A Review of the CO2 Pipeline 

Infrastructure in the U.S.

April 21, 2015

DOE/NETL-2014/1681

OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY

National Energy 

Technology Laboratory
A Review of the CO2 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.

-
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

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
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

This page intentionally left blank.
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

i

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
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

ii

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
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AEO2014 Annual Energy Outlook

BAU Business as usual

Bcf Billion cubic feet 

Bcf/d Billion cubic feet per day 

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy

CCA Cedar Creek Anticline

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CCS Carbon capture and storage

CTUS Capture, transport, utilization, and 

storage

DOE Department of Energy

DOT Department of Transportation

EIA Energy Information Agency

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EOR Enhanced oil recovery 

EPSA Energy Policy and Systems Analysis

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

GAO General Accountability Office

GHG Greenhouse gas

GW Gigawatt

ICC Interstate Commerce Commission

ICF ICF International

IGCC Integrated gasification combined 

cycle

in Inch

ITC Investment Tax Credit 

MBbl/d Million barrels per day

mi Mile 

MM, mm Million

MMcfd Million cubic feet per day

MMBbls Million barrels of oil

MMBOE Million barrels of oil equivalent

MMT Million metric tons

NEJD North East Jackson Dome

NEMS National Energy Modeling System

NETL National Energy Technology 

Laboratory

PCS Potash Corp of Saskatchewan

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration

PTC Production Tax Credit 

RCSP Regional Carbon Sequestration 

Partnerships

SACROC Scurry Area Canyon Reef Operators 

Committee 

STB Surface Transportation Board

TBD To be determined

U.S. United States

WPA Wyoming Pipeline Authority
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

iv

This page intentionally left blank.
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

1

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.
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

2

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).
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

3

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

Pipeline Systems in Operation

Miles of 

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. 
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

4

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.
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

5

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.
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

6

Exhibit 4 Permian Basin CO2 transportation pipelines

Scale Pipeline Operator Location Length

(mi)

Diameter

(in)

Estimated 

Flow 

Capacity

(MMcfd)

Large-Scale 

Trunk-lines

Cortez Kinder Morgan TX 502 30 1,300

Sheep Mtn Oxy Permian TX 408 24 590

Bravo Oxy Permian NM, TX 218 20 380

Canyon Reef 

Carriers Kinder Morgan TX 170 16 220

Centerline Kinder Morgan TX 113 16 220

Central Basin Kinder Morgan TX 143 16 220

SmallerScale 

Distribution

Systems

Este I - to Welch, 

Tx ExxonMobil, et al TX 40 14 180

Este II - to Salt 

Crk Field Oxy Permian TX 45 12 130

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

Dollarhide Chevron TX 23 8 80

Llano Trinity CO2 NM 53 12 80

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
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

7

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)
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

8

Exhibit 6 Gulf Coast CO2 transportation pipelines

Scale Pipeline Operator Location Length

(mi)

Diameter

(in)

Estimated 

Flow 

Capacity

(MMcfd)

Large-Scale 

Trunk-lines

Green Line Denbury 

Resources LA, TX 314 24 930

Delta Denbury 

Resources MS, LA 108 24 590

Northeast Jackson 

Dome (NEJD)

Denbury 

Resources MS, LA 183 20 360

Distribution 

Line

Free State Denbury 

Resources MS 85 20 360

Sonat Denbury 

Resources MS 50 18 170

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.
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

9

Exhibit 7 Rocky Mountain CO2 pipeline infrastructure

Source: Denbury Onshore LLC (1)
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

10

Exhibit 8 Rocky Mountain CO2 transportation pipelines

Scale Pipeline Operator Location Length 

(mi)

Diameter 

(in)

Estimated Flow 

Capacity (MMcfd)

Large-Scale 

Trunk-lines

Shute 

Creek/Wyoming 

CO2

ExxonMobil WY 142 30-20 1,220-220

Greencore Denbury 

Resources WY, MT 230 22 720

Smaller 

Scale 

Distribution 

Systems

Powder River 

Basin CO2

Anadarko WY 125 16 220

Raven Ridge Chevron WY, CO 160 16 220

McElmo Creek Kinder 

Morgan CO, UT 40 8 80

Monell Anadarko WY 33 8 80

Lost 

Soldier/Wertz Merit WY 30 16 43

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.
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

