Uploaded on

ENGO Network on CCS presentation at ZERO Global Emissions Conference in Norway.

ENGO Network on CCS presentation at ZERO Global Emissions Conference in Norway.

More in: Lifestyle , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide
  • The Illinois project just entered the “operate” stage this week (week of November 14. 2011).


  • 1. CCS in the U.S. Presentation to the Sixth Annual Zero Emission Conference, OsloInternational Environmental NGO Network on CCS 22 November 2011Chris Smith, network coordinator
  • 2. Our ViewpointInternational ENGO Network on CCS  Some of the world’s most prominent environmental NGOs represented  EDF, NRDC, WWF, ZERO, WRI, CATF, Bellona, Climate Institute, Green Alliance, Pembina InstituteOn CCS:  CCS is not the sole nor the preferred climate mitigation tool (truly sustainable options should be preferred)  Nonetheless essential given the scale and rate of effort needed  Ready to begin deployment today  Primary barrier is economic  Must be regulated appropriately to be safe and effective
  • 3. Why CCS?CCS considered crucial in global efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. According to the IEA:  Broad deployment of low‐carbon energy technologies could reduce projected 2050 emissions to half 2005 levels  CCS could contribute about one‐fifth of those reductions in a least‐cost emissions reduction portfolio  Reaching that goal, however, would require around 100 CCS projects to be implemented by 2020 and more than 3000 by 2050 Source: IEA 2011 CCS Legal and Regulatory Review
  • 4. U.S. Regulatory Framework
  • 5. Recent ProgressThe EPA finalized two federal rules related to geological storage: 1. A new class of injection wells (Class VI) under the Underground Injection Control Program for injection of CO2 for sequestration (Safe Drinking Water Act); and 2. A subpart to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (Clean Air Act).
  • 6. …Recent Progress Class VIAims to safeguard groundwater during CO2 injection. The Class VI rule requires operators to submit, update and implement a comprehensive series of site-specific plans:  An Area of Review and Corrective Action Plan;  A Monitoring and Testing Plan;  An Injection Well Plugging Plan;  A Post-Injection Site Care and Site Closure plan; and  An Emergency and Remedial Response Plan.
  • 7. …Recent Progress GHG ReportingData gathering to help with the implementation of the Clean Air Act. Under Subpart RR, the following quantities must be reported:  Mass of CO2 received, Mass of CO2 injected into the subsurface, Mass of CO2 produced  Mass of CO2 emitted by surface leakage, Mass of CO2 equipment leakage and vented CO2 emissions from surface equipment located between the injection/production flow meter and the injection/production wellhead(s)  Mass of CO2 sequestered in subsurface geologic formations and  Cumulative mass of CO2 reported as sequestered in subsurface geologic formations in all years since facility became subject to reporting requirementsData is reported annually, but some information needs to be collected on a quarterly basis. A Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) plan is required to be submitted by the owner/operator that includes:  Identification of CO2 leakage pathways in MMA, incl. likelihood, magnitude and timing, and Delineation of the monitoring area  A strategy for detecting and quantifying any surface leakage of CO2  A strategy for establishing expected baselines for monitoring CO2 surface leakage
  • 8. …Recent Progress StatesThe Department of Energy reports that developments continue at a state level:  Six states already have enacted comprehensive legislation on regulation of geologic storage  Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas Source: EPA, IEA 2011 CCS Legal and Regulatory Review
  • 9. Task ForcePresident Barack Obama created the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage in 2010. Co-chaired by EPA and DOE, the task force delivered a series of recommendations for CCS development in the next 10 years. Main findings and recommendations include:  CCS is Viable  A Carbon Price is Critical  Federal Coordination should be Strengthened  Recommendations on Liability: Open-ended federal indemnification is not a viable alternative but four approaches merit further consideration: relying on existing frameworks, limits on claims, a trust fund, and transfer of liability to the federal government (with contingencies).
