ccj12:layout 1 16/11/2009 12:33 page 1 canada carbon...

Nov / Dec 2009 Issue 12

Global CCS Institute status report

UK policy - on the pathway to clean coal?

Calix - carbon capture for less than €15 per ton?

CO2 Capture Project - research conclusions published

Ineris - towards a framework for CCS risk assessment

CCS progress inCanada - Alberta Government- Enhance Energy ACTL project- Shell Quest project- TransAlta Project Pioneer

Carbon Capture andStorage Association - what next for CCS?

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:33

www.senergyworld.com

Your answer to carbon storage

is here

Over 400 leading geological, geophysical, reservoir engineering and well engineering consultants across more than 15 international locations, engineering the smart solutions to your carbon storage challenges.

Senergy - results driven by Brainergy®

Site selection, injectivity, storage capacity, reservoir integrity, flow/phase studies, storage simulation, enhanced hydrocarbon recovery, monitoring, facilities requirements, commercial services.

United Kingdom Ireland Norway United Arab Emirates Malaysia Australia New Zealand

Oil & Gas Survey & GeoEngineering Alternative Energy Technology Training Investments

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:33

Contents

Global CCS Institute releases two major studiesThe Global Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Institute has released a report,‘Strategic Analysis of the Global Status of Carbon Capture and Storage,’ which showsthat despite progress more demonstration projects are urgently needed. It alsoengaged L.E.K. Consulting to research and propose a theoretical ‘Ideal Portfolio’ ofCCS projects, as well as a rationale for supporting projects.

CCP publishes research conclusionsThe CO2 Capture Project (CCP), a partnership of eight oil & gas majors, recentlypresented the findings from the last five years of work to world energy andenvironmental ministers attending the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum inLondon (12-14 October). By Iain Wright, CO2 Capture Project (CCP)

UK policy - on the pathway to clean coal?The UK government has released a series of policy statements designed to speed upplanning permissions and clarify the requirements for CCS in coal fired power plants.Is it enough?

Nov/Dec 2009 Issue 12

Carbon Capture Journal213 Marsh Wall, London, E14 9FJ, UKwww.carboncapturejournal.comTel +44 (0)207 510 4935Fax +44 (0)207 510 2344

EditorKeith [email protected]

PublisherKarl [email protected]

[email protected]

Advertising and SponsorshipAlec EganTel +44 (0)203 051 [email protected]

Calix – a carbon capture breakthroughCalix Limited has developed a new Calcium Looping technology that may capture carbondioxide at less than €15/tonne. Applications are being developed for power station orcement works retrofit, hydrogen generation from coal or lignite, and for new powergeneration plant based on an IGCC cycle. By Brian Sweeney and Mark Sceats, Calix

E.ON and Siemens begin CO2 capture pilot in GermanyE.ON and Siemens are starting up a pilot CO2 capture plant at the E.ON power plantStaudinger in Grosskrotzenburg near Hanau, Germany

10

5

21

13

2

CCS advances in CanadaAlberta’s Quest and Pioneer projects have now moved to grant agreement stage andAlberta has recently signed letters of intent with the two proponents for funding fromits $2B (Cdn) CCS commitment

Enhance Energy – ACTL ProjectEnhance Energy’s Alberta Carbon Trunk Line (ACTL) will be the first commercial, large-scale carbon capture and storage project in the province, which is expected to storemore carbon than any other CCS project in the world

Shell Quest Project - CCS in the oilsandsShell, on behalf of the Athabasca Oil Sands Project, a joint venture among Shell Canada(60 per cent), Chevron Canada Limited (20 per cent) and Marathon Oil Sands L.P. 20 percent), is advancing the Shell Quest project, which would capture, transport and storeCO2 from the Scotford Upgrader in Alberta

Carbon Capture and Storage Association - what next for CCS?2009 has been an important year for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), and theattention given to the importance of the technology has certainly stepped up a notch,with developments both on the regulatory and funding side, as well as a growingnumber of announcements to develop large-scale projects around the world

Projects and policy

Capture

Leaders

Carbon capture journal (Print) ISSN 1757-1995Carbon capture journal (Online) ISSN 1757-2509

1Nov - Dec 2009 - carbon capture journal

Carbon Capture Journal is your one stopinformation source for new technicaldevelopments, opinion, regulatory andresearch activity with carbon capture,transport and storage.

Carbon Capture Journal is delivered on printand pdf version to a total of 5400 people, allof whom have requested to receive it,including employees of power companies,oil and gas companies, government,engineering companies, consultants,educators, students, and suppliers.

Subscriptions: £195 a year for 6 issues. Tosubscribe, please contact Karl Jeffery [email protected] you can subscribe online at www.d-e-j.com/store

Front cover: Canada and Alberta Governments Invest inMajor Carbon Capture and Storage ProjectFrom left toright: TheHonourableMel Knight,AlbertaEnergyMinister, theHonourableLisa Raitt, Canada's Minister of NaturalResources, and Graham Boyle, Shell CanadaV.P., at the official signing of a letter of intentfor investments in the Quest carbon captureand storage project near Edmonton, Alberta

25

4

Transport and storage

22

12

Towards a framework for CCS risk assessmentThe main objective of this paper is to present a systematic and conceptual frameworkof risk assessment methodology for underground CO2 storage. By F.Lahaie andR.Farret, Ineris, France and P.Bumb, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur

New research at CO2CRC Otway ProjectNew research on deep saline storage will soon be underway at the CO2CRC OtwayProject, Australia’s only CO2 geosequestration research and demonstration facility

19

8

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:34 Page 1

Alberta, a leading North American energy producer, is emerging as a global leader in advancing thescience of large-scale carbon capture and storage projects. The province has recently signed letters ofintent with two proponents for funding from its $2B (Cdn) CCS commitment.By The Honourable Mel Knight, Minister of Energy, Alberta

Shell’s Quest project – which is owned byShell Canada, Chevron Canada andMarathon Oil Sands L.P. – signed a letter ofintent in October to receive $745 millionfrom the province of Alberta.

The Government of Canada is also in-vesting $120 million through its Clean Ener-gy Fund in the $1.35 billion project.

The Quest project is expected to cap-ture 1.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide an-nually starting in 2015 from Shell’s Scotfordupgrader and new expansion east of Edmon-ton.

A letter of intent has also been signedwith TransAlta Corporation and its partnersCapital Power and Alstom for Project Pio-neer at the Keephills 3 plant west of Edmon-ton. Alberta’s investment in the retrofit ofthis coal-fired electricity plant is $431 mil-lion from the CCS fund and an additional $5million will be provided to support front-endengineering and design.

The Government of Canada is also con-tributing $343 million for this projectthrough the Clean Energy Fund and the fed-eral econENERGY Technology Initiative.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Al-berta Premier Ed Stelmach recently made thejoint announcement at the plant.

TransAlta’s Project Pioneer is expectedto sequester one million tonnes of CO2 an-nually starting in 2015 and could be a cata-lyst for CCS implementation at coal-firedelectricity plants around the world.

It is clear that both the province of Al-berta and the Canadian federal governmentsee carbon capture and storage technologyas a leading solution to greenhouse gas emis-sion reduction. It is also clear that CCS tech-nology has application in a variety of indus-tries. The Quest project will help with up-grading emissions of oil sands bitumen whileProject Pioneer will be one of the world’sfirst retrofitted coal-fired electricity plants.

Both of these projects plan to use someof the captured CO2 for enhanced oil recov-ery projects (EOR), which is ideal for Alber-ta and for Albertans. Enhanced oil recoveryhelps produce oil from conventional wellsdrawing from tapped-into reservoirs. EOR

uses pressure to help increase productionduring secondary or tertiary recovery and forAlberta, it means increased production andincreased revenues.

Alberta’s investment in the technologyis also an investment in our economy as itwill provide many jobs during the construc-tion phase and will provide many peoplewith a specialized knowledge that can thenbe shared with others.

It’s important to note that the projectproponents are also making a tremendous fi-nancial investment in these projects. Ourfunding formula provides up to a maximumof 75 per cent of the total incremental coststo capture, transport and store the CO2.

A maximum of up to 40 per cent of theapproved funding will be distributed duringthe design and construction stage based onachieved milestones and up to an additional20 per cent of the approved funding will begranted once commercial operation begins.The remaining 40 per cent of the fundingwill be paid as CO2 is captured and stored

over a maximum period of 10 years.The next step in the process is for the

project proponents to sign funding grantagreements.

We are in discussion with other projectproponents for letters of intent to access theremaining funds from the $2-billion commit-ment made in the summer of 2008. I am con-fident announcements of those projects willbe made in the very near future.

Alberta, like every other jurisdiction inthe world, has not been immune from theglobal economic downturn. You may haveheard that for the first time in more than adecade our province ran a deficit budget.That has not stopped us from pursuing ourcommitment to clean energy and we seeCCS as one of many technologies which willhelp us on the path forward. We are commit-ted to the science of solutions.

To learn more about Alberta’s CCS ex-perience, monitor our progress and readabout Alberta’s commitment, visitwww.energy.alberta.ca.

Leaders

2 carbon capture journal - Nov - Dec 2009

Alberta’s Quest and Pioneer projects move

to grant agreement stage

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is joined by TransAlta CEO Stephen Snyder and Alberta PremierEd Stelmach as he looks at schematics for Project Pioneer

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:34 Page 2

Providing Global Solutions for CO2 Capture

HTC PURENERGY

Suite 150 – 10 Research Drive Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 7J7

Jeff Allison: [email protected]

Asia Pacific: Sydney, Australia John Hanson: [email protected]

United States: Montgomery Center, Vermont John Osborne: [email protected]

www.htcenergy.com TSX-V: HTC

C a n a d a ’ s N a t i o n a l C h a m p i o n

Purenergy CCS™ CO2 Capture System

“The world’s first

pre-engineered

modular

CO2 Capture System

sequestering CO2

from power plants

for enhanced oil

recovery (EOR).”

enePuranaC

CCSgy erNs’ad

Ca2O C™Sanoita

SyeapturmahCl

ystemnoipm

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:35 Page 3

carbon capture journal - Nov - Dec 20094

Leaders

will encompass drying and compression fa-cilities at the north end in the IndustrialHeartland; delivery facilities at the south endof the system, which will distribute the CO2to conventional oil and gas fields in the area;and a high vapour pressure pipeline betweenthe source and the delivery points.

The initial leg of the ACTL will be 240kilometres in length and the pipe will be 40.6centimetres in diameter. Over time, laterallegs extending south, west, and east will al-low for multiple entry and exit pointsthroughout the system.

The system will initially gather, com-press, and store 15,000 tonnes of carbon perday. At full capacity, it will gather, compressand store 40,000 tonnes of carbon per day or14.6 million tonnes per year. “The projectcould potentially store more than 2 billiontonnes of carbon,” says Cole.

Enhance says it will ramp up additionalsupplies over time. “We expect it will takeanywhere from ten to 15 years to get to fullcapacity because of the current shortage ofpure CO2,” explains Cole.

“Our current supplies of CO2 are purehowever, subsequent supplies will need to becleaned up because they will be coming fromdifferent types of industry like power, petro-chemicals, and oilsands upgraders and we arereliant on more CO2 supplies becomingavailable over time.”

Enhance says the combined total cost ofthe trunk line and the associated EOR proj-ects is in the range of CAD $600 million; theinitial cost of capturing and transporting theCO2 will be CAD $300 million with the EORstorage component costing another CAD$300 million.

The initial suppliers of high purity CO2to the ATCL are expected to be North WestUpgrading Inc. and Agrium Inc. NWU is anindependent merchant upgrader using gasifi-cation technology which is fully permittedand approved for construction and is expect-ed to be fully operational in 2013.

Agrium, a fertilizer facility which pro-duces CO2 as a by-product from its ammo-nia production, is located just outside of Red-water. The total volume from NWU andAgrium is expected to be 5,100 tonnes of car-bon per day. Enhance will construct and op-erate the capturing facilities at NWU andAgrium where these pure carbon streams willbe compressed and build the pipeline system.

Enhance Energy’s founder and president, Su-san Cole, P. Eng., has almost a decade ofCCS and enhanced oil recovery experiencemaking her highly qualified to lead Enhanceon their ACTL project.

“Prior to starting up Enhance Energy, Iwas the manager of the Weyburn CO2 De-velopment project for five years and I spentthree years at EnCana managing theirAthabasca Oil Business Unit where we fo-cused on water flooding and polymer flood-ing of the Pelican Lake heavy oil pool,” saysCole.

Overview of the ACTL projectThe ACTL project will incorporate carbondioxide capture, transportation, enhanced oilrecovery, and storage in Alberta’s IndustrialHeartland and south-central Alberta.

Enhance will construct and operate theACTL, which is part of a larger project in-volving the storage of CO2 and EOR proj-ects. The system will gather, transport, anddistribute CO2 from the Alberta IndustrialHeartland, just east of Edmonton and southof Redwater, to the oil production fields justeast of Clive, Alberta.

The ACTL project will consist of con-structing a pipeline distribution system that

Fairborne Connection and EORIn Alberta, one of four provinces in the West-ern Canadian Sedimentary Basin in westernCanada, many reservoirs have been depletedsuch that production is at a minimum andabandonment might well be the next step un-less enhanced oil recovery methods can re-vitalize them.

Enhance has signed an agreement withFairborne Energy Trust to jointly develop aCO2 EOR project at two of their oilfieldsnear Clive. Where Enhance will operate thepipeline, Fairborne will operate the EOR fa-cilities.

EOR with injected CO2 is a commonpractice in oilfields, having been used formore than 30 years. However, Cole saysthere is currently a shortage of high purityCO2 needed for EOR. “When the requiredsupplies of high purity CO2 become avail-able, approximately 1.1 billion barrels of in-cremental oil reserves could be recoveredprimarily through CO2 injection in southernAlberta.”

Environmental Benefits and Benefits tothe Oilsands Sector – The capture and trans-mission of CO2 through the ACTL will con-tribute to decreasing overall emissions in Al-berta by storing CO2 after EOR operationsare complete. “A typical car emits 5.6tonnes of GHG emissions per year. With the

Enhance Energy – ACTL ProjectEnhance Energy’s Alberta Carbon Trunk Line (ACTL) will be the first commercial, large-scale carboncapture and storage project in the province, which is expected to store more carbon than any other CCSproject in the world.

