# A Review of the CO 2 

# Pipeline

Infrastructure in the U.S.

April 21, 2015

DOE/NETL

- 2014/1681



### OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENE RGY



# National Energy Technology LaboratoryA Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



# Disclaimer

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency o f 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 in fringe privately owned rights. Reference therein to any sp ecific 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 there of. The views

and o pinions of authors expressed therein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

-A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrast ructure in the U.S.



## Author List :

Energy Sector Planning and Analysis (ESPA)

Matthew Wallace

Advanced Resources International

L essly 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 t he National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) . This work was completed under DOE NETL

Contract Number DE

- FE0004001 . This work was performed under ESPA T ask 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 cooperatio n 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

M aria Vargas, Technical Contracting Officer Representative

Donald Remson, NETL



## DOE Contract Number DE

- FE0004001A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### This page intentionally left blank

.A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### i 

# Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 1

2 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2

3 Current CO 2 

### 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. CO 2 

### Pipeline Networks

................................ ................................ .................... 12

4 Potential CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### Supplies from Natural Sources

................................ ........ 15

4.1.4 Additional CO 2 

### from Industrial Sources

................................ ................................ ... 16 4.2 Projections using the EIA NEMS analysis

................................ ................................ ........ 17

4.2.1 CO 2 

### Price and CO 2 

### Emissions Results

................................ ................................ ...... 18

4.2.2 CO 2 

### Pipeline Expansion Results

................................ ................................ ............... 19 4.2.3 Rates of Projected Pi peline Construction

................................ ................................ . 30 5 Permitting, Regulations, and Policies

................................ ................................ ......................... 31

5.1 Overview

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 31 5.2 Federal Regulation

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 31 5.2.1 General Oversight

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3 1 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 Bibliog raphy

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 35 Appendix

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 37A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### ii 

# Exhibits

Exhibit 1 Geographic areas with large

- scale CO 2 

### pipeline systems operat ing currently in the U.S.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 3

Exhibit 2 Current CO 2 

### - EOR operations and infrastructure

................................ ............................ 4

Exhibit 3 Permian Basin CO 2 

### pipeline infrast ructure

................................ ................................ ..... 5

Exhibit 4 Permian Basin CO 2 

### transportation pipelines

................................ ................................ ... 6

Exhibit 5 Gulf Coast CO 2 

### pipeline infrastructure

................................ ................................ ........... 7

Exhibit 6 Gulf Coast CO 2 

### transportation pipelines

................................ ................................ ......... 8 Exhibit 7 Rocky Mountain CO 2 

### pipeline infrastructure

................................ ................................ . 9 Exhibit 8 Rocky Mountain CO 2 

### transportation pipelines

................................ ............................. 10

Exhibit 9 Mid

- Continent CO 2 

### pipeline infrastructure

................................ ................................ ... 11

Exhibit 10 Mid

- Continent CO 2 

### transportation pipelines

................................ .............................. 11

Exhibit 11 Other CO 2 

### transportation pipelines in the U.S.

................................ ........................... 12

Exhi bit 12 Denbury’s Wyoming CO 2 

### pipeline developments

................................ ...................... 13

Exhibit 13 Planned Webster CO 2 

### lateral pipeline

................................ ................................ ......... 14

Exhibit 14 Planned Conroe CO 2 

### lateral pipeline

................................ ................................ .......... 14

Exhibit 15 Planned Lobos CO 2 

### pipeline in New Mexico

................................ ............................. 15

Exhibit 16 Planned CO 2 

### transportation pipelines

................................ ................................ ......... 16

Exhibit 17 CO 2 

### Price under the Cap40 and CP 25 scenarios

................................ ........................ 18

Exhibit 18 CO 2 

### Emission reductions for all sectors under the Cap40 an d CP 25 scenarios

......... 19

Exhibit 19 CO 2 

### pipeline schematic

................................ ................................ ............................... 19

Exhibit 20 CO 2 

### transportation by market segment (2040)

................................ ............................ 20

Exhibit 21 CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### , low carbon scenario

. 30 Exhibit 32 Comprehensive List of U.S. CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### Pipelines Construction

................................ ................................ ..... 41 Exhibit 36 Total Mass of anthropogenic CO 2 

### Sequestered

................................ .......................... 41 Exhibit 37 Sequestered Anthropogenic CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### - EOR, in 2015, 2030, and 2040 (table)

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 42

Exhibit 4 0 U.S. oil production (MMBbls/day) associated with CO 2 

### - EOR, in 2015, 2030, and 2040 (graph)

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 43A Review of the CO 2 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

CO 2 Carbon dioxide

CCS Carbon capture and storage

CTUS Capture, transport, utilization, and

storage

DOE Department of Energy

DOT Department of Transportat ion

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 Interstat e 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

MM T 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 AuthorityA Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### iv This page intentionally l eft blank.A Review of the CO 2 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 (CO 2 

