A google search which you have done shows that there have been many LCA's on CO2-EOR over the years. All of these draw the boundaries of analysis in different places and are difficult to compare. I am no expert but it is a subject of much dispute.
The below is another LCA completed in 2019:
https://www.osti.gov/pages/biblio/1493096
"The results showed that all CO2-EOR evaluated scenarios start operating with a negative carbon footprint and, years into the project, transitioned into operating with a positive carbon footprint. The transition points were significantly different in each scenario. "
"For blue hydrogen, decarbonization of the power supply (for 2050, we assume 86% renewable share, 90% including nuclear) also allows for significant emissions reduction: hydrogen from natural gas with 98% CCS capture rate using ATR technology will achieve life-cycle emissions comparable to 100% solar powered electrolysis when the ATR is powered with fully decarbonized energy."
"Results from life-cycle assessments of GHG emission for hydrogen supply shows that natural gas with CCS and renewable power for water electrolysis can achieve low and marginal well-touse GHG emissions, including end-of-life, respectively. For fossil primary energies with CCS, a number of requirements must be met, namely sweet natural gas sources, highest capture rates (98% assumed in the eight illustrative pathways), as well as best available technologies and operational practices."
Air products have announced they will use ATR (Auto-Thermal Reforming) which enables this 98% percentage carbon capture....