  • 10. U.S. Projects
  • 11. Weyburn (Great Plains Synfuel Plant and Weyburn-Midale Project)Cenovus Energy and Apache Canada Saskatchewan, Canada (with CO2 transported from North Dakota, USA) 18 million tonnes CO2 stored as of 2010; projected 40 million tonnes CO2 to be stored over life of EOR operations For final phase of project, DOE is providing $3 million in funding and the Government of Canada has committed $2.2 million. Pioneering research includes study of mile-deep seals securely containing the CO2 reservoir, predicting the CO2 plume movement, and monitoring permanent storage. Source: U.S. DOE, Global CCS Institute
  • 12. FutureGenFutureGen Alliance, US Department of Energy, State of Illinois, Ameren Energy Resources, Babcock&Wilcox, American Air Liquide Meredosia, Illinois 200 MW oxy-combustion plant, 90% CO2 capture $1.3 billion plant (with $1 billion U.S. DOE ARRA funds) 1.3 million tonnes CO2 per annum to be captured Geologic storage in deep saline formation Construction to begin early 2012, operational 2015 Source: FutureGen Alliance, Global CCS Institute
  • 13. Kemper County (formerly Plant Ratcliffe)Southern Company Kemper County, Mississippi 582 MW IGCC plant $2.4 billion plant (with $270 million U.S. DOE grant) 3.5 million tonnes CO2 per annum to be captured Onshore EOR a driver for development Construction began June 2010, operational 2014 Source: Southern Co, Global CCS Institute
  • 14. Texas Clean Energy ProjectSummit Power Penwell, Texas 400 MW IGCC plant, 90% capture CO2 $2.4 billion plant (with $450 million U.S. DOE grant) 2.7 million tonnes CO2 per annum to be captured EOR a driver for development (Permian Basin oilfields) Has all necessary permits, including air quality Water (either Midland sewage or Capitan Reef brackish water); considering desalination plant Construction to begin first quarter 2012, operational 2015 Source: Summit Power, Global CCS Institute
  • 15. CONCLUSIONS: CCS Status PROGRESS: Failure to enact climate legislation slowed momentum, but key projects are making solid progress and will enhance the U.S. and world CCS fleet. SUCCESS: For now seems to depend on combining multiple incentives (state and federal), and utilizing EOR, revenues from other useful products and cheap capture opportunities. SECURITY: CO2-EOR Can Promote Enhanced Energy Security and Lower CO2 Emissions (DOE/NETL). ECONOMICS: Next generation CO2-EOR can provide 135 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in the U.S. (with half economically recoverable given oil at $85/barrel). REGULATORY: Framework mostly in place and enabling safe and effective GS. Some nuances and modalities still need to be clarified.However nationally, without a climate policy or other incentives for CCS and/or EOR, broader CCS development will be fairly slow. Source: U.S. Department of Energy/National Energy Technology Laboratory June 2011
  • 16. Recent U.S. News
  • 17. Issued on: November 16, 2011 Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. In all, seven small-scale field Midwest Has Potential to Store Hundreds validation tests were conducted in Phase II: of Years of CO2 Emissions - Three geologic injection tests, one in each of the three major geologic Regional Partnerships Phase II Field Tests Validate provinces of the region: the Michigan Basin, Appalachian Basin, and Cincinnati Arch, and hosted by major power companies in the region. Earlier Research Results - Four terrestrial field tests in land types characteristic of the region’s diversity: croplands, reclaimed minelands, reclaimed marshlands, and forested wetlands.Washington, D.C. — Geologic capacity exists to permanently store hundreds of years of regional carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in nine states stretching from Phase II terrestrial field tests showed that the MRCSP region can potentially Indiana to New Jersey, according to injection field tests conducted by the store about 15 percent of the region’s annual CO2 emissions from large point Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP). sources, such as power plants. In particular, Phase II confirmed that no-till agriculture is a valuable carbon storage strategy with the added benefit of MRCSP’s just-released Phase II final report indicates the region has likely total improved soil quality and agronomic productivity. storage of 245.5 billion metric tons of CO2, mostly in deep saline rock formations, a large capacity compared to present day emissions. While MRCSP Phase II field tests also determined that oil-and-gas fields have a high distributed sources such as agriculture, transportation, and home heating potential for enhanced oil and gas production associated with CO2 storage. In account for a significant amount of CO2 emissions in the MRCSP area, over addition, using CO2 for enhanced coalbed methane recovery also shows half of the emissions come from large, stationary sources such as power and potential for storing CO2. The MRCSP estimates that by utilizing CO2 for industrial plants. These units account for nearly 700 million metric tons EOR, approximately 1.2 billion barrels of oil could be recovered from existing annually. oil fields in their region helping to offset the cost of deploying carbon capture and storage technologies. MRCSP is one of seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) established by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy Managed by FE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, the seven (FE) to determine the best geologic and terrestrial storage approaches and RCSPs, which includes the MRCSP, focus on CCS opportunities within their apply technologies to safely and permanently store CO2 for each partnership’s specific regions, while collectively building an effective and robust nationwide specific region. Establishing the safe, permanent and