### ) pipelines has been constructed over the past four decades. Consisting of 50 individua l CO 2 

### pipelines and with a combined length over
4,500 miles, these CO 2 

### transportation pipelines represent an essential building block for linking the capture of CO 2 

### from electric power plants and other industrial sources with i ts productive use

in oilfield s 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 CO 2 

### pipeli ne system is dedicated to enhanced oil recovery ( CO 2 

### - EOR)

, connecting natural and industrial sources of CO 2 

### with EOR projects in oil fields. Roughly 80 percent of CO 2 

### traveling through U.S. pipelines is from natural (geologic) sources; however, if

current ly planned industrial CO 2 

### capture facilities and new pipelines are built, by 2020 the portion of CO 2 

### from industrial

- sources could be nearly equal to that from natural sources. In terms of future potential, i t is estimated that up to 4 million barrels per day of oil could potentially be produced in the U.S. with CO 2 

### - EOR and that 85% of this would be reliant on

industrial CO 2 

### ; contributing to significantly fewer oil imports and annual emissions reductions of

400 MMT CO 2 

### , by 2030.

Just over 4 percent of tota l 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 industria l facilities to

reduce CO 2 

### 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. CO 2 

### pipeline infrastructure , through an average annual build

- rate of nearly 1,000 miles per year

.

The regulation of CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### pipelines, which includes technical design specifications and integrity management requirements. The development of a national CO 2 

### 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 di fferent regulatory structures, incentives, and processes that foster interagency coordination and regular stakeholder

engagement.A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 2 

# 2 Introduction

A safe, reliable, regional ly extensive network of carbon dioxide (CO 2 

### ) 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 CO 2 

### from industrial power plants with its productive use in oilfields (wi th CO 2 

### enhanced oil recovery [CO 2 

### - EOR]) and its safe storage in saline formations. The current CO 2 

### pipeline system consists of 50 individual CO 2 

### pipelines with a combined length of 4,500 miles. The bulk of the existing large

- volume CO 2 

### pipelines connect natural sources of CO 2 

### (e.g., Bravo Dome, New Mexico) with long

- running CO 2 

### - EOR projects in large oil fields (e.g., Wasson, West Texas). However, smaller volume pipelines also exist that connect point sources of industrial

CO 2 

### (e.g., Coffeyville Chemical Plant, Kansas) with newer CO 2 

### - EOR projects in oil fields (e.g.,
North Burbank, Oklahoma )

. Today’s CO 2 

### pipeline system had its beginnings in the 1970s, built for delivering CO 2 

### for CO 2 

### - EOR to oil fields in the Permian Basin of West Texas and eastern New Mex ico. With the recent completion of two long

- distance CO 2 

### pipelines

– the Green Pipeline in Louisiana and Texas (2010)

, and the Greencore Pipeline in Wyoming and Montana (2012)

– a much more geographically diverse CO 2 

### pipeline system is in place. A variet y of shorter and smaller volume laterals are being constructed to link these two large

- scale CO 2 

### pipelines to surrounding oil fields

that are amenable to CO 2 

### - EOR.

The vast majority of the CO 2 

### pipeline system is dedicated to CO 2 

### - EOR, with a small fraction

u sed for other industrial uses, such as delivering CO 2 

### to the beverage industry. Of the 3.53 billion cubic feet ( Bcf

) per day (68 million metric tons per year [MM T ]) of CO 2 

### transported, 2.78 Bcf per day (54 MMT per year) is from natural sources

, and the re maining 0.74 Bcf per day (14

MMT per year) is from industrial sources, including gas processing plants. With new industrial

CO 2 

### capture facilities coming o n line (e.g., Air Products PCS N itrogen plant in southern Louisiana, Southern Company’s i ntegrated ga sification combined cycle ( IGCC ) plant in Kemper County, Mississippi, etc.)

– including over 600 miles of new pipeline

– the volume of industrial

CO 2 

### capture and transportation is expected to increase by over 2.5 times the current supply by the year 2020

. 1



### The regulation of CO 2 

### pipelines is currently a joint responsibility of federal and state governments. The federal government regulates only CO 2 

### safety standard s . State governments are largely responsible for the oversight of CO 2 

### transportation pipeline development and operation. Some states, such as Wyoming and its Pipeline Authority, have begun to plan for and

establish corridors for future CO 2 

### pipelines. However, the development of a national CO 2 

### pipeline network capable of meeting proposed CO 2 

### emissi on 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 betwee n 0.74 Bcf per day currently and 1.36 Bcf per day planned to begin construction by 2020 (Exhibit 16).A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 3 

# 3 Current CO 2 

# Pipeline Infrastructure

3.1 Overview

The initial large

- scale CO 2 

### pipeline in the U.S., the Canyon Reef pipeline, was built in the 1970s.

Much of the remainder of the current CO 2 

### pipeline infrastructure was built between the 1980s and 1990s. Today

, there a re nearly 50 CO 2 

### transportation pipelines in the U.S. with a combined length of over 4,500 miles, o perated by over a dozen different companies. (See Exhibit 32 in the Appendix for the comprehensive list of CO 2 

### transport pipelines in the U.S.)

At present, about 80 percent of CO 2 

### used for EOR is from natural sources. However, CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### used for EOR by the year 2020. 2 

### Exhibit 1 illustrates the major CO 2 

### transport pipelines that currently

exist in the U.S. Exhibit 2 shows the c urrent CO 2 

### - EOR operations and infrastructure in the U.S.

A number of industrial CO 2 

### - capture facilities have been proposed and pa rtially developed for delivering CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### - capture goals on time, or coming online entirely . But, as new industrial CO 2 

### - capture projects begin to provide greater volumes of CO 2 

### to the EOR industry, it is anticipated that development costs will begin to decrease. Proven industrial CO 2 

### - capture technology should lower the perceived risk of providing CO 2 

### supplies to the EOR industry.

Exhibit 1 Geographic areas with large

- scale CO 2 pipeline systems operating currently in the U.S.