11

Exhibit 9 Mid-Continent CO2 pipeline infrastructure

Exhibit 10 Mid-Continent CO2 transportation pipelines

Scale Pipeline Operator Location Length

(mi)

Diameter

(in)

Estimated 

Flow 

Capacity

(MMcfd)

Small Scale 

Distribution 

Systems

Coffeyville- Burbank Chaparral 

Energy KS, OK 68 8 80

Enid-Purdy 

(Central Oklahoma) Anadarko OK 117 8 80

TransPetco TransPetco TX, OK 110 8 80

TexOk

Chaparral 

Energy OK 95 6 70

Borger Chaparral 

Energy TX, OK 86 4 50
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

12

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.

Region Pipeline Operator Location Length

(mi)

Diameter

(in)

Estimated 

Flow 

Capacity

(MMcfd)

Other Dakota Gasification 

(Souris Valley) Dakota Gasification ND, SK 204 14 130

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)
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

13

Exhibit 12 Denbury’s Wyoming CO2 pipeline developments

Source: Denbury Onshore LLC (6)

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)
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

14

Exhibit 13 Planned Webster CO2 lateral pipeline

Source: Denbury Onshore LLC (6)

Exhibit 14 Planned Conroe CO2 lateral pipeline

Source: Denbury Onshore LLC (6)
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

15

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).3The 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
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

16

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

Project Name Project Type Location Est. Start 

Date

Length 

(mi)

Est. CO2 Transport 

Capacity Required 

(MMcfd)

Illinois Industrial 

Carbon Capture CCS Decatur, Il 2015 1 50

Petra Nova CO2-EOR Thompson, 

TX 2016 82 70

Sargas Texas CO2-EOR Point 

Comfort, TX 2017 50 40

Lake Charles 

Co-Generation CO2-EOR Calcasieu Parish, LA 2018 12 200

Medicine Bow 

CTL CO2-EOR Medicine Bow, WY 2018 TBD 130

Quintana Syngas CO2-EOR South Heart, 

SD 2018 TBD 108

 

5

http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/large-scale-ccs-projects#overview
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

17

Project Name Project Type Location Est. Start 

Date

Length 

(mi)

Est. CO2 Transport 

Capacity Required 

(MMcfd)

Hydrogen 

Energy California 

(HECA)

CO2-EOR Kern County, 

CA 2019 3 124

Indiana 

Gasification CO2-EOR Rockport, IN 2019 430 285

Texas Clean 

Energy Project CO2-EOR Penwell, TX 2019 1 140

Mississippi 

Clean Energy 

Project

CO2-EOR TBD TBD TBD 210

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 
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

18

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

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. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Carbon Price $/tonne

Carbon Price

Cap40

CP25
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

19

Exhibit 18 CO2 Emission reductions for all sectors under the Cap40 and CP 25 scenarios

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, 

 -

 1,000

 2,000

 3,000

 4,000

 5,000

 6,000

 7,000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Million Metric Tonnes CO2

Annual CO2Emissions from All Sectors

Cap40

CP25

BAU
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

20

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.
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

21

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

Pipe Type

Pipeline Diameter (in)

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

Pipe Type

Pipeline Diameter (in)

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.
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

22

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
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

23

Exhibit 22 Inter- and Intrastate pipeline segments (2040)

Cap40

Units Interstate 

Pipelines

Intrastate 

Pipelines Total/Average

Number of Links 37 37 74

Direct 30 19 49

Feeder 6 14 20

Trunk-lines 1 4 5

Average 

Distance mi 278 133 243

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 TonnemilesMMTmi 10,880,053 5,803,705 16,683,758

Average Cost/mi ($1000) 362 203 330

CP25

Units Interstate 

Pipelines

Intrastate 

Pipelines Total/Average

Number of Links 60 49 109

Direct 24 13 37

Feeder 20 29 49

Trunk-lines 16 7 23

Average 

Distance mi 251 132 244

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 TonnemilesMMTmi 29,477,059 15,378,094 44,855,153

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.
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

24

Exhibit 23 Transportation Costs for the Cap40 case

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

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.