environmentally sound initiative. Through this process, each RCSP has developed a regional carbon storage of CO2 is a key element in moving toward the commercial deployment management plan to identify the most suitable storage strategies and of carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) technology, which many technologies, aid in regulatory development, and propose appropriate experts view as a crucial option in helping meet the climate change challenge. infrastructure for CCS commercialization within their respective regions. MRCSP’s Phase II small-scale geologic field tests used less than 60,000 The MRCSP project, led by Battelle, included a public-private collaboration metric tons of CO2 injection into selected deep saline formations to validate with nearly 40 members from government, industry, state geological data from earlier Phase I, or characterization, research. Deep saline formation surveys, and universities across the nine member states. injection is a storage type that represents the most significant geologic storage potential for the United States. These latest results turn earlier information into practical, real-world knowledge for the most promising carbon storage technologies. Phase I projects characterized large point sources of CO2 and potential geological and terrestrial storage options for the region, which comprises
  • 18. Coal Project Hits Snag as a Partner Backs Bush, envisaged building a plant that would turn coal into a hydrocarbon gas, filter out the carbon dioxide and burn the hydrogen for power. Bids wereOff by Matthew Wald | November 10, 2011 solicited, and the venture settled on a site in Mattoon, Ill. But the administration shifted course and killed the program in 2008, citing concerns about the costs.WASHINGTON — The leading American effort to capture carbon dioxide fromcoal plants has hit a stumbling block that could imperil the project and set back Last year the Obama administration resuscitated the project with $1 billion ina promising technology for addressing global warming, people involved in the Recovery Act money but settled on a different technology: burning coal inventure said. oxygen instead of ordinary air to produce nearly pure carbon dioxide as an exhaust gas that would then be piped underground for disposal.Ameren, the Midwestern power company that was to be the host for theproject, has told its partners that because of its financial situation, it cannot Word that this effort, too, could be set back frustrated experts in the field, giventake part as promised, although it has not told them exactly what it will do. The a general industry consensus that the federal government should becompany had agreed to supply an old oil-fired power plant in underwriting demonstrations of technologies to limit carbon dioxide emissionsMeredosia, Ill., that would be converted to demonstrate the carbon-capture so the market can judge which are most practical.technology on a commercial scale. Ernest J. Moniz, a professor of physics at M.I.T. and former under secretary ofParticipants in the venture, known as FutureGen 2.0., are to meet next week to energy who wrote a pivotal 2007 report calling for the prompt demonstration ofwork out how they might get access to the old plant, which Ameren recently carbon capture technologies, said: ―It’s only more true four years later — wesaid it would shut down by the end of the year, and how it might be maintained can’t get one going, but we actually need more than one.‖until the remaining partners are ready to take it over. The people who talkedabout the project asked not to be identified because FutureGen’s directors had Another expert, Nick Welch, a consultant on carbon capture projects, said, ―Ifnot yet met. you were really serious about getting on with this stuff, even in the complex democracy that we live in, you might find a way of getting through all this.‖While the other major partners, Babcock & Wilcox and Air Liquide, could seekto buy the plant and convert it without Ameren, time is short. The federal If the project needed a deadline extension from Congress to hold on to the $1government promised the project $1 billion, or roughly 80 percent of its billion in federal aid, many note, it is not clear that it could get one in thiscosts, on the condition that the money be spent by the end of 2015. That’s a fiscally weak environment. And experts on coal-fired emissions say that withouttight time frame for developing a technology that has never been used on a government help, it is unlikely that the private sector will risk the moneycommercial scale, the participants said. necessary for a first-of-a-kind engineering project.A spokesman for Ameren declined to comment on whether it would play any When the Bush administration unveiled its FutureGen project in 2003, therole in the project. In announcing last month that it was closing the plant by the expectation was that carbon dioxide limits were likely to be imposed byend of the year, the company had said that this did not preclude using it for Congress. That never happened, but the Obama administration said recentlyFutureGen. that it intended to complete a carbon dioxide rule for new power plants by next May.It is the latest setback for the program, which was long seen as the nation’sbest hope for taking a worldwide lead in developing ways to capture and bury At the same time, the Obama administration has faced consistent obstaclescarbon dioxide from coal burning. Globally, coal burning now accounts for from Republican critics in pursuing tighter regulatory limits on air pollution.roughly 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and rising energydemand is only expected to drive up coal consumption, especially in nationswith large reserves like China and India.The project’s first incarnation, announced in 2003 by President George W.