U.S. Regions w ith Large

- s cale CO 2 Pipeline Systems i n 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 in dustrial sources by 2020.A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 4 Exhibit 2 Current CO 2 - EOR operations and infra structure



## 3.2 Permian Basin

The Permian Basin contains the largest network of CO 2 

### pipelines in the U.S. Over 2,600 miles of

CO 2 

### pipelines in this region carry both natural and industrial CO 2 

### supplies to C O 2 

### - EOR projects throughout the region.

Three main pipelines deliver CO 2 

### from four natural sources of CO 2 

### to the Permian Basin ( Exhibit 3 ). The Cortez pipeline delivers CO 2 

### from McElmo Dome and Doe Canyon in

southwestern Colorado. The Sheep Mountain pipeline delivers CO 2 

### from the Sheep Mountain

CO 2 

### field in central Colorado, and the Bravo pipeline delivers CO 2 

### from Bravo Dome in northeast New Mexico to the Permian Basin. All three of these major pipelines meet at the Denver City CO 2 

### hub, where CO 2 

### is dispersed through a network of smaller CO 2 

### pipelines to

various oil fields and their CO 2 

### - EOR projects. A smaller pipeline, the Trans P etco/Bravo pipeline, transports a modest amount of CO 2 

### to the Postle CO 2 

### - EOR operation in western

Oklaho ma, as discussed later in this report

.A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 5 Exhibit 3 Permian Basin CO 2 pipeline infrastructure



### Three other important CO 2 

### pipelines round out the large

- scale pipeline system of the Permian

Basin:

 The Canyon Reef Carrier C O 2 

### pipeline, the initial large

- scale CO 2 

### pipeline, links the CO 2 

### captured from the gas processing plants in the Val Verde Basin (West Texas) with the pioneering Scurry Area Canyon Reef Operators Committee ( SACROC ) CO 2 

### - EOR project, 170 miles to the northeas t.

 The Centerline and Central Basin CO 2 

### pipelines deliver natural CO 2 

### from the Denver City CO 2 

### hub to the oil fields in West Texas and New Mexico.

Exhibit 4 lists the CO 2 

### transportation pipelines installed in the Permian Basin reg ion.A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 6 Exhibit 4 Permian Basin CO 2 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 Per mian 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

Smaller

Scale

Distribution Systems Este I

- to Welch,

Tx Exxo nMobil, 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 8 3 10 110

Rosebud Hess NM 50* 12 100*

Anton Irish Oxy Permian TX 40 8 80

Dollarhide Chevron TX 23 8 80

Llano Trinity CO 2 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 TX 25 6 70

Adair Apache TX 15 4 50

Ford Kinder Morgan TX 12 4 50

*EstimatedA Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 7 

## 3.3 Gulf Coast

The 740 mile Gulf Coast CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### source in Jackson Dome, Central Mississippi, to Denbury’s CO 2 

### - EOR projects in Mississippi, Louisiana, and East

Texas. Several industrial sources of CO 2 

### are (or soon will be) connected to the Green Pipeline for delivery to CO 2 

### - EOR. Exhibit 6 lists all of the CO 2 

### transportation pipelines installed in the Gulf Coast region.

Exhibit 5 Gulf Coast CO 2 pipeline infrastructure

(1) Potential, proved

, and produced

- to

- date tertiary reserves est imated 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 CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 8 Exhibit 6 Gul f Coast CO 2 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 CO 2 

### - EOR operations in the Rocky Mountain region are serviced by two major sour ces of

CO 2 

### : 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 originate s at a transshipment no de ) for several smaller pipelines, which deliver CO 2 

### to CO 2 

### - EOR projects in central Wyoming, as well as the Rangely CO 2 

### - EOR project in northwest Colorado.

Denbury completed construction of the Greencore pipeline in 2012, which delivers CO 2 

### supplies

from t he Lost Cabin Gas Plant to the Salt Creek, Bell Creek

, and other CO 2 

### - EOR projects in the Rocky Mountain region.

Exhibit 8 lists the CO 2 

### transportation pipelines installed in the Rocky Mountain region, including
a short, 40

- mile de livery pipeline from McElmo Dome to the Aneth CO 2 

### - EOR project in Utah.A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 9 Exhibit 7 Rocky Mountain CO 2 pipeline infrastructure

Source: Denbury Onshore LLC (1)A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 10 Exhibit 8 Rock y Mountain CO 2 transportation pipelines