“Everyone at Enhance Energy is lookingforward to working on this first-of-its-kindCCS project and to becoming part of the CCSmovement in Alberta” - Susan Cole, EnhanceEnergy’s founder and president

Enhance Energy specialises in enhanced oilrecovery using CO2

CCJ12:Layout 1 23/11/2009 17:11 Page 4

road. “By constructing our pipeline along-side CP’s railroad right of way, we minimiz-ing disturbance of the land and avoid envi-ronmentally sensitive areas,” says Cole.

Enhance submitted its application toconstruct the pipeline to Alberta’s EnergyResources Conservation Board on March 23,2009 and is expecting to receive approval bysometime in the first quarter of 2010.

Depending on the timing of regulatoryapproval, construction of the pipeline and fa-cilities could begin in 2010 with start-upsometime in 2012.

www.enhanceenergy.comwww.fairborne-energy.com

Nov - Dec 2009 - carbon capture journal 5

Leaders

Shell Quest is a fully integrated CCS project.It would capture and store up to 1.2 milliontonnes of CO2 per year from the ScotfordUpgrader and from the Scotford UpgraderExpansion, now under construction.

The CO2 would be captured from theScotford steam methane reformer units,which produce hydrogen for upgrading bitu-men.

The CO2 would then be transported bypipeline to an injection location near theScotford Complex and stored approximately2,300 metres underground in a deep geologi-cal formation. The CO2 could also be madeavailable for use in enhanced oil recoveryprojects on a commercial basis.

Project StatusIn late 2008 and early 2009, Shell drilled twotest wells near the Scotford Upgrader as partof a CCS appraisal program co-funded by theAlberta Energy Research Institute. The re-sults of this program will help determine po-tential locations for Quest CCS Project CO2injection sites.

Several additional years of work are stillneeded to inform a final capital investmentdecision on Quest. That investment decisionwill ultimately depend on a range of factors,including the outcome of a structured consul-tation process, the results of appraisal activi-ties and detailed integrated studies, as wellas the ability to meet all regulatory require-ments.

Construction would only begin after allof these aspects have been addressed success-fully, with the aim to start operations in 2015.

Development planShell is developing Quest in four stages:Preliminary project development

This includes locating deep, sub-surface geo-logical formations in which injected CO2 canbe stored.Project development

Shell will continue to advance developmentwork, consult with the public and prepare de-tailed engineering designs and plans, incor-porating public input. Regulatory and internal approvals

Shell will seek regulatory approvals from theGovernment of Alberta, investment approvalfrom the Athabasca Oil Sands Project own-

ers and satisfy its own internal governanceprocess. Construction

If all approvals are received with satisfactoryconditions, construction would take approxi-mately three years, and could be followed byproject commissioning and start-up approxi-mately three to five years later.

Project componentsCapture:

Shell is proposing to install facilities at Scot-ford that would capture CO2 from all threeof the Upgrader’s hydrogen plants. The hy-drogen plants combine steam and natural gas

Hydrogen Manufacturing Unit Location of Quest capturefacilities

Upgrader base plant

Refinery

Upgrader Expansion

Shell, on behalf of the Athabasca Oil Sands Project, a joint venture among Shell Canada (60 per cent),Chevron Canada Limited (20 per cent) and Marathon Oil Sands L.P. (20 per cent), is advancing the ShellQuest project, which would capture, transport and store CO2 from the Scotford Upgrader in Alberta.

Aerial view of the Quest site

amount of CO2 that we will be storing, itwill be the equivalent of removing 2.6 mil-lion cars off the road in Alberta annually.That’s about a third of all registered vehiclesin the province,” says Cole.

CCS in the oilsandsThe benefits of the ACTL to oilsands opera-tors will be immense. Cole says these LargeFinal Emitters will finally have a viable op-tion to store their CO2 emissions which willdramatically help them lower their emissionsand meet Alberta’s new emissions targets.

“We are fortunate we have the right ge-ology in Alberta to produce oil and managethe CO2 emissions from upgrading oilsands

in the same place. So we can develop ouroilsands in a sustainable manner with a lowCO2 footprint while also increasing conven-tional oil production.”

“It is an economic and environmentalwin for Alberta when we are able to storeCO2. Studies show the CO2 footprint of theAlberta oilsands with a CCS solution wouldbe in line with any conventional light oil pro-duction that we have in this region,” saysCole.

Building the pipelineEnhance is also working with Canadian Pa-cific so the company can construct thepipeline along the right of way of CP’s rail-

Shell Quest Project - CCS in the oilsands

CCJ12:Layout 1 23/11/2009 17:11 Page 5

Leaders

CO2 Storage - Geology for Engineers (ref:K1732)Thursday 4th March 2010This short course is designed for Engineers and Managers with limited or no previous geological knowledge. The aim is to provide an up-to-date introduction of the geological and geophysical aspects of CO2 Storage.

Risk & Uncertainty in the Geological Storage of CO2 (ref:K1733)Friday 5th March 2010This course introduces risk management techniques and explores uncertainties associated with the geological storage of CO2. It builds upon the previous course, Geology for Engineers, by examining the behaviour of CO2 in the subsurface and how this information is used to estimate properties of the storage site such as capacity.

One Day Short Courses Thursday 4th and Friday 5th March 2010

Scottish Centre for Carbon Storage

www.erp.ac.uk/sccs

Location: Raeburn Room, Old College, EdinburghMap: http://tinyurl.com/Raeburn-RoomFor further information visit: www.erp.ac.uk/sccs/cpd/

(methane) to produce hydrogen used for up-grading, and concentrated CO2, which is ide-al for CO2 capture. Transportation:The liquid CO2 would be transported bypipeline from the Scotford Upgrader to theinjection location(s), which have yet to be se-lected but which would be at a distance of be-tween 10 kilometres and 60 kilometres fromScotford. The pipeline would run northeastfrom Scotford and would follow existingright of ways to the greatest extent possibleand would be designed and constructed to thelatest technical and safety specifications.

The pipeline system could be extendedto supply CO2 for third-party enhanced oilrecovery depending on the outcome of com-mercial discussions.Storage:Shell proposes to inject the CO2 deep under-ground into a geological formation known asthe Cambrian Basal Sands at a depth of 2,000– 2,500 metres. This for mation is deeper thanthe oil and gas deposits in the area and isroughly 2,000 metres below any freshwateraquifers.

The injection sites are anticipated to bewithin 60 kilometres of the Scotford Com-plex.Monitoring and Verification:

Shell Quest would use new technology meas-uring, monitoring and verification systems to

The Shell Quest CCS project will capture CO2 from three hydrogen-manufacturing units (two existing and one now under construction) at the Scotford Upgrader. These are called steam-methane reformation units, or SMRs.

1

An absorber vessel will use chemical amines (called activated MDEA) to capture the CO2 from the process stream; the CO2 will be released from the amine through steam stripping.

2

In a compressor unit, CO2 will be compressed into its dense phase (a super critical liquid) for safe pipeline transport.

The liquefied CO2 will travel by pipeline to nearby storage sites.

The CO2 will be injected into deep underground formations for storage and could be used for enhanced oil recovery.

3

4

5

The Shell Quest CCone now under cons

S project will capture CO2 fromstruction) at the Scotford Upgra

m three hydrogen-manufacturinader These are called steam-m

g units (two existing and methane reformation units or SMMRsone now under cons

An absorber vessel wprocess stream; the

2 w

2 will be inje

n a compressor unit

The liquefied CO

The CO

struction) at the Scotford Upgra

will use chemical amines (calleCO2 will be released from the

t, CO2 will be compressed into

will travel by pipeline to nearby

ected into deep underground f

ader. These are called steam m

ed activated MDEA) to capturee amine through steam stripping

o its dense phase (a super criti

y storage sites.

formations for storage and cou

methane reformation units, or SM

e the CO2 from the g.

ical liquid) for safe pipeline tra

uld be used for enhanced oil re

MRs.

ansport.

ecovery.

Quest process schematic

observe the CO2 storage wells and geologi-cal formations.

This would provide assurance that theinjected CO2 had remained deep belowground in the target formation.Enhanced Oil Recovery Opportunities:

CO2 captured from the Scotford Upgrader

could be made available for use in EOR proj-ects in Alberta depending on the outcome ofcommercial discussions. The

CO2 would be stored permanently inthese oil fields, which would also be requiredto use sophisticated measuring, monitoringand verification systems.

SYNTHETIC CRUDE To Market

SYNTHETIC CRUDE To Market

Oil Sands Bitumen

(EXISTING)

Oil Sands Bitumen SMR

Compressor

SCOTFORD UPGRADER

(UNDER CONSTRUCTION)

SCOTFORD UPGRADER EXPANSION 1

( PROPOSED FACILITIES )

QUEST FACILITY

SMR

CO2 for Storage

CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery

CO2 Pipeline MDEA Unit

(CO2 Absorber Vessel)

HYDROGEN

HYDROGEN

2

1

3 4

CO2 Pipeline 4

5

SMR

1

(EXISTING)

Oil SandsBitumen

SCOTFORD UPGRADE

SYNTHETIC

ER

HYDROGEN

QUEST FQUEST FQUEST FQUEST FQUEST FQUEST FQUEST FQUEST FQUEST FQUEST FQUEST FQUESTQUESTQUESTQUEST

TCRUDE o Market

QUEST F

( PROPOSED FACILITIES )

ACILITYACILITYACILITYACILITYACILITYACILITYACILITYACILITYACILITYACILITYACILITYACILITYACILITYACILITYACILITY

(CO2 Absorber

N

MDEA Unit Compressor

2 PipelineO

(UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Oil SandsBitumen

SCOTFORD UPGRADE

)

SYNTHETIC

ER EXPANSION 1

HYDROGEN

TCRUDE o Market

(CO2 Absorber Veessel)V

CO2 forStorage

CO2 forOil Re

2 PipelineO

Enhancedecovery

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:35 Page 6

At the forefront of petroleum geoscience

www.geolsoc.org.uk/petroleum

For further information about this conference, please contact:

Steve Whalley, Event Co-ordinator: +44 (0)20 7432 0980

or email: [email protected]

Convenors:

Mike Stephenson (British GeologicalSurvey)

Henk Pagnier(TNO)

John Underhill(University of Edinburgh

International Conference:

Carbon Storage Opportunities In The North Sea24 - 25 March, 2010The Geological Society, Burlington House, Piccadilly, LondonCALL FOR ABSTRACTS -TO BE SUBMITTED BY8TH JANUARY 2009

Carbon capture and storagehas the potential to be the sizeof North Sea oil and gasindustry and be worth morethan £2bn/yr and sustain morethan 30,000 jobs by 2030.North Sea CO2 storage space is estimated at more than 22 billion tonnes which is 180years' emissions from the UK's20 largest point sources. Butwhat are the geological factorsaffecting how this space can beused? How will geology informthe regulators and the publicand what are the risks and opportunities for the private sector?

Keynote presentations on:• Role of the national geological survey

• UK and Dutch North Sea storage capacity

• North Sea and other international CCS hubs

Abstracts or sponsorship enquiries should be sent to [email protected]

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:35 Page 7


Leaders

CCSA - what next for CCS?2009 has been an important year for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), and the attention given to theimportance of the technology has certainly stepped up a notch, with developments both on theregulatory and funding side, as well as a growing number of announcements to develop large-scaleprojects around the world. Even in a time of economic crisis there have been new opportunities andprospects for CCS and significant progress has been made that will hopefully lay the foundations for thedevelopment a long-term CCS industry.By Stephanie Squire and Judith Shapiro, Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA)

What has 2009 brought us?The Carbon Capture and Storage Association(CCSA) began the year by becoming a found-ing member of the Global Carbon Capture andStorage Institute (GCCSI) that was launchedin April, amid much excitement over the rolethat this new organisation could play.

The GCCSI has since become an inde-pendent legal entity and has really hit theground running and with a commitment ofAUD$100million per year from the Aus-tralian Government, the Institute has set am-bitious plans to support the aim of accelerat-ing commercial deployment of CCS.

Recent achievements include comple-tion of two initial important reports; “strate-gic Analysis of the Global Status of CCS”and “An Ideal Portfolio of CCS projects andRationale for Supporting Projects” We lookforward to continued involvement as the or-ganisation grows.

Perhaps the most significant progressto date on regulation came earlier this yearwhen the EU CCS Directive was finalisedand came into force in June (as part of theEU Climate and Energy package that wasadopted in December 2008).

The CCS Directive establishes an es-sential legal framework for storing CO2 inEurope, and Member States now have lessthan two years to transpose the Directive in-to their own legal systems. The UK has beena leader in the area of regulation and the CC-SA continues to be actively engaged with theDepartment of Energy and Climate Change(DECC) on details of how this legislationwill work.

At the same time revisions to the EUEmissions Trading Scheme (ETS) for PhaseIII were also finalised as part of the Climateand Energy package. This Directive has in-troduced a crucial source of funding for CCSin the form of 300 million allowances(EUAs) set aside from the New Entrants Re-serve in phase III (2013-).

The background to this funding is theEU aim to have 10-12 CCS projects in oper-ation across Europe by 2015 – as agreed atthe 2007 EU Spring Council. Depending onwhen these EUAs are auctioned, this could

lead to support for both CCS and innovativerenewables of up to €9 billion.

Details of how to distribute this fund-ing are, however, proving to be controver-sial, particularly as it is likely that MemberStates will also need to provide additionalsupport to the projects.

The issue of Member State versus EUCommission project selection is proving tobe a difficult problem to resolve and discus-sions, which the industry is engaged in, areongoing. It is hoped that the mechanism fordistribution will be finalised soon.

Interestingly, the economic crisis haspresented some opportunities for CCS – thishas come in the form of recovery packages.Staying in Europe, €1.05 billion of fundingfor CCS was announced as part of the Euro-pean Energy Programme for Recovery.

Thirteen projects across seven Euro-pean countries were originally shortlisted aspotential beneficiaries of the support and ofthose six have now been presented to the EUParliament. The final announcement of thewinners is expected imminently.

