Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

REVIEW article

Front. Mar. Sci.

Sec. Ocean Solutions

Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fmars.2025.1457489

This article is part of the Research TopicGovernance of Ocean Carbon Capture and Storage: Interdisciplinary [Social Science] PerspectivesView all 3 articles

Multi-system analysis of offshore geologic carbon storage: a review of open-source data science solutions

Provisionally accepted
MacKenzie  Mark-MoserMacKenzie Mark-Moser1*Jennifer  BauerJennifer Bauer1Abigail  MartinAbigail Martin1,2Paige  MorknerPaige Morkner1Lucy  RomeoLucy Romeo1,2Kelly  RoseKelly Rose1
  • 1National Energy Technology Laboratory, Albany, United States
  • 2Leidos Research Support Team, Albany, United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Geologic carbon storage projects are maturing worldwide and the footprint of deployment in the offshore is expanding. At present, there are ten projects in operation or that have been completed, more than 50 in construction and development, and dozens of characterization studies completed or underway. Offshore geologic carbon storage offers potential benefits over onshore geologic carbon storage. Offshore projects are generally remote in location, distant from population centers, and avoid complicated pore space rights while having abundant prospective storage potential. Some offshore fields targeted for carbon storage have comparatively fewer prior borehole penetrations except for areas that have been explored for petroleum production, minimizing potential issues such as pressure interference and infrastructure impacts. Yet offshore geologic carbon storage projects face distinctive technical and economic challenges, such as seafloor geohazards, maritime transport, and ocean conditions that can damage infrastructure and impact operations. Analytical capabilities and improved computational speeds have advanced engineering, earth and energy sciences in the wake of the arrival of modern data science over the last decade. These advancements have created an opportunity for integrated, multi-systems modeling approaches utilizing artificial intelligence and machine learning that are no longer limited by computational issues. Analytical tools developed alongside this advancement in data science can be leveraged to calibrate the advantages and challenges of carbon storage operations in the offshore. New approaches that incorporate data science to analyze multiple aspects of engineered and natural systems can provide insights that complement the characterization and onsite engineering that traditional commercial and operational software addresses. These approaches can potentially improve the outcome of energy operations and carbon storage. Providing multi-system, science-driven data analytics enhances the knowledge base that offshore developers, operators, and regulatory bodies may draw from to improve offshore site selection and operational efficiency. We provide a brief synopsis of geologic carbon storage efforts to date, an overview of the engineered and natural systems involved in offshore geologic carbon storage, and a review of publicly available, open-source, offshore and/or carbon storage related data- and science-driven tools developed by 2010 or later that are suitable for screening and assessing regions for offshore geologic carbon storage.

Keywords: AI/ML, offshore, data science, Geologic carbon storage, Technoeconomic, Resource analysis, subsurface

Received: 30 Jun 2024; Accepted: 21 Oct 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Mark-Moser, Bauer, Martin, Morkner, Romeo and Rose. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: MacKenzie Mark-Moser, mackenzie.mark-moser@netl.doe.gov

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.