Scale Pipeline Operator Location Length (mi) Diameter

(in) Estimated Flow

Capacity (MMcfd)

Large

- Scale

Trunk

- lines Shute

Creek/Wyoming

CO 2 ExxonMobil WY 142 30

- 20 1

, 220

- 220

Greencore Denbury

Resources WY, MT 230 2 2 720

Smaller

Scale

Distribution Systems Powder River

Basin CO 2 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 D evon WY 53 8 30



## 3.5 Mid

- Continent

The Mid

- Continent CO 2 

### pipeline system ( Exhibit 9 ) is mainly a set of fragmented source

- to

- field pipelines supplying captured CO 2 

### from industrial sources to individual CO 2 

### - EOR operations. Chaparral ow ns and operates the majority of these smaller pipelines while Anadarko controls the

Enid

- Purdy pipeline in Central Oklahoma. A small amount of natural CO 2 

### from Bravo Dome is

delivered to the Postle CO 2 

### - EOR operation via the TransPetco Pipeline. These CO 2 

### p ipelines are

listed in Exhibit 10

.A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 11 Exhibit 9 Mid

- Continent CO 2 pipeline infrastructure

Exhibit 10 Mid

- Continent CO 2 transportation pipelines

Scale Pipeline Operato r 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

Trans P etco TransPetco TX, OK 110 8 80

TexO k Chaparral Energy OK 95 6 70

Borger Chaparral Energy TX, OK 86 4 50A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 12 

## 3.6 Other U.S. CO 2 

## Pipeline Networks

Two other CO 2 

### pipeline networks exist, one in North Dakota and one in Michigan. The Dakota Gasification pipeline delivers captured CO 2 

### from the Grea t Plains Synfuels plant to the Weyburn

CO 2 

### - EOR project in Saskatchewan, Canada. (3) The White Frost pipeline delivers captured CO 2 

### from the Antrim Gas Processing plant to several small

- scale CO 2 

### - EOR projects in Otsego County, M ichigan. (4) These CO 2 

### pipelines are listed in Exhibit 11

.

Exhibit 11 Other CO 2 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 CO 2 

# Pipeline Network Expansion

This section provides industry

- announced CO 2 

### pipeli ne projects as well as potential CO 2 

### 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 Projec tions Based on Industry Announcements

Several new CO 2 

### pipeline projects have been announced by industry, most of which would

connect industrial facilities with CO 2 

### - 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 CO 2 

### pipeline developments in Wyoming ( Exhibit 12 ). The company is planning to install a major pipeline to connect new sources of CO 2 

### at the Riley Ridge Gas Plant to its CO 2 

### - EOR operations in Wyoming. This new pipeline will extend approximately 250 miles, utilizing some existing CO 2 

### pipeline corridors before linking to the Greencore Pipeline south of the Lost Cabin CO 2 

### 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 termin ation 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 mile s 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 CO 2 

### - EOR operations

. (6)A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 13 Exhibit 12 Denbury’s Wyoming CO 2 pipeline developments

Source: Denbury Onshore LLC (6)



## 4.1.2 Green Pipeline Laterals

Denbury also has plans to extend two significant CO 2 

### pipeline laterals from the Green Pipeline to

CO 2 

### - 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 nea r Harris, Texas ( Exhibit 13 ). Delivery and injection of

CO 2 

### is scheduled for 2016

. The cost for construction of this pipeline is estimated at $23 million.

The Webster CO 2 

### - EOR project is expected to produce roughly 15,000 barrels o f oil per day from a potential 68 million barrels of CO 2 

### - EOR oil. (6)

A second lateral to connect the Conroe CO 2 

### - EOR project to the Green Pipeline is also underway ( Exhibit 14 ), with permitting and ro ute 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

delive ry and injection of CO 2 

### in 2017, and first oil production in 2018. The Conroe CO 2 

### - 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 CO 2 

### - EOR oil. (6)A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 14 Exhibit 13 Planned Webster CO 2 lateral pipeline

Source: Denbury Onshore LLC (6)

Exhibit 14 Planned Conroe CO 2 lateral pipeline

Source: Denbury Onshore LLC (6)A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 15 

## 4.1.3 Potential Additional CO 2 

## Supplies from Natural Sources

Kinder Morgan plann ed to invest approximately $310 million in a new 16

- inch CO 2 

### pipeline to
connect St. Johns Dome, a large natural CO 2 

### source located on the borde r of Arizona and New
Mexico, to CO 2 

### - EOR projects in the Permian Basin ( Exhibit 15 ). 3 

### The pipeline would have

extend ed approximately 214 miles from St. Johns Dome to Torrance County, New Mexico

, where it will link with the Cortez P ipeline. Kinder Morgan also plann ed to expand the capacity of the Cortez pipeline by 300 million cubic feet per day to accommodate additional CO 2 

### volumes

from St

. Johns Dome. However, Kinder Morgan recently has withdrawn their Right

- of

- Way request with th e 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 development 4



### .

Exhibit 15 Planned Lobos CO 2 pipe line in New Mexico

Pending permission from Kinder Morgan

3 http://www.kindermorgan.com/business/CO 2 /lobospipeline/default.cfm

4 http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/prog/more/lands_realty/lobos_co2_pipeline.htmlA Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 16 