Further afield, the U.S. has made sev-eral funding announcements this year includ-ing $2.4 billion for CCS as part of the Amer-ican Recovery and Reinvestment Act – interms of projects, Hydrogen Energy has re-ceived a $308 million grant for its IGCCproject in Kern County, California. Canadaannounced C$650 million for large-scaleCCS as part of its clean energy fund andAustralia also has its own CCS ‘FlagshipsProgram’.

These examples clearly show that therace for CCS is now on and the UK will haveto work hard if it is to remain amongst theleading countries in this suite of technolo-gies. In under a year the province of Albertahas selected its three winning projects tobenefit from $2 billion, whereas the UK an-nounced its competition in 2007 and a win-ner has yet to be chosen.

Having said that, there have been excit-ing announcements in the UK throughoutthis year and the Association has certainlybeen very busy, with membership continu-ing to grow. Activities have included engag-

ing with Government, in particular on the re-cent consultation ‘A framework for the de-velopment of clean coal’, which waslaunched in June, and also more generallyon funding and regulation.

We were pleased to see the announce-ment earlier this year as part of the consulta-tion that the UK would support up to fourCCS demonstration projects through a levymechanism. We now urge the Governmentto commit to four (rather than up to four) andconsider how to address support that mightbe needed for further roll out, particularly if(as the Committee on Climate Change hasrecommended) we are to decarbonise elec-tricity by 2030.

The UK published its Low CarbonTransition Plan in July this year, setting outhow to meet the first statutory carbon budg-et of 34% cut in emissions by 2020, as rec-ommended by the Climate Change Commit-tee. As part of this plan, it is encouraging tonote that the Government has emphasisedthe trinity of renewables, nuclear and cleanfossil fuels (CCS) to contribute 40% of UKelectricity from low-carbon sources by 2020.

At present the investment climate forCCS in the UK is challenging. The uncer-tainty over the number of UK CCS projectsto be funded in total (announced as “up tofour” including the current competition proj-ect) also translates to increased investmentrisk.

To achieve the objective of wide-scaleCCS deployment from 2020 will require asignificant number of CCS projects before2020, and a commitment to four projects by2020 (rather than up to four) will enable themajority of the energy industry in the UK toundertake important learning and build suf-ficient supply chains for further roll out.

This will enable CCS to move down thecost curve at an early stage and bringing for-ward the point at which CCS can be de-ployed commercially.

Aside from engagement with Govern-ment, other activities of the CCSA have in-cluded jointly holding a dialogue on CCSwith Green Alliance in September. The eventbrought together industry, NGOs and other

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:35 Page 8


Leaders

stakeholders to discuss policies and regula-tion relating specifically to CCS.

It was exciting to see over two days thatwhilst there are areas where different stake-holders disagree on how to progress, therewere also many areas of broad agreementand much enthusiasm about the need to rollout this important climate change mitigationtechnology.

The Carbon Sequestration LeadershipForum (CSLF) held its ministerial meetingin October in London. The CSLF is an inter-national initiative of 24 countries, focussedon facilitating the development and deploy-ment of CCS technologies.

A CSLF stakeholder meeting, co-host-ed by the CCSA, took place alongside theministerial meeting and the International En-ergy Agency (IEA) also published its ambi-tious CCS roadmap at the ministerial meet-ing, setting out the role of CCS in meeting aglobal 50% reduction in emissions by 2050.

Statements that came out of both theCSLF meetings and the Major EconomiesForum (that followed not long after) wereencouraging and an important contributionto building momentum and underlining theimportance of CCS in the run up to Copen-hagen. This year has, in fact, seen new im-petus to international activities on CCS andthis has become a large focus of our work.

What will the coming months bring us?The UNFCCC meeting in Copenhagen inDecember is, of course, the major event forthe climate. The expectations are high, butwhat outcomes can we really hope for? TheAssociation is pushing hard for CCS to berecognised and supported in any future post-2012 agreement as an essential technologyto addressing climate change.

Indeed, without CCS it may prove ex-tremely expensive, and perhaps even impos-sible to avoid dangerous climate changewhilst the inevitable use of fossil fuels con-tinues.

The major issue for CCS will be theneed to develop a mechanism to financeCCS projects in developing countries,whether this be as part of a reformed CleanDevelopment Mechanism (CDM) or a newmechanism altogether.

Developing countries will be unable to fi-nance CCS on their own and it is therefore im-perative that a post-2012 agreement includes amechanism that enables these countries to de-ploy CCS whilst continuing to develop theireconomies in a low-carbon manner.

The IEA estimates that, in order to meetour required mitigation pathway, 100 CCSprojects will need to be operating worldwideby 2020 and more than 3000 by 2050 (seeFigure above). The IEA calculates that this

level of development by 2020 will require$130 billion of extra capital, 73% of thisfrom OECD Governments.

The UNFCCC agreement at Copen-hagen must therefore allow for both large-scale public financing and ongoing marketincentives to provide support for CCS devel-opment. On a wider point, the issues ofknowledge sharing and technology transferare proving difficult in the discussions lead-ing up to the meeting.

It is likely that details of actions andagreements may well be negotiated beyondthe Copenhagen meeting, and we expect fur-ther progress in this area in 2010.

Next year we also hope to see some im-portant announcements on CCS from the UKGovernment. In particular the Association islooking forward to seeing the winner of thecurrent competition announced.

The Committee on Climate Changerecommended in their recent report that thenext competition for the further one to three(or as we hope, three at least) demonstrationprojects should be announced, with the aimof seeing these projects coming online in2015 or 2016, (perhaps just a year after thedeadline for the current competition project).

We would urge the Government not torun further competition for the additionalone to three projects as a series of individualcompetitions, as such an approach will onlydelay the development of CCS in the UK.

Instead we recommend holding oneopen competition for these projects as soonas possible, allowing as many projects aspossible to bid across a variety of capturetechnologies, transport systems and storageoptions.

Funding remains the major barrier to

CCS development and deployment andwhilst the EU ETS is considered the long-term mechanism to incentivise low-carbontechnologies, the current carbon price is in-sufficient and too uncertain to provide invest-ment certainty to CCS project developers.

Once the first CCS projects are built,costs can begin to come down and furtherprojects will also benefit from technologyimprovements. However, additional fundingmust be found in the period until CCS willbe economically viable under the EU ETSand this is particularly the case for first-of-a-kind projects, which will be faced with theadded burden of investing in the infrastruc-ture that will support a long-term CCS in-dustry.

Finally, one major issue is now begin-ning to have an impact on the developmentof CCS projects in several European coun-tries – namely public perception.

The lack of awareness, but more im-portantly, the lack of public acceptance forCCS projects, has the ability to represent oneof the major barriers to the deployment ofCCS and Governments around the worldmust work together to tackle this issue asearly as possible.

Important activities are happeningaround the world to develop guidelines forpublic engagement and these must be pro-moted and disseminated effectively, so thatproject developers can include a public en-gagement process that ensures successfulproject implementation.

Overall progress this year has been pos-itive for CCS, and 2010 could be even better.The Association looks forward to anotherbusy and exciting year in the world of CCS.

�

�

�

�

�

Global deployment of CCS 2010–2050 (CO2 captured and number of projects) (Source: CCSTechnology Roadmap, © OECD/IEA, 2009)

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:35 Page 9


Projects and Policy

Global CCS Institute releases two major studiesThe Global Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Institute has released a report, ‘Strategic Analysis of theGlobal Status of Carbon Capture and Storage,’ which shows that despite progress more demonstrationprojects are urgently needed. It also engaged L.E.K. Consulting to research and propose a theoretical ‘IdealPortfolio’ of CCS projects, as well as a rationale for supporting projects.

In May 2009, a consortium led by Worley-Parsons and comprising Schlumberger, Elec-tric Power Research Institute and Baker &McKenzie was engaged to undertake theStrategic Analysis of the Global Status ofCarbon Capture and Storage.

The consortium was tasked to under-take a comprehensive survey of the status ofCCS and to develop a series of reportsanalysing CCS projects, the economics ofCCS, policies supporting CCS developmentand existing research and development net-works. A fifth report - the Synthesis Report -was also developed and this summarises thefindings of the first four reports, and pro-vides a comprehensive assessment of thegaps and barriers to the deployment of large-scale CCS projects, including strategies andrecommendations to address these issues.

CCS global status‘Strategic Analysis of the Global Status ofCarbon Capture and Storage’ shows that themajority of advanced projects are focussedon coal-fired power generation, recognisingthe need to implement solutions that addressthe world’s current and future use of coal ina carbon constrained environment.

It says that there is growing action be-ing taken to achieve the G8 objective of de-ploying at least 20 commercial scale CCSprojects globally by 2020. Despite thisprogress the report also showed that due tocommercial, technical and regulatory hur-dles there is the urgent need to rapidly iden-tify and advance a larger and more diverseportfolio of projects to ensure success.

The study reveals that in order to accel-erate the deployment of CCS projects theworld must exploit cost advantages that ex-ist in advancing projects in developing coun-tries such as China and India, and industriessuch as natural gas processing and fertiliserproduction in which CO2 capture is inherentin their design.

The study also confirms that greater ef-forts towards CCS need to be made withinthe cement, aluminium, iron and steel indus-tries, given their significant contribution to-wards CO2 emissions.

Global CCS Institute CEO Nick Ottersaid, "We know that many of the CCS tech-nologies are available today to be appliedacross a range of industries to help reduceemissions. This report demonstrates the need

to not only deploy more projects, morequickly, but to deploy more types of proj-ects, and in more places, so that we can learnhow to design the best possible facilities,bring down costs and create a valid businesscase for CCS."

The Global CCS Institute – an initiativeto accelerate the worldwide commercial de-ployment of at-scale CCS – commissioned aWorleyParsons-led consortium to undertakewhat is the most comprehensive review andanalysis of the world’s current CCS projects.

The research was undertaken to ad-vance the understanding of the status of CCSprojects, the costs involved, the status ofsupporting policy initiatives, the researchand developments efforts being pursued, andthe gaps and barriers to deployment at scale.

Key findings of the report whichdemonstrate the depth of the action current-ly being taken include:

• There are 213 active or planned proj-ects with 101 of commercial scale – demon-strating the existence of a significantpipeline of potential projects being investi-gated around the world.

• There are 62 fully integrated, com-mercial scale projects each of which demon-strates every stage of the CCS process chainof CO2 capture, transport and storage. Sev-en of these projects are already operating and55 are at various stages of progress makingthem potential candidates for contributing tothe G8 objective.

• The leading developers of fully inte-grated, commercial scale projects includeparticipants in the Europe (37%), USA(24%), Australia (11%) and Canada (10%),with distribution throughout Asia, SouthAmerica and Africa relatively low.

The report highlights that widespreadtake-up of CCS is faced with the stark riskof high project failure rates typical with theadoption of new technologies, but that thiscan be overcome by targeted project support,and appropriate incentives for development.Recommendations put forward by the reportcall for governments to partner with indus-try to address the challenges facing projectsuccess.

The recommendations suggest urgentaction on three major fronts:

• Actively working with the 55 activeor planned fully integrated projects to im-prove their likelihood of success.

• Developing national strategies whereabsent to provide incentives to innovate orinvest in CCS technology.

• Establishing a regulatory frameworkthat assigns a value to carbon

The ideal portfolioThe world needs to broaden the commercialdevelopment of CCS projects across indus-tries, geographies and technologies in orderto accelerate deployment, according to theGlobal CCS Institute’s second key report.

The portfolio study consists of two sec-tions: the Ideal Portfolio which describes therange of projects that would address differ-ent hurdles to CCS deployment; and the Ra-tionale for Supporting Projects which de-scribes possible ways in which the GlobalCCS Institute can identify and support CCSprojects as they relate to an Ideal Portfolio.

Global CCS Institute CEO Nick Ottersaid “The iron and steel, and cement indus-tries are responsible for over 20 per cent ofthe world’s CO2 emissions. If CCS is to con-tribute to the deep cuts in emissions theworld needs, then industry must be part ofthe solution.”

The report naturally prioritises thePower Generation sector, given its own con-tribution to global emissions and the scaleand effort it is putting into CCS, recom-mending a minimum of 17 projects types butspreading them across different fuel andtechnology combinations.

The report recognises that some indus-try sectors, including gas extraction and pro-cessing, while representing only a smallshare of global emissions, already carry outCO2 separation. These industries can pro-vide early opportunities for CCSdevelop-ment, and are also prioritised in an IdealPortfolio due to their ability to accelerate de-ployment.

It is recommended that the majority ofprojects in an Ideal Portfolio be located inNorth America, Europe and China due pri-marily to their share of global emissions.Australia and Japan are also classified as pri-ority regions with an allocation of approxi-mately 15 per cent of projects, due to theirfavourable policy and regulatory environ-ments.

The reports can be downloaded from:www.globalccsinstitute.com

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:35 Page 10

A lot of companies are making structured packings for carbon capture, but none has ever beaten the performance and reliability of Sulzer Chemtech equipment. Sulzer’s MellapakPlus offers up to 40% more capacity than a conven-

tional structured packing, depend-ing on pressure, among many other advantages. Our products and extensive application know-how will help you put a chill on global warming. Contact us today.

MellapakPlus:The highest capacity metal sheet packingfor CO2 capture

Conventional structured packing

MellapakPlus

For more information, visit www.sulzerchemtech.com

Sulzer Chemtech Canada, Inc.5218-68 AvenueEdmonton, AlbertaT6B 2X7, CanadaPhone: +1 780-577-7999Fax: +1 780-577-7980E-mail: [email protected]: www.sulzerchemtech.com

MOVING AHEAD

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:35 Page 11


Projects and Policy

CCP publishes research conclusions

The CCP is an industry wide effort to devel-op the technologies and operational ap-proach to accelerate the deployment of car-bon capture and storage. In acknowledge-ment of its contribution to the advancementof CCS the group received the prestigiousCSLF Recognition award. Established in2000, the CCP has built a reputation as atechnical authority on CCS.

