Geoffrey C. Maitland

The recent rise in global shale gas production rates has renewed interest in making extraction more efficient. Enhanced recovery using CO2 injection can be a potential solution and achieve two simultaneous benefits: more CH4 recovery and secure CO2 storage. This would be accomplished by displacing CH4 in the shale reservoir by exploiting the preferential adsorption of CO2 on the shale surface. To properly assess the potential of enhanced recovery, a robust understanding of the Gas-in-Place (GIP) and the factors that influence it is required. In this study, high pressure adsorption measurements with CO2 and CH4 have been performed on two shales, the Longmaxi and the Marcellus shales, using a Rubotherm Magnetic Suspension Balance. To further evaluate the effect of shale composition on adsorption, the same measurements have been performed on a synthetic mesoporous carbon. The three sets of adsorption isotherms have been used to compute the GIP at subsurface conditions. The agreement between the shales and the mesoporous carbon data suggests that shale’s mesoporosity drives shale gas storage and that the organic matter is the main influence on gas adsorption capacities in shales.

In a study designed to investigate the melting behaviour of natural gas hydrates which are usually formed in porous mineral sediments rather than in bulk, hydrate phase equilibria for binary methane and water mixtures were studied using high-pressure differential scanning calorimetry in mesoporous and macroporous silica particles having controlled pore sizes ranging from 8.5 nm to 195.7 nm. A dynamic oscillating temperature method was used to form methane hydrates reproducibly and then determine their decomposition behaviour—melting points and enthalpies of melting. Significant decreases in dissociation temperature were observed as the pore size decreased (over 6 K for 8.5 nm pores). This behaviour is consistent with the Gibbs–Thomson equation, which was used to determine hydrate–water interfacial energies. The melting data up to 50 MPa indicated a strong, essentially logarithmic, dependence on pressure, which here has been ascribed to the pressure dependence of the interfacial energy in the confined media. An empirical modification of the Gibbs–Thomson equation is proposed to include this effect.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is broadly recognised as having the potential to play a key role in meeting climate change targets, delivering low carbon heat and power, decarbonising industry and, more recently, its ability to facilitate the net removal of CO₂ from the atmosphere. However, despite this broad consensus and its technical maturity, CCS has not yet been deployed on a scale commensurate with the ambitions articulated a decade ago. Thus, in this paper we review the current state-of-the-art of CO₂ capture, transport, utilisation and storage from a multi-scale perspective, moving from the global to molecular scales. In light of the COP21 commitments to limit warming to less than 2 °C, we extend the remit of this study to include the key negative emissions technologies (NETs) of bioenergy with CCS (BECCS), and direct air capture (DAC). Cognisant of the non-technical barriers to deploying CCS, we reflect on recent experience from the UK's CCS commercialisation programme and consider the commercial and political barriers to the large-scale deployment of CCS. In all areas, we focus on identifying and clearly articulating the key research challenges that could usefully be addressed in the coming decade.

This paper aims to pull together the main points, messages and underlying themes to emerge from the Discussion. It sets these remarks in the context of where Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) fits into the spectrum of carbon mitigation solutions required to meet the challenging greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets set by the COP21 climate change conference. The Discussion focused almost entirely on carbon capture (21 out of 23 papers) and covered all the main technology contenders for this except biological processes. It included (chemical) scientists and engineers in equal measure and the Discussion was enriched by the broad content and perspectives this brought. The major underlying theme to emerge was the essential need for closer integration of materials and process design – the use of isolated materials performance criteria in the absence of holistic process modelling for design and optimisation can be misleading. Indeed, combining process and materials simulation for reverse materials molecular engineering to achieve the required process performance and cost constraints is now within reach and is beginning to make a significant impact on optimising CCS and CCU (CO ₂ utilisation) processes in particular, as it is on materials science and engineering generally. Examples from the Discussion papers are used to illustrate this potential. The take-home messages from a range of other underpinning research themes key to CCUS are also summarised: new capture materials, materials characterisation and screening, process innovation, membranes, industrial processes, net negative emissions processes, the effect of GHG impurities, data requirements, environment sustainability and resource management, and policy. Some key points to emerge concerning carbon transport, utilisation and storage are also included, together with some overarching conclusions on how to develop more energy- and cost-effective CCS processes through improved integration of approach across the science-engineering spectrum. The discussion was first-rate in the best traditions of Faraday Discussions and hopefully will foster and stimulate further cross-disciplinary interactions and holistic approaches.