0

2

4

6

8

1 0

1 2

2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 4 0 5 0 More frequency

$/tonne

Transport Cost ($/tonne): Direct

0

2

4

6

8

1 0

1 2

2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 4 0 5 0 More frequency

$/tonne

Transport Cost ($/tonne): Shared

0

2

4

6

8

1 0

1 2

1 4

1 6

1 8

2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 4 0 5 0 More frequency

$/tonne

Transport Cost ($/tonne): Direct

0

2

4

6

8

1 0

1 2

1 4

1 6

1 8

2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 4 0 5 0 More frequency

$/tonne

Transport Cost ($/tonne): Shared
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

25

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.
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

26

Exhibit 26 Oil produced by source for all three cases* 

* 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).

 -

 0.2

 0.4

 0.6

 0.8

 1.0

 1.2

 1.4

 1.6

Ref

Cap40

CP25

Ref

Cap40

CP25

Ref

Cap40

CP25

Ref

Cap40

CP25

Ref

Cap40

CP25

Ref

Cap40

CP25

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

MBbl/day

Oil Produced by Source: Reference v. Cap40 v. CP25

 Power Plants Natural Ethanol

 Refineries, Hydrogen Natural Gas Processing Ammonia
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

27

Exhibit 27 Oil Production by EOR in the Cap40 case

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)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

MMBbls/day

EOR Oil Production Cap40

 East Coast Gulf Coast Midcontinent

 Southwest Rocky Mountains West Coast
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

28

Exhibit 28 Oil Production by EOR in the CP25 case

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. Trunklines are typically employed where there are a relatively high concentration of sources, such as 

Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana (Exhibit 29).

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

MMBbls/day

EOR Oil Production CP25

 East Coast Gulf Coast Midcontinent

 Southwest Rocky Mountains West Coast
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

29

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
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

30

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.
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

31

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).”
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

32

“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. 
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

33

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.
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

34

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 largescale CO2 pipeline systems linking major emission areas, such as the Ohio Valley and its coalfired 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. 
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

35

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.
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

36

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). 
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

37

Appendix

Exhibit 32 Comprehensive List of U.S. CO2 Pipelines

Scale Pipeline Operator Location Length

(mi)

Diameter

(in)

Estimated 

Flow 

Capacity

(MMcfd)

Large-Scale 

Trunk-lines

Bravo Oxy Permian NM, TX 218 20 380

Canyon Reef 

Carriers Kinder Morgan TX 139 16 220

Centerline Kinder Morgan TX 113 16 220

Central Basin Kinder Morgan TX 143 16 220

Cortez Kinder Morgan TX 502 30 1,300

Delta Denbury Resources MS, LA 108 24 590

Green Line Denbury Resources LA, TX 314 24 930

Greencore Denbury Resources WY, MT 230 22 720

Northeast Jackson 

Dome (NEJD) Denbury Resources MS, LA 183 20 360

Sheep Mtn Oxy Permian TX 408 24 590

Shute 

Creek/Wyoming CO2

ExxonMobil WY 30 30-20 1,220-220

Smaller Scale 

Distribution 

Systems

Adair Apache TX 15 4 50

Anadarko Powder 

River Basin CO2 PL Anadarko WY 125 16 220

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

Cordona Lake XTO TX 7 6 70

Dakota Gasification 

(Souris Valley) Dakota Gasification ND, SK 204 14 130

Dollarhide Chevron TX 23 8 80

El Mar Kinder Morgan TX 35 6 70

Enid-Purdy (Central 

Oklahoma) Anadarko OK 117 8 80

Este I - to Welch, TX ExxonMobil, et al. TX 40 14 180

Este II - to Salt Crk 

Field Oxy Permian TX 45 12 130
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

38

Scale Pipeline Operator Location Length

(mi)

Diameter

(in)

Estimated 

Flow 

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
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

39

Exhibit 33 State-Level Inter- and Intrastate Pipeline Segments for the Cap40 Case

Start Terminus

Total 

Links Direct Feeder

Transshipment

Averge 

Distance 

per Link 

(Miles)

Cost 

($mm)

Total 

Miles

Total 

MMT

Total tonnemilesCost/mile 

($k/mile)