The CCP’s findings, published in abook entitled 'Advances in CO2 Capture andStorage Technology', represent five years ofresearch and more than 150 exploratory proj-ects. They are the result of a collaborativeeffort between its members: BP, Chevron,ConocoPhillips, Eni, Petrobras, Shell, Sta-toilHydro and Suncor. These oil & gas ma-jors worked alongside governments (includ-ing the US Department of Energy, the EUand the Norwegian Research Council) and60 academic institutions and leading envi-ronmental and industry groups.

A summary of the findings from ‘Ad-vances in CO2 Capture and Storage Technol-ogy’ and details on how to obtain a copy canbe found on www.co2capturepro-ject.org

Highlights from the Results Book ‘Ad-vances in CO2 Capture and Storage’ include:

CO2 StorageCO2 Capture Project (CCP) studies have ad-dressed outstanding issues and confirmedthat CO2 can be stored underground safelyand securely.

Development of a Certification Frame-

work: Providing a simplified workflow

protocol for assessing CO2 storage sites.

The CCP developed a Certification Frame-work for the geological storage of CO2 toprovide a simple, transparent guide to sitecertification, essential to help decision mak-ers to manage the CO2 storage process.

This simple, transparent and compre-hensive framework was developed in part-nership with three leading institutions inCO2 storage and addresses the need for aconsistent and accessible approach to under-standing risks associated with CO2 storage.It consists of three parts:

1) platform for input of geological data2) specialized tools that predict the be-

haviour of CO2 in the subsurface and 3) risk calculation.

A Well Integrity Field Study – Addressing

critical issues for CO2 storage

Conflicting data has existed on the long-termwell integrity – a crucial issue for CO2 stor-age. The CCP’s ambitious Well IntegrityField Study addressed the risks that the pres-ence of injected and stored CO2 would haveon the containment integrity of existing andnewly drilled wells.

The field study, at a natural CO2 pro-duction well in Colorado, reached a numberof crucial conclusions. A chief finding wasthat cement placement was actually moresignificant in resisting CO2 migration alongthe barrier system than the choice of cementitself.

It proved that a well’s barrier perform-ance is not necessarily compromised by CO2alteration, and that good drilling and instal-lation practices are more important than ma-terial choice for long term well stability – acrucial finding. A second study is underwayat the Buracica Field, Brazil, and continuedresearch is planned.

CO2 CaptureThe CO2 Capture Project (CCP) has madecrucial progress in identifying technologieswith the highest potential. Around ten poten-tial capture technologies, spanning the rangeof techniques: post-combustion, pre-com-bustion and oxy-fuel were identified frommore than 200 capture technologies re-viewed. These technologies have been de-veloped further and are now being evaluatedbefore being taken forward for demonstra-tion.

Identification of a preferred CO2 capture

method for oil refineries

Significant progress has been made towardsCO2 capture from the oil refining process.As the second largest industrial emitters ofCO2 oil refineries face specific and consid-erable challenges. Oxy-fuel combustion hasbeen shown to offer the greatest potential,both technically and economically, for cap-turing CO2 emitted by the largest source inoil refineries, the Fluid Catalytic Crackingunit (FCC).

A pilot test in an industrial scale refin-ery is scheduled for next year. The CCP isalso working to extend oxy-firing technolo-gy to other CO2 emitting units of the refin-ery, namely process heaters and boilers.

Potential for CO2 capture from extraction

of heavy oil

A novel advanced oxy-firing technology -chemical looping combustion (CLC) - hasbeen developed, which has the technical andeconomical potential in the mid-term forscaling up to capture CO2 from heavy oilsteam extraction processes. Significant de-velopment challenges remain, but the poten-tial rewards are huge.

Post-combustion - most likely short-term

option for gas fired power stations

The lower concentrations of CO2 in gas firedpower station flue gas make this a challeng-ing – but important – area for capture tech-nology development. Post-combustion iden-tified as most likely short-term option forcapturing CO2 from gas fired power sta-tions, although pre-combustion may be moreviable in the long-term. The CCP has thechallenge of identifying and further devel-oping significantly lower costs for CO2 tech-nology.

What next for the CO2 CaptureProject? The CCP will now enter its third phase – us-ing insights from the first two phases to fur-ther test and trial high potential technologies.The third phase will provide practical solu-tions to the need of the oil & gas industry toreduce its own CO2 emissions from both tra-ditional and unconventional operations,without incurring considerable extra costs.

It is clear that with the right encourage-ment, carbon capture and storage is capableof playing a significant role in CO2 mitiga-tion, and the oil & gas industry is well placedto make a significant contribution to its de-velopment.

The CO2 Capture Project has made sig-nificant progress over the last eight years to-wards addressing the remaining technicalquestions surrounding carbon capture andstorage. It has provided an example of howpublic-private partnerships can work to rap-idly close technical gaps.

If CCS is to become part of the solutionfor managing climate change, governmentsand industry will not only collaborate ontechnology development but also on deploy-ment. CCS will need to receive a clear sig-nal that it has the support of government.

The CO2 Capture Project (CCP), a partnership of eight oil & gas majors, recently presented the findingsfrom the last five years of work to world energy and environmental ministers attending the CarbonSequestration Leadership Forum in London (12-14 October). By Iain Wright, CO2 Capture Project (CCP)

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:35 Page 12


Projects and Policy

UK policy - on the pathway to clean coal?The UK government has released a series of policy statements designed to speed up planningpermissions and clarify the requirements for CCS in coal fired power plants. Is it enough?

Six draft National Policy Statements (NPS),one overarching and one for each of the fol-lowing areas: fossil fuels, nuclear, renewables,transmission networks and oil and gaspipelines, have been released to guide planningdecisions on energy infrastructure.

Alongside the NPSs, a ‘Framework forthe Development of Clean Coal’ was pub-lished, setting out the requirements for new andexisting coal plant. Following a consultation inJune, the document confirmed:

No new coal without Carbon Capture andStorage (CCS): With immediate effect, to gaindevelopment consent all new coal plant willhave to show that they will demonstrate the fullCCS chain from the outset on at least 300 MWnet of their total output.

A programme of up to four commercial-scale CCS demonstrations, including both pre-combustion and post-combustion capture tech-nologies, will be funded by a new CCS Incen-tive. Legislation to introduce this has been pro-posed for the forthcoming Parliamentary ses-sion.

A long term transition to clean coal: Thedemonstration plants are expected to retrofitCCS to their full capacity by 2025, with theCCS Incentive able to provide financial sup-port for their retrofit.

A rolling review process, which isplanned to report by 2018, will consider thecase for new regulatory and financial measuresto further drive the move to clean coal.

Also confirmed is that the Governmenthas received two bids - from E.ON and Scot-tish Power - to proceed to the next stage of thecurrent CCS demonstration competition. It isexpected that contracts for the detailed designstage will be concluded early next year.

The UK Government also published itsguidance on carbon capture readiness, whichis intended to give practical advice on the typeof information Section 36 applicants need tosubmit to the Secretary of State to demonstratethat a proposed new combustion plant can bebuilt carbon capture ready (CCR).

The CCR requirements only apply to newcombustion plant which have an electrical gen-erating capacity at or over 300 MW and whichare of a type covered by the Large CombustionPlant Directive.

Doosan Babcock urges more ambitionfrom UK GovernmentDoosan Bacock issued a response to the DECCconsultation on the development of clean coalfollowing the meeting of key energy industry

representatives at the Institute of Chemical En-gineers.

The response calls for action to enableCCS to be introduced more rapidly than theproposed timeline, and for a more extensivedemonstration programme to be put in place.

According to the company, unless thecurrent policy details are changed there is a riskthat the DECC proposals will fail to meet ob-jectives and no new coal-fired power plants orCCS demonstrations will be built.

Doosan Babcock believes that clean coalwill be less expensive than other low carbonoptions, much cleaner and more secure thanunabated gas-fired power, more reliable andless expensive than intermittent wind, andmore relevant to global needs.

Doosan Babcock proposes a “MiddleWay” which should satisfy both electricitycompanies and NGOs while delivering all fourgovernment objectives, plus a large contribu-tion to carbon dioxide reductions by 2020.

A ‘Middle Way’ approach would includea commitment by Government to at least fourclean coal projects (not just up to four) cover-ing at least three capture technologies and twoor three options for storage in time to announcethis in the run up to the Copenhagen meeting.

“A more ambitious programme ofdemonstrations funded by a contract for differ-ence levy scheme could provide almost 5GWof CCS capacity by 2020,” said Iain Miller,CEO, Doosan Babcock Energy Ltd.

“This would generate reliable, low car-bon electricity at an acceptable cost. The ‘Mid-dle Way’ is central to achieving the objectivesset out in the DECC Consultation and urgentaction is needed to ensure plans for CCS in theUK remain on track.”

UK lagging on CCS - ICE reportThe Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) report,"Carbon Capture and Storage – Time to Deliv-er" outlines the steps needed to deliver CCSnot only domestically but also on a globalscale. The UK has the potential to be a worldleader in CCS technology, creating a major ex-port opportunity, but needs Government to pro-vide a clear strategic overview to avoid unnec-essary delays, the report says.

“The UK was quick on the uptake in theglobal race to deploy CCS but now we havefallen behind other nations. If we want to keepa competitive lead and take advantage of theexport opportunity it presents, progress needsto be greatly accelerated,” said ICE Vice Pres-ident Geoff French.

“We have the skills and the expertise todeliver global solutions - all we’re waiting onis Government to take the lead and provide thesteps to get us there. In the current climate thereis no incentive for utility providers to sink bil-lions of pounds into projects that have no cer-tain future.”

The ICE report features papers from sixleading experts on different aspects of CCS in-cluding regulation, storage, transportation, in-vestment, pre and post combustion alternativesand its role in creating a low carbon economy.

The six papers are:1. Carbon capture and storage – an essen-

tial part of our low carbon economy, Dr JeffChapman, The Carbon Capture & Storage As-sociation

Globally, energy generation still relieslargely on fossil fuels. Capturing and storingthe emissions from this process is going to befundamental in the global fight against climatechange.

2. Carbon Capture and Storage – the tech-nologies, Peter Whitton, Progressive EnergyLtd

There are currently several carbon cap-ture technology alternatives ready for commer-cial use. The fundamental division is between‘pre-combustion’ and ‘post-combustion cap-ture technologies.

3. Carbon capture and storage – movingto implementation, Alastair Rennie, AMEC

Carbon capture and storage can offer bigbenefits but it is costly and requires politicalwill. Transport and storage solutions could of-fer international dividends but further planningis needed.

4. Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide,Steve Murphy, Co2 Deep Store

The major issue remaining unresolved inthe CO2 storage debate is how to tackle thelong-term possibility of leakage.

5. Winners, losers, China, NPV and self-service check-outs: the role of policy in carboncapture and storage investment decisions, IanTempleton, head of Advisory team, ClimateChange Capital

Investment in CCS is crucial. Unfortu-nately the rush to make quick political deci-sions means thus far incentives have not beenan integral part of the policy-making process.

6. Carbon capture and storage regulation,Andrew Raingold, deputy director, AldersgateGroup

A clear regulatory framework for the de-ployment of CCS is essential to ensure its ef-fective implementation.

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:35 Page 13


Projects and Policy

Alstom and AEP formally commissionMountaineer CCS demonstrationwww.power.alstom.comFederal and state officials joined Alstom

and American Electric Power (AEP) at

AEP's Mountaineer Plant to formally

commission the world’s first project to

both capture and store CO2 from a coal-

fired power plant.

AEP’s Mountaineer plant is a 1,300-megawatt electrical (MWe) coal-fired unitthat was retrofitted earlier this year with Al-stom’s patented chilled ammonia CO2 cap-ture technology on a 20-MWe slipstream ofthe plant’s exhaust flue gas.

The slipstream of flue gas is chilled andcombined with a solution of ammonium car-bonate, which absorbs the CO2 to create am-monium bicarbonate. The ammonium bicar-bonate solution is then is pressurized andheated in a separate process to safely and ef-ficiently produce a high-purity stream ofCO2.

The CO2 will be compressed and pipedfor storage into deep geologic formations,roughly 1.5 miles beneath the plant surface.Approximately 90 percent of the CO2 fromthe 20-MW slipstream will be captured andpermanently stored.

AEP has applied for federal stimulusfunding to scale-up the Alstom chilled am-monia technology to 235-MWe at Moun-taineer Plant. The proposed commercial-scale demonstration will capture and geolog-ically store approximately 1.5 million metrictonnes per year of CO2.

The Mountaineer CCS demonstrationproject began capturing CO2 Sept. 1 andstoring it Oct. 2, and is designed to captureat least 100,000 metric tonnes of CO2 annu-ally.

Alstom and Schlumberger in CCSpartnershipwww.slb.comAlstom and Schlumberger have signed an

agreement for mutual collaboration in the

joint offering of CCS-ready studies.

The studies will consist of a technicalanalysis of a power plant to identify how itshould be adapted to accommodate an Al-stom CCS system. The studies will also in-clude an evaluation of potential CO2 storagesites for the power plant, as well as an eval-uation of required investments for futureCO2 transport and storage.

This is designed to facilitate the futureconversion of power plants to CCS and thesecuring of environmental permits as well asoptimising time-to-market periods and asso-ciated costs.

"Our customers are increasingly de-manding full support, from the flue gas out-let to the downhole, to ensure that their newpower plants are CCS ready. Assessing thisreadiness will be a mandatory requirementfor all large fossil-fuelled power plants inEurope by 2011. Similarly, the State ofQueensland in Australia recently announcedthat no new coal fired power station will beapproved in the state unless it is CCS ready"said Andreas Lusch, Senior Vice President,Alstom Power Thermal Systems.

The first wave of large-scale CCSdemonstration projects, such as AEP’sMountaineer in the United States or Vatten-fall’s Schwarze Pumpe in Germany, also re-quires an integrated approach along the val-ue chain. This agreement is designed to of-fer this type of comprehensive service, bothfor new and existing power plants.

Global CCS Institute provides projectdeployment fundingwww.globalccsinstitute.comThe Global Carbon Capture and Storage

Institute has announced the injection of

AUD $3.6 million towards ensuring the

creation of the right level of knowledge

and expertise to accelerate the deploy-

ment of CCS projects globally.

Of the funding, AUD $1.2 million willbe directed towards the CSLF’s CapacityBuilding Program, with the aim to identifycapacity building activities in key develop-ing countries, and to deliver both technicaland non-technical workshops globally.

