa LH, Perimenis A. HORIZON-CL5-2021-D3-02-12 Deliverable 1.1: High-level regional mapping of CO₂ emission sources utilization industry and infrastructure in the Baltic Sea and Mediterranean Sea regions. Zero Emission Network to facilitate CCUS uptake in industrial clusters. CCUS ZEN; 2023.

[2] Honegger M, Oh S, Schmitt F, Poralla M, Ombudstvedt I, Ostgaard L, Viguier R, Palfi E, Bell R, Evensen D, Chalmers H, Karimi F, Dahlberg U. Making CCU and CCS hubs and clusters happen: Overcoming non-technical challenges. Perspectives Climate Research on behalf of the CCUS ZEN Project, D2.3 of CCUS ZEN project, Freiburg i.B., Germany; 2024.

[3] Gravaud I, Shogenova A, Shogenov K, Sousa LH, Wójcicki A, Lothe AE, Cruard Q, Sınayuç Ç, Yıldırım B, Bulbul S, Stevenson R, Perimenis A. Deliverable 1.2 Identification of promising CCUS value chains in the two ZEN regions for further analyses in WP3. Open report in EU Horizon Europe CCUS ZEN. Project 101075693; 2024.

[4] Chang H. & Huang W. Application of a quantification SWOT analytical method. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 43, 1-2, Elsevier, 158-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2005.08.016; 2006.

[5] Shogenova A, Shogenov K, Sliaupa S, Sliaupiene R. The Role of CCUS Clusters and Hubs in Reaching Carbon Neutrality: Case Study from the Baltic Sea Region. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 105, 169-174. DOI: 10.3303/CET23105029; 2023.

[6] Shogenova A, Shogenov K, Sousa LH, Bonto M, Gravaud I, Lopez A, Koumentis I, Sınayuç Ç, Yıldırım B, Bulbul S, Frykman P, Anthonsen KL, Bouvier L, Lothe A, Wójcicki A, Perimenis A, Ombudstvedt I, Warmer L, Honegger M, Karimi F, Marzban E. Deliverable 3.1 CCUS value chains for the two CCUS ZEN regions selected for further development in WP4. Open report in EU Horizon Europe CCUS ZEN. Project 101075693; 2024.

[7] IPCC. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K. (eds). Published: IGES, Japan; 2006.