## 4.1.4 Additional CO 2 

## from Industrial Sources

Based on recent announcements 5 

### (Exhibit 16) , industry is on the brink of capturing significant

volumes of CO 2 

### from industrial sources, in addition to the 74 0 million cubic feet per day of

industrial CO 2 

### utilized for CO 2 

### - EOR. Using industrial data and published reports , the volume of

CO 2 

### supplies from industrial facilities could reach 3,060 million cubic feet per day by the end of
the decade, an increase of ov er four times the current CO 2 

### capture and transportation volume.

Many of the proposed industrial capture facilities are being developed with CO 2 

### - EOR in mind. The locations of a number of proposed facilities are within a moderate distance (less than 100

mi les) from viable CO 2 

### - EOR oil fields. The construction of these facilities will include pipelines directly to the proposed CO 2 

### - EOR facilities. For example, the Petra Nova Capture Project will

capture CO 2 

### emissions from the W.A. Parish power plant in Thompso n , Texas and deliver CO 2 

### supplies to the CO 2 

### - EOR project at the West Ranch field in Vanderbilt, Texas

, via an 80

- mile

CO 2 

### pipeline.

Several other proposed industrial capture projects will tie into existing CO 2 

### pipelines for delivery

of CO 2 

### to established CO 2 

### - EOR operating areas. These projects will require shorter (less than 50 miles) lateral pipelines to connect directly with major CO 2 

### trunk

- lines. For example, CO 2 

### captured from the Lake Charles Gasification facility in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana will be transported to the Green Pipeline via a 12

- mile lateral. This CO 2 

### will eventually be utilized by

CO 2 

### - EOR facilities in E ast Texas.

Exhibit 16 provides the CO 2 

### transportation pipelines associated with proposed industrial CO 2 

### captu re projects.

Exhibit 16 Planned CO 2 transportation pipelines

Project Name Project Type Location Est. Start

Date Length

(mi) Est. CO 2 Transport Capacity Required (MMcfd)

Illinois Industrial Carbon Capture CCS Deca t ur, Il 2015 1 50

Petra Nova CO 2 - EOR T h ompson, TX 2016 82 70

Sargas Texas CO 2 - EOR Point Comfort, TX 2017 50 40

Lake Charles

Co

- Generation CO 2 - EOR Calcasieu Parish, LA 2018 12 200

Medicine Bow
CTL CO 2 - EOR Medicine Bow, WY 2018 TBD 130

Quintana Syngas CO 2 - EOR South Hear t,
SD 2018 TBD 108

5 http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/large

- scale

- ccs

- projects#overviewA Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 17 Project Name Project Type Location Est. Start

Date Length

(mi) Est. CO 2 Transport Capacity Required (MMcfd)

Hydrogen Energy California (HECA) CO 2 - EOR Ke rn County,

CA 2019 3 124

Indiana
Gasification CO 2 - EOR Rockport, IN 2019 430 285

Texas Clean Energy Project CO 2 - EOR Penwell, TX 2019 1 140

Mississippi Clean Energy Project CO 2 - EOR TBD TBD TB D 210



## 4.2 Projections using the EIA NEMS analysis

Three cases were run using EP

- NEMS to provide a range of potential CO 2 

### pipeline expansion

scenarios . The first case used a similar set of assumptions to EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook
(AEO2014) Reference Case pr ojection. In this case, EP

- NEMS projects limited additional expansion of U.S. CO 2 

### pipeline infrastructure, from 2015 through 2040. However, analysis of scenarios that examine the implications of illustrative national climate policies reveals that such

po licies could significantly change the outlook for CO 2 

### pipelines. A national carbon policy would create incentives for electric power plants and other industrial facilities to reduce CO 2 

### emissions through carbon capture technologies, improving the economic s for oil production through CO 2 

### - 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 constr ucted. Since NEMS did not build out new pipelines due to the lack of CO 2 

### 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 re port 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 sector s. In particular, i n 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 ass umed 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

si gnificant reduction in energy consumption by the industrial sector. T he P roduction T ax C redit (PTC) and the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for wind and solar were assumed to be extendedA Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 18 indefinitely and an economy

- wide CO 2 

### 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/ton ne (CP25)

The CP25 case assumes a $25/tonne price on CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### - E OR demand, and consequently

in CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

## Price and CO 2 

## Emissions Results

The price of CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### price begi ns 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 CO 2 Price under the Cap40 and CP 25 scenarios



### As the price per tonne of CO 2 

### increases, the amounts of CO 2 

### emissions decrease in each case.

Exhibit 18 shows that the Cap40 reduces CO 2 

### emissions at a greater rate than the CP25 case, and by 2040, reduces CO 2 

### 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

CP25A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 19 Exhibit 18 CO 2 Emission reductions for all sectors under the Cap40 and CP 25 scenarios