A L MS 1 1 - - 173.13 61.14 173.13 17.03 2,948.06 353.13

A R MS 1 1 - - 165.95 58.64 165.95 3.24 537.46 353.38

A Z CA 2 2 - - 394.77 361.05 789.55 88.50 69,871.66 457.28

A Z 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

N E OK 2 2 - - 354.93 320.46 709.86 16.65 11,820.78 451.45

N E KS 2 - 2 - 164.27 180.40 328.55 55.14 18,114.94 549.07

N M TX 2 2 - - 330.47 231.59 660.95 15.57 10,290.55 350.39

N V 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 N D 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 N D 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

Links
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

40

Exhibit 34 State-Level Inter- and Intrastate Pipeline Segments for CP25 Case

Start Terminus

Terminal 

Region

Number 

of Links Direct Feeder Trunk

Avg. 

Distance 

(miles)

Avg. Cost 

($mm)

Total 

Miles

Total CO2 

(MMT)

Total tonnemiles 

(MMT-mi)

Avg. Cost 

($000)/ 

Mile

Inter-state Pipelines 60 24 20 16 251 199 15,036 1,960 29,477,059 624

A L MS OGSM2 1 0 0 1 182 100 182 2 449 548

A R MS OGSM2 1 0 0 1 254 269 254 135 34,246 1,058

A R OK OGSM3 1 0 0 1 236 250 236 63 14,902 1,058

A Z CA OGSM6 2 2 0 0 395 138 790 60 47,634 175

A Z CO OGSM5 1 0 0 1 207 219 207 93 19,225 1,059

A Z N M OGSM5 1 0 1 0 95 52 95 11 1,070 554

A Z TX OGSM4 3 3 0 0 314 132 943 38 36,190 140

CO N M 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 N D 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 N D 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

N C A L OGSM2 1 0 0 1 431 455 431 2 1,063 1,056

N M OK OGSM3 1 0 0 1 413 877 413 177 73,240 2,122

N M TX OGSM4 1 0 0 1 352 746 352 41 14,388 2,122

N V CA OGSM6 1 1 0 0 311 109 311 14 4,297 351

N V N D OGSM7 2 2 0 0 492 172 984 7 6,894 175

N V UT OGSM5 1 0 1 0 178 98 178 10 1,816 549

N Y 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 A R 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

A R A R OGSM3 1 0 1 0 115 63 115 68 7,786 552

A Z A Z 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

N C N C 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

Links
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

41

Exhibit 35 Cumulative CO2 Pipelines Construction

Pipeline 

Diameter

2030 2040

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 

CO2

2015 2030 2040

Million metric 

tonnes Ref Cap40 CP25 Ref Cap40 CP25 Ref Cap40 CP25

Sequestered 

Power CO2

3.48 2.89 3.48 6 92 94 6 229 171

Non 

Sequestered 

Power CO2

2,075 2,036 1,797 2172 788 743 2193 1 190

Total Power 

CO2 Emissions 2,078 2,039 1,801 2178 880 837 2199 230 361

Percent 

Sequestered 

CO2

0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 10.4% 11.2% 0.3% 99.6% 47.4%
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

42

Exhibit 37 Sequestered Anthropogenic CO2 Captured at Industrial vs. Power Sector Sources

Sequestered 

Anthropogenic 

CO2

2015 2030 2040

Million metric 

tonnes Ref Cap40 CP25 Ref Cap40 CP25 Ref Cap40 CP25

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 

Sector CO2

90.6%11 80.5% 90.6% 16.7% 99.9% 99.9% 11.8% 96.5% 99.4%

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 

production

2015 2030 2040

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 

of Total 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 7.1% 7.9% 10.1% 9.9% 18.2% 16.5%

 

11 The reference model assumes a demo plant is currently in operation, and the CO2 is from that plant.
A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.

43

Exhibit 40 U.S. oil production (MMBbls/day) associated with CO2-EOR, in 2015, 2030, and 2040

(graph)

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

Ref Cap40 CP25 Ref Cap40 CP25 Ref Cap40 CP25

2015 2030 2040

MMBbls/day

Total Domestic Oil Production

EOR

Alaska

Other Lower 48
www.netl.doe.gov

Pittsburgh, PA • Morgantown, WV • Albany, OR • Sugar Land, TX • Anchorage, AK

(800) 553-7681

Anthony Zammerilli

anthony.zammerilli@netl.doe.gov

Bob Wallace

wallace_robert@bah.com