  • 19. EOR is most common right now in the Permian Basin region of Texas and NewEnergy Department to stress funding for carbon Mexico. Some companies in Texas, including ExxonMobil Corp., have startedcapture, use and storage absent climate shifting toward EOR to access harder-to-reach oil as first- and second-line methods extract less and less oil.legislation, official says Posted on October 26, 2011 at 2:49 pmby Puneet Kollipara Using EOR methods could add as many as 2.5 million jobs and reduce oil imports by 30 to 40 percent in the next 20 years, McConnell said. The Texas Bureau of Economic Geology has suggested that extracting even 10 percent of the crude that EOR methods can reach in the state could add over $200 billionARLINGTON, Va. – The Department of Energy will emphasize funding for to the Texas economy and create 1.5 million jobs in the state.carbon capture, sequestration and utilization research and projects as a way to―move the needle‖ on climate change in the coming decade in the absence of Carbon capture, sequestration and utilization projects are occurring right nowclimate legislation, a top official said today. in the absence of congressional action on climate, because they make sense economically to industry.‖Chuck McConnell, chief operating officer of the DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy,said at a conference today there’s nobody in his office ―who’s going to wait He added that government subsidies have helped the cause. The DOE in latearound for climate legislation and be paralyzed in the meantime.‖ September finalized $450 million in previously announced funding for the Texas Clean Energy Project near Odessa, Texas, a 400-megawatt power plantThe likelihood of climate legislation clearing both chambers of Congress has that will capture 90 percent of emitted carbon for later EOR use.fallen substantially since Senate Republicans filibustered a cap-and-trade bill in2010. With fossil fuels not going away anytime soon, McConnell said his Billions of dollars in similar projects are underway nationwide with DOEagency would continue funding research into technologies for capturing and funding, he said, including FutureGen 2.0, a project for retrofitting St. Louis-using carbon emissions. based Ameren Corp.’s 200-megawatt coal plant in Meredosia, Ill.―We’re going to take a business and industrial approach to it and put together ―That’s what we’re supposed to be doing at Fossil Energy, catalyzing industriesmarket plans and business plans that industry can get behind and want to that are going to have a long-term future in this country,‖ he said.invest, not be forced to invest,‖ McConnell said. Enhanced oil recovery is one facet of the DOE’s fossil-fuel portfolio that alsoDOE has touted using captured carbon dioxide in enhanced oil recovery, which includes research and development into shale gas technologies, as well asindustry has increasingly turned to for extracting oil that first-line and second- technologies for capturing, sequestering and utilizing carbon emissions fromline methods can’t access. coal combustion.McConnell said funding the research is especially important because But with Congress looking for ways to reduce the federal deficit, McConnellcompanies are running out of carbon dioxide for use in EOR, ―Yet we’re said he felt certain the DOE’s budget would face cuts in the coming years.venting it like there’s nobody’s business.‖ One EOR method involves injectingcarbon dioxide into wells to make crude in deep rock formations less viscous ―We have to figure out how to do more with less,‖ he said. ―Sounds trite, but it’sand easier to extract. absolutely true.‖The DOE says the U.S. has more than a trillion barrels of undeveloped oilresources still in the ground. About 430 billion barrels of that is recoverableusing today’s technology, including EOR methods, according to the U.S.Energy Department.