## 4.2.2 CO 2 

## Pipeline Expansion Results

CO 2 

### 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

ar e defined, and Exhibit 19 provides a schematic of the CO 2 

### pipeline infrastructure.

 Direct

– Dedicated pipeline from CO 2 

### source to sink

 Feeder

– Dedicated pipeline from source to transshipment node

 Trunk

- line

– Shared pipeline f rom transshipment node to any other node or sink

 Interstate

– Pipeline that crosses between two states

 Intrastate

– Pipeline that stays within one state

Exhibit 19 CO 2 pipeline schematic



### In the CP25 case, by 2030, EP

- NEMS projec ts over 11,000 miles of new CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

# Annual CO 2 

# Emissions from All Sectors

Cap40

CP25

BAUA Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 20 there are 56 new pipeline segments in use to transport captured CO 2 

### from its source t o 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 sou rces for the CO 2 

### , by 2030, the CP25 case projects a tripling of CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### emissions (94 MM T CO 2 

### ) 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 CO 2 

### , oil prod uction from CO 2 

### - 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 CO 2 

### sequestration, with the balance being stored in underground saline for mations.

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. Additi onally, t here 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 GW s of power plant capacity with capture (about 7 1 GW v s . 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 CO 2 transportation by market s egment (2040)

Cap40 Results

Pipe Type Total Miles % Average Miles Million Tons CO 2 %

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 CO 2 %

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

Interre gional 11,478 53 239 370,276 44

Intraregional 10,018 47 164 470,810 56

6 O f this 32 GW, 5.9 GW is coal

- fired and 26.5 GW is gas

- fired.A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 21 In the Cap40 case, 12

- i nch 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 w ith 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

- i nch pipes are used exclusively in direct connections and a large majorit y (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 CO 2 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

-

Trun k

- 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 CO 2 

### pipeline development costs depend on a number of variables, including length, pipeline diameter, terrain, and other regional variations. However, total cost for a CO 2 

### pipeline project in a given region can be determined by examining a simila r project in the Permian Basin.A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 22 Similar to oil field infrastructure development, capital costs for CO 2 

### pipelines are lowest in the Permian Basin. For example, the 214 mile, 16

- inch Lobos pipeline is expected to cost approximately $300 million. Other announ ced CO 2 

### 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 population s, and less competition among developers capable of undertaking such technically

- demanding work.

Based on recent announcements 7 

### , industry is on the brink of capturing significant volumes of

CO 2 

### from industrial sources, including the 740 million cubic feet per day of industrial CO 2 

### utilized for CO 2 

### - EOR. Using industrial data and published reports, the volume of CO 2 

### 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 cu rrent CO 2 

### 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 differen ce 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. Becau se 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 CO 2 

### carried may be less than a smaller pipel ine (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#overviewA Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 23 Exhibit 22 Inter

- and Int ra s tate 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 Mi les mi 10,278 4,916 15,194

Total CO 2 MMT 1,059 1,181 2,240

Total Tonne

miles MMT

mi 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

Di rect 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 CO 2 MMT 1,960 2,380 4,340

Total Tonne

miles MMT

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

Average Co st/mi ($1000) 624 323 562



### Transportation costs are calculated as the cost to transfer one tonne of CO 2 

### from its origin (capture point) to its terminus. There are only two path options : direct (a dedicated pipeline from origin to terminus ) and shared (wher e several sources of CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 24 Exhibit 23 Transportation C o sts for the Cap40 case



### Unlike the Cap40 case

, which saw similar costs per tonne between the direct and the shared pipelines, the re is a greater difference between the pipeline types in the CP25 case with the median cost of a direct pipeline at $6.38/tonn e 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 throug h them.

Exhibit 25 shows that as the amount of CO 2 

### that is transported increases, there is a notable decrease in costs per MMT of CO 2 

### delivered due to economies of scale.A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 25 Exhibit 25 Transportation cost a s a function of CO 2 throughput



### Despite more miles of pipeline being built in the CP25 case, less CO 2 

### 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 MMB bl s /day of oil produced under the CP25 case, while 1.5 MMB bl s /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 CO 2 

### captured for EOR production comin g from power plants, while the amount of naturally sourced CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### production from power plants over the modeled period.A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 26 Exhibit 26 Oil produced by source for all three cases *

* A pproximately 0.4 tonnes CO 2 /barrel oil



### Regional oil production from EOR in the Cap40 case is dominated by the Southwest, where

n early half of the EO R 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 AmmoniaA Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 27 Exhibit 27 Oil Production by EOR in the Cap40 case



### The regional distribution of CO 2 

### is similar in the CP25 when compared to the Cap40 case, as Exhibit 28 shows, with the Southwe st 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 CoastA Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 28 Exhibit 28 Oil Production by EOR in the CP25 case



### In the Cap40 case, b y 2040, there are 73 new pipeline segments in use for CO 2 

### 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 CO 2



### . Trunk

lines 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 CoastA Review of the CO 2 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 ), b y 2040, there are 107 new pipeline segments in use to transport captured CO 2 

### from its source to a terminal sink (EOR or Saline Storage) . As in the Cap40 case,

t he greatest activity occurs in Texas, where EOR activity in the Permian basin attracts CO 2 

### , and

t runk

- 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 caseA Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 30 Exhibit 31 Power plant pipeline build