In conjunction with a significant con-tribution from the Norwegian Government,the Global CCS Institute has also providedAUD $2.4 million to the World Bank CCSTrust Fund in further support of CCS capac-ity building. This funding will be aimed atcreating opportunities for developing coun-tries to explore CCS potential, realise thebenefits of domestic technology develop-ment and progress and facilitate appropriatepolicy initiatives.

CSLF begins capacity building programwww.cslforum.orgA new Capacity Building Program will as-

sist the 24 members of the Carbon Seques-

tration Leadership Forum (CSLF) in im-

plementing CCS demonstrations and help

accelerate commercial deployment.

The Program will assist all CSLF mem-bers in developing the "information, tools,skills, expertise and institutions required toimplement CCS demonstrations and thenmove rapidly into commercial operation,"the Program Plan’s Mission Statement says.

CSLF said the Capacity Building Pro-gram will address the fact that CCS is "newand the capacity to widely implement it isnot yet adequate in either emerging or indus-trialized economies."

The Program Plan said while specificneeds vary by nation, four basic tasks are re-quired to implement CCS:

• Identifying and characterizing CO2sources and potential reservoirs, and thenmatching sources to potential reservoirs;

Policy, company and regulation news

AEP’s 1300MW Mountaineer coal-fired power plant in New Haven, West Virginia, is usingAlstom’s chilled ammonia technology to capture CO2 from a 20MW slipstream and store itunderground

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:35 Page 14


Projects and Policy

• Analyzing and formulating policy andlegal/regulatory frameworks;

• Conducting pre-feasibility, feasibility,and regulatory studies to evaluate and sup-port decisions about proposed projects;

• Implementing projects through plan-ning, financing, construction, operation, andmonitoring.

Four capacity building program initia-tives will accelerate the deployment of CCS,CSLF said:

(1) disseminating practical information;building capacity in emerging economies;(3) assisting activities by government andregulatory agencies; and (4) the building ofacademic and research institutions for CCS.

The Program Plan said greater levels offunding than previously committed are need-ed to support the new initiative, and antici-pates expenditures of $5 million annually forthe remaining four years of the CSLF term.

First CCS project in Portugalwww.tejoenergia.comwww.bellona.orgTejo Energia will assess the feasibility of

applying CCS at its Pego coal power

plant, according to Bellona.

The project is co-funded by the NationalStrategic Reference Framework (NSRF),through the EU-funded Operational Agendafor Competitiveness Factors (COMPETE) andwill be jointly developed by the University ofÉvora and the National Laboratory for Energyand Geology (LNEG), Tejo Energia (the plantowners) and Pegop (plant operators).

The Pego coal-fired power plant isowned by Tejo Energia, a joint venture be-tween International Power (50%), Endesa(39%) and Energias de Portugal (EDP) (11%).The power plant, located near the river Tejo incentral Portugal, has a capacity of around 600

megawatt (MW) electricity and emits aroundfour megatonnes of CO2 per year.

Tejo Energia has also begun to build anew combined cycle gas turbine plant. The530 million euro project will use natural gasas fuel and is expected to fully operate in thefirst quarter of 2011. By 2011 and with aninstalled capacity of 1,430 MW (600 MWproduced by the coal-fired power plant and830 MW by the new gas plant), the Pegoarea will be the most important electricityproducing region in Portugal.

(Source: Martina Novak, The BellonaFoundation, an environmental NGO basedin Norway.)

DOE funds joint training and researchprojectsForty-three research projects that will ad-

vance CCS technologies while providing

graduate and undergraduate student

training opportunities at universities

across the country will be supported by

$12.7 million in U.S. Department of Ener-

gy funding.

Spread over three years, the regional se-questration training projects and funding willbe managed by the Office of Fossil Energy’sNational Energy Technology Laboratory.

The projects are funded through the2009 American Reinvestment and RecoveryAct and are aimed at the broad objectives ofadvancing CCS scientific, technical, and in-stitutional knowledge while simultaneouslyproducing the expertise and workforce need-ed for the emerging carbon capture and stor-age industry.

Projects have been selected across theUS and collectively they will focus on pro-viding advanced research training in simula-tion and risk assessment; monitoring, verifi-cation, and accounting; geological related an-

alytical tools; methods to interpret geophysi-cal models; and carbon dioxide capture.

Twelve projects to be selected formajor US CCS fundingfossil.energy.govU.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has an-

nounced the first round of funding from

$1.4 billion from the American Recovery

and Reinvestment Act.

The funding will be for the selection of12 projects that will capture CO2 from in-dustrial sources for storage or beneficial use.

The first phase of these projects will in-clude $21.6 million in Recovery Act fund-ing and $22.5 million in private funding fora total initial investment of $44.1 million.The remaining Recovery Act funding will beawarded to the most promising projects dur-ing a competitive phase two selectionprocess.

The initial duration of each project se-lected is approximately seven months. Proj-ects will be subject to further competitiveevaluation in 2010 after successful comple-tion of their Phase 1 activities. Projects thatbest demonstrate the ability to address theirmission needs will be in the final portfoliothat will receive additional funding for de-sign, construction, and operation.

The projects include:* Air Products and Chemicals Inc. (Al-

lentown, Pa.)— A state-of-the-art system toconcentrate CO2 from two steam methanereformer waste streams will be designed,constructed, and demonstrated at PortArthur, Texas. More than one million tons ofCO2 will be delivered per year via pipelinefor sequestration into the Oyster Bayou oil-field for enhanced oil recovery by DenburyOnshore LLC. (DOE Share: $961,499)

* Archer Daniels Midland Corporation

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:36 Page 15


Projects and Policy

(Decatur, Ill.)— Archer Daniels MidlandCompany, a member of DOE’s Midwest Ge-ological Sequestration Consortium, willpartner with other research organizations todemonstrate Dow ALSTOM’s advancedamine process to capture CO2 from industri-al flue gases and sequester the CO2 in theMt. Simon Sandstone reservoir. (DOE Share:$1,480,656)

* Battelle Memorial Institute, PacificNorthwest Division (Richland, Wash.)—Battelle researchers will partner with BoiseWhite Paper LLC and Fluor Corporation todemonstrate geologic CO2 storage in deepflood basalt formations in the State of Wash-ington. Fluor Corporation will design a cus-tomized version of its Econamine Plus™carbon capture technology for operation withthe specialized chemical composition of ex-haust gases produced from combustion ofblack liquor fuels. (DOE Share: $500,000)

* C6 Resources (Salno, California)—Objective is to capture and transport bypipeline approximately one million tons peryear of CO2 streams from facilities locatedin the Bay Area, Calif., to be injected morethan two miles underground into a saline for-mation. C6 Resources, an affiliate of ShellOil Company, will conduct the project in col-laboration with Lawrence Berkeley NationalLaboratory and Lawrence Livermore Na-tional Laboratory. (DOE Share: $3,000,000)

* CEMEX Inc. (Houston, Texas)— CE-MEX USA will partner with RTI Internation-al to demonstrate a dry sorbent CO2 capturetechnology at one of its cement plants in theUnited States. CEMEX will design and con-struct a dry sorbent CO2 capture and com-pression system, pipeline (if necessary), andinjection station. This commercial-scale car-bon capture and sequestration demonstrationproject will remove up to one million tonsof CO2. (DOE Share: $1,137,885)

* ConocoPhillips (Houston, Texas)—ConocoPhillips will demonstrate new ad-vancements that improve conversion effi-ciency and economies of scale for carboncapture systems at a petcoke-based 683-megawatt integrated gasification combinedcycle (IGCC) power plant adjacent to its ex-isting refinery in Sweeny, Texas. About 85percent of the CO2 from the process streamwill be captured and over five million tonssequestered into a depleted oil or gas field.(DOE Share: $3,014,666)

* Leucadia Energy LLC (New York,N.Y.)— Partnered with Denbury Onshore,Leucadia Energy will demonstrate advancedtechnologies that capture and sequester morethan 4 million tons of CO2 emissions at theLake Charles co-generation petroleum coke-to-chemicals (methanol) project to be locat-ed near Lake Charles, La. The project will

transport compressed CO2 through a 12-milepipeline that connects to Denbury’s GreenLine pipeline system in Louisiana so that itcan be used for enhanced oil recovery in theHastings and Oyster Bayou oilfields inTexas. (DOE Share: $540,000)

* Leucadia Energy LLC (New York,N.Y.)— Leucadia Energy and Denbury On-shore will demonstrate advanced technolo-gies that capture and sequester CO2 emis-sions from an industrial source. MississippiGasification LLC, a Leucadia affiliate, isbuilding a petcoke-to-substitute natural gasplant in Moss Point, Miss., to demonstratelarge-scale recovery, purification and com-pression of 4 million tons per year of CO2.(DOE Share: $840,000)

* Praxair Inc. (Danbury, Conn.)—Praxair will partner with BP Products NorthAmerica, Denbury Resources, and GulfCoast Carbon Center to demonstrate captureand sequestration of CO2 emissions from anexisting hydrogen-production facility in anoil refinery into underground formations forCO2 enhanced oil recovery. This demonstra-tion will be performed at the BP refinery, anda lateral pipeline will be built to connect toDenbury’s Green Pipeline to transport onemillion tons of CO2 per year. (DOE Share:$1,719,464)

* Shell Chemical Capital Company(Houston, Texas)— The objective of thisproject is to capture, condition, and transportby pipeline approximately one million tonsper year of by-product and off-gas CO2streams from facilities located along theMississippi River between Baton Rouge andNew Orleans for geologic storage. (DOEShare: $3,000,000)

* University of Utah (Salt Lake City,Utah)— More than one million tons of CO2per year will be captured from various indus-

trial sources, compressed, and transportedvia two new intra-state pipelines for CO2 en-hanced oil recovery and deep saline seques-tration research in Kansas. Beneath each en-hanced oil recovery target, a major salineaquifer spanning most of the State of Kansaswill be used for CO2 injection. (DOE Share:$2,696,556)

* Wolverine Power Supply CooperativeInc. (Cadillac, Mich.)— Investigators willdemonstrate advanced amines and additivessupplied by Hitachi and Dow to capture300,000 tons of CO2 per year. WolverinePower Supply Cooperative will be buildinga 600-megawatt circulating fluidized bedpower plant near Rogers City, Mich. (DOEShare: $2,723,512)

DOE and Hydrogen Energy sign IGCCagreementwww.hydrogenenergycalifornia.comThe U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

has signed a cooperative agreement with

Hydrogen Energy California (HECA) to

build and demonstrate an IGCC plant

with CCS in Kern County, California.

HECA, which is owned by HydrogenEnergy International, BP Alternative Ener-gy, and Rio Tinto, plans to construct an ad-vanced integrated gasification combined cy-cle (IGCC) plant that will produce 250megawatts of electricity using a blend of 75percent coal and 25 percent petroleum coke.

Approximately 90 percent of the CO2produced from the gasification process, orabout 2 million tons per year, will be trans-ported via pipeline to the Elk Hills oilfield,less than four miles away, where it will beused for enhanced oil recovery.

The project is part of the Clean CoalPower Initiative (CCPI), a cost-shared col-laboration between the federal government

Hydrogen Energy California’s proposed IGCC plant in Kern County, California (image: HECA)

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:37 Page 16


Projects and Policy

and private industry to increase investmentin low-emission coal technology by demon-strating advanced coal-based power genera-tion technologies prior to commercial de-ployment. The project will be cost-sharedand administered by DOE’s Office of FossilEnergy and the National Energy TechnologyLaboratory.

The estimated capital cost for the proj-ect is approximately $2.3 billion. The feder-al cost-share is limited to $308 million, orjust under 11 percent of the total projectcosts. The project consists of three phases:project definition (phase I), design and con-struction (phase II), and demonstration(phase III). Sequestration of 2 million tonsper year of CO2 is due to begin by 2016.

Toshiba completes CCS pilot plantwww.toshiba.co.jpToshiba Corporation has completed con-

struction of a pilot plant to support devel-

opment and validation of its carbon cap-

ture technology.

The pilot plant is located in SigmaPower Ariake Co. Ltd.'s Mikawa PowerPlant, in Omuta City, Fukuoka Prefecture,Japan.

At the Mikawa pilot plant, Toshiba willdeploy and validate its latest separation andcapture technology. The Mikawa pilot plantis designed to capture 10 tons of CO2 a dayfrom actual live flue gas of the boiler of thecoal-fired thermal power plant.

The pilot plant will be used to verifythe performance and operation of the systemwhen practically applied to thermal powerplants, including but not limited to the veri-fication of the effects of flue gas contents onsystem operation.

The knowledge will then be used tohelp design systems and equipment for utili-ty-scale power plants, which will finally beoptimally integrated with other power plantequipment, such as turbines and boilers.

Toshiba initiated its R&D into CCS in2006, focusing on an amine based chemicalabsorption system that consumes less energyin the CO2 separation and capture process,and has verified through small scale testingthat its performance matches the leading lev-els in the industry.

The company established a new CCSdevelopment and promotion organization inOctober 2008, and is seeking to further ac-celerate practical application and commer-cialization of its technology.

Toshiba's goal is to establish a businessable to meet emerging needs for commercialscale CCS systems for thermal power plantsby 2015. The company targets net sales of100 billion yen in 2020 in CCS-related busi-ness.

Siemens, Fortum and TVO cooperate onFinnish projectwww.siemens.com/energywww.fortum.comSiemens Energy has been selected as the cap-

ture technology partner for the FINNCAP -

Meri-Pori CCS project by the owners of

Meri-Pori power plant, Finnish utilities For-

tum and Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (TVO).

The coal-fired power plant is located atPori in Western Finland and has an installedcapacity of 565 MW. The CCS demonstra-tion is planned to treat approximately 50 per-cent of Meri-Pori’s flue gas and to capture90 percent of the CO2 it contains.

Meri-Pori's CCS demonstration isamong the largest post-combustion captureprojects yet announced in Europe. Fortumand TVO plan to apply for the EuropeanFlagship Programme with Siemens capturetechnology combined to a ship transporta-tion and geological storage solution.

The selection for the first tranche of theFlagship Programme is expected to takeplace in 2011 and the final investment deci-sion in 2011-2012. The plant is scheduled tobe in operation in 2015.

