Journals →  Gornyi Zhurnal →  2022 →  #8 →  Back

ArticleName Ecologo-economic assessment of burial technologies for greenhouse gas emissions in underground geological spaces
DOI 10.17580/gzh.2022.08.13
ArticleAuthor Potravny I. M., Yashalova N. N.

Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, Moscow, Russia:

I. M. Potravny, Professor, Doctor of Economic Sciences,


Cherepovets State University, Cherepovets, Russia:

N. N. Yashalova, Doctor of Economic Sciences


In view of the available essential storage resources and capacities to reduce carbon footprint, Russia considers prospects for application of projects and technologies connected with burial of greenhouse gas emissions in underground geological spaces as low-carbon economy develops. The scope of the analysis embraces approaches and technologies on reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, including enhancement of energy efficiency of economy, use of renewable energy sources, utilization of solid domestic waste in power generation and arrangement of carbon fields for carbon dioxide sorption by forests and landscapes. The prerequisites and constraints of using the CCUS technologies are identified. Regarding burial of greenhouse gas emissions, the constraints include high expenses and the absence of the effective maintenance and control. For the assessment of the attractiveness and efficiency of carbon emission management projects, the article discusses benefits of increased oil recovery due to reservoir performance stimulation by carbon dioxide injection, greenhouse emission quotas and imposition of carbon tax. The ecological and economic efficiency of carbon emission management and burial project is illustrated in the context of climate change and energy transition. It is suggested to measure carbon footprint per economy sectors connected with greenhouse gas emissions (power generation, metallurgy, mining, etc.) with a view to promoting carbon neutrality of production on the basis of specific cost of reduction and management of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as from calculation of possible loss and damage because of greenhouse gas emissions and climate changes. 

The study was supported by the Russian Science Foundation, Project No. 21-18-00500 Institutional Engineering of Monotowns in the Arctic—Modernization and Sustainable Development.

keywords Low-carbon development, greenhouse gas emissions, underground geological space, CCUS technologies, ecologo-economic assessment

1. Yashalova N. N., Vasiltsov V. S., Potravny I. M. Decarbonization of ferrous metallurgy: objectives and regulatory instruments. Chernye Metally. 2020. No. 8. pp. 70–75.
2. Gibbins J., Chalmers H. Carbon capture and storage. Energy Policy. 2008. Vol. 36, Iss. 12. pp. 4317–4322.
3. Kai Jiang, Ashworth P., Shiyi Zhang, Xi Liang, Yan Sun et al. China’s carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) policy: A critical review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2020. Vol. 119. 109601. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.109601
4. Kuznetsova E. A., Cherepovitsina A. A. Carbon dioxide utilization and circular economy: the World, Russia and the Arctic. Sever i rynok: formirovanie ekonomicheskogo poryadka. 2021. No. 4. pp. 42–55.
5. Kai Jiang, Ashworth P., Shiyi Zhang, Guoping Hu. Print media representations of carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) technology in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2022. Vol. 155. 111938. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.111938
6. Potravny I. M., Yashalova N. N., Gassiy V. V., Chavez Ferreyra K. Y. The project approach for managing the environmentally oriented development of the regional economy. Ekonomika regiona. 2019. Vol. 15, No. 3. pp. 806–821.
7. Pollak M., Phillips S. J., Vajjhala S. Carbon capture and storage policy in the United States: A new coalition endeavors to change existing policy. Global Environmental Change. 2011. Vol. 21, Iss. 2. pp. 313–323.
8. Carbon Capture and Storage: A WEC Interim Balance. London : World Energy Council, 2007. 36 p.
9. Kai Jiang, Ashworth P., Shiyi Zhang, Xi Liang, Yan Sun et al. China’s carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) policy: A critical review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2020. Vol. 119. 109601. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.109601
10. Pereverzeva S. A., Konosavskiy P. K., Tudvachev A. V., Kharkhordin I. L. Disposal of carbon dioxide industrial emissions in geological structures. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Ser. 7. Geology, Geography. 2014. No. 1. pp. 5–21.
11. Ilinova A., Romasheva N., Cherepovitsyn A. CC(U)S Initiatives: Public Effects and «Combined Value» Performance. Resources. 2021. Vol. 10, Iss. 6. 61. DOI: 10.3390/resources10060061
12. Ferguson R. C., Nichols C., Leeuwen T. V., Kuuskraa V. A. Storing CO2 with enhanced oil recovery. Energy Procedia. 2009. Vol. 1, Iss. 1. pp. 1989–1996.
13. Yawen Zheng, Lin Gao, Sheng Li, Dan Wang. A comprehensive evaluation model for fullchain CCUS performance based on the analytic hierarchy process method. Energy. 2022. Vol. 239. 122033. DOI: 10.1016/
14. Hammond G. P., Ondo Akwe S. S., Williams S. Techno-economic appraisal of fossil-fueled power generation systems with carbon dioxide capture and storage. Energy. 2011. Vol. 36, Iss. 2. pp. 975–984.
15. McMahon J. Will Congress Supercharge 45Q—The Carbon-Capture Tax Credit — Or Scrap It? 2021. Available at: (accessed: 19.04.2022).
16. Ilinova A., Kuznetsova E. CC(U)S initiatives: Prospects and economic efficiency in a circular economy. Energy Reports. 2022. Vol. 8, Suppl. 1. pp. 1295–1301.
17. Vasiltsov V. S., Yashalova N. N., Novikov A. V. Climate and environmental risks in the development of arctic coastal territories. Arktika: ekologiya i ekonomika. 2021. Vol. 11, No. 3. pp. 341–352.
18. Bogoyavlenskiy V. I., Kishankov A. V., Kazanin A. G., Kazanin G. A. Dangerous gas-saturated objects in the World Ocean: The East Siberian Sea. Arktika: ekologiya i ekonomika. 2022. Vol. 12, No. 2. pp. 158–171.

Language of full-text russian
Full content Buy