- out by 2030 in the $25/ton ne CO 2 , low carbon scenario



## 4.2.3 Rates of Projected P ipeline C onstruction

In the CP25 case, construction through 2030 would more than triple the size of current U.S. CO 2 

### pipeline infr astructure, 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 online 8 

### (i.e., not modeling projections, but actual projects) for construction by the en d of this decade, which would be consistent with the pace of CO 2 

### 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, Dev on
, and Anadarko. Among the most active is Denbury Resources, which recently completed two long

- distance CO 2 

### pipelines

– the Green Pipeline in Louisiana and Texas and the Greencore Pipeline in Wyoming and Montana, totaling roughly 550 miles in length

– bot h 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 CO 2 capture facilities coming on line (e.g., Air Products PCS Nitrogen plant in southern Louisiana, Southern Company’s

i ntegrated 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 CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 31 

# 5 Permitting, Regulations

, and Policies

5.1 Overview

The process of designing and constructing a CO 2 

### pipeli ne 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 CO 2 

### capture

, transportation and utilization ; i t takes between one and two years for a project to navigate the necessary permits for construction to begin on a CO 2 

### pipeline. (10) Much of this time requirement depends on the terrain and location of the pipeline. The majority of CO 2 

### 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 proces s. 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 construction 10



### .

CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### pipeline infrastructu re . Oversight of siting, construction, and operations of CO 2 

### pipelines is largely administered at the state level. State with laws that are specific to CO 2 

### pipelines, EOR and underground storage are varied and generally limited to those regions with CO 2 

### - EO R 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 CO 2 

### transportation pipelines following an inquiry by the Cortez Pipeline Company in 1979. In its ruling, FERC determined that high

- purity CO 2 

### , in this case

used for CO 2 

### - EOR, cannot be con sidered natural gas at the compositional level, and therefor e is not subject to FERC regulation. (13)

Similarly, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) determined that its oversight does not

include CO 2 

### transportation pipelin es 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 CO 2 

### is ultimately transported as a gas (a lthough it is typically in a supercritical liquid phase during transportation). (14)

Following these two decisions

, the U.S. G overnment Accountability Office (GAO) determined that ultimate oversight of CO 2 

### transportation pipeli nes 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 c omm on carrier. See: 30 U.S.C. § 185(r).”A Review of the CO 2 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 CO 2 

### , so its oversight status remains unaddressed following the GAO decision. (15)



## 5.2.2 Safety Oversight

CO 2 

### transportation pi pelines 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 subj ect to state agency oversight (as long as the standards are at least as stringent as the federal rules). (13)

The major risks of a CO 2 

### pipeline incident are prolonged exposure to high CO 2 

### concentrations.
However, o f nearly 2,00 0 h azardous l iquid and CO 2 

### transport pipeline accidental release incidents reported between 2010 and the March, 2015, a total of 21 incidents occurred for CO 2 

### transport pipelines, none of which resulted in either fatality or injury. (16)

While CO 2 

### is not considered a hazardous material by DOT, CO 2 

### 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 pipeli nes, which carr y the highly pressurized CO 2 

### in a liquid phase similar to other hazardous material transportation pipelines.

Smaller CO 2 

### distribution lines, which transport the CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### transportation pipelines. However, the federal government also has no power of eminent domain regarding CO 2 

### pipelines, except when CO 2 

### pipelines are to be built on federal lands. All CO 2 

### 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 it s right of eminent domain if it has declared itself a common
carrier, which deems the CO 2 

### pipeline open to transport for hire by the public. (18) This provision does not limit the carrier to transporting CO 2 

### 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 in centives, including a reduction in its severance tax rate by eighty percent for oil produced from EOR using anthropogenic CO 2



### .



## 5.3.2 Mississippi

The state of Mississippi exercises a more limited use of eminent domain for the construction of

CO 2 

### transportation pi pelines. Eminent domain in this case is reserved for pipelines transporting

CO 2 

### for secondary or tertiary recover of liquid hydrocarbons. (20) Pipelines intended for use in transporting CO 2 

### solely for storage purposes will not be granted eminent domain rights as the rule is currently written.A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 33 

## 5.3.3 Other States

Many states have yet to fully address the issue of CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### pipeline project will be determined by the familiarity of state agencies with proper pipeline regulation. An additional learning curve could appl y 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 pipe line 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 se rves as one example for states in terms of conducting early planning for potential CO 2 

### pipeline projects and thus helping advance CO 2 

### - EOR.



# 6 Conclusions

The bulk of the existing large

- volume CO 2 

### pipelines connect natural sources of CO 2 

### with CO 2 

### - 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 CO 2 

### by industrial facilities, up to

levels that could exceed the scale of CO 2 

### production from natural sources . This is expected to be accompanied by a 12 percent increase in the total miles of CO 2 

### pipeline infrastructure over the period. While these new pipeline projects are primarily for the CO 2 

### - EOR industry, they will provide valuable infrastructure for additi onal utilization of CO 2 

### as well as potential future

transport ation and stor age of CO 2 

### in saline formations.

However, under a U.S. climate policy case (i.e., $25/ton CO 2 

### ), by 2030 the scale of U.S. CO 2 

### pipeline infrastructure is projected to triple to enabl e the delivery of carbon captured by the U.S. power sector to oil fields for CO 2 