"We have selected Siemens post-com-bustion carbon capture technology for ourCCS plant, out of several other technolo-gies," says Tapio Kuula, President and CEOof Fortum. "The Siemens technology seemsespecially promising in terms of energy effi-ciency and emissions control. Meri-PoriCCS plant is one of the key projects in For-tum’s CO2-reduction programme."

The development of Siemens' post-combustion capture technology is funded bythe German Federal Ministry of Economicsand Technology and part of the COORETECinitiative.

UK Centre for Low Carbon Futurescreatedwww.yorkshire-forward.comThe Centre for Low Carbon Futures, a

£50 million virtual project, will combine

the expertise of universities in Hull, Leeds,

Sheffield and York to research issues re-

lating to climate change.

The centre has two main aims - to cre-ate a sustainable regional economy and to re-search ways of coping with climate change.It is supported by Yorkshire Forward, a re-gional development agency.

Researchers will provide practical so-lutions for ways in which Yorkshire organi-sations and businesses can reduce their car-bon emissions. It is hoped that suitable meth-ods and technologies could be used acrossthe country and the rest of the world.

It's first four pilot projects will be fo-cused on climate change, low carbon supplychains, biorenewables and carbon capturetechnology.

CCS cannot significantly reduce tarsands emissions - WWF reportwww.co-operative.coopA study produced by The Co-operative Fi-

nancial Services and WWF-UK claims to

debunk the idea that CCS will significant-

ly counter the high levels of greenhouse

gases emitted in the production of oil from

tar sands deposits in Alberta, Canada.

The report, 'CCS in the Alberta oilsands – a dangerous myth,' examines the po-tential for CCS to prevent CO2 from enter-ing the atmosphere as a result of tar sandsproduction and concludes that the processcould not possibly achieve what has beenclaimed.

The study says that:

The Fortum and Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (TVO) Meri-Pori power plant in Finland where Siemens’capture technology will be used (Image ©Fortum)

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:37 Page 17


Projects and Policy

* Whilst the amount of CO2 emittedduring production needs to be reduced byaround 85% to make tar sands oil compara-ble with conventional oil, even the most op-timistic forecasts for CCS see productionemissions reduced by 10 to 30% at selectedlocations by 2020 and 30 to 50% across theindustry by 2050.

* Even under the most optimistic sce-narios for the application of CCS, the pro-jected production emissions from tar sandsdevelopments would be greater than thewhole of Canada’s 2050 carbon budget wereit to reduce emissions by 80% comparedwith 1990 levels, as the climate science re-quires.

* The maximum potential of CCSwould be insufficient to reduce lifecycleemissions of tar sands oil to levels needed tomeet emerging international low carbon fuelstandards such as those in California and theEU.

Paul Monaghan, Head of Social Goalsat the Co-operative Financial Services said,"Last year we published a report whichfound that Canada’s tar sands could increaseatmospheric CO2 by more than 10 parts permillion, which would take us right to theedge of runaway climate change. The indus-try’s response was that CCS would addressthis threat. Today’s report shows that eventhe most wildly optimistic scenarios for thedevelopment of CCS fail to bring emissionsdown to those of today’s conventional fossilfuels."

International award for SINTEF CCSprojectwww.sintef.noSINTEF’s DYNAMIS project received the

"CSLF Recognition Award" at the Car-

bon Sequestration Leadership Forum’s

(CSLF) ministerial meeting in London for

its contribution to CCS research.

The DYNAMIS project is the firstphase of the EU’s HYPOGEN programme,which is intended to lead to the constructionof an advanced full-scale power station thatwill generate both hydrogen and electricpower, and will be fitted with CO2 captureand storage technology. The facility will beoperational by 2015.

DYNAMIS has already carried out athorough evaluation of the potential for full-scale hydrogen and electricity generationcomplemented by CO2 capture and storage,and the project has focused on the techno-logical, economic and societal aspects of theprocess. International collaboration is aprominent feature of the project, which issupported by industrial companies and or-ganisations from all over Europe.

GE Oil & Gas secures$400M Gorgoncontractwww.ge.comGE Oil & Gas has

been awarded a com-

petitive bid worth

over $400 Million to

deploy equipment for

LNG production

along with CO2 stor-

age at Gorgon in Aus-

tralia.

GE will supplyChevron with:

• Three Main Re-frigerant CompressionTrains required forGorgon’s production of15 million tonnes perannum (MTPA) LNG –equating to three ship-ments a week leavingGorgon’s purpose-built LNG loading jetty;,

• Six Compression Trains required todrive Gorgon’s carbon C02 project, theworld’s largest - injecting up to four timesmore carbon dioxide than any other projectworldwide.

The Gorgon natural gas fields are locat-ed at Barrow Island, around 130km off West-ern Australia. Gas will be extracted and de-livered via subsea and underground pipelinesto gas treatment and liquefaction facilitieson Barrow Island's south east coast.

Three 5-MTPA GE Main RefrigerantCompression Trains, each comprising twoGE Frame-7 Gas Turbines plus liquefactioncompressors, will be used for the productionof liquefied natural gas by chilling to–160°C, ready for shipping, before re-gasifi-cation and pipeline transportation for use bydomestic and industrial customers.

Prior to liquefaction CO2 will bestripped out and injected into the depletednatural gas wells 1,300-meters deep to en-sure its safe storage and the reduction ofemissions. Six surface operating, 15 MWelectric-motor driven GE CompressionTrains will be used.

The GE Main Refrigerant CompressionTrains and the GE Compression Trains forCO2 sequestration will be manufactured andtested in Florence and Massa, Italy, thenshipped in 2011 and 2012.

ITF secures contract for UK new energytechnology transfer networkwww.innovateuk.orgITF, the oil Industry Technology Facilita-

tor has secured a three year, six figure

sum contract to deliver a new energy net-

work for the UK industry.

Part of a consortium appointed to runthe network on behalf of the UK govern-ment’s Technology Strategy Board (TSB),the new energy knowledge transfer network(KTN) was unveiled at Innovate ‘09 in Lon-don.

At the meeting Dr Brian Cane, Direc-tor of the Energy Generation and SupplyKTN, hosted a workshop on 'Supporting andEnabling Innovation in Energy'. The sessionincluded representation from the Technolo-gy Strategy Board, the Energy TechnologyInstitute, the Research Councils and TheCarbon Trust, and attracted over 100 people.

A UK-wide network, the Energy KTNwas established to open up opportunities forcollaboration and knowledge sharing acrossall energy sectors.

ITF’s KTN role is to focus on maximis-ing oil and gas resources The network willalso deliver opportunities for developingnew technologies in offshore wind, wave andtidal, carbon abatement technologies, includ-ing carbon capture & storage and biomass,hydrogen and fuel cells and future emergingopportunities.

Membership of the Energy KTN will befree of charge and open to the entire energycommunity, including industry, investors,academia, innovators, government bodiesand regulators.

Registered members will benefit fromaccess to services such as research and de-velopment funding, project financing, sup-ply chain opportunities and market and poli-cy information. The KTN’s services will bedelivered through a range of networkingevents and via an interactive web portal andenquiry help desk.

Map of the Gorgon Project (image ©Chevron)

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:38 Page 18


Separation and Capture

Calix – a carbon capture breakthroughCalix Limited has developed a new Calcium Looping technology that may capture carbon dioxide at lessthan €15/tonne. Applications are being developed for power station or cement works retrofit, hydrogengeneration from coal or lignite, and for new power generation plant based on an IGCC cycle. By Brian Sweeney and Mark Sceats, Calix

This article describes the history of the tech-nology and the Endex reactor which is the keyto its practical implementation. It outlines themain applications and the development pathof the company.

The History Making lime from limestone is the oldest in-dustrial process; with the possible exceptionof the fermentation of alcohol! The decompo-sition of calcium carbonate, limestone, to pro-duce lime in fires produced the first fertilizersin pre-history, and its production in kilns wasa well established pre-Roman technology.

Today, the calcination of lime is a basicprocess in the production of Portland cement,and lime itself is one of the most commonchemicals, used in about eighty substantialmarkets. The reverse process to calcination,called carbonation, uses lime to capture CO2and has been widely studied over the last cen-tury.

Modern kilns operate close to equilibri-um, and the direction of the reaction – calci-nation or carbonation - varies in a kiln de-pending on the local partial pressure of theCO2 and the temperature. These both varyacross the kiln depending on the heat andmass flows, and within the stones as they cal-cine. The reactions are well understood.

Calcium Looping for carbon capturewas first patented in 1994 as a temperatureswing reactor1. This process separates the cal-cination and carbonation processes into twoseparate reactors – a Calciner and a Carbonis-er, and then loops the lime particles betweenthe reactors for a continuous extractionprocess.

In the Carboniser the lime, as CaO, cap-tures the CO2 from an input flue or fuel gasto produce CaCO3, and when transported tothe Calciner the sorbent is regenerated and theCO2 is released in a pure gas stream, for com-pression, transport and sequestration.

By 2004, the IEA had singled out Calci-um Looping as a potential candidate for CO2capture, but noted that the major problem tobe resolved was the sintering of the CaO sor-bent2. Sintering is the loss of the CO2 capturecapacity of the lime as the surface area is re-

duced, and numerous laboratory and pilotplant studies worldwide had demonstratedthat the sintering was severe, with the sorp-tion capacity being reduced from about 70%to 17% in the first 10 or so cycles.

The sintering problem has been the sub-ject of intense research in the past sevenyears, and continuous improvements havebeen reported using a number of strategies.However, the large throughputs of lime aresuch that Calcium Looping in 2009 has beenrelegated to technology of interest to remedi-ation of emissions from cement plants3, wherethe lime can be consumed.

Calix has solved the sintering problem,and is confident that Calcium Looping willfind major applications in all areas of bothfossil fuel and biofuel emissions.

A second issue in Calcium Looping hasbeen the high energy flux required to drivethe process. In the conventional approach toCaO Looping, a large amount of energy mustbe supplied to the high temperature Calciner(at 850-950 °C) and this is released in the low-er temperature Carboniser (at 650-800 °C).This heat required is about 30-40% of thethermal power of a power plant.

While the heat released in the Carbonis-er can be used to generate power, the captureplant is too large to warrant the investment.The conventional CaO Looping Cycle isshown in Figures 1 and 2 to illustrate thesepoints.

The BreakthroughScientific breakthroughs often happen whentwo disciplines come together and an oldproblem is viewed from a new perspective.Calix scientists, with their knowledge of ac-tive sorbent preparation techniques, realizedthat the problems of the conventional Calci-um Looping could be eliminated by:

• adjusting the pressures and temper-atures in the Calciner and Carboniser so thatthe exothermic carbonation reaction occurs ata higher temperature than the endothermiccalcination.

This means that the heat is retained with-in the reactor. The carbonation reaction in-creases the temperature by some 50 deg C asthe sorbent flows through the carboniser. Andit falls again through the calcining step.

The heat flows spontaneously from thecarboniser to the cooler calciner. The heat iscarried by the sorbent transfer and through thereactor walls. In principle, the separation ofCO2 can be realized without any externalthermal energy.

• using the high initial reaction rateson the surface of the particles, which give 2-3% carbonation in 2 or 3 seconds for particlesless than 150 microns.

This is sufficient to capture 90% of theCO2 and avoids sorbent sintering. The resi-dence time is so small that the size of the re-actor is very compact – essentially pipesabout 10-30 m high and 1-3 m in diameter.

The Endex reactorCalix calls this configuration the Endex reac-tor – for a coupled endothermic-exothermicreactor. This class of chemical reactors wasfirst described by Australian researchers,Rowena Ball and Brian Grey in 19994.

Endex reactors are non-linear systems,and when applied to CaO Looping, the reac-tor operates as a gas switch. Calix has shown

1A.B.M.Heesink and H.M.G.Temmink, “Processfor removing Carbon Dioxide Regenerativelyfrom Gas Streams”, PCT WO94/01203 (1994)2International Energy Authority, “Prospectsfor CO2 Capture and Storage”, 2004

Figure 2: The Conventional Calcium LoopingReactor

Figure 1: The CaO:CaCO3 Phase Diagram

3“CO2 Capture Technologies for CementIndustry”, A.Boaoaga, O.Masek and J.E.Oakey,Energy Procedia, 1, 133-140 (2009)

4B.F.Gray and R.Ball, “Thermal Stabilisation ofChemical Reactors. The mathematicaldescription of the Endex reactor”Proc.R.Roc.Lond. A, 455, 163-182 (1999)

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:38 Page 19



that the stability regime for the Endex CaOLooping reactor is very wide, with the switch-ing occurring at low temperatures.

The Endex configuration for CaO Loop-ing is shown in Figures 3 and 4. Ideally, theEndex reactor operates as a pressure swing re-actor with continuous solids flow.

The primary outcome of the Endex re-actor is that the dominant barrier to adoptionof Calcium Looping, namely sorbent sinter-ing, is overcome. This is done by holding theCalciner at a low temperature to minimisethermal sintering; by minimizing the carbondioxide pressure in the calciner so that CO2catalysed thermal sintering is minimised; andby holding the degree of carbonation to besmall so that irreversible mesopore filling isnegligible.

The ImplementationThe implementation challenges of CaO Loop-ing in the Endex configuration are no longerassociated with the sorbent, but are now typi-cal engineering challenges such as minimiz-ing heat losses and transporting solids at hightemperature between the reactors.

However, maintaining the CO2 pressurein the Calciner low requires that it must beevacuated and this requires mechanical ener-gy. This energy penalty is relatively small,

about 3-6%, andCalix is workingto minimise it.

The mostimmediate con-sequence is thatthe flue or fuelgases preferablyshould be com-pressed for effi-cient CO2 cap-ture. Thismeans that theuse of pressur-ized fluid bed(PFBC) com-bustor reactors is preferred for post-combus-tion capture, while fuel gases such as naturalgas and Syngas are already pressurized andcan be used directly.

Atmospheric combustors are currentlyused for power plants and industrial process-es such as cement, and iron and steel produc-tion. Calix has identified an approach to at-mospheric capture by substituting the excessair intake into gas turbine plants by flue gas,and extracting the CO2 at high pressure afterthe combustor. This compression comes at nocost because it is a replacement for excess air.

