Health
Does Denmark Really Want Onshore CO2 Storage?
Less than a year ago, we published an article about what was supposed to be Europe's first full-scale, commercial onshore CO2 storage project, aimed to be operational next year. But a few months ago, the future of the Stenlille project in Denmark began to look far less certain.
As part of a round of license awards for future carbon storage projects onshore Denmark, the Stenlille project did not receive a storage license. The news has not attracted much media attention, but we came across it while reading a LinkedIn post by the Danish company CCUS Partners.
So, what is going on?
It has proven difficult to obtain more information about the reasons why the license was not granted, leaving us to piece together the few facts available and draw some hypotheses.
What is Stenlille?
Stenlille was a rather unusual storage project from the start, because the site is also used for natural gas storage in the crest of a domal structure. The plan was to inject CO2 into the Jurassic Gassum Formation on the northeast flank of this dome, with reservoir simulations predicting that it would take more than 50 years for the CO2 to ultimately migrate toward and "meet" the gas storage area. At the same time, because the site has already been used for gas storage for many years, the sealing capacity of the overlying Jurassic Fjerritslev Formation can be considered tested and confirmed.
The project was no longer in its initial phase. As mentioned, the first injection was planned for next year or 2026, two CO2 suppliers had been lined up, and detailed engineering studies had already begun.
Why Was the License Not Awarded?
How is it possible that the license was not granted? Is the regulator to blame for a change of direction, or did the companies and institutes behind the project move too quickly? A case can be made for both arguments.
If the most recent reservoir modeling work performed by Gas Storage Denmark had not changed any of its conclusions regarding CO2 migration toward the gas storage site, it is possible that the authorities ultimately took a more stringent stance than stakeholders might have expected. One comment on LinkedIn suggests something along these lines.
At the same time, further study by the future operators could have altered the scenarios. In the article we published last year, the authors noted that new seismic data had been acquired to shed more light on the Gassum Formation reservoir in the northeast flank, because existing 3D data only partly covered the area of interest. If that is the case, it seems odd that the project appeared to be moving ahead even without the latest data being available to confirm that the northeast flank was indeed the best candidate.
_jpg%2011.jpg)