### - EOR, and to a lesser extent, for storage in underground saline formations. While this scenario would involve an unprecedented scale

- up of CO 2 

### pipeline infrastructure, the pac e 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 CO 2 

### 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 case s , several states that are projected to site new CO 2 

### pipeline infrastructure by 20 30 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 CO 2 

### pipeline project development and construction

.A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 34 

# 7 Topics for Further Study

7.1 Development of Oversight Authority

Reducing atmospheric carbon emissions with CO 2 

### capture and geologic storage will require a significant expansion of the existing CO 2 

### pipeline network. Early planning for these future CO 2 

### transportation needs will help facilitate this process, as has been done in Wyoming. The large

scale CO 2 

### pipeline systems linking major emission areas, such as the Ohio Valley and its coal

fired power plants, with safe, reliable, large

- scale CO 2 

### storage (or utilization) settings will require large

- scale CO 2 

### pipelines to cross state lines ( often times several state lines ) . As such, a

national or regional CO 2 

### pipeline planning and co ordination system may be required.

One approach could be to establish regional partnerships for developing common models for

CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### p ipeline partnerships could provide technical assistance to individual states and serve as an intermediary between pipeline operators and f ederal, state, and local governments, similar to that of the WPA . Furthermore, a regional CO 2 

### pipeline planning group

c ould provide such assistance, given the unique demographic, land use, terrain, and geologic issues facing each region.A Review of the CO 2 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 Gasi

fication 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/p ublications/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] A pril 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: Ca pitalizing 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 CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 36 11. Falwell, Patrick. State Policy Actions to Ov ercome 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 1 5B §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 Liq uid 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 CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 37 

# Appendix

Exhibit 32 Comprehensive L ist of U.S. CO 2 P ipelines

Scal e 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 Resourc es MS, LA 183 20 360

Sheep Mtn Oxy Permian TX 408 24 590

Shute Creek/Wyoming CO 2 ExxonMobil WY 30 30

- 20 1,220

- 220

Smaller Scale

Distribution Systems Adair Apache TX 15 4 50

Anadarko Powder
River Basin CO 2 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) D akota 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, T X ExxonMobil, et al

. TX 40 14 180

Este II

- to Salt Crk

Field Oxy Permian TX 45 12 130A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 38 Scal e 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 CO 2 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 ExxonMobi l 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 5 0* 12 100*

Slaughter Oxy Permian TX 35 12 130

Sonat Denbury Resources MS 50 18 170

TexOk Chaparral Energy OK 95 6 70

Trans P etco TransPetco TX, OK 110 8 80

Val Verde Oxy Permian TX 83 10 110

W. Texas Trinity CO 2 TX, NM 60 12 80

Wellman Trinity CO 2 TX 25 6 70

White Frost Core Energy, LLC MI 11 6 70

Wyoming CO 2 ExxonMobil WY 112 20 220

Total U

. S

. CO 2 Pipeline Length 4,513

- -

*EstimateA Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 39 Exhibit 33 State

- L evel I nter

- and I ntrastate P ipeline S egments for the Cap40 C aseA Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 40 Exhibit 34 State

- L evel I nter

- and I ntrastate P ipeline S egments for CP25 C aseA Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 41 Exhibit 35 Cumulative CO 2 P ipelines C onstruction

Pipeline

Diameter 2030 2040

CP25 CAP40 CP25 CAP40

Pipel ine 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

T otal 11,062 5,099 21,496 15,194

Number of P ipelines

12 16 11 33 36

16 24 5 54 32

20

- 2 1 2

24 13 1 17 3

36 3 1 4 1

T otal 56 20 109 74

Exhibit 36 T otal M ass of a nthropogenic CO 2 S equestered

Power Sector

CO 2 2015 2030 2040

Million metric

tonnes Ref Cap40 CP25 Ref Cap40 CP25 Ref Cap40 CP25

Sequestered

Power CO 2 3.48 2.89 3.48 6 92 94 6 229 171

Non Sequestered

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

Total Power
CO 2 Emissions 2,078 2,039 1,801 2178 880 837 2199 230 361

Percent Sequestered

CO 2 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 10.4% 11.2% 0.3% 99.6% 47.4%A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 42 Exhibit 37 S equestered A nth ropogenic CO 2 Ca ptured at I ndustrial vs

. P ower S ector S ources

Sequestered Anthropogenic
CO 2 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 CO 2 90.6% 11 80.5% 90.6% 16.7% 99.9% 99.9% 11.8% 96.5% 99.4%

Exhibit 38 Electric C apacity with C arbon S equestration

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. O il P roduction ( MMBbls /day ) A ssociated with CO 2 - EOR, in 2015, 2030, and 2040 (table)

U.S. oil production 2015 2030 2040

Ref Ca p40 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 CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.



### 43 Exhibit 40 U.S. oil production ( MMBbls /day) associated with CO 2 - 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 48www.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