In the separation of CO2 from fuel gas-es, the Endex re-actor becomes anintegral part ofthe fuel process-ing, because thehigh temperatureof the CaO Loop-ing causes the fu-els to decomposeat high pressures.

In a simpleexample, if syn-gas is injected in-to a CalciumLooping Endexreactor withsteam, the extrac-tion of CO2through the for-mation of CaCO3spontaneouslydrives the reactorto produce hydro-gen, in a processknown as the Sor-bent EnhancedWater Gas Shift(SEWGS).

In generalterms, the Car-boniser of the En-dex reactor canbe used to trans-

form chemically the fuel gas to produce CO2.In the conventional IGCC process, the WGSand CO2 Capture processes occur in separatereactors at low temperatures, resulting in highcapital costs and inefficiencies.

The WGS-Endex reactor is able to sepa-rate the CO2 and produce hydrogen fromSyngas and steam without thermal energy in-puts. Other fuel gases, such as natural gasand LPG can also be used to produce hydro-gen through variants of this theme.

The CostThe cost of CCS is the critical number thatwill determine whether the Endex technologywill be economically viable. With a negligi-ble thermal energy penalty and a small me-chanical energy penalty discussed above, thecost of CO2 capture is most likely determinedby the capital costs.

Provided that the Endex reactor can bematched to the temperature and pressure ofthe input gas without penalty, then the capitalcosts of an Endex reactor is expected to berelatively small.

The cost of the Endex reactor is expect-ed to scale simply with the gas input flow rate.In the low carbonation limit consideredabove, the dominant heat transfer between thereactors occurs by the transport of the sorbentbetween the reactors, so that the wall heattransfer can be small. Thus the reactors canbe substantially thermally insulated, and car-bon steel can be used.

The reactors will be compact – withcross-sections of the order of metres and theheight being a 20 to 30 meters. Because of thethermal coupling, the reactors operate au-tothermally and have an intrinsic stabilitly, sothe control systems are expected to be rela-tively simple.

Estimates of several configurations arethat the capital cost for large plants, exceed-ing 500 MWe, will be less than €200 perMWe, the energy penalty for capture andcompression will be 6%, to give a cost of CO2capture less than €15 per tonne. Initially, the

Figure 5: The Endex Calcium Looping Cycle

Figure 4: The Endex Calcium Looping Reactor

Figure 3: The Conventional Calcium Looping Cycle

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:38 Page 20



systems will be smaller, and the first-of-a-kind factor will be significant.

The development of CalixIt is widely agreed that there is no solution toclimate change which does not include exten-sive application of carbon capture and stor-age. CCS is a major global industry in gesta-tion.

While the political issues are being de-bated, and the remuneration mechanism forcarbon sequestration is being resolved, Calixis developing its technology, fine tuning theapplications and preparing for commerciali-

sation. No matter how good our technology

breakthrough, there is a considerable task tocatch up with the suite of first generation tech-nologies and their incremental improvementscurrent in demonstration. In a prudently con-servative industry processes must be provenbefore they will be adopted.

Calix has demonstration plants plannedworldwide at increasing scale in which En-dex reactors can be developed and tested forparticular applications – pre- and post com-bustion capture, with various fuels includingcoal, lignite, natural gas and syngas.

E.ON and Siemens begin CO2 capturepilot in Germanywww.eon.comwww.powergeneration.siemens.comE.ON and Siemens are starting up a pilot

CO2 capture plant at the E.ON power

plant Staudinger in Grosskrotzenburg

near Hanau, Germany.

A lab-proven post-combustion captureprocess developed by Siemens is to be em-ployed under real operating conditions at thepower plant’s hard-coal-fired StaudingerUnit 5. The pilot plant will be operated withpart of the flue gas from Unit 5.

E.ON and Siemens intend to run the fa-cility until the end of 2010. The resultsachieved and the operating performance ofthe pilot plant will serve as the basis forlarge-scale demonstration of the technology,which is scheduled to start operation in themiddle of the next decade.

It will test the cleaning agent’s long-term chemical stability and the efficiency ofthe process under real power plant condi-tions. In parallel, the technology will be fur-ther optimized in terms of energy consump-tion.

The project is being sponsored by theGerman Federal Ministry of Economics un-der the terms of the COORETEC Initiative.It is part of the federal government’s 5th En-ergy Research Program “Innovation andNew Energy Technologies” and promotes re-search and development in the field of low-CO2 power plant technologies.

Alstom and Dow open CO2 capturepilot plantwww.alstom.comwww.dowoilandgas.comAlstom and The Dow Chemical Company

have begun operation at a pilot plant to

capture CO2 from the flue gas of a coal-

fired boiler at the Dow-owned facility in

Capture news

South

Charleston,

West Virginia,

USA.

The pilotplant uses pro-prietary ad-vanced-aminetechnologyjointly devel-oped by Al-stom and Dowto capture ap-proximately1,800 metrictons of CO2per year.

The pilotwill operate forthe next twoyears, generat-ing reliable, long-term data that can be usedto optimize this technology for implementa-tion at coal-fired power plants across theglobe.

In 2008, the two companies entered in-to a Joint Development Agreement to devel-op this technology. In March 2009, the com-panies announced their plans to design andconstruct the plant.

"This pilot plant is designed to evalu-ate the technology operating under powerplant conditions, test proprietary innovationsjointly developed by Dow and Alstom andprovide data necessary to finalize the designof large-scale demonstration plants that willapply this technology," said Philippe Jou-bert, Alstom Executive Vice President andPresident of Alstom Power.

"Integrating this process with new ad-vanced coal and gas fired power generationequipment will allow customers to minimizeCO2 emissions while generating electricityas cost effectively as possible."

Alstom acquires Lummus Globalengineering unitAlstom has acquired the former engineer-

ing office of Lummus Global, a leading

provider of technology for the hydrocar-

bon processing industry, in Wiesbaden,

Germany.

The unit, renamed ALSTOM CarbonCapture GmbH, will be integrated into Al-stom’s CO2 Capture Systems activity.

The unit consists of over 100 employ-ees with the full set of skills and capabilitiesrequired for the design and delivery of CO2capture plant.

Alstom says the acquisition will enableit to make its CO2 capture technologiesavailable to its customers with greater re-sponsiveness and efficiency. It will supportthe increasing demand for studies, FEEDpackages, pilot plants and demonstrationunits driven by the need to accelerate thecommercialisation of effective and efficientlarge scale CCS facilities.

E.ON’s Staudinger plant in Grosskrotzenburg near Hanau, Germany (Source:E.ON AG)

About the authors

Brian Sweeney is the Director of BusinessDevelopment commercialising the carboncapture technology of Calix (Europe) Lim-ited. He has an extensive background in theenergy industry having worked with Shelland Rolls-Royce Industrial Power Group.Mark Sceats is the Chief Scientist of Cal-ix Limited, Australia. He is a materials sci-entist with a background in technologycommercialization.www.calix.com.au

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:38 Page 21


Transport and Storage

Towards a framework for CCS risk assessment

Project ObjectiveVarious risk assessment methods have beententatively applied in recent years to the con-text of geological carbon storage. The mainobjective of this paper is to present a system-atic and conceptual framework of risk as-sessment methodology for underground CO2storage.

We have used the so-called event-treeanalysis method in identifying all the possi-ble events and their corresponding causeswhich might can occur due to the under-ground CO2 storage and try to relate themby event-tree charts.

Risk Analysis consists in identifyingrelevant scenarios, and to describe them inorder to give a full image of the risk inher-ent to a CCS system. In this respect, we firstneed to identify all relevant and plausiblescenarios. In a second step, we need to rankthese scenarios, or to characterise them interms of severity S and probability P: this isthe risk analysis (or risk estimation).

S and P are the 2 two criteria that arerelevant, according to ISO/CEI 73 guide,where risk is described as the combinationof probability of occurrence of damage andits severity. This characterisation in S and Pis not fulfilled in this paper, only the princi-ples are described here.

After this risk analysis, the level of riskcan be compared to the acceptable level, thisis the risk evaluation (or risk assessment): ifthe risk is too high, appropriate managementmeasures can be suggested in order to lowerthe S or the P. This entire process, the man-agement of risk, is outside the scope of thispaper, however some relevant measures formanaging risks are listed here as describedin literature.

The experience of INERIS in riskanalysis (both on industrial systems and onunderground sciences) suggests that:

a. The identification of risk scenariosnecessitates a systematic approach, thatgathers the scientific knowledge about phe-nomena and events, and that ensures that allsub-systems are considered, as well as allpossible events.

To be systematic, we have to be surethat all relevant events are considered, evenif their probability is low; the best way toachieve this is to consider (i) a pre-determi-nation of the targets at stake as well as thepre-definition of the relevant sub-systems

with their intrinsic characteristics, (ii) a log-ical classification of hazardous events thatare likely to cause damages, (iii) a check-listof possible events, that are likely to initiateor to prolong risk scenarios.

b. Once this exercise is completed, anevent tree is the best way to represent the re-sults (even if it was not used formally in step(a): this kind of representation is a risk mod-el of the system, that illustrates the cause-consequence relationship, includes the inter-actions between sub-systems and betweenevents, and shows the result in a meaningfulway to other experts (or stakeholders). Thiswill help the experts to eventually identifythe relevant top scenarios that are represen-tative of the whole risk model.

c. It is necessary to complete thismethod with modelling and with probabilis-tic data, in order to estimate the S and P (ei-ther in a quantitative or in a qualitative way).For instance, modelling will generate quan-titative data in order to estimate the severityof some phenomena, hence modelling can beseen as a specific step of a generic risk as-sessment

Review of risk assessmentmethodologies applied to co2 storage To evaluate the potential risks associatedwith geological carbon sequestration variousrisk assessment methodologies are devel-oped which are carried out to select thepromising sites from a number of candidatesites and lead to the evaluation and potentialcertification of particular sites as safe and ef-fective geological carbon sequestration sites.

There is a growing body of work in riskassessment in the areas of geological carbonsequestration screening and ranking and sin-gle-site certification. In the area of screen-ing and ranking, three approaches have beendescribed in the literature.

1. Bowden and Rigg (2004) invoke aquantitative probabilistic approach that in-volves risk measures applied to key perform-ance indicators. This approach uses theRISQUE method which involves assemblingan expert panel to develop and rank poten-tial scenarios and events.

2. The second approach (Oldenburg,2008) is a spreadsheet-based approach thatfocuses on near-surface risk of CO2 leakagecalled the Screening and Ranking Frame-work (SRF). The SRF was designed to re-

quire minimal site characterization data andprovide a simple and uniform way to rankseveral sites based on expected performanceand the certainty of the information avail-able. The SRF approach is too qualitative tocertify sites for which more site characteri-zation data and associated modelling areneeded.

3. The third approach is the Vulnerabil-ity Evaluation Framework (USEPA, 2008)useful for guiding the development of regu-lations, for educating stakeholders about po-tential risks, and for delineating regions withbetter or worse potential for safe and effec-tive geological carbon storage.

For assessing sites, several approacheshave been developed or adapted from otherapplications such as:

1. The FEP approach involves the gen-eration of a comprehensive list of FEPs thatare codified in a database. The user can rankthe importance or relevance of given FEPsand associated scenarios for performancefailures, such as excessive leakage and seep-age.

2. In the PRA approach of Rish (2005),developed for UIC Class I hazardous wasteinjection wells, probabilities of events anddistributions of formation and well proper-ties are used as input for probabilistic calcu-lations of the likelihood of various detrimen-tal events.

In the next phase of the assessment, theconsequences of a scenario or of an event areexpressed in terms of impact of long-termhigh concentrations of CO2 at key receptors.The consequences are evaluated by model-ling and simulation. The product of thisprobability and the consequence estimatefrom the simulation enables the risk to becalculated.

3. The system modeling approach (e.g.,CO2 PENS, Stauffer et al., 2009) takes amuch broader view and analyzes the entiresystem from the point of capture of CO2from flue gas, through transportation bypipeline, to injection and trapping in thereservoir and includes economic aspects.The system modeling approach is designedto use probabilistic methods for modelinguncertainty.

4. Certification framework approach isuse to evaluate the degree to which a geo-logical carbon sequestration site is expectedto be safe and effective in a risk-assessment

The main objective of this paper is to present a systematic and conceptual framework of risk assessmentmethodology for underground CO2 storage.By F.Lahaie and R.Farret, Ineris, France and P.Bumb, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:38 Page 22



based on probability and leads to the identi-fication of prevention and protection means.

8. Multi Criteria Assessment (MCA) isa useful tool for characterising and better un-derstanding differences in stakeholder as-sessments of CCS and its implications. Mul-ti-criteria analysis can be used as a heuristicto reveal some of the more arcane but impor-tant scientific uncertainties. The multi-crite-ria evaluation of CCS was conducted in twostages:

a. The first stage explores in detail thevarious carbon storage reservoirs includedin the study; a set of evaluation criteria to as-sess the alternative storage reservoirs inde-pendently of the scenarios was defined forthis purpose.

b. In the second stage assessment isconducted using a set of criteria relatingspecifically to the scenarios.

9. The Swift Technique: The structuredWhat-If Technique (SWIFT) is a systematicteam-oriented technique for hazard identifi-cation. The following protocol was used forthe SWIFT review of CO2 sequestration.

a. Define reservoir types.b. Brainstorm possible hazards.c. Structure the hazards into a logical

sequence for discussion. Start with the ma-jor ones, and prioritize selection of others.

d. Consider each hazard in turn. Con-sider possible causes of the event. Considerpossible consequences (in terms of rate andquantity of CO2 released) if the event oc-curs. Consider safeguards that are plannedto be in place to prevent the event occurring.Consider frequency and consequence rela-tive to natural gas production. Record dis-cussion on SWIFT log sheets.

e. Reconsider whether any hazardshave been omitted. Use checklists and pre-vious accident experience to check for com-pleteness.

f. Consider possible impacts of the re-leases on human and environmental re-sources.

10. CQUESTRA (A risk and perform-ance assessment code for geological seques-tration of carbon dioxide): A computational-ly efficient semi-analytical code, CQUES-TRA, is used for the probabilistic risk assess-ment and rapid screening of potential sitesfor geological sequestration of carbon diox-ide. The rate of dissolution and leakage froma trapped underground pool of carbon diox-ide is determined.

The program considers potential mech-anisms for escape from the geological for-mations such as the movement of the buoy-ant phase through failed seals in wellbores,the annulus around wellbores and throughopen fractures in the caprock. Solubility,density and viscosity of the buoyant phase

context. Certification framework approachrelate effective trapping to CO2 leakage riskwhich takes into account both the impact andprobability of leakage. Certificate frame-work uses:

a. Wells and faults as the potential leak-age pathways,

b. Compartments to represent environ-mental resources that may be impacted byleakage,

c. CO2 fluxes and concentrations in thecompartments as proxies for impact to vul-nerable entities,

d. Broad ranges of storage formationproperties to generate a catalog of simulatedplume movements, and

e. Probabilities of intersection of theCO2 plume with the conduits and compart-ments.

5. Evidence support logic (ESL) analy-sis framework enables to represent evidenceand uncertainty in the sub-decisions thatcontribute to the overall decision. Thisframework also addresses uncertainty thatarises as a result of lack of knowledge or in-completeness of data and is applied to arange of problems that arise in assessing theperformance and safety of underground stor-age of CO2.

6. The Performance & Risk (P&RTM)assessment approach for Well Integrity:Quantitative Performance & Risk (P&RTM)assessment methodology for well integritybased on a regular assessment and preven-tion of potential CO2 leaks.

This methodology gives the operators adecision-making tool and a strong supportfor demonstrating safety to regulators. Thismethodology focuses on the Risks of bothcontamination of subsurface formations andhazardous releases on surface. The follow-ing aspects are considered in the proposedPerformance & Risk (P&RTM) assessmentmethodology:

a. Predicting the evolution of the wellintegrity over short, medium and very longtime scales (up to 10,000 years);

b. Optimising the potential CO2 stor-age site. Different options of the conversionstrategy of an existing field or developmentof a new CO2 storage site could be consid-ered;

c. Mitigating risks and planning safetycontrol.

7. MOSAR method (Organized andSystemic Method of Risk Analysis) analysesthe technical risks of a human plant and toidentify the prevention means to neutralizethem. This methodology creates a typologygrid of under-systems danger sources adapt-ed to a CO2 geological storage site. Risk sce-narios can then be built and organized hier-archically in a grid by means of gravity

are determined by equations of state. Advec-tion, dispersion, diffusion, buoyancy, aquiferflow rates and local formation fluid pressureare taken into account in the modelling ofthe carbon dioxide movement.

All methods used for risk analysis orrisk assessment are based on a data base ofevents and scenarios that are formalized (e.gin FEPs) or not (e.g in the mind of the ex-perts).

There exists a series of methods that arevery relevant, but cannot be considered sys-tematic either because they focus on a givenkind of scenario (e.g. near-surface such asSRF, or well-integrity such as P&R, or CO2leakage through faults or wells such as thecertification framework, etc. or because theyentail a very specific type of analysis that ne-cessitates detailed data and hence cannotconsider all types of events: e.g. probabilis-tic analysis, or detailed modelling such asCO2 PENS or CQUESTRA.

As already said, models are very usefulto characterise more precisely the severity ofrisks (e.g. extent of migration or leakage),but are not themselves a full method for sys-tematic risk analysis. Besides, specific toolslike Screening and Ranking Framework(SRF) focus on technical risks but give ageneric frame in order to end up with a glob-al indicator-hence they derive from our ob-jective of systematic, generic, analysis of arisk model.

Other methods such as MCA and Vul-nerability Evaluation Framework are relatedto social consideration more than technicalrisk assessment. They include the decisionmakers (and the way they take their deci-sion) and the perception of risk, hence theyare outside our scope.

Some systematic methods enable us toconsider all kinds of scenarios and often in-sist on cause-consequence relationships: e.g.MOSAR, PRA, SWIFT. Most of them aredriven from the experience of industry in as-sessment of technological risks, and werenot applied to the whole CCS yet.

The approach we develop here is closeto the What-If or PRA methods, completedby a so-called event-tree analysis method. Ittherefore consists in (i) identifying all thepossible events and their correspondingcauses which might can occur due to the un-derground CO2 storage, through a systemat-ic approach, and (ii) try to relate them byevent-tree charts.

Methodology used (event tree analysis) The basic goal of the risk analysis and as-sessment method discussed in this paper isto identify all the possible events and theirassociated caused which may occur due togeological carbon storage. It is applicable in

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:38 Page 23



principle to any part of the CCS chain. However, in a preliminary step, we de-

cided to apply it on the injection and storageparts of the system.

The methodology used to constructthese trees is as follows:

1. Collection of a series of articlesabout the risks of storing the CO2 under-ground.

2. Analyzing and reading the article oneby one. Once a undesired event is discussedin the article, a line in the excel spreadsheetis fulfilled detailing about:

a. Possible event that might occur be-cause of underground storage of CO2.

b. Storage compartment concerned withthe possible event i.e. cap-rock, reservoir,well etc.

c. The individual (s) cause (s) of the un-desired event.

d. Favourable conditions for the occur-rence of undesired event (if the evidence onthis point are provided in the article).

e. The methods or model to quantify thelikelihood or intensity of such undesiredevent (if the evidence on this point is pro-vided in the article).

f. Prevention or monitoring techniquecan be implemented to avoid (or limit the ef-fects of) the undesired event (if stated in thearticle).

3. By aggregating all possible unde-sired events and their corresponding causes,working to relate them by the event-treeanalysis technique.

An event tree analysis technique is a vi-sual representation of all the events whichcan occur in a system (underground storageof CO2). This tree analysis technique pro-vides a highly effective structure withinwhich we can explore undesired eventswhich might occur due to underground CO2storage, and investigate the possible out-comes of choosing those events.

We have classified the scenarios ofrisks associated with underground storage ofCO2 on the basis of the 7 impacting phe-nomena (IP) (see Table 1) and relate themwith the 5 potentially different effects on thedefined 3 targets described below. The en-tire storage site and its surroundings are di-vided into various compartments to distin-guish the leakage through wells, environ-ment and cap-rock, reservoir etc.

For constructing event-tree analysis,we have defined 3 specific targets that willbe affected directly or indirectly by the CO2leakage. The first and most important targetsis humans, CO2 leakage affects the safetyand health of the humans. The second targetis plants and animals; which are adverselyaffcted by the underground leakage of theCO2. The third target is human activities

such as oil/gas production, mining etc. whichare greatly affected by the underground leak-age of CO2.

Depending on the impact on these tar-gets we have again classified 5 differenttypes of effects which includes toxic effectson human and ecotoxic effect on plants andanimals; Thermic effects on human, plantsand animals; Overpressuring effect on hu-man, plant and animals; Deformation and ac-celeration of the earth surface on human,plants, animals and human activities; anddisturbances of human activities.

Finally, we have classified the scenar-ios of risks associated with undergroundstorage of CO2 on the basis of the 7 impact-ing phenomena (IP) which includes their as-sociated potential effects; (a) Massive emis-sion of CO2m (mixture of CO2 and impuri-ties) at the surface; (b) Slow emission of theCO2m at the surface; (c) Pollution byCO2m; (d) Pollution by brine; (e) Distur-bance of the regional hydraulic regime; (f)Ground movement; (g) Pollution by CH4.

In this paper we have worked to classi-fy the scenarios of risks for the IP # 2: Slowemission of CO2 mixture (CO2m) at the sur-face to illustrate the methodology, the de-tailed scenarios of risks for IP # 2 can befound in Appendix # A of the full paper.

We have considered the events: Slowupflow of CO2m from the lower overburdenrocks up to the surface; and lateral leakageof CO2m up to the surface. We have furtherclassified the specific event of the basis of

the excel spreadsheet (acting as a detaileddatabase) which is fulfilled by the analyzingand reading the series of articles one by oneon risks of storing the CO2 underground. Acomplete flow sheet is formed in the sameway for all other impacting phenomena.

ConclusionWe have focused on the systematic and de-tailed approach for risk assessment method-ology of underground CO2 storage throughevent-tree analysis technique. Most of theevents shown are based on the detailed liter-ature survey and the excel sheet databasewhich has been developed prior to the treeconstruction.

In this study we have mainly focussedon the injection and the underground storagesystem of CO2 respectively on the basis ofthe various compartments that includes wellsystem, cap-rock and reservoir system, over-burden and suface environment system.

This methodology is a systematic ap-proach and includes the majority of theevents on the basis of the prior literature sur-vey. But, it is obvious that the current riskdescription methodology, in the shape of theevents and their causes description is not suf-ficient.

In order to make the CO2 storage tech-nique valid, a consistent and rigorous risk studyhas to be carried out before storage of CO2.

This is an edited version. For moreinformation contact: Prateek [email protected]

No Impacting phenomenon Potential effects

1 Massive emission of CO2 mixture at the surface (emission isproposed to be defined as ―massive as soon as its flow rateis sufficient for CO2 mixture concentration to exceed theminimal threshold of lethal effects on humans)

Toxic and ecotoxic

2 Slow emission of CO2 mixture at the surface (emission isproposed to be defined as ―slow as soon as its flow rate isnot sufficient for causing lethal effects on humans butsufficient for causing lethal effects on other species)

Ecotoxic

3 Pollution by CO2 mixture: CO2 concentration in onecompartment of environment (subsurface, soil, water, sea,except air), exceeding the minimal impact threshold of lethaleffects for a defined species.

EcotoxicDisturbances of humanactivities

4 Pollution by brine EcotoxicDisturbances of humanactivities

5 Disturbance of the regional hydraulic regime Disturbances of humanactivities

6 Ground movement Deformation oracceleration of theearth surface

7 Pollution by CH4 OverpressureThermic

Table 1 - Seven impacting phenomena (IP)

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:38 Page 24


Transport and storage news

New research at CO2CRC Otway Projectwww.co2crc.com.auNew research on deep saline storage will

soon be underway at the CO2CRC Otway

Project, Australia’s only CO2 geosequestra-

tion research and demonstration facility.

While final corporate and Governmentapprovals are required, a new stage isplanned to research the ways carbon dioxideis trapped in deep reservoir rocks (saline for-mations), the most promising types of rockformation for large-scale storage.

Plans include drilling a second injec-tion well later this year. Depending on theresults of smaller injections (under 10,000tonnes), a larger scale injection could be partof future plans.

ETI launches UK carbon storagecapacity appraisalwww.energytechnologies.co.ukThe UK Energy Technologies Institute has

launched a project which could see the

UK as the first country with a comprehen-

sive assessment of national CO2 storage

capacity.

The project started in October 2009 andwill be completed by March 2011. It willcomplement planned activities around the as-sessment of sites for CCS demonstration proj-

DOE Mississippi project injects onemillion tons of CO2fossil.energy.govThe CO2 storage project in Mississippi

has become the fifth worldwide to reach

the milestone of more than 1 million tons.

The project, sponsored by the U.S. De-partment of Energy's (DOE) Office of FossilEnergy (FE), is located at the Cranfield sitein Southwestern Mississippi. It is led by theSoutheast Regional Carbon SequestrationPartnership (SECARB). The Cranfield siteis operated by Texas-based Denbury Re-sources Inc., the project's host.

The Cranfield project combines the useof CO2 injection with enhanced oil recovery(EOR), followed by CO2 injection intodeeper and larger-volume brine, or saline,formations.

A major accomplishment of the Cran-field project has been successful deploymentof "in-zone" (in the injection zone) and"above zone" (above the injection zone)pressure-response monitoring techniques,said the DOE.

Real-time data collected since July2008 has demonstrated these techniques arecost-effective methods for CO2 monitoring,verification, and accounting (MVA) that canbe deployed nationwide.

ects in the short to medium term by providinga picture of the long term UK capacity.

It will cost in excess of £3.5 million,and will carry out a review of potential sitessuitable for storing CO2 offshore and helpto answer the question of exactly how muchstorage capacity is practically available inthe UK.

The UK is potentially well served withoffshore CO2 storage capacity in depletedoil and gas reservoirs and saline formationsand, although various estimates have beenmade of the total amount available, those fig-ures vary widely.

Obtaining a more accurate estimate ofstorage capacity will enable the Govern-ment, CO2 emitters, storage operators anddevelopers to make more informed choiceson the realistic extent and roll out of carboncapture and storage in the UK.

The United Kingdom CO2 Storage Ap-praisal Project (UKSAP) is led by SenergyAlternative Energy Ltd and also involvestechnical contributions from the British Ge-ological Survey, the Scottish Centre for Car-bon Storage (University of Edinburgh, Heri-ot-WattUniversity), Durham University,GeoPressure Technology Ltd, GeospatialResearch Ltd, Imperial College London,RPS Energy and Element Energy Ltd.

Engineering EnergyFor Life...

Can you help us solve the power generation challenges of the 21st Century?

We are currently expanding our UK and worldwide operations and have a variety ofexciting engineering and research opportunties.

View and apply for all of our positions online at: www.doosanbabcock.com/careers

Doosan Babcock designs, supplies and constructs advanced steam generation technology for the power industry.We develop some of the cleanest, most efficient coal-powered plant in the world. Doosan Babcock is also aleading energy services company operating in the thermal power, nuclear, oil & gas and petrochemical industries.Through our innovation we support and enhance the service life of energy assets across the world. With globalheadquarters in the UK, Doosan Babcock employs around 5,000 personnel.

Exciting opportunities for engineers of all disciplines

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:38 Page 25

Contact: T: +44 (0) 1491 415 400 Email: [email protected]

Our energy and environmental experience is unique in being able to offer clients the immense breadth of support required to develop their CCS projects at each stage of the lifecycle.

Just some of our areas of expertise:

Integrated Carbon Management ServicesTechnical and commercial counsel from source to sinkGuidance in legislative and market developmentsPlanning and consenting adviceEnvironmental and monitoring assistance

RPS are global specialists in managing major, complex, multi-disciplinary projects.

CCJ12:Layout 1 16/11/2009 12:38 Page 26

ccj12:layout 1 16/11/2009 12:33 page 1 canada carbon...

Documents